it would, i should expect, be fair to say that there were many, many things of (or from) 1983 that are memorable. so many things, in fact, that it is almost understandable that one which was, if only in retrospect, look you see, quite remarkable often gets forgotten. this is of course the fact that not one, not quite three but two (2) James Bond films were given a cinematic release.
to get it out of the way, reluctantly yes, then, for those who quite like to be specific and always right, no this was strangely not a unique moment. one other year did indeed have the blessing of two Bond films, 1967. they were You Only Live Twice and Casino Royale. but, let us take a moment to be realistic here. yes, Bond films they were, but under no circumstances was that incarnation of Casino Royale made or meant as a "proper" Bond film, rather a comedy spoof thing existing solely to cash in.
so, at the risk of upsetting those who would argue for the above to "count", i would argue that 1983 was in fact the only time (so far) that two proper James Bond films got released, with them of course being Octopussy and Never Say Never Again.
much of the history of how and why this came to be has been written before. but, at the risk of sounding like a great song, it's about to be writ again. in somewhat unusual circumstances, but yet also showing that "exclusive content" is hardly a new phenomenon, it was so that one person ended up owning the rights to one James Bond film and story, Thunderball, whereas all the others were retained by someone else. effectively, then, the rights owner to Thunderball was free to remake that film as often as they liked, but only that one. they also retained the rights to the concept of Bond uber villain Blofeld and the organisation Spectre, which was something of a blow to the owners of everything else James Bond.
clearly, with a film called Spectre and featuring Blofeld now existing, this has all been resolved, maybe "at long last". but, the whole initial situation was, of course, not unique. in the modern era the best known similar example is how different film studios own the rights to some of them Marvel superheroes, with only common sense (and the promise of a lot of money) allowing films to be made what feature all the characters required for the story. easily the silliest at the moment is the fact that one person owns the rights to the character Hannibal Lecter, whereas someone else has managed to obtain exclusive rights to the character of Clarice Starling. go figure.
undoubtedly all of my expressions of thought on these two films shall be all over the place, or if you like non-linear. with the odd accidental non non-linear part, going on the pictures i have bravely uploaded. but, i believe, one or two of you quite like this approach, or are at the least used to it. thank you for reading, anyhow. but if you are for some reason just here to look at (or pinch) the pictures, well then, glad to help.
perhaps the most well known snippet of trivia (or information) about these two films is, or was, of how one forced the other to be the way it turned out. by this, i mean Never Say Never Again forced them what were making Octopussy to "rise to the challenge". in his wisdom, by this stage Sir Roger Moore was keenly ready to exit all things James Bond, arguing that he had surely taken the role as far as possible, and that the part was meant to be played by someone younger. at this stage, it was so that Timothy Dalton was already established as the likely long term replacement, but as the extras on the Octopussy disc show, there was some experimentation with casting decidedly American actor James Brolin in the part.
but, faced with going kind of head to head with a Bond film starring a returning Sean Connery, the producers, maybe wisely, felt that getting audiences to accept a new actor in the part might do damage to their cause. so Sir Roger was persuaded back.
my most distinct memory of the two films was seeing Never Say Never Again at the pictures. this always struck me as odd, as it was well known to us (we went on a family outing) that Dad was not particularly interested, or liked, Bond films. still, not for me to ask. what was the second distinct memory? probably that someone i knew had something called a "stereo" video machine (Beta, for clarification), and it was a tape of Octopussy that they used to show me how awesome it sounded with the machine hooked up to the stereo. it did indeed sound awesome.
did (or do) i have a particular inclination to like one of them more than the other? or do i consider that, on balance, one of them is superior to the other? well, no. that was a partial motivation behind watching both again. it is so that the main motivation was that William had expressed an interest in throwing knives, and has an ongoing wish to watch all of James Bond. i vaguely recalled that Octopussy featured some knife throwing twins, so off we went to watch it. and then i figured, well, why not have a look at Never Say Never Again whilst on the go.
there is, i think (or suspect) a tendency to remember both Octopussy and Never Say Never Again for some of their more ridiculous moments. ones which, even if allowing for the standard suspension of disbelief when watching fiction, stretches things a bit. fear not, it is quite impossible, and morally wrong, to overlook those aspects, and they shall feature below. but first, the not quite so silly.
with that in mind, well, from here on out i suppose i should make it perfectly clear that a *** SPOILER WARNING *** is in place. i am not convinced that such is necessary, but i am confident that it is most fair and right to issue such warnings for you, the reader. whilst who wins at the end of a Bond film is hardly much of a surprise, the fun is after all in the journey to the conclusion.
staring with Octopussy, and i was struck by just how much of this 1983 plot would be very relevant to a 2000's film (or novel) storyline. the basics busy themselves with Russians using London, auction houses and art in particular, for money laundering, smuggling across Europe, and a "terrorist" attack on the perceived to be weakened West, designed to look like an internal accident. as a bonus for the latter, the primary antagonist in the bombing is quite prepared, content and even happy to die to make sure it happens, believing his martyrdom will make him a hero. for good measure it even, by accident, hints at how major an economic concern India is likely to be.
yes, indeed, a tremendous amount of fluff (and nonsense) gets layered over those core plot points, but this doesn't take away from the validity of it all. if someone "borrowed" the Octopussy story outlined above they might get away with passing off their work as being very much on the finger of the pulse of today. perhaps someone already has, and i have not read or seen it yet.
of course it is so that the plot of Never Say Never Again is in fact the plot of Thunderball, as it was legally obliged to be. in essence, the naughty club that is Spectre has stolen two nuclear bombs and is holding the world to ransom with them. the fun, of course, is in how they get there, and how James Bond stops them.
in an elaborate move, Spectre kidnap the sister of a US serviceman, forcing him to have his eye changed for a replica of that of the US President, so he may reprogram a missile demonstration and have the missiles land where Spectre want them. absurd, to be sure, but the way they did it was not. in 1983 retina scan security, and the idea of "hacking" hardware, was very much science fiction. many would also have poured scorn on the idea that we, as a species, would ever be so silly as to trust a machine to provide all the security required with no human intervention.
enough of the praise for the predictive elements of each film, then. instead, time to celebrate their glorious dabbling with sex and danger, for that is why one would see a James Bond film. at least that used to be why, i don't think they make them like that any more and i am pretty sure that you are not allowed to say that is what you are interested in. and i am confident that i know which you would like to peep at first.
a truth universally accepted is that any James Bond film, except one, possibly two, but i name them not for fear of spoilers, we get to watch Bond save the day, and the scoundrel baddies get their comeuppance. this is down to the deft skills, training, ability and knowledge of the character. equally true of the Bond character (and maybe this is where he gets his special powers from) is that he is unequivocally the best ever at doing that sort of thing, and such must be showcased at all possible opportunities. in certain films, more than anything else.
such a film would be Never Say Never Again. unfortunately, i am not privvy to the details of how and why Sean Connery was tempted back into a role he left some ten (or so) years before making this. there are, however, some clues in the film itself. whilst stopping short of taking a stopwatch and a tape measure to the matter, i got a sense that the film featured, minute for minute, more of Bond involved in that sort of thing (doing a sex) than the job which his character was, ostensibly, supposed to be doing.
of the seven or eight (actually i think nine) different (all lady) that sort of thing partners what Bond forms a short term friendship with in the film, i believe my favourite is Barbara Carrera. here she portrays a character called 'Fat Bush' or similar, which would be standard James Bond naming. most will, no doubt, rather fondly recall her from the somewhat bezerk role she had in Dallas when Dallas went "a little" off course. also Lone Wolf McQuade.
from what i could work out, other than being pivotal to the steal the missiles plot, Barbara Carrera's character is tasked with the elimination of James Bond. with no clear reason given for deviating from this, she instead decides to dabble with him a bit, engaging in a prolonged, seabound bout of that sort of thing. this leads to her being quite enchanted by him (again, a common James Bond film occurrence), but she still intends to kill him. only after he has written a declaration that she, and only she, is the bestest greatest ever what he has done that sort of thing with. a lovely narrative device, for this allows Bond to (i have already issued a spoiler warning) take out his specially modified pen and blow her to many pieces with a missile what it fires out.
the approach of Sir Roger was somewhat similar, somewhat different. whereas Sean Connery's Bond was always eager to explore any and all opportunities for that sort of thing, it would be fair to describe Sir Roger as more refined, thoroughly enjoying such but really only wanting to engage in it if it was absolutely vital to his "for Queen and Country" mandate. or if the mission had finished, or indeed if he happened (as was the case so memorably once) he just happened to find himself in space, with absolutely nothing else better to do.
in truth there was so much else going on in Octopussy that i, or one, hardly notices the that sort of thing scenes. possibly because there are not so many as there are in Never Say Never Again, or maybe due to them being handled in a more sensitive, restrained and sensitive to the plot way. the only one which comes, so to speak, to mind, is that one with the character of Octopussy herself, played by Maud Adams, who at the time was celebrated for having the distinction of being a Bond "girl" twice by featuring here.
even then, this romantic interlude was one of absolute vital importance to the plot, or if you like the story. it turns out that Bond had previously allowed the father of Octopussy an "honourable" way out of capture (kill himself), and so she felt a requirement to express her gratitude and appreciation for such. also, Sir Roger does that thing with his one eyebrow, which no lady can resist.
