ÌÈÍÈÑÒÅÐÑÒÂÎ ÎÁÐÀÇÎÂÀÍÈß ÐÎÑÑÈÉÑÊÎÉ ÔÅÄÅÐÀÖÈÈ
ÐÎÑÑÈÉÑÊÈÉ ÃÎÑÓÄÀÐÑÒÂÅÍÍÛÉ ÑÎÖÈÀËÜÍÛÉ ÓÍÈÂÅÐÑÈÒÅÒ
Ôàêóëüòåò èíîñòðàííûõ ÿçûêîâ
Êàôåäðà àíãëèéñêîé ôèëîëîãèè
ÊÓÐÑÎÂÀß ÐÀÁÎÒÀ
«“007 AGENT” AS MEDIA FRANCHISE:
STORY OF SUCCESS»
ïî äèñöèïëèíå «Èñòîðèÿ è êóëüòóðà ñòðàí èçó÷àåìûõ ÿçûêîâ»
Ñïåöèàëüíîñòü: ïåðåâîä è ïåðåâîäîâåäåíèå
Âûïîëíèë:
ñòóäåíò 3 êóðñà ãðóïïû ËÏÅ-0-Ä-2010
Ãóáåéäóëèí Òèìóð Äàìèðîâè÷
Íàó÷íûé ðóêîâîäèòåëü:
ê. êóëüòóðîëîãèè äîöåíò
Ëåâàøêèíà Îëüãà Þðüåâíà
Ìîñêâà, 2012
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION3
CHAPTER I. “JAMES BOND” BLOCKBUSTER AS MEDIA FRANCHISE 6
1.1. Media franchise phenomenon in cinematography6
1.2. “Bondiana” as mixture of different genres7
1.3. “Blockbuster” as movie concept9
1.4. Blockbuster features inside “James Bond” movie12
CHAPTER II. TWO “AGES” OF “JAMES BOND” MOVIE………………….... 16
2.1. “Bond movies” industry in 1962-200216
2.2. New type of “Bond movies”: prequel or reboot20
CHAPTER III. “JAMES BOND” TECHNOLOGY25
3.1. Military Intelligence in “James Bond” novels and movies 25
3.2. James Bond as Ian Fleming’s creature26
3.3. “Movie Bond” versus “Book Bond”28
3.4. James Bond and women: from true love to senseless co-operation...31
3.5. “Villain of the piece”32
CHAPTER IV. “JAMES BOND”CULT IN WORLD CINEMATOGRAPHY35
4.1. Product placement as very feature of the “James Bond” series35
4.2. James Bond in hierarchy of movie spies36
4.3. “Bond movies” impact on world popular culture 37
CONCLUSION39
BIBLIOGRAPHY40
APPENDICES43
INTRODUCTION
The relevance of the research. “James Bond” franchise is one of the most famous and significant events in the modern history of the cinematography. The series are stood out for its length and longevity among other movies. “James Bond” series include more than 23 official episodes and each of them succeeded in distribution, earned more than $5 000 000 000 at box office. A stir, evoked by the last movie of James Bond named “Skyfall” just proved its status. The topicality of turning to the screen versions of James Bond by Ian Fleming as an embodiment of the success of the large-budget movies is caused by the inextinguishable popularity of the series among the filmgoers and a huge influence on the development of the action-thriller genre as well as spy themed movies. The constant struggle between the good and the evil, where evil forces are always defeated, goes through all the “Bond movies” as a leitmotif of the stories and the main character, as a prototype of a man who saves the world from the terrorists and maniacs and their evil plans time after time, can’t lose its topicality nowadays when the terrorism becomes one of the most dangerous occurrences and the audience needs such hero as never before.
The object of the research is “James Bond” movie as a product of the British cinematography.
The subject of the research is the “007 agent” series as a media franchise: main features and characteristics.
The aim of the research is to find out the components which characterize the “Bondiana” as a media franchise.
The tasks of the research are:
- to examine the concept “media franchise” and its relevance to the “Bondiana”;
- to define different movie genres inside the “Bondiana”;
- to examine the history and development of the blockbusters;
- to follow the evolution of the blockbuster features inside “James Bond” circles;
- to describe the distinctive features of “James Bond” era 1962-2002;
- to describe the distinctive features of “James Bond” era after 2002 and find out whether it is a reboot or a sequel;
- to examine the importance of Military Intelligence in “James Bond” movies;
- to investigate the image of James Bond in books;
- to compare the differences between the cinema image of James Bond and his book variant;
- to examine Bond’s attitude to women;
- to study the antagonists in “James Bond” series;
- to scrutinize the phenomenon of product placement in the “James Bond” movies;
- to analyze the influence of “Bond’s franchise” on the development of the spy movies;
- to analyze the influence of “Bond’s franchise” on world popular culture.
The novelty of the research. Our research work stands out against a background of other researches, devoted to this theme, because we have followed all the history of James Bond series, scrutinized all possible angles of “Bondiana” and made it for the answer to the question that had been never stated before: “Can we consider and characterize the “James Bond” movies as a media franchise?” The society and critics used to nickname such movie series as a media franchise but have they ever thought about the appropriateness of such mentioning? We have sorted this issue out.
The hypothesis of the research. “James Bond” is used to be named as a media franchise. In the research this issue was examined and the concept of “media franchise” was thoroughly described. The general components of the media franchise were also found out and described as well as the elements it consists of. The research was started with the efforts to define the possible meaning of the media franchise and its components. These components are: 1) at least three films in the series: 2) good results in the box office (in the neighbourhood of 400 000 000$ in total and more); 3) specific genres such as adventure, sci-fi films or action starring Hollywood stars and big budget production values. Three genres which “Bondiana” included were singled out (action-thriller-crime) and the phenomenon of blockbuster and its connection with the concept of the media franchise and with the whole series of “James Bond” were singled out as well. In continuation of the subject, the movie sources of “Bondiana” were examined. Followed the movie industry of “James Bond”, the attention was moved towards the different aspects of the “Bond movies” such as characters, novels etc. In the end, such points as influence of “Bond” on other movies and popular culture as well were highlighted and also the topic of advertisement in the current movie series was examined. Generally, the phenomenon of the media franchise was pointed out and, looking through all possible aspects of the James Bond series, the conclusion that all the movies joined the concept of “Bondiana” can be considered as the brightest example of the media franchise was drawn.
The research material includes movies that we correlate with the “Bond series” and the book basis: novels, written by Ian Fleming.
The structure of the research. The paper consists of introduction, four chapters, conclusion, bibliography and appendices.
CHAPTER I. “JAMES BOND” BLOCKBUSTER AS MEDIA FRANCHISE
1.1. Media franchise phenomenon in cinematography
We may understand the word “franchise” in different ways, but the main lexical meaning of it closely connected with a right or privilege. Thus, it can refer to: “a business method that involves the licensing of trademarks and methods of doing business” [32].
One of the ways of doing it is a media franchise. The media franchise is the certifying of property (from the patents till the trademarks) of an original work of media (a film, for example), to others. Mainly, movie franchises are series of stories, characterized by the fact that the same characters can be transferred from film to film. Media franchises became to play a general role in the life of the cinematography approximately since the 1970s, starting with the Planet of the Apes series, and then the Star Wars and Indiana Jones films. After the emerging of this concept and the movie series connected with it, the community began to estimate films as “products”, by naming the series as “franchises”. Normally the so-called media franchises have three major components:
- at least three films in the series;
- good results in the box offices (in the neighbourhood of 400 000 000$ in total and more);
- specific genres (basically, the most popular ones) such as adventure, sci-fi films or action starring Hollywood stars and big budget production values.
Commenting upon the first component, we should mention that the concept “movie series” is a part of movie franchises and a very important and distinctive feature of it. Generally it means a compendium of linked movies in succession.
Most of the franchises also have the book source in its basis (Twilight, Harry Potter etc.) Besides, the last two points are closely connected with the blockbuster term. We can say already on this stage that each media franchise includes blockbusters in its composition but not every movie, called blockbuster can become media franchise.
Actually, we have already mentioned that film industry erroneously continue to use the word “franchise” for the describing the film series. Though it’s very important fact that, if the producers of the series don’t trademark the parts and key elements (personalities, for instance) in the films and don’t certify the use of these to others, a film series can’t be considered as a franchise [36].
As for the “specific genres”, it’s a very important for the producers to choose the popular genres for the franchise in order to make it more profitable. Sometimes they tried to combine various elements together and it’s a difficult task for the critics to distinguish one from the other. “Bondiana” as a classic media franchise isn’t an exception.
1.2. “Bondiana” as mixture of different genres
In the beginning of 60s, Albert Broccoli and Harry Saltzman converted James Bond into an instant legend, setting up a series of films that would be nodded to and parodied until nowadays and likely beyond. But Bond is not just a series of films considered as blockbusters and a kit of genres it contained. Bond is in itself a film genre, described by Thomas Schatz as “the product of audience and studio interaction which gradually impresses itself upon the culture until it becomes a familiar, meaningful system that can be named as such” [39, p. 16].
Borrowing from the detective films of the 40s period, the thrillers of the 1950’s, and even of James Bond itself as the series progressed, the James Bond genre has made a ground for countless spy-thematic movies and big-budget action flicks, creating elements that would be copied throughout the rest of cinema’s existence. While still doing everything that has been done Bond has always dared to do what no one else has done before. Bond exemplifies idealism, progress and style while holding onto politics, and still manages to attract an audience. That happens because of all these factors that the James Bond films deserve status as their own “Bond genre”, capable of being “examined in terms of their fundamental structural components: plot, character, setting, thematic style, and so on”, because “Bondiana” is not simple action or adventure or detective stories with no sense or plot, they contain political commentaries, social commentaries, and current and contemporary trends that reflect the world created them [39, p. 16].
If we consider the James Bond films as a subgenre of the wide genre of spy films, we should mention that this genre stays differ to James Bond. The spy genre can be described by the ideals of the classical period of Hollywood. Spy films feature a main character, who is good and who exhibits the values connected with it—the character is sworn to protect Western culture from enemies. Also he is brave and courageous. The spy is the defender of and a huge believer in the things Western society places importance on. They are social institutions, democratic government, and the family for example. The spy is always confronted by the evil character trying to destroy everything dear to spy and culture [12, p. 101]. And that are the things that are prevented by the brave spy as a protagonist of the movies.
However, the James Bond subgenre, having all features above, always follows its own guideline and specific moments. And the most important and specific moment is James Bond itself. The media historian Chapman argues that “the Bond series is a genre (or at the very least a sub-genre) in its own right. The Bond series is differentiated from other action movies through the character of James Bond himself” [10, p. 22]. Bond is not similar to any other spy, both in motivation and method. Bond is a character with many vices such as smoking or drinking and these features run counter to the classical image of the spy and that is why we can talk about James Bond movies as a completely different and independent genre even among other spy stories.
Dwelling our attention upon the exact genres that included in the “Bondiana” (and in the James Bond particular genre) we, with the help of International Movie Database, came to the main three cinema genres combined in James Bond: action, crime and thriller.
“Thriller a novel, play, or movie with an exciting plot, typically involving crime or espionage.” [32];
“Action films usually include high energy, big-budget physical stunts and chases, possibly with rescues, battles, fights, escapes, destructive crises...”;
“Crime films are usually set in large, crowded cities and include cars, piles of cash, contraband...” [30].
And indeed we have all proof of this pattern in the movies. As we have already mentioned, the standard formula or structure of the development of the Bond movie contains all stated parts. As far as action is concerned each movie (no matter what kind of period is it: Craig’s or pre-Craig’s) is full of skirmishes, fights, pursuits. Even the most unique (unique for the Bond series, of course) Casino Royale movie started with the lots of action (pursuit, skirmishes). Crime part is always followed in “Bondiana” in terms of its orientation (lots of conflicts with villains connected with the mob and wicked world) and thriller component in the old series along with the new ones is present, for instance, in the frequent failures of “007agent”, following by the moments when Bond’s life is hanging by a thread. So if take Casino Royale movie as an example again, the elements of thriller (tension, suspense etc.) were used during the scene when Le Chiffre was trying to learn the code to the game winnings. By stating this we can come to the conclusion that James Bond genre is a very vast concept which consists of three main parts: action, thriller and crime element.
1.3. “Blockbuster” as movie concept
As Oxford dictionary states, a blockbuster is “a thing of great power or size, in particular a film, book, or other product that is a great commercial success” [32]. But according to the history of emerging this concept we can notice that this definition wasn’t the same in the 70s and 80s.
The concept “blockbuster” originated in the Second World War as the name of a large bomb used in the Allies’ air-forces for bombing of military and civilian targets in Hitler’s Germany. It came to the usage again in the postwar period, from about 1950 onwards, to define expensive and potentially highly profitable American motion pictures (basically all kind of cultural forms i.e. novels, stage and television productions). Its original connotations weren’t aesthetic but more commercial– it carried the import that the film described in that way was a powerful tool in the 1950s’ struggle for dominance of the market of leisure and entertainment, in which the cinema’s traditional top positions were under serious attacks by competitive forms and sorts, broadcast network television in general. However, the common association and connection between high production values (big budget, serious marketing campaign) and commercial success (actual or in prospect) meant that specific aesthetic features came to be linked with the blockbuster, such as particular length, a large scale, and various types of sight.
While the blockbuster is generally an economic rather than a specific category, it has historically been described by certain genres: the historical epic or “peplum”, science fiction, westerns and war films, the action-adventure film, some musicals, and fantasy, and even a number of comedies. The blockbuster has also normally been associated with certain distribution and exhibition formulas: initially limited-release road demonstration, more recently mass-release accompanied by intensive media coverage and promotion.
Scientific studies of the blockbuster (as different to those of its various included genres) have inclined to dwell upon the modern period, from the 1970s, since when Hollywood and “blockbuster” have become nearly synonymous, though scholarship is starting to extend its coverage backward, not only to the earlier times but to films of the silent studio periods, before the term blockbuster was coined but when films of the type associated with it came to be made on a regular basis. “There have also been some studies of epics and other large-scale films originating from European and non-Western sources, though the greatest volume of scholarship remains, inevitably, dominated by a concern with Hollywood as the world’s most highly capitalized and globally penetrative film industry” [20, p. 3].
The epic and successful films hadn’t been a kind of revelation for the world even before the Second World War broke out. Indeed we can’t name pictures like “Metropolis” with its budget in the neighborhood of 1,300,000 DRM (a huge amount of money for the Germany at that time) a traditional blockbuster (because of the absence of the fact of profit and success) but we suppose that this exact work was one of the first endeavors on the way of creation a large-scale and beneficial cinema. The fact that it’s a silence and black-and-white movie just underline the uniqueness of the case and its innovation. As we’ve already said we can’t describe “Metropolis” as a blockbuster even if because in the 20s there wasn’t such a concept like a movie for the entertainment and afterwards we’ll see that this is one of the typical features for that genre. The directors just couldn’t imagine the situation when they created a movie for the “customers” and their enjoyment and for the profit. To begin with, cinematography hadn’t yet become a business by that days and the production of such expensive pictures were absolutely non-lucrative for the owners. Only after the World War along with the appearance of colored movies and development of the technology, getting a profit and creation of beautiful stories with huge costs was able to be done.
Despite the fact that the word’s “blockbuster” origin is basically connected with the appearance of the movie “Jaws” by Spielberg, we can’t help avoiding another earlier attempts to make an entertainment and successful (in the meaning of profit) type of cinema. And indeed there were a lot of them during the 50s.
Long before Spielber’s work appeared and crushed all the box office records in the summer of 1975, successful films such as “Quo Vadis”, “The Ten Commandments” or “Ben-Hur” were called blockbusters. But as we’d mentioned before, this characteristic had nothing in common with the subsequent meaning of this word because journalists and critics liked to describe with such epithets just profitable movies. In other words, blockbusters were the movies with a great deal of money from the distribution. “Ben-Hur” saved the film company from the complete ruin with its $70,000,000, got from the Americans during the show [3]. As you can see, most of the successful and expensive movies in the 50s were the ones, connected with the historical themes. First of all it demanded great costs, spent on the making the works. That’s why there were only a few of them created during the middle of the century. The age of “sword-and-sandals” movies ended with Cleopatra. It’s a bright example of unsuccessful work, which was promised to be among the previous hits (or blockbusters) as “Quo Vadis” and others. And there started the age of another types of blockbusters closely bonded with such genres as action, thriller (and there’s no doubt that James Bond is among them) and science-fiction.
1.4. Blockbuster features inside “James Bond” movie
If we trace the evolution of the genre inside the “Bondiana”, we can see that the base structure and the set of special effects stay the same. There’s always a pursuit with the spectacular ending and tense shooting, beautiful landscapes, expensive clothes and other characteristic features of the series.
Setting our eyes upon the first part of the movies with Sean Connery, we can mention that the first two movies were relatively cheap (appendix 1). Basically they consist of small skirmishes, man-to-man fights, pursuits and exotic locations (Turkey in “From Russia with love” or Jamaica in “Dr.No”). But the next ones called “Goldfinger” and “Thunderball” respectively got the first Oscar awards for the visual effects. It just proved that “Bondiana” became a real significant event in the cinema along with its technical facilities and action in the inside. But the next nomination for the visual effects appeared only in 1979. Despite the growing budget the innovations and original moves in James Bond faded away. A great and epic scene in the underground silo (along with 9 500 000 $ (appendix 1) spent on the production) in “You Only Live Twice” was the last resolute step of the creators of the movie.
The cliché of the structure of the movies with the next Bond played by Roger Moore became unbearable for the producers and they didn’t spare neither strength nor resources for the recreating the space decorations in “Moonraker”. Record-breaking budget of 31 000 000$ (appendix 1) was an attempt to bring the visual effects statuette back but by 1979, the space theme and large amounts of money were not as extraordinary as they were in the 60s. There’s no doubt that the visual specialists found their inspiration in Star Wars series and tried to achieve the success on the wave of popularity of Lucas films.
Turning to the Dalton’s era, we can still direct our eyes upon the budget of the movies, which stand in the neighborhood of 30 000 000 $ but the inside of the movies wasn’t very remarkable and the lowering of the grosses of “Bondiana” made the producers to reconsider the approach to the movie, to change the main actor from Dalton to Brosnan and after six years of silence a new Bond appeared on the screen.
The cost of the movie was doubled ($58 000 000) and examining “Golden eye” we can notice that they weren’t spend for nothing. The famous scene in Russia when Bond drives T-54 along the streets of St.Petersburg was really impressive and showed us a new kind of “Bondiana” based on massive special effects and action. From that time we can observe an increase in the sums spent on the production and technical improvement that was made to attract more people and cause more grosses to the prejudice of sense component. It is worth mentioning by the way that there’s a direct proportionality between budget and the quality of the scenario and logical structure of the movies.
The last movies with Daniel Craig as a main character still have colossal budgets (appendix 1) along with latest technologies and tools in creating the scenes. For example “Casino Royale” marked with the appearance of innovative way of travelling around – the so-called parkour [45] and this scene in the beginning of the movie (or pursuit) was very impressive and fresh for the Bond series. Nonetheless the inside of the movie lost its unreality of gadgets and equipment as in the previous parts of series and so was the will of the producers who wanted to remake the “Bondiana” in that way, not in the way of typical action-hero movie like it was with “Brosnan Bond”. We will return again to this issue in the second chapter of this research and dwell our attention upon this changes.
We stated that “Bondiana” can be named as a mixture of three components: action genre, thriller genre and a crime element. According to these data and tracing all the history of “Bondiana” and its technical evolution we can also mention that the James Bond series always were distinguished by the spectacular budgets, spent on the production along with subsequent high profits, got from the screens (appendix 1). That (especially the last one) features give us the right to consider the James Bond series as movies very close in its sense with the very popular concept nowadays, known as “blockbuster”.
According to the results of the research, made in the first chapter, we can state the following.
1. The phenomenon of the media franchises emerged with the appearance of such movies as “Star Wars” or “James Bond” on the screens. We examined a few methods of defining the media franchise and followed the occasional blending of the concepts “blockbuster” and “franchise”.
2. There is a specific “Bond genre” as a part of the spy-movie genre and it consists of three components: crime, action and thriller. And we easily found out all the necessary evidence in the Bond movies.
3. The concept “blockbuster” came into the world in its current sense long after the appearing of the first “James Bond” movies but we surely can apply “Bondiana” to this term, according to the research. The first tries of the production of the movies, oriented on the profits only were in the historical genre but with the emerging of the science-fiction movies and such spy-thrillers like James Bond the concept of blockbuster changed a little bit of its functionality.
4. The development of technologies and the profit of the “Bond” series took a serious effect on the filling of the movies and sometimes this impact was negative. It influenced on the scenarios of the last movies with Pearce Brosnan for example and despite the fact that the film showed well in cinemas, the reviews from the critics were not so good. Also we mentioned a very important point, connected with another type of description of the “Bond” series. We found out that the genres (thriller and action) along with “Bond’s” budgets, profits and popularity gave us an opportunity to name the movies as blockbusters.
CHAPTER II. TWO “AGES” OF “JAMES BOND” MOVIE
2.1. “Bond movies” industry in 1962-2002
Earlier attempts to adapt the James Bond novels were not very successful. However, there was a television episode of Climax! in 1954, based on the first novel, Casino Royale. Ian Fleming wanted to go one step further and offered producer Alexander Korda to make a film adaptation of “Live and Let Die” or other story. Initially the producer was interested in production but later he withdrew [29, p. 255]. In 1959 Fleming returned to the writing of a scenario for the James Bond movie. However, Alfred Hitchcock turned down the project [46] and a little bit later the whole deal fell through.
The key point started in 1959 with the producer Albert R. Broccoli who expressed interest in adapting the Bond stories. In 1961, Broccoli, joined his intentions with Harry Saltzman, purchased the film rights from Fleming [10, p. 5]. But for the first time there were huge problems with the studios who founded James Bond “too British” or “too blatantly sexual” [33, p. 13]. Broccoli and Saltzman wanted in the neighbourhood of a 1 000 000 $ to adapt either “Thunderball” or “Dr. No”, and finally made a deal with United Artists in July 1961. The two producers set up Eon Productions and the production of “Dr. No” began [10, p. 43].
It is worth mentioning that Bond films were backed by American dollars (United Artists) and despite the fact that first movies of Bond were clearly British, Hollywood played a very important role in the creation of the “Bondiana”.
In the first movies of the series all the traditional features of James Bond appeared on the screen and became essential for the franchise. This involved exotic locations (such as Turkey, different islands etc.); special effects; gadgets; exciting action scenes which are defused after their climax by joke or comedy.
Along with that we can also notice such things as a leading girl, whose function is generally connected with the sexual stimulation; suspicious foreigners and rivals of Bond (close to the maniacs); famous title song for each film which is similar to the original Bond theme; a big budget and a high-profile marketing campaign at last. Almost all these features became a kind of traditions for the series and were repeated in every next movie.
The basic Bond personality was developed by the Scottish actor Sean Connery. Actually, Connery was not the producers or Fleming's first choice, but they had to accept him as James Bond after being rejected by Patrick McGoohan and other famous actors. Sean Connery's selection as James Bond became real because of Dana Broccoli, wife of Cubby Broccoli. She assured that Sean Connery was the right man [5]. And it was the truth. Despite the fact that for the first time even Fleming didn’t approve the candidate for the main character after a few successful movies everybody had to admit that they were wrong, judging by Connery’s Scottish appearance. As for Fleming, he changed his mind and we could find the evidence of it in his late novels where he created a half-Scottish, half-Swiss heritage for the character.
“Though “Dr. No” received mixed reviews, some quite hostile, and even received a rebuke by the Vatican” [2, p. 16] it was a relatively good start for the franchise and showed a good distribution (appendix 1).
After the success, Connery continued to play the character in four movies in a row: “From Russia with Love” (1963), “Goldfinger” (1964), “Thunderball” (1965), and “You Only Live Twice” (1967).
Among these movies the most notable one probably is “Goldfinger”. The movie marked with the first appearance of the Aston Martin DB5 and the use of a menacing laser, newly invented just years before and not widely known to the public. One of the most famous quotes came from this movie as well and described the attitude of all Bond’s rivals with no exception throughout the whole life of the agent:
James Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die! [42, p. 48]
Also as we mentioned before in the first chapter, it was the first Bond film to win an Oscar (category: Best Effects, Sound Effects)
After “You Only Live Twice” Connery said that it was his last performance as Bond. The producers decided to continue the series and launched a search for a Bond actor. To replace Connery, initially was chosen an actor Timothy Dalton. However, Dalton refused to the offer, considering himself too young for the role [19].
