Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[John P. Drake]

What the world has come to?

[dirtybenny]

Rant 11

The Code Name Conspiracy

I’m not one to disparage someone for how they enjoy their entertainment. However those who buy in to the Code Name theory are akin to hard core Christians and Atheists, if you don’t believe the same as they do you are a heathen or blind idiot respectively. For those who have not heard the code name theory, it goes like this; the name James Bond is a “code name” assigned along with the 007 number, so whoever is MI6 agent 007 they are now called James Bond regardless of what their real name was. This is supposed to “explain” the different actors playing the role and the different eras in which they take place. The theory is for those who can’t wrap their head around a sliding time line or must have a “reboot” every time a new actor steps in to a role.

Let’s look at some arguments that support this theory. First Bond is played by many different actors who bring different styles to the character making Bond an entirely different person each time. Second Bond spans 50 years and no one man could continue for that long doing what Bond does, as well as his age changing every time a new actor takes over the role. Finally there are times Bond is not recognized by people he has met before in previous movies.

Why this is silly, let’s look at a very similar situation the crack pots don’t bother to address. Blofeld. He has never been played by the same actor twice, yet no one claims he is made up of different people. Let us also take a different approach by looking at actors who played different roles in the series. The two biggest examples are Charles Grey and Joe Don Baker. Grey played bit part Dikko Henderson in YOLT where his character was stabbed to death through a screen then he returned to play Blofeld in DAF. Baker played villain arms dealer Brad Whittaker in TLD and returns as ally CIA Agent Jack Wade in GE and TND. Are these men the same people? When their first character was killed off were they reincarnated? EON reused dozens of actors over the years and these people are never confused for being their previous character, so why are these conspiracy theorists confused about the concept of different actors playing the same character? And of course different actors bring their own style to the characters they play regardless of whether or not that character is established such as Bond.

Another excuse the code name believers use is the fact Bond is not recognized by people he met previously. The go to example is OHMSS, where Blofeld doesn't immediately recognize Bond upon meeting at Piz Gloria despite having been face to face in YOLT. However Specter has had a selective memory for Bond’s face from the beginning. In FRWL Specter was so familiar with Bond not only did they know exactly who Bond was and that he would be the one sent to retrieve the Lector decoder they even had a mask made of his face to use during training! Yet in Thunderball Count Lippe has no idea who he is until Bond is caught snooping in his room by Angelo. In YOLT MI6 does the enemies of the free world a favor by plastering Bond’s face across the frot page of the newspaper in a false obituary yet Mr. Osato and his assistant #11 have no idea who he is. So the fact Blofeld doesn’t know him at first in OHMSS is minimal at best.

The hardest concept for the theorists to wrap their heads around is the sliding time line. Their heads are blown by the fact Connery’s movies take place in the 60’s, Moore’s the 70’s, etc. Bond always takes place in the present so we must use a sliding time line. Brosnan’s Bond didn’t fight Dr. No in 1962 because he was only 9, but if you slide the time line to correct for his age he could have been doing it in 1982, but of course that requires a suspension of disbelief and we all know modern “Bond fans” need gritty realism. If they don’t see that on the screen how are they supposed to know what to think, they must be spoon fed their opinions. I fully believe this had some bearing on EON’s decision to reboot with CR.

[John P. Drake]

I agree with you, Benny. Very well-written. If Ian Fleming had wanted Bond to be a codename, he would have written it straight-ahead in the books. It's more than being silly. I exactly know what you mean. And well said about the timeline thing.

[The Saint 007]

Some use it as an excuse for James Bond to be played by a black actor. I guess the 1967 Casino Royale was ahead of its time with the code name theory. Join the Casino Royale fun movement!

[Kristatos]

Didn't Fleming age Bond downwards at least once in the novels? It was quite common, when Bond was created, for adventure heroes such as Biggles or Bulldog Drummond to remain the same age for decades.

Sent from my GT-S7500 using Tapatalk 2

[dirtybenny]

Sorry to be gone so long, but Mrs. Dirtybenny has needed the computer for class these last few weeks so I've been sidelined, but now here I am and without further ado on to :

RANT 12

The Art House Crew Abandon Ship!

It seems the charity work bestowed upon EON for Skyfall is drying up as evidenced by this excerpt from an interview given by cinematographer Roger Deakins:

“I loved working Sam Mendes on Skyfall, I probably wouldn't have done a Bond movie with anybody else. He had a different take on it and I think that film was far more character driven and that's what drew me to it.
I turned down working on the next Bond film. I was really torn. I would have loved to work with Sam again but I just didn't feel I could bring anything really new to it. I'd really like to see someone else have the opportunity.”

Reading between the lines I understand that to mean he did his old buddy Mendes a favor with this silly little action movie and doesn't feel it necessary to stoop to this low again.

Let’s look at a few words from that excerpt to argue my point. “I wouldn't have done a Bond movie with anybody else” that should read “I did my pal a solid”.

“I think that film was far more character driven” The others weren't? We've been hearing nothing but how “dark”, “gritty’, “realistic”, and most of all “character driven” the Bond movies had become since the reboot and I don’t think even the minions can argue there hasn't been some very “character driven” entries to the cannon previous to the reboot. But now 50 years on Mendes has finally cracked the code as to how to bring the Bond characters to life.

“I would have loved to work with Sam again but I just didn't feel I could bring anything really new to it” should read “Sam is my friend so I like working with him but I just can’t bring myself to work on such drivel again” I mean what the hell else does that statement mean, it’s a film same as any other, what is “new” to bring to it?

It seems no matter what they do EON is never going to attain recognition from the art house crowd they so desperately seek. Even Mendes who claims to be such a huge Bond fan was ready to jump ship until I assume EON pulled a Godfather and “made him an offer he couldn't refuse”.

Mendes initial refusal to return speaks volumes to me. As a huge Bond fan myself, I would jump at the opportunity to build a legacy in the franchise if given the chance he has. Yet he was willing to pass without even negotiating until EON hounded him into submission. That either means he’s not as big a fan as he claims, EON is that hard to work for, or he’s afraid he’ll lose his art house credibility. I personal think that last one is the biggest reason. Mendes isn't much of a director in my opinion. He’s been living off his biggest film for some time now, the highly over rated art house classic American Beauty. Which is a study in futile creepiness, the main character goes through the mother of all mid-life crisis’s and try’s to seduce an underage friend of his daughter, while his psychopathic neighbor films plastic bags blowing down the street and we are supposed to applaud what an introspective and provocative film this is. Mendes must be careful not to lose his art cred or he’ll be exposed as the hack he is and won’t be able afford any more of his signature scarves. Mendes will do this one last Bond movie, collect his big pay day and try to put a spin on it saying look at what I was able to do with such tripe, I must be good to art up such low brow material as Bond, not once but twice.

I imagine more of the artsy types will be making it abundantly clear the charity is over as we get closer to the start of production on Bond 24, as they don’t want to get their shoes soiled on the dirty little action adventure production company they take EON to be.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 12

Critical on the Critics or The Pretension Stops Here

Today’s rant is about “film critics”.

Let me start by telling you a little story. A few days ago I was watching an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K to it’s fans) for those of you who don’t know MST3K is a program where 3 characters watch a corny B movie and make snide remarks over the top of it.

This episode was ‘Laser Blast” a movie so bad that it couldn't even be called “so bad it’s good”. The plot revolved around an outcast who finds an abandoned alien laser gun and goes on a rampage for no apparent reason. Honestly words escape me as to how bad this “movie” was the acting terrible, plot nonexistent, and production values laughable.

Now I tell you that to tell you this. Leonard Maltin gave this pile of feted cellulose 2 ½ stars. During the closing credits of “Laser Blast”, the MST3K characters read over a list of films which Maltin gave similar scores. For instance Marathon Man got 2 stars, the second and third installments of Indiana Jones got 2 ½ stars and as Kristatos points out in one of his posts Maltin gave Blade Runner 1 ½ stars.

The big question is why would Maltin score these films this way? I suppose in some twisted way Maltin read way too much in to “Laser Blast” he must have saw some phony pretentious “message” in the film, something about “post consumerism” or “the fallacy of suburbia” or some such rot, while in the others such as Indiana Jones for example he just saw pure escapism which is apparently a bad word to “serious” film people.