regrettably, this beautifully staged and impeccably choreographed love scene is interrupted when some maniac, with a "buzz saw" attached to a yo-yo string, attempts to decapitate both of them when engaged in the act of love. for some reason they made a kids toy of this "buzz saw", and i remember that they had it on sale at the newspaper shop at Marton Shops (near the video shop in the petrol station) but i was never allowed to buy it.
more of the more ridiculous stuff, you ask? sure, why not. the above collage of images took me quite a while to make, so i hope it has come out all right, and that you like it. for me, this sequence, perhaps best described as "the India escape", is one of the more ridiculous moments ever in a James Bond film. for which it has some considerable competition for such inclusion.
above, then, you can see a gang of armed people in India (some of them on elephants), looking for James Bond with a view to a kill being done on him. to escape, to guide you through the images, first he pretends to be dead. and then he battles spiders, and has to tame a tiger, then hide under an elephant whilst a snake crawls over him. off he goes to do a Tarzan swing, resplendent with sound affect, and burn some leeches off his chest (good job he had a lighter on him), before outswimming a crocodile and joining some American tourists.
yes, indeed, when people think of the Sir Roger Moore James Bond films being "a bit silly, at least in places", i am pretty sure that the above is one of the exhibits. but, still, splendid fun to watch once in a while.
the above image is indeed a throwback to the conversation we were just having a moment ago, which was concerned with the preoccupation Never Say Never Again has with emphasizing (and illustrating) just how good James Bond is at that sort of thing, or doing a sex.
it certainly is Kim Basigner you can see there, here playing the sister of that US serviceman mentioned earlier. specifically here, she is subject to Sean Connery pretending to be a masseuse (or whatever they are called) so that he may see her doing nudies, and also if he got information from her then that would be a plus.
just as it is incorrect to say that Never Say Never Again was Ms Basinger's debut, it would be wrong to say anything other than this was the film where she first garnered a worldwide audience, or maybe better to say that she came to be better known off of this film. in the grand scheme of things, it is all too rare that 'Bond Girls' go on to bigger and better things, but she did.
no, actually yes, that is who you think it is above. each of the competing Bond films looked for any edge they could in the "fight", not being certain that just Sir Roger or Sean would be the draw. to this end, both have "celebrity" or well known actors in the film. for Octopussy, the bold approach was to cast Vijay Amritraj, India's best, greatest and most important tennis player.
at the time of seeing the film i had no idea of his stature, but when i did find out that he has a scene where he twats someone with a tennis racquet (racket?) all of a sudden made sense. he was just really good in his "bit part", and it was a genuine shame when he came to a very nasty end. sorry, i have no idea if they cast him because some of the film was in India, or if they decided to set some of it in India because they had managed to get him to sign on.
for Never Say Never Again, they perhaps spent most of the budget on persuading Sean Connery to do the film to lavish the cast with all that many celebrities. but, they got some good ones in. a young(ish) Rowan Atkinson features, and no less an actor than Max Von Sydow plays Blofeld. but, never mind that, this is probably the best casting for UK audience awareness in 1983.
indeed, that is Pat Roach, better known as Bomber out of Auf Wiedersehen, Pet, which was extremely popular when this film got released. not that the makers of the film could have known this when casting or filming, i suppose. they probably went with him as he is rather mean and menacing looking, and was really, really good at getting his head kicked in (or rather mangled) off if Indiana Jones in Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
whilst i would not claim to have seen all of the films what Pat Roach has made (if i have done so, it is purely accidental or incidental that i have), i cannot recall any of his cinematic adventures featuring him being anything but a silent baddie and getting his head kicked in. this is somewhat peculiar, because he looks like he would totes knack most people. for starters, i would expect him to totally smash my face in within seconds of any bout i was foolish to engage him in. but then, i suppose i am no James Bond, and have not ever even been shortlisted for the role.
one thing generally associated with James Bond films would be fancy cars, and set pieces involving some smart, albeit dangerous, driving. as point of fact, to date only one film in the whole "expanded universe" of Bond has failed to feature the ostensible protagonist (or if you like titular character) driving a car as such, the hollowed out volcano masterpiece that is You Only Live Twice.
both Octopussy and Never Say Never Again (if for some reason by this stage you had forgotten which two Bond films released in 1983 this is all about) feature some fancy stuff with cars and that. it is, however, arguably the transport related scenes in the films which is the more interesting, and more memorable.
yes, the above are both images off of Octopussy. further, both show Sir Roger ('s stunt double) battling with the legendary Kabir Bendi in unusual places. well, not unusual in themselves i suppose, just that they are not locations you would associate with an idea or suitable place to have a bit of a punch up.
going on memory alone, i seem to recall that the "classic" era of Sean Connery James Bond films featured, at times, Bond having fights in a train and in a plane, although in different films. presumably seeking to make absolutely sure that the ante was decidedly upped, someone somewhere made the decision that Sir Roger should be seen to go several more than one better by having a fight on both of these forms of transport, and in the same film. i quite like to think that Christopher Nolan is a big, big fan of Octopussy, and saw the fight on a plane as a blueprint for that opening bit of The Dark Knight Rises.
the most memorable transportation motivated scene in Never Say Never Again is or was probably that smart motorbike chase thing Bond does, which ended with Barbara Carrera getting blown up with a missile off of a pen (see above). a personal favourite, though, would be that bit where James Bond opts to rescue Kim Basinger from being auctioned off, making their escape by jumping a horse off of a castle what is on a massive cliff, into the sea.
how good were what we now know as "cgi" effects in 1983? not great, in truth, but we knew no better would ever come, and as an audience accepted that it was the best they could do to tell the story. as the alternate would have been to jump a horse off of a castle on a cliff for real, which no doubt would have led to the death of a horse and a maximum of two stunt people (or none, if they just strapped a couple of dummies or mannequins to the horse), most just accepted the below and let the film move on.
i say "most", for someone somewhere will have been sufficiently motivated to write to the producers of the film, saying that this moment spoiled it for them, they should have done it for real, arguing there was no shortage of horses or stunt people in the world. no, i did not write any such letter myself, and nor would i, as that would be silly.
since we are on silly moments, i have little doubt that some of the Octopussy enthusiasts out there will want a reference to that scene. well, not a reference, but a picture. yes, that moment when James Bond, resplendent in full tilt clown gear, diffuses a nuclear bomb. a moment which impresses some senior ranking US military types, who were just as impressed by a sleight of hand trick off of a pickpocket conjurer moments earlier.
which of the two Bond films was the winner? for audiences over the last few decades i would say both are just great. but, the movie making business is a business, and the amount of money made dictates victory. in those terms (or on this basis), with respect to declared figures, Octopussy cost somewhere south of US$10 million to make than Never Say Never Again, and at the box office went on to make somewhere north of US$10 million more. so, Octopussy was the financial winner, and it meant that we got no further remakes of Thunderball.
the consequences of the victory were, alas, some short term thinking. keen to continue on all the elements which made Octopussy a box office triumph, Sir Roger was once again persuaded to take up playing Bond once more for A View To A Kill. this despite being in his own and everyone else's view too old for the role, and having no interest in doing it. which has always kind of tarnished the really good film that A View To A Kill is, what with it having an awesome theme.
had Never Say Never Again done a bit better finance, then who knows. maybe the makers of the proper, so to speak, James Bond films would have made a change that would have improved fortunes for A View To A Kill. once again it was so that Timothy Dalton was in the frame. so, too, was a soft spoken, right proper big girls' blouse nancy boy called Pierce Brosnan, purely as he looked good in a tuxedo in some silly television show. either of them being brought in during 1985 might have led to all and sundry not being distracted by the actor's age when considering the film.
yes, that is Sir Roger having a false moustache applied for the celebrated opening bit of Octopussy, where he has to impersonate someone or other called Toro to stop someone or other doing something or other. all i can really recall is the little plane coming out of the back end of a horse.
in the long term, Never Say Never Again has proven to be the most influential on James Bond as experienced now, with Daniel Craig in the role. the shape, structure and content of his films owe a great deal to this one. quite often in the film we are pitched the idea that Bond an his ways are outdated, he is a relic and a dinosaur. also, M (and all of MI6 or whatever) are preoccupied with administration and bureaucracy rather than important field work. further, the dangers of reliance on technology what can be hacked. this is the basis of at least two, arguably three, of the Daniel Craig James Bond films.
there is to be no grand, sweeping conclusion off of me as to which of these two was the "best", as such, for i thoroughly enjoyed watching both again. it is so that the only real, true low point of either film is the theme song, with both opting to have some really crappy 80's "power ballad" thing. yes, that would be expected for films out in 1983, but it does not mean aged either well.
with the latest James Bond film, No Time To Die delayed as a consequence of the invisible war on the plague, i guess it shall be so that i might well revisit one or two of the existing films from the "expanded universe". for some reason i have a wish to watch The Living Daylights again, which is strange as it is very dull and boring. i suspect that my wish to see it again is subliminally driven, what with Radio 2 having a peculiar fixation on the theme song.
most happy a time it is if any (or optimistically most if not all) of this has been of some passing interest to any of you out there. at the very least, perhaps i managed to include a decent picture or two for your viewing pleasure.
be excellent to each other!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment