Question about older Bond movies, to those who saw them back then

[Scepticalscribe]

Bond was escapist (male) fantasy, glamorous and gloriously impossible.

Now, in its time, they were terrific entertainment, but I always thought that there was a knowing, cynical, irreverent, tongue-in-cheek and somewhat amoral tone to the movies, and increasingly wildly improbable plots.

Yes, - to my mind - they were campy, (and because increasingly so during the 70s) but they were also an antidote to the serious (and moralising) tone of the war era movies, and the bleak neorealism of some of the best movies of cinema in the 50s.

 

[LasseM]

Henchmen!

The loyal henchmen get a cut of the loot, and the disloyal ones get thrown in the shark pool.

Oh, you said realistic.

Number 2: While you were in space, I created a way for us to make huge sums of legitimate money, and still maintain the ethics and the business practices of an evil organization.

 

[HDFan]

Looks as if there are various concepts of "camp".

Oxford:

Deliberately exaggerated and theatrical in style.
(of a man) behave in an ostentatiously effeminate way.

‘he camped it up a bit for the cameras’

Websters:

something so outrageously artificial, affected, inappropriate, or out-of-date as to be considered amusing

a style or mode of personal or creative expression that is absurdly exaggerated and often fuses elements of high and popular culture

For me "considered amusing" and "absurdly exaggerated" are the essence of the meaning. I find Bond films (I have them all on Blu-Ray) certainly to be amusing, but more interesting, engaging and exciting.
Those earlier Batman TV shows were clearly absurdly exaggerated so you immediately started laughing - at the opening credits. POW! WHAM! ... My initial reaction to the wheel chair scene was surprise and wonder. Laughter came after that. So for me and my definition of the word it wasn't camp.

There is quite a difference between the British English and American English definitions. Wonder if that is why we are getting such different opinions.

 

[Tech198]

I'm curious about the cheesiness or "camp" in some older Bond movies. Were these movies considered to be cheesy and full of camp at the time, or were they reasonable for the era in which they were screened?

The specific era I'm referring to is from You Only Live Twice to Moonraker (1967-1979). They seem very campy today (don't get me wrong, I love them). But I'm wondering if (A) it was considered totally cheesy in the 60's and 70's, or if (B) back then was it just a reasonable sci-fi extrapolation of the era's technology and they were in fact serious "non campy" movies.

If I had to guess, I'd lean toward serious. It seems like there was a lot of technological optimism in the 50's-70's... flying cars, supersonic passenger jets, weather control, atomic powered everything, space colonies. If those things were serious considerations, then was it really a stretch to have a hollowed out mountain rocket platform, laser space suits, gigantic space stations, and underwater lairs?

Probably reasonable... When i look at at ANY old movie, compared to today, they do loo like cheesy, simple,and kinda dull when you take out all the wire jumps and special effects you have noways.. but they probably were the real stars.

Nowdays, its mostly all green screens and you can do anything. Money isn't really a problem either, since as long as it 'looks' real, that's all they go for...

 

[rhett7660]

Remember back in the days all the movies were basically the same E.T. Close Encounters, cheesy special effects, the awareness of people were somewhere else. In 10 to 20 years, the Marvel movies today would be so cheesy, just like StarWars episodes 1,2 and 3.

James Bond movies were about adventure, people were not questioning things.

Take a look at this....

Fact: the score was not added to this scene. Chuck Norris naturally emits an inspiring soundtrack while doing anything cool.

Delta Force = Best 80's cheesy flick out there! Next to Mega Force of course!!!

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Probably reasonable... When i look at at ANY old movie, compared to today, they do loo like cheesy, simple,and kinda dull when you take out all the wire jumps and special effects you have noways.. but they probably were the real stars.

Nowdays, its mostly all green screens and you can do anything. Money isn't really a problem either, since as long as it 'looks' real, that's all they go for...

Actually, if an old movie has prioritised (or emphasised), strong characters and a good story - plot, in other words - and has mastered pace, pictorial composition and lighting - it doesn't need special effects often doesn't look cheesy at all.

Citizen Kane is still utterly compelling almost 80 years after it was made, while The Third Man - with its stunning setting (postwar Vienna), relevant and tight story (written by Graham Greene), crisp dialogue, atmospheric lighting, incredible music, impressive characters and the courage to allow the integrity of a bitter-sweet ending - is timeless. Sunset Boulevard is a magnificent - and

However, Bond is cheesy - because, even in the 60s, it wasn't meant to be taken terribly seriously, and - precisely because it is rooted in its era (the 1960s) so exactly, it hasn't aged all that well.

 

[miami.best21]

All 80's motorcycles, including the James Bond one...

 

[JamesMike]

Of course it was campy; it was a stylised, irreverent, and superficially glamorous world of improbably good looking individuals, (apart from the surreal antagonists), spies, fast cars, gadgets, travel, intrigue, and sexual and personal relationships without accountability or consequence (either physical or emotional), pure male fantasy.

Actually, Ian Fleming had built (and designed) a house on Jamaica which he called "Goldeneye" long before he wrote the Bond books, all of which were written there.

And there, in the 1950s, he created a hospitable yet louche world - where celebrities, aristocrats, leading politicians and some Hollywood stars turned up, where Fleming entertained them.

The real world in which spies dwelt in that era was far more dangerous, yet banal, and mundane, (and that admixture of danger and mundanity was typical) and was a lot nastier, uglier and more sordid than the superficially glamorous world of Bond.

Moreover, those who worked in that world seemed to agree that "Smiley's People" (John le Carré) was a lot more realistic than the world depicted in the Bond movies.

I agree with you about "Smiley's People" being more realistic but in today's time, you would have to add technology, so a bit of Bond does come into play.

 

[Larbo]

 

[Huntn]

I'm curious about the cheesiness or "camp" in some older Bond movies. Were these movies considered to be cheesy and full of camp at the time, or were they reasonable for the era in which they were screened?

The specific era I'm referring to is from You Only Live Twice to Moonraker (1967-1979). They seem very campy today (don't get me wrong, I love them). But I'm wondering if (A) it was considered totally cheesy in the 60's and 70's, or if (B) back then was it just a reasonable sci-fi extrapolation of the era's technology and they were in fact serious "non campy" movies.

If I had to guess, I'd lean toward serious. It seems like there was a lot of technological optimism in the 50's-70's... flying cars, supersonic passenger jets, weather control, atomic powered everything, space colonies. If those things were serious considerations, then was it really a stretch to have a hollowed out mountain rocket platform, laser space suits, gigantic space stations, and underwater lairs?

James Bond was always making subtle wisecracks at a precise moment in the movies, but Sean Connery executed them perfectly usually after an adversary dies, while maintaining a serious killer vibe. I don’t remember that in the novels.

The early Bond movies, except the first Casino Royale, captured the perfect 1960s spy vibe. Dr. No, From Russia for Love, Gold Finger, and From Russia With Love were all completely serious movies. The first high impact fight scene I was trilled by was in From Russia With Love, with a young Robert Shaw. I also love the Oriental atmosphere You Only Live Twice, along with a knock out theme song, but I’m trying to remember if that was the one where Bond drove around in a hokey vehicle, like a moon rover (not the gyro copter), or was that a later movie?

Imo, when Connery left the series, although it was overdue with Diamonds are Forever, the series took a nose dive, with Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson, very campy under Moore. Bond kind of got turned nto a joke. Do you remember him dancing over crocs (not the shoes )? How about the scene when Bronson drives off a cliff and dives to catch up with a plummeting airplane?

The first return to a thrilling, superb Bond Movie was Daniel Craig in the 2 film series Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace, not campy at all, with linked stories. They sit at the top of my Bond List.

This is possibly my favorite Bond Chase (spoiler, don’t watch if you’ve not seen QoS!!)

 

[Tomorrow]

...I’m trying to remember if that was the one where Bond drove around in a hokey vehicle, like a moon rover (not the gyro copter), or was that a later movie?

I believe the "moon rover" scene you mention is from Diamonds Are Forever, where there was a whole backdrop of the moon landings being staged in the Nevada desert outside Las Vegas.

 

[ActionableMango]

This was one of the worst for me. Bond's gondola turns into a speedboat-gondola, then later turns into a hover-gondola.





I say "worst" but I loved it.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

First Bond movie I saw at the movie theatre was Octopussy in 1983 (alone at the cinema in Aberdeen, Scotland of all places), being just too young to see For Your Eyes Only (1981) and Moonraker (1980), until they were available on VHS.

Most of the films with Roger Moore are a bit cheezy, especially when compared to the earlier Connery ones. but some, like Live And Let Die, Man With The Golden Gun, and - the fore mentioned - For Your Eyes Only, are quite good, and much less cheezy than the two from the late 70s: The Spy Who Loved Me and the disaster that was Moonraker.

 

[rhett7660]

James Bond was always making subtle wisecracks at a precise moment in the movies, but Sean Connery executed them perfectly usually after an adversary dies, while maintaining a serious killer vibe. I don’t remember that in the novels.