There are a few types of critics out there. The first is the “never saw a movie they didn't love” crowd. You can recognize them by their appearance on movie posters. “Quantum of Solace greatest piece of movie making ever” says Joe Smith of the Wichita free classifieds. The second is the artsy type. They only ever recommend French language films shot in black and white and consisting entirely of a conversation at the kitchen table. The third is the category most critics including Maltin fall in to, which is a combination of the first two. These critics love their artsy snooze fests but for the right amount of money they’ll love your overly pretentious action film if the studio’s check clears.

What does this have to do with Bond? Because Maltin is one of the many critics who lauded over Skyfall and commended Craig for his “superb performance as Bond”. Critical acclaim appears to contradict my previous post stating EON will never get the approval they so desperately crave. This however was empty praise. A couple of pretentious critics cashing a check and giving a few extra stars to a movie in a book filled with overly applauded garbage movies doesn't a classic make.

[Omega]

Some if these critics give each and every bond movie the royal treatment with catch phrases of best ever.

SF Imho many wanted to believe its about this or that and didn't pay attention to what the movies really was.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[commander0077again]

The most believable critics are those who actually have the talent that they're commenting on ... for example, a writer of thrillers giving his views on another writer's latest thriller..... a filmmaker can comment on a film, but someone who hasn't should be taken with a grain of pepper... I enjoy reading people's views, but not the official 'critics' who aren't in the film business.

[dirtybenny]

The most believable critics are those who actually have the talent that they're commenting on ... for example, a writer of thrillers giving his views on another writer's latest thriller..... a filmmaker can comment on a film, but someone who hasn't should be taken with a grain of pepper... I enjoy reading people's views, but not the official 'critics' who aren't in the film business.

As they say Commander, "Those who can't do, teach... or become critics". I suppose we all fall under this category however we aren't getting paid for it, nor is anyone taking us seriously.

[carl stromberg]

how about a rant on those people who say "I only like the Connery and Craig films".

[Kristatos]

how about a rant on those people who say "I only like Craig films and the first two Connery films".

Fixed that for you. "It all went downhill from Goldfinger" snobs are the worst of the worst.

[dirtybenny]

I'll put it in the queue.

Right now I'm mulling over a few other topics such as the "racism" of Live and Let Die, and a few others.

[commander0077again]

I don't think LALD was racist, since all 'races' were included in the stereotyping. Plus, the major black villains were outlandish Bond villains, eg. Tee Hee who could have been portrayed by any ethnicity.

[dirtybenny]

Exactly which is why I used "racist" with quotes, I'm slowly but surely working on it you'll get to read it soon!

[dirtybenny]

Rant 13

Bond the originator vs. Bond the imitator.

Bond started out as the originator of the spy/espionage genre, sure there had been spy movies before but none like these which spawned literally hundreds of imitators. For 7 films over 10 years EON kept Bond original what I mean by that was they had their own style and flair. In 1973 EON in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny “took a wrong turn at Albuquerque” and became imitators. Now don’t get me wrong I still enjoy these films and am not bashing them however they seem to be lacking a little certain something and I also feel this indirectly lead to the current imitations the modern masters at EON have trotted out over the last three films.

Let’s start with Live and Let Die (LALD), a film I enjoy by the way, but it is here the die was cast. In 1973 a new type of film was sweeping the theaters it has become known as “Blaxploitation”. Think “Shaft”, “Superfly”, and every Pam Greer film ever made. The Bond producers sat up and took notice and decided they would capitalize on this rising sensation by filming the novel LALD which already featured black characters, a perfect fit for this new style! Now LALD doesn’t go too far of the Bond track there’s still gadgets, girls and all the fun stuff you expect from bond but one gets the feeling they were trying too hard, it also doesn’t help they were trying to distance themselves from Connery who had left the series for good after the previous film. They also started another troubling trend albeit very subtlety, they gave Bond a .44 Magnum revolver during the final assault on San Monique. I don’t have to tell you that was Dirty Harry’s gun which pardon the pun shot into the pop culture lexicon two years earlier. That started EON’s inclusion of pop culture references in their films.