Eventually Brocolli chose Australian George Lazenby after his performance in a Fry's Chocolate Cream advertisement [22]. They liked his appearance, especially his physical form and offered him a contract for 7 movies. But George was convinced by his agent Ronan that the role of secret agent would become obsolete in the 70 and finally Lazenby decided to leave the series after the release of “On Her Majesty's Secret Service”. As for his Bond, the reviews were quite mixed. Some of the critics mentioned his similarity to the image in books and his physical conditions, but on the other hand Lazenby was rebuked for his foolish appearance in elegant suits and “delivered his lines poorly” [28, p. 159]
After the decision of Lazenby, the producers tried to return to the previous formula of success and Connery as an embodiment of it. The Scottish actor was offered a huge contract and agreed to play James Bond one more time in “Diamonds Are Forever”. Despite a commercial success, critics blamed it for its mannered humour, weak plot and secondary characters. Connery left the series after this movie once and for all but all efforts made by Sean, didn’t help him with the fact that “he was forever tainted with Bond 007 iconography: forever the laconic hero, Connery is Bond” [43, p. 180].
After Connery the search for the actor started again. There were some significant persons among candidates but the work went to the forty-five year-old Roger Moore who became the longest Bond ever with 12 years in the role along with 7 movies [28, p. 186].
With the new actor, the films became more comedic, successfully combined dark and sometimes odd humour with violence. In regards to this new embodiment of James Bond, one critic mentioned “Roger Moore has none of the gravitas of Sean Connery ... he does fit slickly into the director's presentation of Bond as a lethal comedian” [42, p. 126]. It’s worth mentioning also that Moore tried to go away from the image of James Bond made by Connery with a little change in the appearance and behaviour of the main character. He changed the cigarettes into cigars and sometimes prefers bourbon rather than the traditional vodka-martini. Despite some portion of criticism, Moore’s “Bondiana” kept the series alive in the 1970-80s with Moore playing the role until 57. The survival of the series was due to the addition of more contemporary thematic and adding new characters to inspire the outdated Fleming plots [42, p. 117]. Perhaps the most notable movie among the series in 70s was “Moonraker”, who was decided to be more sci-fi because of the success of the Star Wars movie. In 1980s “Bondiana” wasn’t the best example of itself with the aged Moore and weak plots, especially the last one named “A View To Kill” (1985), which received a very bad background from the reviewers.
Moore left the series in 1985 and created a matter of choice for the producers again but the task wasn’t very difficult for them because they decided to give this work to Timothy Dalton who could get this job at the age of 22 but refused and returned to the “Bondiana” question at the age of 41.
He was a real actor in all meanings of this word and trained in the British Shakespearean tradition and it influenced on his vision of Bond. The Guardian remarked, “Dalton hasn't the natural authority of Connery nor the facile charm of Moore, but Lazenby he is not” [2, p. 178]. He is often credited for being the closest to Ian Fleming's Bond, though more so for his hard-edged performance in “Licence to Kill” [38, p. 302]. But the two movies with Dalton, though received some positive view from the critics, showed very low results in the box-offices. In order to save on production costs, the producers even decided to shoot “Licence to Kill”, in Mexico rather than at Pinewood Studios in the UK but the failed marketing campaign and some other mistakes ruined the results of the movie. From the period since 1989 till 1994 there had been a lot of talks about the next movie but due to the financial problems it never began. Owing to the legal disputes, the production of Dalton's third film was postponed several times. In April 1994, Dalton resigned from the role [7].
To replace Dalton, the producers chose Pierce Brosnan, whom they had met earlier on the set of “For Your Eyes Only”. According to all review after the first film starring Brosnan (“Golden Eye”) it was a “direct hit”. Tom Shone of London's The Times commented, “Brosnan shares none of Connery's virtues but has also been careful to avoid Moore's vices. It doesn't give him much room for manoeuvre, but then manoeuvring in tight corners is the one thing Brosnan is quite good at”.
Box-office just proved that Brosnan was an ideal candidate for the replacement and he really gave a new inspiration to the series that was falling down in the beginning of the 90s.
Brosnan portrayed Bond in three more films, “Tomorrow Never Dies” (1997), “The World Is Not Enough” (1999) and “Die Another Day” (2002), before Eon stated that Brosnan wouldn’t get a new contract as the film series was about to be remade and the search for a new agent 007 was on. Despite the fantastic action scenes, production values and benefits, some of the reviewers claimed that the final two Brosnan films to be too unreal and too overfilled with action and gadgets with little time, spent on the characters and logic in scenario [28, p. 430].
In July 2004, Brosnan said that he was quitting the role, adding “Bond is another lifetime, behind me” [37]. So the era of the “old Bond” was ended and the producers decided that the time to revive the series, to deliver the “Bondiana” from its archaic structure and traditions, to change the personality of Bond and to make it more serious and close to the ordinary people, came. Thus, “Casino Royale” was born.
2.2. New type of “Bond movies”: prequel or reboot
In order to understand the motives of such decision as to change the traditional image of James Bond, we should see the whole picture of the cinematography in 2003-2005. It was the years, when the Batman series returned with a completely new view to the characters and the rival’s project of the story of Jason Bourne showed very good results on the screens and among the critics. That is why MGM and Eon decided to bring the story of Bond back to its roots, to eliminate all unrealistic gadgets, villains and to make Bond more of a real person, not a superhero spy as he was on the screen in the previous years. Therefore, the 21st movie of James Bond, “Casino Royale”, became the first adaptation of a Fleming book since 1969 (“On Her Majesty's Secret Service”) and founded a new timeline and narrative framework never used before in the “Bondiana” [31]. On 14 October 2005 the producers made a press conference in London and they confirmed the last gossips that Daniel Craig would become the next actor to portray James Bond [13]. “He's still charming and he's still deadly, but this new James Bond played by Daniel Craig is also human” – is a very pointed remark because it just described the whole picture of the new type of James Bond [6]. The producers changed the traditional approach to the series and as it turned out a little bit later they were completely right and this innovation justified itself, because eventually “Casino Royale” crushed the box office and showed a very good results while distributing.
Most of the changes were about the structure of the plot and key personalities of the series. Beginning with “Casino Royale”, the alternative way of filming Bond we can notice in the second Craig’s movie: “Quantum of Solace”. We can demonstrate a few of the revisions on the examples:
- Every movie of the series has a scene in which Bond has a conversation with Miss Moneypenny, the secretary to “M”, Bond's boss. In the first two movies with Daniel Craig this part is absent;
- “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” has no mention of another traditional character – Mr. Q who used to give the necessary equipment and gadgets to the agents. Nonetheless Bond still gets his mission tools but there’s no technical briefing shown [28, p. 453];
- “Bond. James Bond.” line is absent in “Quantum of Solace” while appearing one way or another in all movies of series [1];
- In all Bond movies, except “Quantum of Solace”, Bond is kissing his new girlfriend and companion at the end of the story [28, p. 282].
But despite all these differences from the “original approach” to the “Bondiana”, the reviews for “Casino Royale”, for example, were rather positive and the movie became the most profitable Bond since the times of the “Moonraker” movie. Roger Ebert remarked, “Daniel Craig makes a superb Bond: leaner, more taciturn, less sex-obsessed, and able to be hurt in body and soul, not giving a damn if his martini is shaken or stirred” [15].
After the success of the first Craig’s movie, the producers decided to prolong his contract and go to the next chapter of the Bond stories. With the title “Quantum of Solace” came the 22nd part of “Bondiana”. Basically it was a kind of follow-up to the previous movie and it was closely connected with the events of “Casino Royale”. Despite its satisfying results at the box office, the film received lots of negative reviews. On “Rotten Tomatoes” new Bond was described as “Not as good as franchise reboot Casino Royale” [34].
The next movie was suspended several times due to the financial troubles of the MGM Company but in the very beginning of 2011 the production of the later-called “Skyfall” started. For the correction of the mistakes of the previous part of the “Bondiana”, the producers invited such huge Hollywood stars as Ralph Fiennes and Havier Bardem and Sam Mendes became the director of the 23d movie of the series [16].
While saving the style of the new type of “Bondiana” (more reserved and “real” character) “Skyfall” was received by critics very well and it became highest-grossing James Bond film. According to the Box Office Mojo (18 November) the worldwide sum stands in the neighbourhood of $670 000 000. This result marks the general success of the remaking James Bond after 2006 and despite the fact that for the accomplishing of this task the producers had to repudiate from some Bond features, we can consider the experiment as a total success (according to the results in box offices at least).
Concerning the theme of three last movies devoted to James Bond we can’t help avoiding the point of the position of the series. Was Casino Royale an ordinary prequel to the story of the “007 agent” or the classical example of rebooting the media franchise?
In general, to make a reboot means to cast previous sequence in a series aside and start from the very beginning. The concept derives from the computer term using for the restarting a computer [48].
Using the reboot method, the producers and companies tried to attract new admirers, to revive the interest toward the series and to increase revenue [48]. It is an ideal option for the companies that want to make an old and stagnant franchise popular and profitable again. Besides, it is a very comfortable thing for the persons concerned because usually such series have the fan base already and it is not as risky from the point of money as to create the new one.
According to the Oxford dictionary, prequel “is a story or movie containing events that precede those of an existing work”. Prequel is concentrated on the events that had happened before the original story. Basically the word “prequel” emerged in 1958 in Anthony Boucher’s article. It was used for the describing James Blish's novel “They Shall Have Stars”. Into general usage, the term came only in 1970-80s [32] with the appearing of such series as Star Wars with its prequel structure when the last episodes were filmed long times earlier the first ones. In recent years the term “prequel” often can be applied to the reboots such as works as Planet of the Apes, Batman, and James Bond [44, p. 42].
The creators of the new Batman, for instance, consider their movies as a renewing of the original stories [24, p. 139-152]. As for the “Bondiana”, in one of the interviews the producers of the series confirm that they regard it as a reboot. At the same time according to the definition above, we can surely name the particular movie from the series of James Bond (“Casino Royale”) as a true prequel to the original because it completely corresponds with term. All the events in Casino Royale tell us the first steps of the “007 agent” in the world of spies and contain a little pre-history of his personality. That is why we can make a conclusion that we can apply James Bond both to the prequels and reboots.
According to the results of the research, made in the second chapter, we can state the following.
1. The “James Bond” series, emerged in the beginning of 1960s, seized the audience from the very first movie and despite the problems with actors and the necessity of replacing them after a certain period of time, the producers managed to set up a very profitable business with the “Bondiana”. The persistent production of the “Bond movies” marked the success of the franchise and turned a story about agent into the whole industry.
2. The necessary changes made by the producers of the series in 2006 with changing the cast and the general approach to the movie series proved its efficiency with the results in box office and the huge increase in popularity after the process of stagnation of the beginning of the century. Examining the series and some other examples we came to the conclusion that the current evidence doesn’t give us an opportunity to define clearly the two concept “reboot” and “prequel”, concerning the changes in the “Bondiana”, connected with the appearance of Daniel Craig as a lead actor. Moreover, available evidence let us call the franchise with both definitions rather than differentiating them.
CHAPTER III. “JAMES BOND” TECHNOLOGY
3.1. Military Intelligence in “James Bond” novels and movies
Examination of the personality of James Bond, his rivals and the acquaintances (especially the women) should be started with the place of his work and the organisation, which appears in every single movie, devoted to James Bond without any exceptions.
The Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), most famous as MI6 (Military Intelligence, Section 6) is the organisation which provides the government with foreign intelligence information [23, p. 15]. The service was founded in the beginning of the 20th century and played a very important role for the British during the international conflict, Cold war and other occurrences.
In books and movies of the “James Bond” series we see the Intelligence only in passing. Generally, it’s the whole set of key characters (M, Q, Moneypenny). James Bond gets his assignment, equipment and briefing from them in the most of the movies and the role of the Service or its characters hadn’t been expanded until the last movie of “Skyfall”.
This doesn’t imply that in “Skyfall” the audience could see the nature of the Intelligence but we saw Judi Dench (actress performed the role of the head of the Intelligence) much more time than ever. According to Fleming, he used his life experience and the character of “Ì” is based on a number of people (commanders, chief etc.) he interacted while he was on duty. The relationship between James Bond and his superior in cinema was much more expanded in comparison with book variant. Most changes are concerned of the last embodiment of the chief by actress Judi Dench. With her performance, the character of “M” gained an element of maternity, especially towards James Bond, but at the same time their relationship were strictly based on the business and she was always ready to sacrifice his life for the sake of the state and Intelligence [9].
The new movie (“Skyfall”) was marked with the presence of another traditional character – Ms.Moneypenny. She was absent in the two previous movies (“Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace” respectively) but earlier she was in each single episode of “Bondiana”. Moneypenny adore James Bond both in Fleming’s novels and cinema. “Often dreamed hopelessly about Bond” writes Fleming in the Thunderball novel. However, James Bond heard nothing of her feelings; she always kept them in secret. Apart from flirting with “007”, she holds the position of the personal secretary of “M”.
As for the third traditional character from the Service’s staff, “Q” (=Quartermaster) appeared in all Bond movies except of “Live and Let Die” and again the two Craig’s: “Quantum of Solace” and “Casino Royale”. He is responsible for the equipment and different gadgets for the agents and despite the obvious annoyance James Bond causes Q every time, there is always a feeling that they certainly have great respect for each other and probably are good friend deep down.
3.2. James Bond as Ian Fleming’s creature
“The fast car, the correct recipe for a vodka martini, a dinner and a bridge gam at Blade’s, the brand names of superior toilet articles, the seductively ill-parted hair of a pretty girl” [27, p. 42]. The writer Anthony Burgess can characterize James Bond only with such expressions and on the whole he is right. He didn’t reinvent the wheel with his words, but Burgess skilfully identify some of the major components of the Bond formula of success originally described and developed by Ian Fleming in his stories and later reflected in the movie series. With the lapse of time James Bond as a creature of Fleming became a real floating cultural signifier who continues to develop and adapt to the social changes. It is worth mentioning also that the “007 series” marked a shift in the cultural understanding of the concept “crime” which in modern world acquires the meaning of crimes against humanity. That was the straight merit of Ian Fleming, who step aside the traditions of detective writing and broadly used the context of Cold War ideology and modern geopolitics.
The whole character of Bond was described by journalist and author Ian Fleming. The first appearance of James Bond was in the novel Casino Royale (1953). The whole set of stories had been written by Fleming from 1953 till 1964. After the publication of “Casino Royale”, the author moved to Jamaica and continued his work; in total, fourteen Bond novels (including two compilations of stories) were published. The last two books: “The Man with the Golden Gun” and “Octopussy” and the Living Daylights”—published two years after Fleming’s death in 1966.
An idea to create a spy character crossed his mind during the WWII but he managed to write this idea down only in 1952 when he started working on a new book, later titled Casino Royale. He didn’t need to make up all the stories because he served in the Intelligence earlier and generally he used not only his imagination but his life experience. The novels centred on a personality and work of James Bond – “007 agent” from the Intelligence Service.
Fleming took the name to his character from the American ornithologist [8, p. 21]. Later he explained the choice of the name in that way: “When I wrote the first one in 1953, I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull, uninteresting man to whom things happened; I wanted him to be a blunt instrument ... when I was casting around for a name for my protagonist I thought by God, (James Bond) is the dullest name I ever heard” [21, p. 32].
As for the character of Bond (and not only him) Fleming, using his personal experience, based a lot of them on individuals that he met at service. James Bond is not a real person but at the same time a number of his qualities could be copied from the real commanders or agents in the Intelligence of that time.
Hoagy Carmichael is considered to resemble James Bond facially [26, p. 35]. For example, Vesper Lynd in the novel Casino Royale says: “Bond reminds me rather of Hoagy Carmichael, but there is something cold and ruthless.” Black hair, cold eyes, cruel in a mouth: all these features can be indeed associated with both of them.
The background of James Bond weren’t mentioned until “You Live Only Twice” where agent got his family history. The connection with Scotland was made deliberately because Fleming wanted to recreate the link between the main actor of that time Sean Connery and the book person.
As for the personal characteristics which were given to James Bond by his creator, “007 agent” is not a cold-blooded killer, working like a robot. In novels we can find the philosophical discourses by Bond devoted to his way of life or his murders and he doesn’t look like a beast without emotions at all [17, p. 3]. But as we can see later in movies he is incorrigible womanizer and he is fond of alcohol and gambling and has other vices. Besides, in novels we can find something that we can’t find in movies. It is about the Bond meals. According to the books, when he is at home he dines as simple as Ian Fleming did himself: roast beef, fish etc. When on a mission, Bond prefers exotic meals though. We can state that despite the fact that this point and other tiny details, concerning Bond’s nature and his character help the reader and our research to know him better but the fact of omitting all this day-to-day routine of Bond in movie is not surprising.
The unique merit of Fleming as the author was in the fact that all vices and negative sides of James Bond would have before been associated with the villains are now turned into positive characteristics. Moreover, they were converted by the public into something desirable. Everything that Bond makes marked with the seal of aristocracy and taste: from the murders till his preferences in food. And the depiction of this in movies wasn’t a big problem for the producers.
3.3. “Movie Bond” versus “Book Bond”
First of all, there is no doubt that the cinema version of the novels had to be popular and they had to bring profit to the producers. Nobody wants to watch the cooking Bond, to listen to his thoughts or to follow all his drinks. The audience is interested in action and thriller and the producers understood it. That is why their general goal was to close the personality of the spy to the ordinary people. They omitted all unnecessary facts from his life and show the little minimum of his personal features. Moreover they tried to do it through his relationships with girlfriends, his chief or through his dialogues with the enemies for instance. You can’t watch Bond talking to himself or hear his own philosophy and emotions connected with his daily work like on the pages of the novels. In the “Goldfinger” book the author opens his character’s heart a little and gives us an opportunity to learn something more about his soul and his attitude to the main obligation in his life – to kill the evil men:
“It was part of his profession to kill people. He had never liked doing it and when he had to kill he did it as well as he knew how and forgot about it. As a secret agent who held the rare double-O prefix—the licence to kill in the Secret Service—it was his duty to be as cool about death as a surgeon. If it happened, it happened. Regret was unprofessional—worse; it was a death-watch beetle in the soul” [1] [17].
The exact reflection of book Bond was not the objective number one for the producers of the films. As we have already said their point was in the creation of profitable movie and they coped with this problem.
For example, the differences between novel’s character and Connery’s Bond started from the very beginning. According to their task, the director and scriptwriter chose a very charismatic actor and let him bring a grain of his national Scottish colour in the Bond personality. Hence we have the specific humour and a kind of straightforward Bond in the early series. He talks a little and always cracks jokes and you can’t find that feature of the famous spy in the novels because the book character is colder and more serious, more English if we remember the famous stereotype about the locals.
With Rodger Moore or Timothy Dalton the situation didn’t change much if we talk about Bond character. The same methods of dealing with problems were used along with the same jokes and even the same relations with girls.
Pierce Brosnan added a lot of glamour and gloss to his Bond but the personality of the spy was completely replaced by the actions and skirmishes during his era. And with that background Daniel Craig’s embodiment was a real ground-breaking thing for the franchise.
For starters we should mention that the individual characteristics of Bond were changed. According to the new types of movies came with Craig (especially “Casino Royale”) Bond became more sensual and emotional and in the movie we can observe his real feelings through his relationships with Vesper Lynd. Indeed that an opportunity to show the audience the true Bond and his true emotions appeared mostly because of the literary source but we should admit the general merit of the creation of such serious movie belongs to the producers and their idea of revival of the series and to the scriptwriters and their talented interpretation of the novel.
In witness of such turnabout inside the Bond films suffice it to follow the dialogues between the 007 and Vesper:
Vesper Lynd: You love me?
James Bond: Enough to travel the world with you until one of us has to take an honest job... which I think is going to have to be you, because I have no idea what an honest job is.
Vesper Lynd: You're not going to let me in there, are you? You've got your armour back on. That's that.
James Bond: I have no armour left. You've stripped it from me. Whatever is left of me - whatever is left of me - whatever I am - I'm yours [35].
It’s a very complicated task for the audience to imagine these dialogues coming from Brosnan or Moore and from their embodiments of the spy. Their spy was more unrealistic, sometimes he looked like a superman or robot with no emotions and remorse. With Craig Bond became cleverer and acuter. But when “Casino Royale” only appeared on the screens, a lot of critics didn’t recognise Daniel Craig as a true Bond. Most of their reasons were connected with the appearance of him because according to the novels Bond can’t be a blond man and also they considered his look as a non-aristocratic. But later they changed their minds because of the brilliant performance of Daniel and these tiny discrepancies faded away by themselves. The style and behaviour of Craig’s Bond became more “original”, it has more features of Bond from books than other embodiments of “007 agent” on the screen and probable that variant and these changes would have been approved by Fleming if he had been alive.
3.4. James Bond and women: from true love to senseless co-operation
In the previous paragraph we concerned the theme of the most tragic and defining person in the life of James Bond - Vesper Lynd. She really captured his heart and he was ready to abandon everything in his life for the sake of her, but eventually it turned out that she was a double-agent and worked for the enemies of Bond. Probably after this case a feeling of distrust towards women settled in his heart and that basically defined his selfish attitude to them for the rest of his life. Despite this fact Bond girlfriends often turned to be as villainesses such as Xenia Onatopp in “GoldenEye”. Usually, Bond meets three types of women: evil (as we have already mentioned: villainesses), intelligent (their reserved character often prevented them from the seduction) and innocent (who are always falling in love with James).
We can’t say a lot of words about their characters because even in Fleming’s stories the author keeps them just for the decoration or for the events in the plot. Most of the novel’s girls were successfully pictured on the screen. According to their descriptions and display, they always follow the standard mix of features where the special stress lays on their beauty, youth and body perfection.
In the Connery’s era they didn’t play an essential role in the operations, moreover, it was a common thing for Bond to rescue them at the end of the story.
In 1970s-1980s they gained more space for the self-expression and they really assisted James in his missions but still were the object of problems for the agent. Anya Amasova is a bright example of this female character of that time. She was a soviet agent sent to work with Bond in the investigation of dissapeared nuclear submarines. Even despite the fact that James Bond had killed her boyfriend earlier she warmed to his charm and eventually forgave him. And again, though she was very helpful for James in stopping the villain, Anya was captured by the enemies and Bond had to save her from the captivity a few times [18].
With Pierce Brosnan, the personalities of the women were expanded but only as co-operators of James. Along with the turning the series into senseless blockbuster the role of girls grew into the real beautiful picture (but with the necessary skills for the saving the world) and nothing behind it.
The role of women in Craig’s movies was almost vanished (as one of the main traditions) with the exception in “Casino Royale” where the true love of James were buried with Vesper’s betrayal and death.
Bond is not a seeker of a wife or serious relationships; generally, his goal is close to be to sleep with as many girls as he can. But even this feature of Bond was transformed from the negative into positive with the explaining that women just find James irresistible to the weaker sex.
3.5. “Villain of the piece”
Initially, Fleming built up the villains in order to emphasize the heroism of the main character, because he understood that without the powerful enemies James Bond looked like less courageous. Later villains were successfully used for the recreation of this brave image of the “007 agent” on the screen [41, p. 30]. Generally, there were only three “great enemies” for James Bond — Goldfinger, Dr. No, and Blofield and James had a lot of problems with them or the organisation they established. But among another researches is singled out the one made by Kerstin Jütting where she classified all the villains according to their characteristics and speciality [25, p. 70-81].
For example she pointed out the first appearances of first freelance villain (1974 – Scaramanga); first false ally (1981 – Kristatos); first villainess (1999 – Elektra) etc. Also she adds that all the enemies of Bond were chosen to match the current situation in the world. That’s why the appearance of the computer geniuses like Raoul Silva from the last movie “Skyfall” is not surprising.
As we have already mentioned the destination of the villains is to be killed by James Bond to show him in the most favourable light as a saviour of the world. That’s why there is not much space for their characters to be exposed. “Light side of the force” still knocks evil down and society is still successfully defended.
According to the results of the research, made in the third chapter, we can state the following.
1. The Intelligence Service and its staff don’t play the essential role in the movies but at the same time it is a very important part of the plot and a traditional part of the whole series of Bond. We found out that the image of the head of the Service (“M”) was seriously expanded in “Skyfall” along with the coming back of such character as “Q” which may refer to the paying a sort of the tribute to the traditions of “old Bond” and the lead actress Judi Dench whose performance of M was the last one in her career in the franchise.
2. The book image of Bond was extremely successful and popular among the ordinary readers despite his complicated character (with lots of vices such as drinking, womanizing etc.) and murders and that fact caused eventually the huge success of the movie series.
3. We pointed out a lot of differences between book variant of Bond and its embodiment on the screen. Though it’s worth mentioning the example of creating Bond background according to the cinema personality (played by Scottish actor and with Scottish background for the real, “book Bond” in the latest novels). All vices of Bond were very efficiently showed as positive and heroic features exactly on the screen because in novels it was very complicated task to describe and display them to the best advantage.
4. Womanizing in Bond, initially being a vice became one of the appealing and even heroic features of the “007 agent”. A thing that typically destroys a character is transformed into an essential building block of the spy and without this he couldn’t have done his deed and save the world.
5. All the villains without exception serve for the sake of positive image of James Bond in the series. We found out the same situation with the characters of evil as with the women in movies. They serve for the only goal of attracting the audience and in very rare moments through them we see the true face of James Bond.
CHAPTER IV. “JAMES BOND” CULT IN WORLD CINEMATOGRAPHY
4.1. Product placement as very feature of the “James Bond” series
In general meaning, product placement is “a practice in which manufacturers of goods or providers of a service gain exposure for their products by paying for them to be featured in movies and television programs” [32].
Despite the fact that practising this type of advertisement started long before the “Bondiana”, later it became one of the defining features of this exact franchise. But in some ways the James Bond series were almost pioneers of the practice. For example at first place the car’s product placement were used in “The Man with the Golden Gun” and only after the successful campaign of “AMC” were continued by the other companies. Besides, Aston Martin cars were the main cars of James Bond in 1960s already but it wasn’t so obvious and it wasn’t used as a deliberate advertisement in contrast to AMC movement in the latest movies [46, p. 36].
In addition to the cars, “Bondiana” became a profitable place of the advertisement for the alcohol (the latest example of it is in “Skyfall” with its beer Heineken), tobacco (Lark brand promoted by Moore and Dalton in the 1980s), computers (Sony laptops, mobiles etc. in “Casino Royale” and “Quantum of Solace”), watches (Rolex Omega in “Casino Royale”) and many other items.
Generally, Hollywood product placement gets a climax of this practice in James Bond films via the “007 agent” image that always receives or uses different goods that helps him in saving the world. As always, these products combine real and modern technologies with artificial hyperbole of the Bond genre, with extra attention to expensive and elegant items such as luxurious cars, electronic equipment and personal accessories from watches till tuxedos.
4.2. James Bond in hierarchy of movie spies
Despite the fact that the character of James Bond is extremely differ from the classical portrayal of the agents and spies, his influence on the development of the genre (action/thriller) and movies with the spy theme can’t be overestimated [4, p. 102]. His personality is a unique phenomenon and with its uniqueness it won all hearts.
Though James Bond wasn’t the real person and his life seems to be unrealistic even in the cinema, he became the true embodiment of the spy agent (despite the improbable and fairy shade of the character) on the screen and secured the positions in the mind of the audience. With its formula consisted of pursuits, skirmishes, gadgets it inspired many other works.
“The French Connection” and “Dirty Harry” for example were obviously influenced by the “Bondiana” in its action component, especially the first movie. Great chase scene from “The French Connection” was based exact on the experience of the Bond series.
As for the spy films, the grandiose success of the Bond series in 1960s gave birth to the hundreds of imitators in Europe as well in the USA. Among the well-known examples were the two movies with fictional hero Derek Flint. The most recognisable example of influence of Bond nowadays is “Bourne franchise”.
Despite the fact that basically there’s a different theme and sense was put in “Bourne”, some of the Bond features such as the leading idea of a “dull weapon of the government” were actively used in the novels and movies. The two franchises are very different in its basis but the motif of the cruel fate of the agents (both James Bond and Jason Bourne) who are actually a pawn in the hands of their superiors is relevant for the both of the series.
On the whole, owing to James Bond, the spy thriller finally gets the wide popularity. Earlier we could mention that spy themes were able to dominate the thriller, but now the situation has been changed and we see the espionage thriller as a dominant part of the popular fiction. Stories of spies and agents are no longer just a small part of the culture, they reach its centre.
4.3. “Bond movies” impact on world popular culture
In order to evaluate the meaning of James Bond for the world wide culture we don’t need special researches or tests. Everyone knows the famous line from the series “Bond. James Bond.” which eventually managed to enter the vocabulary of popular culture. Writers Cork and Scivally claimed that this “signature introduction would become the most famous and loved film line ever” [11, p. 6].
Another popular line which became a recognisable catchphrase in western culture, moreover, appeared in many other programmes, games and movies is “shaken, not stirred”. It described Bond’s preference for how he wanted his martini made but later it turned into the well-known remark, always associated with James Bond figure.
In the previous chapter we touched upon the different movies where the influence of James Bond technology was the most obvious but we didn’t mention tens of true parodies on the “Bondiana”. We can’t help mentioning the most famous and very close to the original “Austin Powers” franchise, which is existence is the best proof of huge influence on the western culture made by James Bond appearance. The things that were the objects of the parody in the Austin Powers series, basically, are the things that somewhere in the past attracted ordinary people and drove them in the cinema: a trite desire for the escapism, the world without poverty and villains, who always pays for their evil deeds [43, p. 106].
With a lapse of time the even name of James Bond became the common noun, the synonym of guru of the style, invincible hero, symbol of sex, violence and glamour. Despite the fact that the personality of the “007 agent” was often accused of racism and snobbery, his fans always imagine him as a seductive and smart agent, licensed to kill.
According to the results of the research, made in the fourth chapter, we can state the following.
1. Generally, the product placement feature became well-known owing to the James Bond series where it was actively used from the simple accessories till the modern and luxuries cars and tuxedos. Hundreds of famous brands were put in the Bond movies and mainly they represented and marked the elegant and aristocratic style of the agent and successfully differentiated him from the villains.
2. We basically proved that without the emergence of the “Bondiana”, thousands of the movies (especially made in the spy and criminal style) wouldn’t see the screen. The chasing scenes, gadgets, “government-agent themes”, some of the personal characteristics of James Bond were rewritten and used well in the movies afterwards. The James Bond series is still the leader of the spy-thriller industry.
3. The role and impact of James Bond on the different spheres and part of the culture can’t be overestimated. The catchphrases such as Bond’s introduction and many other features stepped into the public life and usage as well as the main character’s style and image crushed down all the notions about the appearance and behavior of the secret agent. Generally we came to the conclusion that the image of the English gentleman was pushed aside a little in order to give some space to the new hero of Britain – James Bond, “007 agent”.
CONCLUSION
According to our research, the major components that have to be included in the concept of “media franchise”, are the following: 1) at least three films in the series (with characters that can be transferred from movie to movie); 2) good results in box office; 3) such genres as action, adventure, sci-fi, thriller along with big budget production values and book source. Due to the point that all necessary evidence has been found it should be said that “James Bond” is a true media franchise.
“James Bond” series are unique among other series due to its fantastic popularity and longevity. The personality of James Bond has been in existence since 1950s, when it was created by the journalist Ian Fleming. With the lapse of time “007 agent” became the real cultural signifier and the embodiment of the spy among the ordinary people. But without worthy “screening” of James Bond he would probably get lost somewhere in the bookshops. Starting in 1962, “James Bond” movies, which now consist of 23 episodes, gained world-wide fame and became one of the most famous movies series as well as media franchise around the world, glorifying their creator.
Made in the popular “action-thriller” genre (with “crime” elements), “James Bond” forever secured top positions in box office and this fact is considered to be the crucial in defining “James Bond” series as blockbusters which in turn were described as extremely profitable movies. Moreover, “James Bond” series due to its success and technological perfection and modernity gave birth to hundreds of movies in the different genres and entirely changed the view to the spy genre, establishing their own “Bond genre”, based on the image of the agent, structure of the plot and other features. Besides, the active usage of “product placement” in “Bondiana” urged the whole trend on.
Therefore, having examined all the possible aspects of media franchise in the “Bondiana” it might be said that “James Bond” series is brightest example of the “media franchise” concept.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Barber N., Johnson A. We've been expecting you, Mr ... er ...?; The new Bond blockbuster 'Quantum of Solace' drops the catchphrases to return to the spirit of Ian Fleming's books, 2008, The Independent on Sunday, 18 p.
2. Barnes A., Hearn M. Kiss Kiss Bang! Bang!: the Unofficial James Bond Film Companion, 1997, Batsford Books, 206 p.
3. Ben-Hur’s Box Office, www.imdb.com/title/tt0052618/
4. Bloom C. Spy Thrillers: From Buchan to LeCarre, 1990, MacMillan, 200 p.
5. Bray C. Sean Connery: The Measure of a Man, 2004, the Daily Telegraph, 2 p.
6. Bryner J. New James Bond Proves Worthy of Double-0 Status, 2006, Space, 7 p.
7. Campbell M. The Making of 'GoldenEye': A Video Journal, 1999, MGM Home Entertainment Inc.
8. Caplen R. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond, 2010, Indiana: Xlibris, 460 p.
9. Caryn J. “Skyfall: Bond Is Older, Wiser, Better”, 2012, The Huffington Post, 4 p.
10. Chapman J. License to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films, 2000, Columbia University Press, 336 p.
11. Cork J., Scivally B. James Bond: The Legacy, 2002, London: Boxtree, 320 p.
12. Cornelius M.G. The boy detectives: essays on the Hardy Boys and others, 2010, McFarland & Co., 210 p.
13. Daniel Craig confirmed as 006th screen Bond, 2005, The Guardian, 4p.
14. Decade’s Best Casino Royale, 2007, Total Film, 2 p.
15. Ebert R. Casino Royale, 2007, Chicago Sun-Times, 3 p.
16. Finke N., Fleming M. Javier Bardem Offered Big Bond #23 Role; MGM Leveraging 007 Distribution With Co-Financing Deal To Improve Its Cash Flow: Jockeying Studios "Increasingly Frustrated", 2011, Deadline News, 2 p.
17. Fleming I. Goldfinger, 1959, London: Jonathan Cape, 191 p.
18. Gilbert L. The Spy Who Loved Me, 1977, Digital Video Disc. MGM/UA
19. Glen J. Inside the Living Daylights: Ultimate Edition Disk 2, 2000, MGM Home Entertainment Inc.
20. Hall S. Blockbusters, 2011, Oxford University Press, 28 p.
21. Hellman G.T. "Bond's Creator (subscription needed)". Talk of the Town, 1962, The New Yorker, 32 p.
22. Hunt P.R. Inside on Her Majesty's Secret Service: OHMSS Ultimate Edition DVD, 2000, MGM Home Entertainment Inc.
23. Jeffery K. MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909-1949, 2010, London: Bloomsbury, 864 p.
24. Jess-Cooke C., Verevis C. Second Takes: Critical Approaches to the Film Sequel, 2010, State University of New York Press, 264 p.
25. Jütting K. "Grow Up, 007!" - James Bond Over the Decades: Formula Vs. Innovation, 2007, GRIN Verlag, 152 p.
26. Kingsley A. The James Bond Dossier, 1966, London: Pan Books, 159 p.
27. Lindner C. The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader, 2010, Manchester University Press, 344 p.
28. Lipp D. The Ultimate James Bond Fan Book, 2006, Sterling & Ross, 464 p.
29. Lycett A. Ian Fleming, 1996, Phoenix, 496 p.
30. Main Film Genres, http://www.filmsite.org/genres
31. Otto J. IGN: Interview: Campbell on Casino Royale, 2005, IGN, 5 p.
32. Oxford English Dictionary Online, www.oxforddictionaries.com/
33. Pfeiffer L., Worrall D. The Essential Bond, 1998, Boxtree Ltd., 204 p.
34. Quantum of Solace, www.rottentomatoes.com/m/quantum_of_solace/
35. Quotes of Casino Royale, www.imdb.com/title/tt0381061/
36. Reference for Business: Encyclopaedia of Business, 2nd ed., http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/encyclopedia/For-Gol/Franchising.html
37. Rich J. Bond No More, 2004, Entertainment Weekly, 4 p.
38. Rubin S.J. The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopaedia, 1995, McGraw-Hill/Contemporary Books, 512 p.
39. Schatz T. Hollywood Genres, 1981, Random House, 300 p.
40. Shone T. How Hollywood Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Summer, 2004, Free Press, 352 p.
41. Simpson P. The Rough Guide to James Bond, 2002, Rough Guides, 288 p.
42. Smith J., Lavington S. Bond Films, 2002, London: Virgin Books, 304 p.
43. Street S. British national cinema, 2009, Routledge, 296 p.
44. Sutton P. Prequel: The "Afterwardsness" of the Sequel, 2010, Flapjack Press, 112p.
45. Szalai G. Fremantle pacts to bring parkour to TV screens, 2009, Reuters, 1 p.
46. Tata N. Product Placement in James-Bond-Filmen, 2006, VDM Verlag, 164 p.
47. The Lost Bond, 2008, Total Film, 3 p.
48. Willits T.R. To Reboot Or Not To Reboot:What is the Solution?, 2009, Bewildering Stories, 2 p.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
|
Order |
Title |
Year |
Actor |
Director |
Total Box Office |
Budget |
Inflation adjusted |
|
1 |
Dr. No |
1962 |
Sean Connery |
Terence Young |
$59,600,000 |
$1,200,000 |
$425,488,741 |
|
2 |
From Russia with Love |
1963 |
$78,900,000 |
$2,500,000 |
$555,909,803 |
||
|
3 |
Goldfinger |
1964 |
Guy Hamilton |
$124,900,000 |
$3,500,000 |
$868,659,354 |
|
|
4 |
Thunderball |
1965 |
Terence Young |
$141,200,000 |
$11,000,000 |
$966,435,555 |
|
|
5 |
You Only Live Twice |
1967 |
Lewis Gilbert |
$111,600,000 |
$9,500,000 |
$720,388,023 |
|
|
6 |
On Her Majesty's Secret Service |
1969 |
George Lazenby |
Peter R. Hunt |
$87,400,000 |
$7,000,000 |
$513,445,231 |
|
7 |
Diamonds Are Forever |
1971 |
Sean Connery |
Guy Hamilton |
$116,000,000 |
$7,200,000 |
$617,520,987 |
|
8 |
Live and Let Die |
1973 |
Roger Moore |
$161,800,000 |
$12,000,000 |
$785,677,477 |
|
|
9 |
The Man with the Golden Gun |
1974 |
$97,600,000 |
$13,000,000 |
$426,826,774 |
||
|
10 |
The Spy Who Loved Me |
1977 |
Lewis Gilbert |
$187,300,000 |
$28,000,000 |
$666,367,656 |
|
|
11 |
Moonraker |
1979 |
$210,300,000 |
$34,000,000 |
$624,527,272 |
||
|
12 |
For Your Eyes Only |
1981 |
John Glen |
$202,800,000 |
$28,000,000 |
$481,005,579 |
|
|
13 |
Octopussy |
1983 |
$187,500,000 |
$27,500,000 |
$405,873,493 |
||
|
14 |
A View to a Kill |
1985 |
$157,800,000 |
$30,000,000 |
$316,186,616 |
||
|
15 |
The Living Daylights |
1987 |
Timothy Dalton |
$191,200,000 |
$40,000,000 |
$362,876,056 |
|
|
16 |
Licence to Kill |
1989 |
$156,200,000 |
$32,000,000 |
$271,586,451 |
||
|
17 |
GoldenEye |
1995 |
Pierce Brosnan |
Martin Campbell |
$353,400,000 |
$60,000,000 |
$499,954,330 |
|
18 |
Tomorrow Never Dies |
1997 |
Roger Spottiswoode |
$346,600,000 |
$110,000,000 |
$465,588,535 |
|
|
19 |
The World Is Not Enough |
1999 |
Michael Apted |
$390,000,000 |
$135,000,000 |
$504,705,882 |
|
|
20 |
Die Another Day |
2002 |
Lee Tamahori |
$456,000,000 |
$142,000,000 |
$546,490,272 |
|
|
21 |
Casino Royale |
2006 |
Daniel Craig |
Martin Campbell |
$599,200,000 |
$150,000,000 |
$640,803,677 |
|
22 |
Quantum of Solace |
2008 |
Marc Forster |
$586,090,727 |
$230,000,000 |
$586,090,727 |
|
|
23 |
Skyfall |
2012 |
Sam Mendes |
$693,620,000 |
$150–200,000,000 |
$693,620,000 |
|
|
Totals |
Films 1–23 |
$5,681,886,071 |
$1,263,000,000 |
$12,930,903,835 |
[1] Chapter 1: Reflections in a Double Bourbon
0 êîììåíòàðèåâ