The early Bond movies, except the first Casino Royale, captured the perfect 1960s spy vibe. Dr. No, From Russia for Love, Gold Finger, and From Russia With Love were all completely serious movies. The first high impact fight scene I was trilled by was in From Russia With Love, with a young Robert Shaw. I also love the Oriental atmosphere You Only Live Twice, along with a knock out theme song, but I’m trying to remember if that was the one where Bond drove around in a hokey vehicle, like a moon rover (not the gyro copter), or was that a later movie?

Imo, when Connery left the series, although it was overdue with Diamonds are Forever, the series took a nose dive, with Roger Moore and Pierce Bronson, very campy under Moore. Bond kind of got turned nto a joke. Do you remember him dancing over crocs (not the shoes )? How about the scene when Bronson drives off a cliff and dives to catch up with a plummeting airplane?

The first return to a thrilling, superb Bond Movie was Daniel Craig in the 2 film series Casino Royal and Quantum of Solace, not campy at all, with linked stories. They sit at the top of my Bond List.

This is possibly my favorite Bond Chase (spoiler, don’t watch if you’ve not seen QoS!!)

Daniel Craig's as Bond IS my favorite Bond. Love the movies he is in and I agree with what you mentioned and stated. This also sit on the top of my list of Bond movies.

 

[Huntn]

Daniel Craig's as Bond IS my favorite Bond. Love the movies he is in and I agree with what you mentioned and stated. This also sit on the top of my list of Bond movies.

I like them both, each has their own character appeal. Sean Connery is a handsome man who oozes Bond in combination with the 60s spy movie vibe, the charmer, hound dog spy who sweeps women off their feet, then moves on to his next fem fatale conquest. Dead women, or at a minimum broken hearts are left in his wake with just a few minutes of regret. I’m not saying that was a good personality characteristic, that was just the reality of an intriguing spy thriller and the amount of character depth we were allowed to see.

Daniel Craig is IMO the first worthy Bond since Connery. He is not as physically handsome, his appeal relies on the physical and character portrayal of Bond, in some ways a better Bond, who you not only get to see his devotion to country while being tortured, but as someone who could fall in love and be personally loyal to another human being. I believed he was ready to chuck his career and sail into the sunset with Vesper Lynd. As far as I know, this is not a Bond we saw before Craig’s Bond.

 

[MacNut]

I like them both, each has their own character appeal. Sean Connery is a handsome man who oozes Bond in combination with the 60s spy movie vibe, the charmer, hound dog spy who sweeps women off their feet, then moves on to his next fem fatale conquest. Dead women, or at a minimum broken hearts are left in his wake with just a few minutes of regret. I’m not saying that was a good personality characteristic, that was just the reality of an intriguing spy thriller and the amount of character depth we were allowed to see.

Daniel Craig is IMO the first worthy Bond since Connery. He is not as physically handsome, his appeal relies on the physical and character portrayal of Bond, in some ways a better Bond, who you not only get to see his devotion to country while being tortured, but as someone who could fall in love and be personally loyal to another human being. I believed he was ready to chuck his career and sail into the sunset with Vesper Lynd. As far as I know, this is not a Bond we saw before Craig’s Bond.

Isn't Daniel Craig’s Bond the closest resemblance to the Flemming novels?

 

[Huntn]

Isn't Daniel Craig’s Bond the closest resemblance to the Flemming novels?

It has been so long ago since I read a James Bond Novel, it’s hard to say. I don’t remember there being a lot of emotional depth in the series, and nothing like Bond suffering emotionally or personally, but maybe I have forgotten. I also don’t remember there being a lot sexuality in the books either so, based on my fading rememberences of the books, I’d say they can both fit in the framework of the literary Bond, and I would be happy to be corrected.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Actually, if an old movie has prioritised (or emphasised), strong characters and a good story - plot, in other words - and has mastered pace, pictorial composition and lighting - it doesn't need special effects often doesn't look cheesy at all.

Citizen Kane is still utterly compelling almost 80 years after it was made, while The Third Man - with its stunning setting (postwar Vienna), relevant and tight story (written by Graham Greene), crisp dialogue, atmospheric lighting, incredible music, impressive characters and the courage to allow the integrity of a bitter-sweet ending - is timeless. Sunset Boulevard is a magnificent - and

Agreed! Just think of Sunset Boulevard. The only special effect is probably the body in the pool.

Other movies are borderline, some examples are The Maltese Falcon and The Big Sleep. Some elements are cheesy, but they do stand the test of time.

 

[satcomer]

The best James Bond in my young Adult Life was Pierce Brosnan in Golden Eye!