Now the next year brought us “The Man with the Golden Gun” (TMGG) an obvious take on Bruce Lee’s Hong Kong Kung-Fu films “Enter the Dragon”, “Fists of Fury”, which had also exploded on the scene during this time. This film also tries too hard in my opinion and it suffers for it. All the Kung-Fu tropes are there Karate school, school aged girls beating up grown men, etc. This film is also genesis for Bond “eating his own tail” or self-reference i.e. Sheriff J. W. Pepper inexplicably appearing in Thailand.

“Moonraker” takes the cake for missed opportunities, in my opinion. This film starts off great dispite sharing the same plot of “The Spy Who Loved Me”, until we get to EON’s attempt to cash in on the space craze generated by “Star Wars” and all of the imitators of that series. Now we turn from a classic Bond film to “BOND IN SPACE” (read that in a 1950’s Sci-Fi voice) Poor special effects even for the period and Jaws turning “good” seem shoe horned in to fit the style. Also witness the key pad to Drak’s lab playing the theme to “Close Incounters of th Third Kind” and a good movie is turned sour.

Now on to 1989, where Dalton takes on “Miami Vice” and “Scarface”. This could have been worse as I understand the costume designer wanted to dress Dalton in pastels, but he refused. Again I like the story but references to chainsaws, and “lead or silver” put me in the wrong mind set. I keep expecting Tony Montana or Crockett and Tubbs to walk in any minute while “Smuggler’s Blues” plays in the background. This along with the “cruel violence” (which doesn’t bother me) is why a lot of people don’t like this film.

There are a lot of things in these films I can’t quite put my finger on which add up to feeling slightly off compared to other Bond outings. They just don’t feel genuine in some sense.To back up my point “The Spy who Loved Me” reset the dial so to speak bringing Bond back to his own original style and why I think a lot of people credit it and “For Your Eyes Only” which also returned Bond to form, as their favorite Moore Bonds.

On to the current crop of imitations, I’ve spoken ad-nauseam about how I feel about these “Bond” films so I won’t delve too far into them just to say these previous films in sense paved the way for the current regime at EON to do the same at an ungodly level. Ripping off other successful films (Bourne/ The Dark Knight) eat their own tail (oil covered girl posed like golden girl/Goldfinger DB5 in their “reboot”) and so on.

As I said I don’t dislike any of these classic films, however they could have been better if they had concentrated on being the best Bond they could be and not ape other successful genres. I also want EON to do well today so we can continue having Bond, but they could do so much better if they were to give us the Bond we all know and love!

Coming soon The "racism" of Live and Let Die.

[FormerBondFan]

I also want EON to do well today so we can continue having Bond, but they could do so much better if they were to give us the Bond we all know and love!

With Babs in charge, we can forget about the traditional classic tall and dark-haired Bond returning.

[The Saint 007]

Didn't From Russia With Love have a sort of North By Northwest inspiration to it as well? The thing about some of the older Bond films was that there was a slight flavour of a particular genre that was popular at the time, never taking it too far to the point where you couldn't recognize them as Bond films. I often hear people saying how Moonraker is like Star Wars, when there is only one space scene near the end of the film, and the sic-fi elements like the lasers, space station, etc, weren't anything like what was seen in Star Wars. Bond going to space would have eventually happened sooner or later, it was already sort of hinted at in You Only Live Twice, and Moonraker's success shows that people didn't mind having Bond go to space. I guess the overall problem with the film was the silly humour. I don't mind having hint or Bondian take of a certain genre, but the Craig films just go a little overboard with the Bourne/Batman influences, in my opinion.

[dirtybenny]

Didn't From Russia With Love have a sort of North By Northwest inspiration to it as well?

Good point Saint! Despite being my favorite film I've always felt that let the film down a little in my opinion. Once they board the train it sort of slows down and the helicopter scene seems a little forced. Were it not for that I think more people would be mentioning FRWL in the same breath as Goldfinger as the best Bond. Speaking of GF I feel that film goes a long way to back up my opinion, on paper it's not a very exciting move. Bond spends most of the story as GF's prisoner and were it not for all the great Bond style (clothing, gadgets, dialogue, casting) I feel that movie wouldn't have been nearly as popular as it is.

[Dr. No]

Rant 13

Bond the originator vs. Bond the imitator.

Bond started out as the originator of the spy/espionage genre, sure there had been spy movies before but none like these which spawned literally hundreds of imitators. For 7 films over 10 years EON kept Bond original what I mean by that was they had their own style and flair. In 1973 EON in the words of the immortal Bugs Bunny “took a wrong turn at Albuquerque” and became imitators. Now don’t get me wrong I still enjoy these films and am not bashing them however they seem to be lacking a little certain something and I also feel this indirectly lead to the current imitations the modern masters at EON have trotted out over the last three films.

Let’s start with Live and Let Die (LALD), a film I enjoy by the way, but it is here the die was cast. In 1973 a new type of film was sweeping the theaters it has become known as “Blaxploitation”. Think “Shaft”, “Superfly”, and every Pam Greer film ever made. The Bond producers sat up and took notice and decided they would capitalize on this rising sensation by filming the novel LALD which already featured black characters, a perfect fit for this new style! Now LALD doesn’t go too far of the Bond track there’s still gadgets, girls and all the fun stuff you expect from bond but one gets the feeling they were trying too hard, it also doesn’t help they were trying to distance themselves from Connery who had left the series for good after the previous film. They also started another troubling trend albeit very subtlety, they gave Bond a .44 Magnum revolver during the final assault on San Monique. I don’t have to tell you that was Dirty Harry’s gun which pardon the pun shot into the pop culture lexicon two years earlier. That started EON’s inclusion of pop culture references in their films.

Now the next year brought us “The Man with the Golden Gun” (TMGG) an obvious take on Bruce Lee’s Hong Kong Kung-Fu films “Enter the Dragon”, “Fists of Fury”, which had also exploded on the scene during this time. This film also tries too hard in my opinion and it suffers for it. All the Kung-Fu tropes are there Karate school, school aged girls beating up grown men, etc. This film is also genesis for Bond “eating his own tail” or self-reference i.e. Sheriff J. W. Pepper inexplicably appearing in Thailand.

“Moonraker” takes the cake for missed opportunities, in my opinion. This film starts off great dispite sharing the same plot of “The Spy Who Loved Me”, until we get to EON’s attempt to cash in on the space craze generated by “Star Wars” and all of the imitators of that series. Now we turn from a classic Bond film to “BOND IN SPACE” (read that in a 1950’s Sci-Fi voice) Poor special effects even for the period and Jaws turning “good” seem shoe horned in to fit the style. Also witness the key pad to Drak’s lab playing the theme to “Close Incounters of th Third Kind” and a good movie is turned sour.

Now on to 1989, where Dalton takes on “Miami Vice” and “Scarface”. This could have been worse as I understand the costume designer wanted to dress Dalton in pastels, but he refused. Again I like the story but references to chainsaws, and “lead or silver” put me in the wrong mind set. I keep expecting Tony Montana or Crockett and Tubbs to walk in any minute while “Smuggler’s Blues” plays in the background. This along with the “cruel violence” (which doesn’t bother me) is why a lot of people don’t like this film.

There are a lot of things in these films I can’t quite put my finger on which add up to feeling slightly off compared to other Bond outings. They just don’t feel genuine in some sense.To back up my point “The Spy who Loved Me” reset the dial so to speak bringing Bond back to his own original style and why I think a lot of people credit it and “For Your Eyes Only” which also returned Bond to form, as their favorite Moore Bonds.

On to the current crop of imitations, I’ve spoken ad-nauseam about how I feel about these “Bond” films so I won’t delve too far into them just to say these previous films in sense paved the way for the current regime at EON to do the same at an ungodly level. Ripping off other successful films (Bourne/ The Dark Knight) eat their own tail (oil covered girl posed like golden girl/Goldfinger DB5 in their “reboot”) and so on.

As I said I don’t dislike any of these classic films, however they could have been better if they had concentrated on being the best Bond they could be and not ape other successful genres. I also want EON to do well today so we can continue having Bond, but they could do so much better if they were to give us the Bond we all know and love!

Coming soon The "racism" of Live and Let Die.

You know this is explains a lot of the series, Bond starts out with it's own pacing and theme but even then was copying some of the popular films of the day. IMO made their own take and made Bond films fun. But the series did copy what hot now in movies even LTK was a copy of other popular 80s movies and TV. Moonraker was a look we can be star wars too. IMO Craig's spy is the biggest departure because so much of what made Bond movies fun was thrown away.