|
19) And now we come full circle.
Commentor #1, Shawn Fuller, has written another response (on
Christmas Day 1995 no less!):
First of all, thanks for making comments on my comments. It's
taken me a while to swim back to your site, but I really enjoyed reading
your notes. I feel so stupid about the one immediately above. DUH. Of
course 006 and Orumov were in cahoots. Silly me. As to Joe Don Baker's
reappearance in the series, I suppose you'll be proven to be right.
When, ten years from now, we go to have a Bond weekend at the house and
rent License to Kill and Goldeneye for a back-to-back viewing, we might
well wonder how shallow the casting pools were at MGM/UA. But though
these films follow each other in the series, it has been 6 years since
License to Kill so it can hardly be said to be "too soon" for his return.
Besides, isn't the point the quality of his acting?
In fact, this Joe Don Baker thing brings to mine a larger gripe I have
about the whole series. The one really bad, series-threatening thing
about the bond films is their total disregard for the importance of
individual actors in establishing characters for the audience to follow
from film to film. For example, in these days when most people are
introduced to the series on video or TV, it would be very easy for the
new fan, so vital to the longevity of the series, to get confused about
SPECTRE or SMERSH because Blofeld was never portrayed by the same actor.
Also, it's impossible to understand and appreciate the grief Dalton's
Bond feels over the loss of Felix and wife in License to Kill because,
though Felix has been present in the films, he has not been acted by the
same person, nor given the kind of characterization required to make us
believe James would throw away his career for the revenge he seeks in
License to Kill. I hope that in this new Brosnan era, there will be
greater attention to continuity and character retention – especially with
regard to key players like Moneypenny and M.
You are totally correct and I am glad that you brought up the point. It is as if
each film is a world of it's own! To draw a poor analogy, would 90s television
audiences tolerate a different actor playing Dr. Watson to Holmes or Hastings to
Poirot?
Oh, yes, one other thing specific to Goldeneye. I got some e-mail from
my brother about the film and he reminded me of an instant revulsion I
had the first time I saw it. I HATE THE NEW MI6. Fair enough, it might
well be that in England today, MI6 is as fully modern as M's office would
suggest. But I actively pine for a return to Universal Exports, leather
and rich wood. The intent of the producers in choosing this new set
design might have been to suggest that the new M was pulling the "firm"
into the 90s, and that, by implication, she's a strong leader capable of
bringing change. Or it might just be that the producers felt the place
needed sprucing up. Whatever the case, I mourn the passing of
distinctively British (or at least European) interiors for something more
akin to the Pentagon – or, as my brother pointed out, an old SPECTRE hideout.
Your brother hit the nail on the head! That is exactly what M's office
reminded me of – an old SPECTRE hideout. The furnishings seem more modern, and so
does M. Maybe the producers decided to "upgrade" both M and her office at the
same time.
It is interesting to note that in John Gardner's continuation of the print
series, MI6 has also shed away it's secrecy. I wonder if the real MI6 has
undergone similar changes. Does anyone in the UK have any more info?
|
RETURN TO THE GOLDENEYE PAGE