James Bond 007: Goldfinger - Dir. Guy Hamilton

James Bond 007: Goldfinger (1964)

Bond Goes Blockbuster

by Jay Maronde

The third cinema installment of the 007 franchise takes Bond to a fantastic new level, a level which manages to raise the bar for the films of the franchise in so many new ways that its initial release not only changed the world of Bond, but the whole world’s perception on not only the secret agent film genre but the entire concept of James Bond. That’s right, I said it, Goldfinger redefines not only the world of “Bond” but redefines and elucidates the essence of Bond to the world. Pray tell how one film could do so much?..... Well that’s what this article is about! 

First and Foremost let us start with the “firsts.” Goldfinger is the first film in which Commander Bond steps foot in America. It’s also the first film with a completely tangential opening scene, in which Bond uses a fantastic duck snorkel to perform some unplanned demolition of a drug lab.  Now, obviously after your favorite secret agent blows up a South American cartel headquarters, he’s going to need to get out of town, pretty quickly, and obviously he’ll need to go to Fontainebleau* in Miami Beach for some well-deserved R&R.  Before Bond gets to MIA however, the movies cuts away to its fantastic opening sequence complete with the first Shirley Bassey theme song of the series. Bassey would go on to record several more uber-classic theme songs for the franchise, but “Goldfinger” (the song) was the first, and I’ve had its classic hook stuck in my head for more than a few days now.  While the music plays, the title credits roll and scenes from the film are shown projected on gold painted body parts of a beautiful woman.

 This is where the story really begins after the opening credits: Here we find our AMERICAN friend Felix Leiter, tracking down Bond to give him a new assignment, and as Bond and Leiter meet for the first time, the fantastic misogyny begins to ooze, and the metamorphosis of  Bond’s pop cultural definition as the ultimate ladies’ man begins.  Don’t get me wrong, the first two movies contain numerous references to Bond’s proclivities as a lush, but here in this first Miami scene he quickly dispatches his (second (in the film)) lady friend with a smack on the ass and the comment that he and his friend need to have “man talk.” Now personally I love misogynistic Bond. He’s the man, and he’s acting like it in a way that would make a Barnard girl’s skin crawl.  This attitude/swagger/charisma/skew is what makes Bond EPIC, but it does come with its pitfalls: if Bond is more extreme in his character then certainly much more extreme things must happen. And they do. As such the now long-standing Bond tradition of “Sex for dinner, death for breakfast” begins in earnest. Bond’s first move in Miami Beach (after donning an enviable post swimming baby blue terry-cloth onesie) is to not only steal the main villain’s “girlfriend” but to cause Mr. Auric Goldfinger to lose a $15,000 game of cards. (That’s 1960’s money remember, gold is roughly $30/oz in the film, and current prices are well over $1500/oz, you can do the math if you are stickler type**.) Clearly the Villain is displeased, and Jill Masterson (who bears a striking resemblance to one of my favorite bartenders) has to die. Her death scene is not only one of the most referenced Bond lady deaths, but also has inspired its own “Mythbusters” episode, was highlighted with a huge spread in LIFE magazine, and was even referenced in JB007:#22 Quantum Of Solace by way of Strawberry Fields's death. Sadly for the fictional Masterson parents, Jill’s sister also dies in a 007 exploit later in the film.

Another area of "firsts" comes from Q branch. Having realized the popularity of the Quartermaster Corps and the average film-goers fascination with Bond’s gadgets, the producers chose to include a full scene where Bond travels to the Q-branch offices. Herein Bond gets his now standard tour of the new “tools” in development, and is assigned his new car: The Aston Martin DB5. Bond’s car might be the only thing more famous than himself (possibly because its non-fictional) and in an ironic footnote of history, the Aston Martin Company almost didn’t go for it. I’m certainly sure that now they are quite glad they did as Bond’s Classic DB5 is one of the most recognizable cars in global popular culture, and now as they are currently in production as of BOND23, Bond is once again driving an Aston. Further, the producers licensed an “official” JB:DB5 toy car, which later became the bestselling toy of 1964. All these "firsts" are dwarfed in comparison to the big first: THE MONEY.

The Guinness Book Of World Records lists Goldfinger as the fastest grossing movie EVER. In fact, Goldfinger was produced with a budget of the two other Bond films combined. That three milllion dollars of 1964 money (approx. $22M in 2012) yielded a movie that would become the first blockbuster in the franchise. Goldfinger’s producers’ recouped their money in roughly a week, the movie then went on  to gross over $124 million dollars (again, 1964 money, inflation calculators figure that amount would be roughly equal to $850 million in today dollars) in fact the movie was so popular that some cinemas were compelled to stay open 24 hours a day and continuously show Goldfinger just to keep up with popular demand.     

Shockingly, the box office figures only comprised a fraction of the film franchise's profits in other arenas. The producers also “struck Gold,” as it were, by licensing everything they could think of--from lunch boxes, to menswear, to albums. This remarkable amount of money directly correlates to how Goldfinger changed the game even for Bond. Director Guy Hamilton’s new "Uber-Bond" was such a smashing success that spy movies became so popular that in 1965 came the release of no less than 20 other Spy Genre films. The whole world had gone Bonkers for Bond.

The new James Bond of Goldfinger is amazing, in no small part due to the man playing him. This film was Sean Connery’s third appearance as Bond, and the actor seems to fill out the role like never before. Maybe it was just the standard cultural misogyny of the 1960’s or what have you, (I couldn’t tell you, I’m too young to remember) but Connery seems even more perfect as Bond as soon as the first well-gaffed ass smack comes during the scene in Miami. He then proceeds to evoke even more Bond perfection as the movie goes on. During the course of this film, James Bond not only talks his way out of a laser death machine (and by the way, lasers weren’t even invented yet, making that another Bond First), but winks his way out of jail cell, and literally saves the world with his “Mojo.” In all of these scenarios Sean Connery’s gratuitous personal swag comes across the silver screen as clear as an azure summer afternoon and completely “sells” each scene. Only an actor reprising a role which he has already worked extensively on could possibly exude such confidence of character***. Connery and Bond merge forever into the pop culture collective. Connery was great and he knew it; but this led to some very interesting complications, most of which had to do with money. 

As the movie was being filmed and the popularity was growing, Connery realized he should get more money. As such, and due to an injury he suffered during filming, Connery negotiated a 5% cut from the take of all the Bond Films he would star in. (Again, in case math isn’t your forte: 5% of $850 million, is $42.5 Million.) Connery had redefined Bond and movie stardom as a whole.               

All these fantastic gizmos, and lasers, and Gold would be for naught if Connery had been cast beside losers, or nobodies, or even just plain crap actors, so I personally feel that one of Director Guy Hamilton’s most outstanding contributions to whole world of Bond, was to be able to cast wonderful, memorable, important actors to the other roles. The real standout in history is the casting of Honor Blackman as “Pussy Galore,” Goldfinger’s personal pilot, and boss of her very own “Flying Circus.”  First off let us note that this is another Bond Film "first": the blatant hyper-sexualizing of a female name. This (one of my favorite) Bond traditions, has been “flirted” with many times throughout the course of the rest of the franchise, but I really don’t think anything can come close to “Pussy Galore.” Blackman was already famous from “The Avengers” and this played no small part in her being cast. In fact, part of the script was re-written to highlight her judo skills. Further, Pussy’s role as the leader of an all-female cadre of pilots has served to highlight the middle century views of women’s empowerment, and establish Pussy as a feminist foil to Bond’s rampant misogyny. Without the yin there can be no yang, so inasmuch as Bond needed a feminist to offset his sexism, Connery also needed exquisite actors to star as his villains, and here Hamilton shines again.

Many, Many actors were considered and auditioned for the role of Auric Goldfinger. It was the title character of the next film in an already incredibly successful cinematic franchise. Eventually, with Orson Welles demanding an outrageous amount of money, the producers chose the German actor Gert Fröbe. The title character is wonderful. He acts exactly like one would imagine a super villain would: he cheats at everything, pays beautiful women to stay in his company, and always seems to have yet another killing machine for disposing of his enemies. He even has a golden gun! The super-secret about Fröbe was that (much like Ursula Andress in Dr. No) his English was atrocious. Hamilton had him phonetically deliver all his lines (at double speed, so his face looks right in the film) and then dubbed him using the voice of American actor Michael Collins.  Fröbe does such a fantastic job with the acting, and Hamilton with the editing that I never even would have guessed, had I not read it in Wikipedia.

If you were the world’s biggest super villain, clearly you are much too cool and important and busy to do your own bidding, plus you obviously need security. In Auric Goldfinger’s case, you already have a small army of Asian goonies at your beck and call, so your number one assistant obviously should be a Korean Manservant. And here, for our viewing pleasure, we come upon one of most famous cinematic villains ever in Oddjob. Hamilton’s casting skills were beyond reproach again as he cast the Olympic silver medal winning weight lifter Harold Sakata. Previous to GoldFinger Mr. Sakata had been a television wrestler. Hamilton saw him and immediately knew he had his villain. The fact that Mr. Sakata could also barely speak English was also no problem as the role had no words, merely a few well-placed grunts. It’s a tribute to both Sakata and Hamilton that the character of Oddjob still shines throughout all this, and to this day is referenced in many different areas of popular culture.

When the viewer considers the multiplicity of Bond "firsts," it is apparent that Goldfinger, like Dr. No and From Russia, With Love before it, made great strides**** in honing the "Bond formula" that has allowed it to stand the test of time and remain a viable franchise for 50 years.  No other character can lay claim to such a feat.  

 *The Fontainebleau Hotel was embroiled in litigation before Goldfinger was made.  This case (decided in 1959) has not been referenced on Flying Houses before, but was one of the more memorable topics in Property.  The Fontainebleau's owner did not like the neighboring hotel's owner, so he decided to construct an addition which would block the sunlight from the other hotel's pool and tanning area.  The court referenced the "ancient lights" doctrine and noted that it had been universally repudiated in the United States, even though it had been recognized in England (perhaps the producers of Goldfinger were enraged by such a notion, and used the location as a political statement--but it is highly doubtful).  The court ruled that the addition could be constructed, even though it was quite clear that the idea arose out of a personal dispute.  I could not stop writing about this case on my Property exam because I felt it had been so badly decided.  Of course, the neighboring hotel will suffer economic loss because people are not going to Miami Beach to tan in the shade.  -JK

**By my math, Goldfinger would have lost $750,000 in 2012 dollars.-JK

***Which leads me to wonder what Batman Forever would have been like had Michael Keaton retained the role.-JK

****One hopes that the writer of these reviews will be able to deliver a ranking of all Bond films after Skyfall is released.  It is difficult to tell whether he prefers Goldfinger to From Russia, With Love, though it seems clear that while he has great admiration for Dr. No, he does not consider it as strong a film as its two immediate sequels.-JK

Batman in Brooklyn: Mission Statement

Why is Batman in Brooklyn Important?

Because it is a Batman movie.  All Batman movies are important at the time of their release (though opinions may differ, mine is that two of the films--or three--or four--are mostly forgotten to history, but five films endure).  Batman in Brooklyn will be important when it is released.  We are aiming for a release date of December 20, 2013.  The premiere must take place, of course, in Brooklyn.  Preferably at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.

But aside from the excitement that each new Batman movie generates upon its release, Batman movies are important in general because they reflect society via metaphor (as all films should aspire to do).  This metaphor has been written about here previously (see "Batman in Aurora" post) but is essentially the struggle between good and evil--that is, the choice to be good or evil.

It is essential that Batman in Brooklyn be made because Brooklyn is Batman's true home.  Yes, I know Gotham City is his true home, and most people associate Manhattan with Gotham--but there are plenty of signs that Brooklyn is a more realistic setting for Batman than Manhattan (See The Dark Knight Rises denouement. See also Bloomberg's decision to divert all traffic in Manhattan so that a "g**d*** Batman movie" could be shot, in the words of Keith Olbermann).

I think it practically goes without saying that Batman is the most commercially successful comic book character film franchise--and will never be topped.  Not by Superman.  Not by Spiderman.  Not by Iron Man.  Not by The Avengers.  No.  (Not by Twilight.  Not by Hunger Games.  Not by Harry Potter.  And not by Fifty Shades of Grey either, or the Lord of the Rings for that matter.)

Those movies do not get nominated for Oscars.

Lord of the Rings did, but I challenge anyone to argue that that Trilogy is better than the new Batman Trilogy.  I do not think there is any better Trilogy except for the original Star Wars and Indiana Jones films.  I would rank one other Trilogy in the same class:

1) Star Wars (excluding the 3 new movies)
2) Indiana Jones (excluding the 4th)
3) "The Dark Knight" Trilogy
4) Back to the Future

The difference is that those films (ALL OF THEM!) are unrealistic action-adventure fantasy epics.  Batman is very much the story of modern society and all of its attendant psychological uncertainties.  (There may be some dispute as to whether BTTF is unrealistic, but most scientists agree that time travel into the past is impossible.)

Batman in Brooklyn is essentially a remake of the original Batman (1988) but elements have been added to the make this film entirely something new.  Here are the key differences:

1) Budget.

Batman had a massive budget, and was the most successful film in box office history (by opening weekend receipts) at the time of its release.  Jack Nicholson became the highest paid actor in film history (until Leonardo DiCaprio copied his idea for--surprise,surprise--Christopher Nolan's one-non-Batman movie amidst his trilogy--another highly-acclaimed film). But it took about ten years to make, numerous script revisions were made, and a last minute horse-riding accident necessitated re-casting the female lead (Kim Basinger subbing for Sean Young).  Roger Ebert's review (which gave the film 2 stars) said that it was beautiful to look at, but did not appear as if anyone had any fun while making it.

Batman in Brooklyn will be filmed on the most meager of budgets.  The special effects will be a joke.  But it will be fun to make.  And while it will exist in a metaphorical world where Marc Drier is not in jail in 2012, it will be directly situated in real world events.  While the make-up and costumes and art direction may suffer from some aesthetic deficiencies, it will be the quality of the performances that take the film out of the "remake genre" and into the "update genre."

Some films need to be updated, and some do not.  Superman was definitely in need of an update, and we will see how Man of Steel stacks up next summer, but Superman Returns was certainly a disappointment.  The original Superman is not bad at all - from what I understand (I've only seen most of Superman 2 - which I think most people consider comparable to the first) - but it is certainly a relic of its time.  Batman Returns is more of a relic of the early 1990s than is Batman, and so in a sense might be the better film to remake.  However, Batman Returns is a significantly more complex film.  Ebert also gave it 2 stars.

2) Not directed by Tim Burton.

Let me make this clear: I do like Batman Returns--a lot.  But, as Ebert I think correctly points out, the film is very episodic and lacks a coherent plot.  There are wonderful scenes--the opening scene is probably the most heartbreaking scene in any Batman film, period.  Danny DeVito does what he can with the role of The Penguin--but I believe the film suffers from "Burton-vision."

Let's delve even deeper into Burton and Ebert.  Interestingly, Ebert gave Beetlejuice 2 stars.  Beetlejuice may not be a 4 star film (which I would give it), but at least deserves 3.  Ebert concedes that it is a "fairly original" plot (understatement!) but then goes on to denounce Michael Keaton's performance!  He claims that every scene with Keaton is a misstep.  I believe this is patently false and time has shown that performance to be a stroke of comic genius.

(Note: I have not yet read the review of Pee-Wee's Big Adventure but I suspect it got 4 stars...)

It is interesting to note that Burton made Edward Scissorhands in between Batman and Batman Returns.  Ebert also gave Edward Scissorhands 2 stars (he may have given it 2.5, I can't recall).  Again, Ebert is wrong.  Note here that most of the time, I totally agree with Ebert.  I do not LOVE Edward Scissorhands, but it is better than 2 stars.  Deserves 3.  Many people would say it deserves 4.  Some consider it a classic film.

And then look at what Burton went on to do (everything?).  He directed Batman at age 29 (another reason I am meant to make Batman in Brooklyn).  He took Johnny Depp as his de-facto star, and in the 20 years since Batman Returns, became a Hollywood icon of the most unlikely sort, creating a visual style completely his own.

Also interesting to note: Tim Burton's first film was Frankenweenie--a live action film judged to be unsuitable for children.  Tim Burton's upcoming film is Frankenweenie.  Not live action, but "Nightmare Before Christmas-style" live action.  I do think it is important to remember that Tim Burton has made these films since 1992: Ed Wood (excellent), Mars Attacks! (underrated/misunderstood), Sleepy Hollow (boring), Planet of the Apes (a remake worse than the original, as they usually are--See The Parent Trap), Big Fish (excellent), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (a remake worse than the original--but not without its certain charm and visual originality that Apes lacked), Corpse Bride (excellent--and though I may be in the minority here, an improvement upon Nightmare Before Christmas), Sweeney Todd (a film I could not watch for more than five minutes - boring), Alice in Wonderland (a remake worse than the original, and lacking a certain charm despite supposed visual originality--too weird), and Dark Shadows earlier this summer (never saw it, heard it was not good).  Frankenweenie will be out before the end of the year and looks to be a very emotionally compelling film. (Trivia: Johnny Depp is in 8 of these films and has appeared with alarming regularity since Charlie.)

 With Frankenweenie coming out, and Tim Burton's career coming "full circle" in some sort of sense, which includes more than its fair share of remakes, this is the perfect time to make Batman in Brooklyn.

3) Bloomberg.

The Mayor of Brooklyn is not Mayor Borg - but Mayor Bloomberg.  He is undoubtedly one of the most ridiculous mayors in American history, and his time will soon be up in New York.  Batman in Brooklyn is, on a sub-textual level, a critique of New York City Post-9/11.  It is a critique of capitalism and the fraud that it necessitates.  It is a critique of politics and media coverage.  Finally it is a critique of humanity--or rather, inhumanity.  That is, "silent/helpless observation," or "apathetic one-dimensional thought."  Whoever is next elected Mayor of New York has a great task ahead--but it will be their leadership that determines whether this city sinks (like in the 1980s) or is restored to another period of glory (2001-2002, late 1990s, mid-1960s, etc.).  Batman in Brooklyn will be the cinematic equivalent of The Prince - a text that informs the powerful how to best govern the citizenry.

4) No famous actors.

Batman in Brooklyn was going to be very important if D.A. Hynes of Brooklyn were to play himself, but word has recently leaked out that he is no longer interested in the project.  While this rumor has yet to be substantiated (I call statements made by press secretaries "rumors"), if it proves true, the project must go on regardless.

While Jay-Z might be a very good celebrity to get involved (or Brooks Lopez, who is apparently a big fan of Batman), we simply lack the personal connections to make such a business arrangement feasible.  But the project continues to evolve, and new forms of serendipity seem to affect it on a weekly, if not daily basis.  Anything is possible--until the scenes are shot.

5) New sub-plot.

The new sub-plot will make the film much more coherent than the original Batman because it will bring in more "macro" concerns that the "Dark Knight" Trilogy has been so good at incorporating.  I am being purposefully vague so I do not ruin the surprise.

However, I must state that some discussion of including Superman as a villain has taken place.  The final decision on this matter has not been made, but while there is a strong presumption in favor of including Superman, adding said element could be the proverbial straw to break the camel's back, given the apparent extraordinary difficulty of making Batman in Brooklyn in the first place.  Everybody wants to see Superman in a Batman movie, but we run the risk of turning the project into more of an absurdity than it already may be considered.

Why Would Batman in Brooklyn Fail?

Because I am not a professional director.  I did not go to film school.  While I will concede that this film is likely to be a failure, it will be completed, even if it gets to the point that I need to play (almost) every single role there is in it.  Batman in Brooklyn is a personal statement for me, and my love for film, and my love for Batman.

When I was about 6, I wrote a screenplay for "Star Wars Part 4" (which probably would have been better than The Phantom Menace proved to be about ten years later).  When I was 18, I opted into Blockbuster's 30 rentals for 30 dollars for 30 days deal - and I went to the store every single day to get a new film (most of them were Woody Allen movies).  I went to NYU, ostensibly for film school, but decided against it at the time.  I did not like the rigid structures that those students had to adhere to, and I did not see how I would make any money straight out of it.  So I focused on writing first.

And I tried to work in the real world.  And I wrote novels, short stories, memoirs, essays, and book reviews.

And I went to law school.  This is the real turning point in my life.  My writing dreams have been dashed due to my own personal belief that the book industry has died due to mass-ADHD-outbreak, where the only books that get read are those that are turned into massively successful film trilogies. And because I have gotten mired in the rigidity that is an education in legal doctrine, I rediscovered my love of film and the freedom such expression entails.

I do believe that law school has improved my writing (this post excepted--for various reasons, primary amongst them its personal nature) and Batman in Brooklyn is my attempt to show the world that just because I did not go to film school, just because it is not made with even "adequate" equipment, just because the players are not actors--but mostly law students (which requires a certain measure of acting skills, to be sure), just because there is no financing, just because it's probably a minefield of copyright and trademark infringements, just because I'm incredibly busy as a 3L looking for a post-grad job, along with balancing my coursework and all the other extracurricular commitments I've foolishly bought into, and just because nobody knows who I am, I can make a film that is truly different and great.

And I do believe, that while Batman in Brooklyn is likely to be a failure, it is a necessary failure--for it is only the first step in a planned set of four films (Back to the Future Part 2: Present to be released October 21, 2015; The Parent Trap Redux to be released November 18, 2016; and Older Wayne's World to be released October 27, 2017).  I know from my experience with writing novels that the first, at least for me, was primarily a learning experience.  I only hope that my experience with film will not cause me to abandon all future projects because of the extreme difficulty of it all.

I know that making a film is not an easy thing, but Batman in Brooklyn is not supposed to be easy.  However, it is supposed to be fun and if we have fun making it, even if it fails to find an audience, then it will bring me much happiness and personal satisfaction.