Skip to main content

Unfortunately I misjudged you, you are just a stupid policeman... Whose luck has run out.


Dr. No
(1962)

The early Connery films tended to be viewed as something of a sacred benchmark for what the series should aspire to, existing in a purified state before complete formula set in. But the first film, based on the sixth Bond novel, is very much finding its feet. Whilst the plot mechanics of the first half wouldn’t look out of place in any classic spy movie of the era (and, as such, relate quite fluidly to the content of the next Bond movie), the later stages establish the series’ template of a larger-than-life, crippled villain and grandiose set pieces.


I’ll readily admit that I find the earlier sections of the film much more engrossing than anything we see once the titular character is introduced. It may have provided a firm foundation for the likes of the Flint series, and later Austin Powers, but in context we see a pronounced shift from relatively localised, down-to-earth interactions to cartoonish, world domination antics. The Bond films can take in many different styles approaches to narrative but attempting them within the same film can be jarring.

The premise finds Bond called upon to investigate Jamaicans (it seems) interfering with Cape Canaveral rockets, but the larger canvas is almost incidental to the personal interactions of Bond. We first see him, iconically, at a game of baccarat. Except we don’t, initially. He’s introduced from behind, as the victor, and the announcement of his identity sets the standard for later films. Other examples of this in the early scenes include his flirtation with Moneypenny, throwing his hat onto a hat stand, his use of a Beretta versus a Walther PPK, his slightly insubordinate relationship with M. It all looks so easy and well-established, with the benefit of 50 years hindsight.


Once he’s in Jamaica (and a hallmark of the early films is a lack of frenzied location-hopping, something that allows the characters and story beats to breathe more easily) we see other soon-to-be standards. The local sidekick (Quarrel, played by John Kitzmiller) and Felix Leiter (Hawaii Five-O’s Jack Lord) appear, but the main thrust is identifying Bond’s character.


Much has been noted of the influence of Terence Young on young Connery’s more unrefined physicality, and the result is charismatic mixture of the urbane and brutish. Bond’s happy to stroll (or ride) into danger, getting into a car he knows wasn’t sent for him (there are two car sequences in the first half of the film, the second a more traditional chase). But the strongest character beat is his cold amorality, shooting his unarmed, would-be assassin Professor Dent (Anthony Dawson) without a second thought.

Bond: That’s a Smith and Wesson. And you’ve had your six.

If Dirty Harry became famous for a speech based on similar logic, it’s no coincidence that both characters have embedded themselves in the mass psyche as anti-heroes with no sympathy for liberal morality.

Other points to note from this section include the allying of US and British forces to oppose a fantasy threat (“You mean we’re fighting the same war?”) and the allusions to this threat as something as terrible as Hitler (“Dr. No runs the place like a concentration camp”). There is an over highlighting of Bond’s superiority to other nations and cultures throughout, and this is underlined once the plot’s more fantastical elements take hold. As the guiding rationalist, he mocks the belief of both Quarrel and Honey Rider in a dragon patrolling Crab Quay (the investigative elements of plot don’t hold up to much scrutiny; it seems unlikely that there would be any question of what was going on, who was doing it and what needed to be done to take him down). He also tells Quarrel, “Fetch my shoes”, ever the unreconstituted colonialist.


The playful first encounter with Honey (Ursula Andress) is justifiably famous. The scenery is lush and idyllic (as is Andress herself) and we’ve been primed for “Under the Mango Trees” twice already by this point. The series’ suspect attitude towards women is present and correct; not only was Honey molested when she was younger (“I scratched his face – but he was stronger than I was”) but the villain plans to allows his guards “to amuse her”). Bond’s sexism is allowed because in contrast he has a veneer of refinement. And, he doesn’t need to take what he wants because he is irresistible.

Honey: What are you doing here? Looking for shells?
Bond: I’m just looking.

Joseph Wiseman is fine as Dr. No, but the character just isn’t very interesting. Nor is his big plan. And his science, despite some  decontamination window-dressing, is highly unstable.

Bond: It was a good idea to use atomic power. I’m glad to see you can handle it properly.

It’s an amusing quip (possibly the best in the film), but somehow Bond returns to fight another day despite exposure to probably lethal doses of radiation.  No introduces a long line of crippled villains (his hands were damaged in the course of his radiation experiments) who announce their entire plan just before they have the tables turned on them.

Dr. No: I only gratify your curiosity because you’re the one man I’ve met capable of appreciating what I have done. And keeping it to himself.

It also fans the idea of Bond as an exemplar of cultured manliness; even geniuses respect him. The desire of the producers not to fan less savoury prospects (of power bloc antagonism) results in the series latching onto an interesting identifier.

Dr. No: East, West, just points of the compass. Each as stupid as each other.

The Doctor is a member of SPECTRE (the bizarrely named Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge (!), Extortion) but his philosophy could mark him out as your average multi-national.

The dinner with the No is mildly enjoyable, but it doesn’t really have much bite to it. After which we have what will become par for the course; Bond escaping and blowing up Ken Adam’s expensive set (which requires him to overload the reactor).
The final scene is also de rigueur Bond; he’s in flagrante with Honey. While Bond is clearly finding its feet with the humour elsewhere, the ending could have been placed in any of the series.



Dr. No scores highly in many respects, most especially in Terence Young’s direction, Peter Hunt’s dynamic editing (he would cut on action, not generally a “done thing” at that point) and John Barry’s score, as a script it is less satisfying once it finds its absolute rotter. It would only take one more film to firmly for the series to firmly finding its footing.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

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 system when Burton did it (even…

All the way up! We’ll make it cold like winter used to be.

Soylent Green (1973)
(SPOILERS) The final entry in Chuck Heston’s mid-career sci-fi trilogy (I’m not counting his Beneath the Planet of the Apes extended cameo). He hadn’t so much as sniffed at the genre prior to 1967, but over the space of the next half decade or so, he blazed a trail for dystopian futures. Perhaps the bleakest of these came in Soylent Green. And it’s only a couple of years away. 2022 is just around the corner.

Once that first bullet goes past your head, politics and all that shit just goes right out the window.

Black Hawk Down (2001)
(SPOILERS) Black Hawk Down completed a trilogy of hits for Ridley Scott, a run of consistency he’d not seen even a glimmer of hitherto. He was now a brazenly commercial filmmaker, one who could boast big box office under his belt where previously such overt forays had seen mixed results (Black Rain, G.I. Jane). It also saw him strip away the last vestiges of artistic leanings from his persona, leaving behind, it seemed, only technical virtuosity. Scott was now given to the increasingly thick-headed soundbite (“every war movie is an anti-war movie”) in justification for whatever his latest carry-on carried in terms of controversial elements, and more than happy to bed down with the Pentagon (long-standing collaborators with producer Jerry Bruckheimer) to make a movie that, while depictinga less than auspicious intervention by the US military (“Based on an Actual Event” is a marvellous catch-all for wanton fabrication), managed to turn it into a parade of heroes pe…

Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in.

To defeat the darkness out there, you must defeat the darkness inside yourself.

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (2010)
Easily the best of the Narnia films, which is maybe damning it with faint praise. 

Michael Apted does a competent job directing (certainly compared to his Bond film - maybe he talked to his second unit this time), Dante Spinotti's cinematography is stunning and the CGI mostly well-integrated with the action. 

Performance-wise, Will Poulter is a stand-out as a tremendously obnoxious little toff, so charismatic you're almost rooting for him. Simon Pegg replaces Eddie Izzard as the voice of Reepicheep and delivers a touching performance.
***