Post #308125 by DJ Terence Gunn on Tue, May 22, 2007 8:10 AM

I've been throwing Spy & Sleuth theme parties (based in the 1950s, '60s, and '70s) in public, then non-public for nearly every year for the last 12 years. I've enjoyed a great deal of the spy and detective shows and movies from these decades ever since I was a child. The Ian Fleming books (which bear little semblance to the films) I also enjoy. I even formed a group of session musicians to play out now and again called The Spy & Sleuth Orchestra. So what am I saying? Basically that I'm a nut for all that stuff. Or rather, I used to be.

But what attracted/attracts me to the spy fantasy world are the cultural and pop elements of the 1960s that defined the genre: the music (this is #1), the fashion (clothes, cars, decor, architecture, hair styles, etc.), the locales (many of which are no longer or have been completely altered), the sophistication, the cinematography and opening sequences, the politics, the actors, and, of course, the cocktails and cigarettes. The 1970s Bond films even worked well, despite the cultural changes.

But James Bond in the 1980s? Doesn't work. The Cold War is over. Culture has changed. Fashion and decorum has changed. Things have become decadent. AIDs is now present. And Las Vegas and many other adult playgrounds start the descent of becoming Disneyland. Bond in the 1990s? Even more so and even worse. And now Bond in the 2000s? Come on. It's called franchise; flogging a dead horse, whilst at the same time trying to keep up with the trends and reinvent it. It just doesn't work. It's 'The Friday the 13th' of spy films.

In my opinion the Bond franchise -- like the Dr. Who franchise -- has been subpar from the 1980s onward. Though large of budget and very professionally made, the Bond films of the 1960s and '70s were never serious movies to begin with. Making money was always an incentive, but what made the Bond films from those decades fun was gone in the 1980s, and continued to be absent in each subsequent release (especially in the current release). And again, what gave the films their flavour was the cultural elements of those decades, with a strong emphasis on the music, fashion, and general society.

Basically it comes down to style. And what gave the James Bond films popularity was style. That particular style started disappearing in the late 1970s and was gone by the 1980s. Politics, views, and the world had changed. The character was and is no longer believable. In fact, the character was and is pointless and out of place. (Despite its goofiness, even Austin Powers points this out.)

A character based in the 1950s and early '60s simply does not work in the 1980s, 1990s, and especially today, no matter who plays the role. And aren't there already enough Bond films? The style changes to be more 'modern', but the formula is exactly the same. Perhaps if 'Casino Royale' had been properly set in the 1950s with no modern special effects and traits, with an actor who resembled the character in the book (in manners, looks, and personality -- believe it or not, Bond was based on Carey Grant), it may have proved a film worthy of more attention. After all, it was the only Ian Fleming Bond book that hadn't been made into a film (and the 'Casino Royale' camp comedy of the 1960s has nothing to do with the Bond book).

Out of respect 'Casino Royale' deserved better treatment.

In any case, for a more serious spy film from the 1960s, watch 'The Ipcress File' with Michael Caine. Better yet watch the series 'Danger Man' with Patrick MacGoohan, which predates the first Bond film, and really has that swingin' '60s feel, even before it was really swingin'.

[ Edited by: DJ Terence Gunn 2007-05-22 12:44 ]