Dirty Benny's Weekly Rant

[dirtybenny]

I think Count Lippe knew who Bond was though when he tried to kill him in the spinal traction machine, the line "Nice to have met you Mr...Bond" sort of suggests this. Maybe Lippe didn't recognize Bond at first, but after Bond was caught snooping in the room by Angelo they probably checked him up. Lippe was likely not a member of Spectre at the time of FRWL.

Also Mr. Osato and Helga Brandt know who Bond is, but they don't realize that Mr. Fisher is Bond beacause "Bond is dead it was in all the newspapers". A bit daft perhaps but at least the filmmakers tried to give some explanation.

That Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond when they meet at Piz Gloria is much worse though I think, even if Bond is "disguised" as Sir Hilary Bray, since they met face to face in the previous film.

Count, I'm not slamming these inconsistencies as signs of inferiority, unlike Craig fans I can suspend disbelief, what I'm saying is Blofeld's inability to recognize Bond in OHMSS is not new territory and certainly not evidence the different actors are playing different people.

[Capt. Sir Dominic Flandry]

How about a rant on how Daniel Craig was presented as a radical change for Bond as he is, according to Eon and Craig's supporters, one of the greatest actors of all time?

[Dr. No]

Before Casino Royale fans like many here spoke up about the drastic alterations to Bond, we were told relax nothing was changing. When we saw with our own eyes Bond had changed we were told we don't know what we are talking about because this was Fleming's Bond, (finally!) .

I don't hate Craig I just don't like his spy. He was not like the Bond I remember form the books and he's not like the Bond I know from the movies.

[acid]

When we saw with our own eyes Bond had changed we were told we don't know what we are talking about because this was Fleming's Bond, (finally!) .

Yes when people say that I seriously have to wonder whether they have read even one Fleming novel! I could just about accept an argument that for the Craig era they removed aspects of the films that weren't present in the books (the gadgetry, the cool one liners perhaps) - but there's no way in hell that makes him Fleming's Bond! Craig looks and behaves nothing like the character when compared to the previous actors. The standard excuse I hear is that Craig's Bond is tougher and more "thuggish" which is supposedly more like the Bond of the books. I don't know what books they were reading, because to me they describe an intelligent, knowlegable, chivalrous gentleman with feelings as well as great skill and endurance. By feelings I mean a range of proportionate feelings that are appropriate to the situations - not constant pouting and sulking for no apparent reason.

[Mazer Rackham]

Code: Select all

Rant 16


It’s Hip To Be Bond

Two things near to my heart have been hijacked by “Hipsters” over the years. These are Fedora hats (Trilby to you Brits) and From Russia with Love. 

For those who are lucky enough to not know what a Hipster is. They are individuals who wear unfortunate facial hair “ironically” (despite not knowing the definition of the word) paired with $300 jeans, an “ironic” 1980’s T-shirt from a Target department store, and topped with and even cheaper fedora hat from further down that Target aisle. 

Hipsters love to be off the beaten pop culture path. They abhor popular material be it movies, T.V. and especially music. They drone on ad-nauseam about how this band or that group “sold out” because they became popular, and how they have superior taste to you, because they're currently listening to authentic Appalachian hill-billy jug band music on pitchfork.com

How does this tie in to Bond? Well, since Craig took over the role his “gritty” “realistic” approach has drawn a great deal of attention from these Hipsters who disliked Bond previously due to the fact that it was so “mainstream”. They were the ones who touted Bourne and the other anti-hero spies when they came out about 15 years ago. Now that Bond isn't “Bond” anymore they've come rushing in to fill the void us classic fans left.

How this ties to FRWL is how these individuals rank Bond films. Normally a Hipster wouldn't touch an icon like Connery with a ten foot pole due to his immense popularity and critical acclaim. They would rather back Lazenby due to his short run he would be seen as an “underground” choice. However, Connery is so ingrained in to the collective mindset as Bond he can’t be ignored, not to mention he and Craig are probably the only two Bonds they know.

Now on to my point, Goldfinger is regarded by most as not only the best Connery film but the best Bond of all time. This won’t do for Hipsters they need to be subculture, so they latch on to From Russia with Love as the “Best Bond”. They act as if they discovered something, as if they’re “sticking it to the man” by making this assertion. I've read it on other forums many times, people slamming GF and praising FRWL. I say all this as a huge fan of FRWL, it’s my favorite Bond, but I also love GF just as I love The Spy who Loved Me, The Living Daylights and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Now we all have our favorites, our differences are what make Bond Fandom and for that matter live itself so interesting. However Hipsterism is snobbishness, it tears down other’s opinions to make theirs seem superior. That is what I take umbrage to, it’s sheer bullying.

Goldfinger is the plebeian choice. Circus Maximus for the masses. It was always overrated, for me Thunderball checks the boxes while more firmly establishing the Bond formula.
EON's first film, Dr. No has as many problems as the book it was based on. Die Another Day too for that matter -both movies start strong floundering in the last half. In Eon's defense the book Dr. No was not much better.

From Russia with Love was a more mundane adventure closer to the travel adventure films Fleming was inspired by. Thankfully it had all the flavoring unique to Fleming's imagination.

It doesn't matter what Bond is somebody's favorite, Goldfinger revolutionized the industry, Cubby and Saltzman made a movie series accessible to everyone -this is what making movies is all about -sharing the adventure, award and status shouldn't matter. Part of Hollywood's problems today is they are playing it safe watching the bottom line, afraid to take real risks. Ignoring increased ticket prices decreasing attendance because the over all take stayed the same -to- increased. Problem being now millions who had the habit of habitually going to the movies sit home. What Cubby and Saltzman did masterfully with the early Bonds is make movies everybody could enjoy and afford to see.
When I think of the golden age of Bond I think of the golden age of Hollywood when the movies were more varied and accessible.

[dirtybenny]

Sorry for the self imposed hiatus, unfortunately life is catching up with me and something had to go on the back burner, and so considering my rants don't pay any bills they were what needed to be sacrificed. I will try to keep up but if I don't post now you all know why, it certainly isn't because I don't enjoy it and even when not posting I'm always lurking.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 17

Common Bonds

James Bond is the quintessential international man of mystery, a polished, well bred, well dressed, and well-mannered gentleman. He’s certainly no foppish dandy or “metro-sexual” but the classic definition of a gentleman. This separates him from other man of action type characters such as Dirty Harry or Sam Spade.

This brings up one of my many complaints about Craig in the role of Bond, which is he’s too “common”. (Low class, rough around the edges, ungentlemanly) This is somewhat ironic as my favorite Bond, Sean Connery comes from the same working class stock. These two men who bookend the series share the fact they are “common” but are light years apart in the way they display it.

While Connery’s blue collar upbringing gave him an animal magnetism which made him believable as a man who could handle himself with his fists or firearm, he was able to still convey a sense of polish and poise necessary to the character.

Craig on the other hand comes off as a gorilla coxed in a suit with the promise of a ripe banana, and sent off to rampage across the globe. It seems no effort was made to give him any class, he’s just a street tough bulling his way through each scene.

I don’t know that acting skill has as much to do with this as direction and production. While I love Connery he’s certainly no Olivier, and while I’m being honest as much I dislike Craig he’s not the philistine of acting I make him out to be.

Connery had Terence Young, who was himself a jet setting gentleman playboy, he told Connery to wear his suits to bed in order to feel more comfortable in them. Young took Connery out to fancy restaurants where he showed him the proper way to behave at the table, which fork was for which course, how to carry himself, and how to speak with distinction. I’m sure Saltzman and Broccoli encouraged this as they were perfectionists, obsessed with getting the details right, and having a former milkman muddle his lines just would not do.

Compare that to Craig who’s only instruction from Barbara was how to keep his stockings straight. In CR Craig is crashing through walls, not giving a d**n how his martini is served, and speaking with a mouth full of caviar which he shoveled in there with a metal butter knife. By the time QOS came around they were ready to go full Bourne, shakey cam and all, thus Craig was just set loose to be as uncouth as he wanted to be, as well as giving him the ability to rip door knobs out of their sockets. Of course with SF the main objective was to be as pompous and artsy as possible so once again Craig was left to be himself complete with crew cut hair and sausage casing tight suits. Two things someone as refined as Bond would never do!

[The Saint 007]

The Schwarzenegger/Stallone types of action heroes were around in the Moore era, and he still continued to play Bond as the English gentleman super spy. Sure, you could argue that Dalton later made Bond a little more harder edged, but he doesn't go to the extreme that Craig's Bond does, in my opinion. Part of Bond's appeal comes from his sophisticated and charismatic characteristics, and is, as you mentioned, what separates him from many other male action heroes. But the excuse for Bond's change of character that's made most of the time is that we now live in a far more dark and cruel world than before, and cinematic heroes are more gritty and realistic, therefore making the gentleman Bond no longer fitting. Yes, there has been various changes throughout the history of the series, but to remove or tamper with various elements to the point where you can barely recognize the series for what it originally was is going too far.

My brother says that he thinks the GoldenEye video game remake is Craig's best and most Bond-like performance. While I don't care too much for the game, I have to sadly agree.

[carl stromberg]

I thought Bond being an English (British - sorry Sean...and Pierce who is from the Republic of Ireland....Lazenby who is Australian/....Dalton who is Welsh, or is he from Derbyshire.......) gentleman was the thing that distinguished Bond from the many other action/thriller films?

[commander0077again]

I thought Bond being an English (British - sorry Sean...and Pierce who is from the Republic of Ireland....Lazenby who is Australian/....Dalton who is Welsh, or is he from Derbyshire.......) gentleman was the thing that distinguished Bond from the many other action/thriller films?

Fleming wrote Bond as seeming somewhat a foreigner in his own land; some examples: Bond thought his tan would be suspect; he called tea 'mud' and preferred strong coffee (double portions?). Later, Fleming gave his Scottish origins and his mother from Switzerland, I believe Monique Delacreux or have I been listening to too many Edith Piaf recordings ? Also, in the films Bond doesn't have much of a British accent, really. Not surprising since the producers were American and Canadian.

The critical word is 'gentleman.' Bond is supposed to have this quality in his outer persona -- so he can be seen walking into a glittering casino where everyone wears dinner jackets and no one will say, "Who's that bum?" -- and in his inner persona. The Bond of the books is a gentleman at heart, although he has his failings. But when there's someone weaker being bullied or in danger, he's there to save them.

[Dr. No]

Some good points. Bond was a educated gentleman that was what separated him from everyone in the spy movie/book market. I think people get caught up in the blunt instrument saying forgetting the rest of what Bond is supposed to be.

Also IMHO in the books he was a white knight kind of character. People today confuse his doing his job killing and his decadent habits as being counter to being a good guy because he wasn't a goody two shoes. Basically he was JFK before anybody knew who JFK was.

[Count_Lippe]

On the other hand Bond in Fleming's books was a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes etc in my opinion.

A bit unmanly really.

Bond in the books was also an alcoholic as we've talked about in another thread.

Connery was a bit rougher, while still being gentlemanlike of course.

He also seemed more sober and not so anal about all his personal stuff.

[Kristatos]

On the other hand Bond in Fleming's books was a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes etc in my opinion.

A bit unmanly really.

Yes, I wonder if Fleming's Bond would have been as gracious as Connery's (or Dahl's, if you prefer) if Dikko Henderson had got his martini wrong.

[dirtybenny]

People today confuse his doing his job killing and his decadent habits as being counter to being a good guy because he wasn't a goody two shoes.

It' seems today people see those who appreciate the finer things in life as evil. Especially here in the states look at the whole Occupy movement, pitting the "99%" vs. the "1%".

On the other hand Bond in Fleming's books was a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes etc in my opinion.

A bit unmanly really.

Yes, I wonder if Fleming's Bond would have been as gracious as Connery's (or Dahl's, if you prefer) if Dikko Henderson had got his martini wrong.

These two statements speak volumes concerning EON's claim Craig is Fleming's Bond. Fleming's Bond "took a great deal of pleasure in what he ate and drank" you can also extend that particularity to tobacco and clothing. Craig's "blunt instrument" shovels food in to his mouth and gulps down liquor without even tasting it.(yes, as was said above Fleming's Bond was an alcoholic, but you knew he also savored it)

[Count_Lippe]

Fleming's Bond also slept in some sort of nightgown and had to have his breakfast served on a certain type of china.

[Dr. No]

On the other hand Bond in Fleming's books was a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes etc in my opinion.

A bit unmanly really.

Yes, I wonder if Fleming's Bond would have been as gracious as Connery's (or Dahl's, if you prefer) if Dikko Henderson had got his martini wrong.

My dad would always make a up a line for that scene

[Dr. No]

On the other hand Bond in Fleming's books was a bit too fussy about his food, drinks, clothes etc in my opinion.

A bit unmanly really.

Bond in the books was also an alcoholic as we've talked about in another thread.

Connery was a bit rougher, while still being gentlemanlike of course.

He also seemed more sober and not so anal about all his personal stuff.

Connery was rough, he knew it and worked hard to be able to play gentleman like Bond. Connery likes to eat with his fingers but was totally believable ordering at a posh restaurant in the movies.

IMO Fleming would need to be here to define it beyond all doubt but judging from his picks for Bond a certain look and attitude were important to him. There was a sophistication Bond had to have. It's what I had liked about Bond he was cool because he could mingle with the upper crust but he was a guy who could go out and solider with the best of them. Sort of the late 19th early 20th century ideal man of the British empire. Resonance man meets warrior poet.

[dirtybenny]

Rant 18

The Infamous “Woman’s Day” Video.

Let me start by getting all of the politically correct monkeys off this topic’s back. This rant is in no way attempting to marginalize women or down play the message being conveyed. What is at issue is the way they tried to convey it.

For those of you who haven’t seen it here it is.

[BBvideo 425,350][/BBvideo]

The video begins with Craig as bond walking in to a dark room where the disembodied voice of Dench as M asks if they are equals. That’s the first problem: they are not equals M is his boss, she is the head of MI6 and he is just one of her agents. (More on this in paragraph 2)

M continues by reading off facts and figures relating to the equality of women (some seem a bit more geared to third world countries rather than Great Brittan but we’ll pass that) half way through M states “…I wonder if you’ve ever considered what it would like to be one (a woman)” Craig who never utters a word through this whole film walks off stage only to return in high heels a dress and blond wig. Here’s where my first problem with this becomes my second. M Bond’s boss just ordered him to cross-dress! Wouldn’t that fall under the heading of sexual harassment?! One of the many topics this very video was made to combat!

M reads off more facts and figures, Craig pulls off the wig and stares blankly into the camera and fin. What exactly was this videos purpose beyond rattling off facts and figures? What was the point of putting Bond in drag? To show him what it is like to wear an ugly dress and bad wig? So he can understand high heels are hard to walk in? I have news for you; no woman in the free world anyway, is being forced to wear anything against their will. If it was to show how uncomfortable women’s clothes are I’d like to point out professional women have a great deal of options other than dresses when it comes to dressing for the office, and when it comes to casual wear the sky’s the limit. In fact sometimes I wish there was a restriction on what is allowed out in public and that goes for men too! The dress as we know it has been regulated to evening wear much like the man’s tuxedo. M could just as easily experience how uncomfortable it is to be Bond by donning a dinner suit. The scratchy wool, the unbearable heat (especially in a crowded venue), and don’t think of taking that jacket off it would be uncouth, and even if you did it wouldn’t help much as the long sleeves and stiff tie hold all the heat in!

This topic could have been so much better discussed and the message so better conveyed in a much different manner. A whole host of more intelligent and sober options could have been explored instead of this foolish display of cheap sensationalism.

So again what exactly was the point of putting Bond in a dress? Seeing as this short was produced by Barbara Broccoli herself leads me to believe it was for the sole purpose of emasculating the character. A character she has an immense love hate relationship with.

Which leads in to my next rant “Babs Time to Give Up the Ghost”.

[Omega]

That was a sorry ad

[Blowfeld]

It was about getting back at the horrible sexist agent of HMSS.

Timothy and Pierce had elements of let's say more politically correct views. Nobody would ever have dreamed of placing either of those chaps in a gown for women's equality messages.

Sadly the message was insulting to everyone save for a few rabid exceptions. It was not just a women have it tough 007 you pig! Message it was the emasculation as you said of a heterosexual character with heaps of abuse from a maternal matriarchal figure, abusing a poor orphan who looks upon her as a substitute mother.