Skip to main content

Choose your next witticism carefully Mr. Bond, it may be your last.


Goldfinger
(1964)

For an entry in the Bond canon regarded by many as its pinnacle, it is remarkable how significantly Goldfinger strays from what has become the template for the series. But this was still early days and the format that, for better or worse, took hold did so with Thunderball and in its wake.

In Goldfinger, Bond is captured 50 minutes into the story and remains so until the climax. There is one big action set piece (involving the famously Q-gadgeted Aston Martin) prior to this but, like the preceding From Russia with Love, this an escapade that relies mostly on character and plot twists for its forward momentum. Besides a car chase, the most recognisably Bondian feature of the film is the villain, Auric Goldfinger (“Sounds like a French nail varnish”) himself.


Played by German actor Gert Froebe (who would become most identified with this, Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines and Monte Carlo or Bust) and dubbed by Michael Collins due to his very limited English speaking, Goldfinger is one of the most iconic Bond villains. The Bond villain is so intrinsic to the series but, particularly in recent iterations, has proved very hard to synthesise into a memorable character. Part of Froebe’s appeal is that he brings both physicality (girth) and comic timing. His early encounters with Bond are defined by 007 one-upping him at successive games, to the extent that we regard him as an almost likeable buffoon. When we are later privy to his plans, and their layers, it adds something because, like Bond, we didn’t see it coming (as in the previous film, Bond isn’t up to speed on the villainy but, unlike that one, neither is the audience.).

Director Guy Hamilton (who would return for the final Connery and first two Moores) has perhaps more of an eye for scale than Terence Young, but aided by Peter Hunt the action remains just as punchy when it occurs. Whether or not it’s down to the quality of Richard Maibaum’s script, Hamilton appears to have a sense of just what is needed to make the most of a given scene. This may be part of the reason for the film’s longevity,


Goldfinger establishes the pre-credits sequence as an intentional part of the form of each film (with FRWL, it resulted from Peter Hunt experimenting in the editing room). It also intimates at the increasingly broad humour the series would develop; our first sight of Bond has him in a diver’s costume with a fake seagull attached to his head. He removes this apparel to reveal an immaculate white tuxedo. The audience is invited in on the unlikely scenarios that take place here, for both humourous and dramatic effect; in the ensuing fight that sees an opponent electrocuted in a bath, Bond becomes aware of him by catching sight of his reflection in the eye of the woman he is embracing. A ludicrous idea, but we accept it as a dramatic device. As far as what Bond ‘s mission is concerned (in an unnamed Latin American country), it appears to be in the name of upholding Western imperialist notions of democracy; preventing the financing of revolutions through the distribution of heroin-flavoured bananas.


Bond touches down in Miami, although a good portion of the close-ups consist of the main cast performing against back projection. Bond is at his most cheerfully sexist, slapping the bottom of a girl who has been giving him a back rub. Felix Leiter, meanwhile, played by Cecil Linder, is a big disappointment following Jack Lord. He’s fairly non-descript and wouldn’t look out of place as a deskbound TV detective.


This sequence does a fine job of introducing Goldfinger; we get to laugh as Bond foils his attempt to cheat at cards, but it also puts Bond’s lack of circumspection under the spotlight. He gets Jill Masterson (Shirley Eaton) killed in the name of a bit of cheap ridicule (of Auric). This in turn will result the demise of Tilly Masterson (Tania Mallet). We’re introduced to the definitive henchman, Oddjob (Harold Sakata), who would later be parodied by Austin Powers with the character Random Task. Like Dr. No, Oddjob is defined by a physical affliction; he is mute.


Curious that Bond remains alive and free, as he could easily have been snuffed out. Apart from plot expediency there seems little reason for Goldfinger to exercise such restraint. Of course, this would have meant Bond wouldn’t have borne witness to the particularly twisted message of what happens to those who meet with Goldfinger’s disfavour. Thus setting the precedent of the villain behaving in a less than logical manner due to the affliction of rampant ego.

The premise of the film, given the larger than life characters (and character names) populating it, is quite unexceptional; Bond’s mission is to establish how Goldfinger transfers his gold overseas. If it is being done illegally, proceedings can be instituted to recover the bulk of his holdings.


There’s no suggestion of an inkling of his grand plan. It’s just lucky coincidence that the “robbery” of Fort Knox is being scoped out at the same time. The real plan, to render all the gold radioactive (for 58 years) and thus increase the value of Auric’s gold and at the same time play into the hands of the Chinese (who have supplied the scientist and dirty bomb), is creative and comes as a genuine and crafty twist. Despite the use of radioactive materials, the motivation of the villain (by the standards of Bond during that period) is refreshingly lacking in aspirations toward global domination. Goldfinger is a straight-up capitalist, willing ally himself with anyone (or any Super Power) who can increase his wealth. In that sense, he’s the Bond villain who remains most current.  


On the debit side in terms of plotting, the scene of Goldfinger revealing his plan to the mob is only there to enable Bond to eavesdrop. If Goldfinger wanted to take out the hoods he owed money he didn’t need to launch into all that exposition before doing it, and he clearly had no intention of letting them live whatever they said in response to the scheme he set out. It’s an aspect that only stands out on repeat viewing, however. Mind you, Goldfinger’s pep-talk sounds like so much baloney, as he instructs that mankind has achieved miracles in every field of human endeavor, “except crime”.


The first glimpse of Q Branch is also the first time we encounter Q’s open disdain for Bond. Wisely, the game of golf with Goldfinger separates the pursuit sequence through the Alps and then onto Auric Enterprises for a bit more auto-gadgeting. The Alps scene, particularly Bond’s self-amused interplay with Tilly Masterson, features sufficiently strong characterisation to make the action become classically memorable. In contrast, while everyone remembers the ejector seat scene, no one knows who was ejected, and the sequence is little more than driving round and round and showcasing each gadget in turn. It’s telling that the best moment features an old lady with a machine gun at the checkpoint, opening fire on a fleeing 007.


The preceding game of golf between Bond and Auric is probably the highlight of the movie (well, that and the iconic laser torture). Both players approach the match in thoroughly unscrupulous fashion, and pleasure of the scene derives from the comic interplay between these characters (along with Hawker, a chucklesome caddy) as the stakes rise.  It tends to be a self-defeating task to attempt to replicate inspiration, even when 007 is facing off against a strong actor as the villain (another film series that goes back to one well rather than striking out is Star Trek, eternally referencing The Wrath of Khan as a touchstone), which is why a scene such as this has rarely been equalled.


Another trope mocked by Austin Powers is the villain not killing Bond when he could (or more precisely, leaving the hero to die unobserved). This has already occurred when Bond was in Miami. In this later instance the set-up is so disarmingly (or de-testiclingly) nasty that Goldfinger’s failure to follow through seems forgivable. Spreadeagled on a table, a laser advancing steadily towards his groin, probably the best villain response to a Bond line ever is uttered.

Bond: Do you expect me to talk?
Goldfinger: No, Mr Bond. I expect you to die!

Less memorable, but also evidence that the villain is a witty match for 007, is Auric’s concise reply to Bond when the latter can’t resist bragging about eavesdropping.

Bond: I did enjoy our briefing.
Goldfinger: So did I.

As ever with the iconic scenes of the series, they are made what they are because of the chemistry between the actors. An original idea is vital, sparkling dialogue a must, but it is the combination of elements that lends it classic status.


There can’t be very many Bond girls who were older than their leading man, but Honor Blackman (“Pooh-sea” as Connery burrs at her) holds such an honour. I admit to never really taking to her in The Avengers, but there’s no denying her chemistry with Connery. She’s established as a match for him in wittery and (almost) in fighting skills. Absent from the novel is her lesbian background, so it’s left to the viewer to pick up on any traces; while the film does nothing to disinherit such a reading, neither does it overtly invite it at any point. If it had, it might have cemented Bond’s unparalleled sexual charisma as a man who can turn a Sapphic straight but it would also have made the Connery films seem even more antiquated than they do (and not in a nostalgic way).


The relocation to Fort Knox sets up another instance of the filmmakers hoodwinking the audience, but this time it is through the action of the good guys. This sort of narrative sleight of hand should not be underappreciated in the Bond series, as the plots tend to be so linear and lacking in intricacy. We are led to believe that the Delta nerve gas (which is deadly) has wiped out swathes of US military personnel. In fact, this is a ruse to lure Goldfinger et al in order to ensnare them.


It’s unclear why Auric would actually set foot in Fort Knox, as it would have been a mission his minions could have accomplished with relative ease. It does let us see how thoroughly nasty he is face-to-face for the first time, however. He cuts down his nuclear physicist, Mr Ling (Burt Kwouk), with a burst of machine gun fire, which sets him up for the personal retribution of the climax. Here, he confronts Bond (“Are you having lunch at the White House too?”) before being sucked out of the window of the plane they are on., an effectively edited sequence that further establishes the double climaxes the series would frequently use (FRWL had Rosa Klebb doing the same thing)


The countdown to detonation in Fort Know prior to this, as Bond survives his encounter with Oddjob and turns his attention to disarmament, is a barefaced example of cinematic cheating through elongation of time. It takes about 50 seconds from Bond opening up the device to the US military defeating Goldfinger’s men, descending the main staircases to the lower level where 007 is fretting over what to do, and stopping him from making a hash of things just in time (at the count of 007). It’s a conceit that works resoundingly, Hunt confidently stretching out the tension for as long as he possibly can.


In some respects, Goldfinger is rightly regarded as the peak of the series. It marked the early high point of the series; each successive installment proving superior to the last, as well as evidencing a continued willingness to experiment with the Bond format (within certain parameters). Unfortunately, the next outing blew both the budget and the grip on quality.


Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism