Professor David Peimer
James Bond
Professor David Peimer - James Bond
- Okay, so, thanks again so much, Lauren, for everything. So, we are going to dive into this remarkable, strange, in some ways, perplexing, in other ways not, a global phenomenon of Mr. James Bond. And what I want to do is start with looking a little bit at Ian Fleming’s life, because I think it’s important, the context and how his life links to the character so much. And then, look at a couple of clips primarily from the Sean Connery six films, a couple of the films, and then a couple of clips from “Goldfinger” in particulate. And I want to show also the London 2012 Olympics with Queen Elizabeth and the current James Bond, Daniel Craig. So, it will show a couple of clips and have a look at some of these things. And the main idea, I guess, that intrigued me was in terms of global pop culture, you know, is this phenomenon, is it just boys’ own adventure? Is it just, you know, fantasy and nonsense? Is it just a, you know, fantastic franchise or commercial enterprise of gadgets, and car chasers, and so on? Is it just an action hero guy, you know, post-Second World War, Britain needing somebody as a kind of action hero figure together with others past after the war? And of course, in a way, James Bond is all of those things. But is there something more? And that’s the real question that I think obsesses me with these global popular icons of consumer and of culture, right, of consumer culture, and you know, of our times. Does it suggest something else that resonates, something that perhaps goes a little deeper, some archetype, or some need that people do it, or, you know, go watch the movies, read the books that Fleming was tapping into?
So, I want to tap into some of those ideas and looking primarily at Sean Connery ‘cause I really think he stands head and shoulders in terms of some of the ideas that we’ll talk about today. So, we dive straight into Mr. Fleming, and some of the lines really just are so catchy in the novels and the films, you know, “Death is forever but so are diamonds.” And a lot of other lines, which are seemingly banal and quite trite, but somehow they resonate. You know, there’s that pop culture almost pop song phrase that just sticks in a way. So, Mr. Ian Lancaster Fleming, it’s important, I think, that we know that he was brought up in the London District of Mayfair. The grandson of a Scottish financier, Robert Fleming, and came from a very wealthy, very upper-class family in England of the times. His own father was killed in the Western Front in the First World War in 1917. And Churchill wrote the obituary in the Times Newspaper. Now, that’s important because it shows the links already of his family context with the ruling echelons of Britain at the time. His elder brother’s name was Peter, was very much the commando and action man that Fleming wasn’t. He led secret operations in the Second World War in Norway, in Greece, and elsewhere. So, he was action commando man, very much, I suppose part of that James Bond image. And Ian Fleming, the writer brother, worshipped him, and really admired and looked up to his older brother. Fleming himself, went to Eton, as we all know, the elite of the elite schools in England. So, it shows again that context of entitlement, privilege, you know, end of empire period, that he’s really born into. 1927, his mother, who was really the influence on Fleming’s life, and wanted him to get a job in the foreign office, as was, I’m sure many people know, was expected for the upper-class Eton, you know, and other graduates to go into, foreign office empire. And so his mother sent him to kids’ school, Austria, to a private school, a small little school, which was run by Ernan Forbes Dennis.
So, there’s already the link that we can see. Then he comes back to England, Fleming, and he can’t get a job. His mother intervenes again and lobbies the head of Reuters news agency. And in 1931, Fleming got a job as a journalist with Reuters. In 1933, he was posted to Moscow. And he covered the start on the show trial of sex engineers. Yup, he was Staling. And he was amazed that he actually got a personally signed note from Stalin apologising that he could not attend the interview with Fleming. We can make of it what we want. But it shows, in one sense, the ambition, the drive, the sense of entitlement almost that young Fleming had. He was engaged to a woman called Monique, but his mother was very anti it because she wanted him to marry up and marry into aristocracy, marry into money of course, as was, you know, the impetus of the times. And his mother threatened to cut off his trust fund for the rest of his life. So, he cut out to his mom and he broke it off with this lady, Monique, he broke off the engagement. Then in 1933 comes back and his mother and the family put pressure again for him to go into banking, and he does. So, there’s a very different sense we get from his own life in terms of the intricacies, let’s put it in that way, and complexities of his own family dynamic. 1939, Fleming has a hot affair with Ann Charteris who was married, and also having her own affair with the heir to Lord Rothermere. Lord Rothermere was probably the most important newspaper owner, and I suppose media barren of his times. So, she’s having an affair with the heir, she’s married, and she’s having an affair with Fleming.
This is part of the manure and world that Fleming is mixing in. And of course, we can see this played out in the Bond films and in the books, you know, all the women and Bond, you know, all the fantasy stuff going on, but reality, for the very upper echelons of society. During the Second World War, 1939, is when the really gets interesting, I think. Fleming is recruited by a guy called Godfrey Admiral, and he was the Director of Naval Intelligence for the British, and he became his PA. And he joins with a code name 17F, you know, the British love the name and the letter, you know, sort of making the secret service even more secret and that kind of thing. And it gains a certain archetypal mythology, which I think permeates through today. And you know, has always done it. It emboldens that sense of secrecy, intelligence, expertise, all of that. Godfrey himself, who was head of Naval Intelligence for the British in the war, was a pretty abrasive character. And he used Fleming as his diplomat and liaison with the government. So, Fleming was on the Secret Intelligence Service Committee, he was on the Political Warfare Executive, he was on Churchill Prime minister’s staff. He had access to the secrets of the secrets and all the Trojan horse plans of how to outwit, destroy the enemy from within through the obvious, you know, gathering of intelligence. So, he’s right inside what’s really going on at the time of greatest crisis. You know, certainly in, you know, in our times in modern times of the Second World War. In 1939, he also wrote a memo. He wrote lots of memos, but the one was a scheme to lure U-boats to minefields. And constantly coming up with creative, imaginative, and quite daring ideas that commando units would go out and try and do in order to gather intelligence without the Germans knowing basically.
And the idea was to plant misleading papers on a corpse that would be found by the enemies. It’s similar to Operation Mincemeat, which was the 1943 plan. I’m sure many people know the film and the books that have been written about this, which was a plan to conceal the allies intended invasion of Italy in 1943. So, get a corpse, plant misleading papers on the corpse, have it wash up on in the Spanish or Portuguese shore, whatever. Anyway, the Germans will get it. And you know, at least plant doubt in German intelligence, what’s really going on, what isn’t being planned. Constantly coming up with innovative creative ideas. In the memo of Fleming wrote, I’m quoting, “I suggest a corpse dressed as an airman with documents on him should be dropped on the coast from Spain or Portugal from a parachute that has failed. I understand there’s no difficulty obtaining corpses at the Naval Hospital in London, but of course, it would have to be a fresh corpse.” So, he’s thinking all the detail and this he quotes in the memo as an idea from a book by a novelist called Basil Thomson. Then Operation Ruthless, which was another idea of Flemings, which is a plan of getting details of the very important Enigma code. Just to remind us, all the enigma code was basically, you know, the intelligence code that the Germans used to communicate everything from minor importance to major, throughout the wall. And it was incredibly hard to crack. And that’s the one that Bletchley Park cracks under Alan Turing and others, the beginnings of the idea of computers, and so on. And they do crack the code eventually. So, Turing and Churchill are desperate to get hold of the Enigma machine, especially the German Navy because of course, the U-boats are destroying all the ships carrying food and goods, and weapons, and tanks, et cetera, from America.
You know, so in particular, they’re desperate. So, this is a memo in 1940, and the idea was to get a Nazi bomber with a German crew dressed in Luftwaffe uniform, crash it in the English Channel, and the crew would then attack their German rescuers and steal the Enigma code. Turing and Bletchley Park was very keen on it and pretty annoyed that Churchill and others didn’t follow through with the idea. Anyway, it just pointed out to him that a German bomber is going to sink in the English Sea and English Channel, and the pointers of an idea. Anyway, we get all these ideas cropping up and this is part of his job to come up with these things to gather intelligence. Fleming also interestingly worked with Colonel Donovan, who was Roosevelt’s special representative on intelligence corporation between . 1941, Fleming goes to America, where he helped part of a team to write the blueprint for what became the Office of Strategic Services and eventually becomes the CIA. So, Godfrey also put Fleming in charge of Operation Golden Eye. In 1941, ‘42, Goldeneye was a plan to set up and keep an intelligence framework in Spain in case the Germans marched in and took Spain. So, Goldeneye, already the words, the names of all these that we know. 1942, Fleming forms a unit of commandos. And the aim is not to fight, it’s to seize enemy documents of intelligence-gathering purposes from headquarters of Germany in occupied Europe, of course, and get out. Go seize, get out with trained commanders for that. And this unit, now, this is where it gets fascinating, was based on a unit from Germany headed by Otto Skorzeny. And I know that Trudi and others, and I’m sure Helen have lectured on Otto Skorzeny, you know, who was Hitler’s favourite commando paratrooper who would do daring raids like this. He was the guy who had the daring raid to rescue Mussolini, you know, and take him across back to Berlin, and many other things.
And Fleming knew about Skorzeny’s units and modelled the British Commando Unit on that. Skorzeny later, fascinatingly, works for the Mossad and helps kill some of the Nazi scientists working for Egypt around the time, you know, after the war on possible missiles and nuclear weapons. So, he’s mixing and knowing all this kind of information. So, these books are not written from a naive perspective. They’re written from somebody who is really not only reading about it, but is involved with meeting these guys and planning so much. So, I think, you know, that’s really the important thing for me. The D-Day Landings. 1944, Fleming is helping to prepare some intelligence work for Operation Overlord. He also helps with the planning of the attack on the German Port of Kiel, where the research was being done on engines, which are going to be used in the V-2 rocket. He’d read Carson McCullough’s 1941 novel “Reflections in a Golden Eye,” which described the American use of British naval bases in the Caribbean. So, I give you this as a flavour of the background and knowledge of what he gained from his own life, and obviously, put into the Bond novels. It’s not coming from a naive perspective. Post-war, it’s 1945, go back to Ann. She had now married the second Viscount up into the aristocracy, Viscount Rothermere, who was the heir to Reuters the newspaper Empire of the times in Britain. But she continued her affair with Fleming. She went to Jamaica to see him 'cause he’d gone to live in Jamaica, he loved it there. In the pretext of visiting his friend and neighbour, Noel Howard. We get a sense of who Fleming’s really mixing with. The couple finally married in 1952 in Jamaica, both Fleming and Ann had multiple affairs during their marriage. He was also friends with a British Prime minister, Anthony Eden, who was so close to Churchill in the war. That’s another whole story. You can show the next slide, please. This is Golden Eye.
This is the home that he set up in Jamaica shortly after the war where he wrote most of his novels and stories, obviously, the James Bond series and the children’s book, “Chitty-Chitty-Bang-Bang,” you know, it’s the only children’s book that he wrote, which is made into the very popular film. Okay, if we can go on to the next slide, please. So, this is a guy, Wolf Mankowitz. A very interesting Jewish guy who lived in the East end of London. And he was friends with Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli, who as we all two main producers, they got the rights from Fleming to turn his Bond novels into films. And of course, they’ve still got the rights. Well, their descendants have got the rights. And Wolf Mankowitz was the first writer on “Dr. No” and on the Early Bond films. So, his a British Jewish guy coming from the east end of London is working with Harry Saltzman, who is one of the two main co-producers of all the Bond films. And who’s also a Canadian born, or a Canadian, you know, of Jewish heritage. So, it’s this fascinating mix going on all the time. 1950s Fleming starts to write more and more. And this is from “Casino Royale.” I just wanted to read you a couple of lines to share in a sense of his actual writing of the guy. “The scent and smoke and sweat of a casino are nauseating at 3:00 in the morning. Then the soul erodes produced by high gambling, which is a compost of greed, and fear, and nervous tension. It becomes unbearable, the erosion. And the senses awake and revolt from it.” It’s got a Raymond Chandler, it’s got Dashiell Hammett, Graham Green. All these influencers I think coming in, which Fleming acknowledged of the thriller writers, crime-fiction writers. The atmosphere, the scene, you know, and very direct writing. It’s not embroidered, flowery, or anything like that. It is quite a sparse directness in all his writing.
That’s from the opening of the “Casino Royale,” which he wrote in two months at Goldeneye, his house in Jamaica. What’s interesting is that after he wrote “Casino Royale,” he sent it off but couldn’t get it published to different publishers. Now, for William Plomer, I’m sure many know the South African poet who grew up partly in South Africa, then in England, anyway, he worked as an editor first for Faber and Faber, like T. S. Eliot, and then he worked for Jonathan Cape Publishers. And he was a friend of Fleming’s. And Plomer, although, he was quite critical of the writing, he thought it should definitely be published and pushed for it. And it’s William Plomer, Fleming’s big friend, together with Fleming’s brother, the commander action guy, Peter, who pushed the publishers to publish the first one. And they’re very reluctant and they say, “No, it’s not going to sell, we’re not going to publish.” Those two are responsible for the entire phenomenon beginning because the publishing company, Jonathan Cape, used to publish his brother’s books about commando, and stories, and action-adventure, et cetera. So, as a favour to Peter, the brother, and because Plomer was one of the editors and directors, they did it. How one starts these things is always a fascinating story to me. 1953, “Casino Royale” is released to the UK. Success as a reprint run of three. Fleming took the name of James Bond, fascinatingly from an American guy who was an expert on Caribbean beads, a bird, sorry. And he was author of a book called “Birds of the West Indies.” In an interview with the New Yorkers in the early '60s, Fleming said, and I’m quoting, “I wanted Bond to be an extremely dull and interesting man at the beginning. I thought the name James Bond, to be the dullest name imaginable.”
I leave it for imagination what only can happen when one gets into the public realm. He did acknowledge also in the interview that Bond was a compound, as he said, a compound of secret agents, commando types are met during the war, especially my commando brother Peter. He described the looks of what he wanted for James Bond as dark, rather cruel, good looks. That’s a phrase from one of the books. And he based the looks on Hoagy Carmichael. You can go on to the next slide, please. And here we have Hoagy Carmichael. He based his original idea for Bond on the looks of Hoagy Carmichael. Think of that, and Sean Connery and the book. And then, on the right-hand side is a friend of his who is an artist-illustrator who drew what he thought might be the image from the writing of Fleming. And the influence, of course, that Fleming told him of Hoagy Carmichael. Later embodied, for me, mostly in Sean Connery as an actor. And it’s fascinating that he’d already decided on the look, and you get a sense of the irony, the detachment, the part cynicism, maybe there’s an romantic idealism behind just in this image of Hoagy Carmichael itself. You know, and this is what he wanted to create the Bond look from. He also used lots of names in his own work, from people that he knew. Scaramanga who’s the villain in the “Man with the Golden Gun,” was named after a fellow Eton schoolboy who would constantly pick on Fleming, and fight him, and bully him, and you know, as school boys, and physically bully him. So, he took names from, I’m going to come to “Goldfinger” and the name as well. But the names from lots of these were taken from people he knew, or popular names, or just well-known names at the time. In 1958 is when the book started to be heavily criticised. And some of the critics, and I just want to quote a few phrases from the critics.
“These books show a total lack of an ethical frame, similar to Raymond Chandler and Dashiell Hammett.” Another quote from another critic, “In "Dr. No,” we see an English schoolboy bully with the sex longings of a frustrated adolescent and the snobbish cravings of a suburban English adult.“ These are critics on his writing. Another critic, "Mr. Fleming has no literary skill. His books are chaotic, haphazard, at best.” Vicious attacks. This is five years after “Casino Royale” has already been published. And you know, he’s built up quite a big following and quite popular. It changes in the '60s. Two things happen, the one is in 1960, Fleming’s commissioned by the Kuwait Oil Company to write a book on the country’s oil industry. The Kuwaiti government disapproves of what he writes. And Fleming wrote later, “The Sheikhs of Kuwait wanted to be seen as verte commas civilised and not how they originally had been.” So, of course, they would reject his books. 1961, which is a very important moment. The book from “Russia with Love” is published and President Kennedy reads it. And Kennedy goes on record as saying it’s one of his 10 favourite books of the year. And immediately, or pretty quickly, Fleming becomes the bestselling crime-fiction writer in America and many parts of the English-speaking world. The sales rocket. Kennedy had actually met Fleming in Washington, way back to earlier times that I mentioned. And he starts also to realise that he needs to add a little bit more. And he gives Bond in some of the later novels, bit more of humour and wit even. Fleming himself was a heavy smoker, drinker, and suffered from heart disease. And he died at the age of 56, just for interest sake and sadness. In 1975, his son Casper, advertently or inadvertently, we don’t know, took a drug overdose and dies. The writing itself for me is almost in two periods between '53 and '60. When he starts in 1953 and '60 just before the Kennedy moment, where I think we get an emphasis on mood, character, and plot. 1961 to '66, he starts to incorporate imagery much more. And I think we see it reflected in the stories and the writing.
He’s trying to move with his times also. I mentioned the mix of the influencers, Graham Green, Raymond Chandler, and others. The big thing is that he’s taking the idea of adventure story, not only boy’s own adventure but adventure story, And he’s trying to find a way to fit into post-war Britain. And that’s the key. Anthony Burgess, the writers, said that, “Of course, he wrote potboilers almost in the style of 19th century.” You know, you write the stories per week, and then gets picked up. And people want to know what’s the next instalment in the story, what’s going to happen. And he had a journalistic style, according to Anthony Burgess, and I’m quoting here, Burgess says that Fleming wrote, “To produce a narrative speed.” I like that phrase, “a narrative speed which hustles the reader past each danger point.” It’s a fascinating insight by a fellow writer, and it’s the fellow writers who don’t judge him. They admire Fleming, Anthony Burgess, William Plumer, others, Kingsley Amos. Umberto Eco, you know, the fascinating Italian critic wrote a whole essay on, as if Kingsley Amos, on the phenomenon of James Bond and Fleming, it’s obviously of, you know, Bond and the villain, the goodie, the badie, the obvious opposite of the free world versus the Soviet Union, Britain versus the non-Anglo-Saxon countries, duties, sacrifice, royalty, dishonour, treachery. You know, all these themes feed in to this post-war of global phenomenon coming out of Britain. And of course, as Eco points out, the villains mostly come from Central Europe or the Mediterranean and are mostly often Slavic in origin with a mixed heritage.
And Umberto Eco points out, I think a very important insight, that Fleming did not use class enemies for his villains instead, he relied on ethnic identity or physical distortion. And I think that’s so important, that’s a huge shift in post-war writing coming out of Britain after the war. You know, the old cliche Britain won the war but lost the empire. So, it’s the loss of empire, there’s rationing for coal, rationing for food, you know, people are desperately trying to get the NHS health, other things, trying to get back on its feet. Britain is bankrupt almost, you know, it’s a tough time for the British who won the war. And he doesn’t use class as a category for enemy. It’s ethnic identity. And I think this does suggest that he has an instinct for the kinds of othering that we see going on today of ethnic identity, of religion, or culture, or race, or creed, or whatever. It’s based in something of ethnicity. It’s not just a class enemy. It’s shifted completely. Although, of course, he shifts from Germans and Nazis being the baddies to, of course, you know, the Russians, the Soviet Union. Kingsley Amos, who I really think is a fascinating writer, you know, from Britain, wrote the “Lucky Jim,” the novel. And his son Martin Amos, who was very contemporary, just recently passed away, fantastic novelist as well. Kingsley Amos wrote a whole long essay on the Bond phenomenon in Fleming’s writing. And just one line I wanted to take out was that, “Yes,” he wrote, “there is a fantastical nature to the James Bond world, but it is bolted to some sort of reality.” And when I read this, I thought there is something here about Fleming because of what I described as what he did during the war and all his work in intelligence-gathering, secret intelligence, all of that, the able intelligence.
There is a link to reality but it’s a bolt, to use Kingsley Amos’s phrase. So, it’s the writers, the artists who understand what Fleming is trying to do as opposed to the scholars and the critics, I think. Okay, if we can go to the next slide, please. So, Mr. Bond, here, we get a couple of examples, obviously, David Niven top left, then Roger Moore, and then Daniel Craig in the middle there, and the right who’s the most contemporary one, and at the bottom, my favourite, you know, Sean Connery. Very different type of Englishman. And Sean Connery was the first, we must remember, you know, the first Bond. So, Niven and Roger Moore are, you know, in Harry Saltzman and Broccoli phrase, “He was almost too pretty.” He’s almost too handsome, Roger Moore. You know, and David Niven’s, he almost too upper-class, sophisticated, you know, elite, something a bit more physical is needed. And what I’m going to talk about later with Connery is that it’s fascinating that Broccoli’s wife was the one to push the two producers, Saltzman and Broccoli, to audition to try Connery, who was a total unknown at the time. 'Cause, she said he had a kind of a raw sexual masculinity, you know, which was needed for the character. And so, they took a chance with Connery. And later comes the others, of course. And Daniel Craig, I think, really tries to get, and gets quite a lot, a hell of a lot fantastically of the Connery feeling. And Connery actually was interviewed once, said, Daniel Craig, yes, he understands there needs to be that raw sexuality. So, we go onto the villain, 1958 novel, “Goldfinger.” And one of the reasons I like it the most is not only the song, but for me, it’s the writing that is so good. And Auric Goldfinger is the main villain. Auric, of course, being Latin for the word gold. He’s obsessed with gold, the power, unlimited wealth.
And most of the novel is about Bond thwarting Goldfinger’s plan to steal most of the gold from reserves from Fort Knox. Fleming, as we know, used the name of his Jewish neighbour in Hampstead in London, who had been his neighbour, Erno Goldfinger. He was a Hungarian Jewish architect who’d moved to London in 1934. Whether he didn’t like him or his work, we don’t know. Whether he was part of an antisemitic approach, generally, part of a lot of the aristocrats in upper-class of England at the time, you know, we don’t know. But it’s not in the work, it’s not anywhere direct obvious, like, it isn’t T.S Elliot’s poetry, it’s nowhere in anywhere like that. It’s too easy and quick to simply pigeonhole him, I think. Also, let’s remember, you know, that the scripts are being worked on, and Fleming knows, by Wolf Mankowitz, Harry Saltzman is his main producer, and there’s another two Jewish individuals writers who work on a lot of the really good scripts. There’s an American Jewish playwright, Richard Maibaum who helped to write 12 other Bond film scripts. Okay, if we go on to the next slide, please. So, here’s Mr. Connery, young Connery in the very early Bond series, especially in particular on the left. And when they cast Connery, they had a lunch, the two directors, Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, had a lunch with Connery on the pushing of Broccoli’s wife, as I mentioned. And he came unkempt and a bit messy, dirty, untidy, et cetera. But during the lunch, they were persuaded. And then as he walked out, and it’s famously noted, Broccoli and Saltzman looked at each other and said, “He’s got a feline masculine, walks like a jungle cat.” A young 32-year-old Connery. And their cast as a total unknown, Connery had wanted to be a bodybuilder and was from Edinburgh working-class, Scottish.
Certainly, wasn’t anything of the upper-class background and heritage as Fleming had imagined. So, this is a very interesting guy. This is a guy whose name was Ken Adams, Sir Ken Adams, who’s a real-life Second World War Bond-type hero. He was born Klaus Hugo Adam in 1921. And he was from a Jewish family who fled Germany in 1934. His real name Klaus Hugo Adam. When war breaks out, he’s desperate, the age of 18, to join the British Army. And eventually, cut a long story short, he’s able to join the Royal Air Force to become a fighter pilot. And he’s only one of two German citizens who were allowed at that very young age to become fighter pilots for the British. This is a picture of him on the set of the 1979 Bond film, “Moonraker.” Ken Adam, after the war, and he was a real action hero type during the war as a fighter pilot, you know, up there with the Dambusters image Guy Gibson and these others, similar to Fleming’s brother, you know. And he joins the very beginning James Bond crew to start help making movies. And he designs the set for “Moonraker,” he designed the first Aston Martin car. He came up with the idea of a Aston Martin car. All the gadgets was his idea. And the gadgets in the car, and the machine guns and everything else, you know, all the cars suddenly can fly and do whatever. And it’s Ken Adams, the set designer. An imaginative designer that creates so many of these ideas, Jewish guy.
So, what’s fascinating to me is that after the war, you know, he was always interested in film and film design, and what does he do? He ends up designing for Bond. Okay, if we can go on the next slide, please. And here’s the Aston Martin that Ken Adam designed. This is one of the classic images, of course, with Connery, and you know, with, obviously, the love interest, the girl interest, and so on, or the betrayal interest. Okay, in “Goldfinger,” what’s fascinating is the character of Goldfinger was played by a German actor Gert Frobe. And he had been a Nazi party member during the war. He joined the Nazi party in 1929 at the age of 16 and in 37. But in 1944, he was called up to the German army and drafted. After the war, Israel banned all of Frobe’s films that he’d acted in. But then a Jewish survivor, Mario Blumenau, said that Frobe had helped save him and his mother from the camps he’d hid them and brought food stamps and food. And Frobe was let out. And Israel allowed Frobe’s films to be showed in the new Israeli state. Fascinating, all these links I find when we research a little bit deeper into the global phenomenon of how these things are made, the characters, the images, the people behind, we get a much richer picture and a much more deeper sense of creative energies and intelligences that are all working, not only Fleming, but all working to create this global phenomenon and are not working very thoughtfully, creatively, and touching something that I think Kingsley Amos and the writers of the times realise in Fleming’s writing. I don’t want to romanticise him as a writer, but you know, we’ve got to look behind pop culture, and what is it that still endears and endures. Bond has been portrayed in 27 productions on film, it’s grossed over $7 billion to date.
An extraordinary franchise, an extraordinary phenomenon coming out of this one guy. And is the exemplar of the nonchalant at certain ironic masculinity, and yet, physical. Way beyond Sherlock Holmes, Hercule Poirot, and others as a mark of dominance. One scholar had a phrase that he was like almost consolation for the British after the Second World War decline of empire. A declinist fantasy for Britain’s after the Second World War, a need for the British to have an action hero. And of course, in 1962, when “Dr. No” was released, where Ken Adams had designed this car, the Aston Martin, et cetera, Britain still had imperial possessions, Hong Kong, Kenya, Malawi, Qatar, and others. Bond becomes the interesting standard barrier for the paradox of British prestige of soft power. Ironically, Bond, the embodiment of upper class played by a working-class Scottish guy who wants to be a bodybuilder, was a great ambassador for the British style, British class, British image of soft power portrayed through the world. Soft power becomes a thing after the decline of empire, after the Second World War. The irony is this essentially conservative establishment figure, loyalty, on his majesty’s service, serving king, queen, and country, all of that, this establishment figure becomes a soft power standard bearer, together with the British pop stars, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and others of the '60s. It’s a fascinating complexity for me that we get. In Goldfinger, Fleming wrote that, “Drinking Dom Perignon '53 above the temperature of 38 degrees is as bad as listening to the Beatles.”
The Beatles forgave him. So, Bond carried on through the eras, the Reagan Thatcher, the 9-11, the War on Terror. Now, the Brexit retreated to Fortress Britain, Bond is changed. In “Skyfall,” Daniel Craig is much more of a romantic hero who’s not afraid to show his inner feelings as a character together with this strong masculinity. It’s fascinating that, for me, Daniel Craig portrays him, fantastic. There’s an irony all the time. But we, the audience can make irony, not Bond himself too much, and that’s a very important distinction that I think the producers have stuck to. Britain’s position in the world, you know, that empire is in decline, and there’s an insecure sense of self-image, the fantasy that Britannia can still punch above its weight. The decline of British power in “From Russia with Love,” Bond admits, and I’m quoting, “In England, we don’t show our teeth anymore, only gums.” That’s Fleming writing. Fleming is aware of that huge shift happening inside England and its image in the world. In the 1964 novel, “You Only Live Twice,” the dialogue between Bond and the head of the Japanese Secret Service, a guy called Tanaka in the book talk about the loss of British prestige. Tanaka accuses Britain, and I’m quoting, “You threw away your empire with both hands.”
The defections of the four members of MI6 to the Soviet Union that, of course, a huge impact on how Britain was viewed by America and Western, Kim Philby and you know, the others who defected and betrayed basically. And there’s conversations between 'em and Bond on this, and the decline and the treachery is a moral ambiguity post-war Britain and uncertainty. And I think Bond feeds into this. And of course, Bond’s an antidote to Britain’s post-war austerity, rationing, a sense of premonition of lost power. As I said, food, coal still being rationed. But he’s aware, you know, Fleming 'cause in Moonraker, Drax is the villain, and he’s the megalomaniac German Nazi and his assistant is called Krebs, who’s the same name as Hitler’s last Chief of Staff. So, you know, all of this happens as a re-emerging Germany becomes less and less of the source of villains and enemy, and of course, it’s overtaken by the Cold War, the novels change. The sense of loyalty Bond feels towards his friend is another idea in the books. And that’s as strong as his loyalty to his country, that loyalty to friendship. What’s happened to that post-war? The traitor within this treachery. Of course, it’s in “Casino Royale,” and the betrayal, the treachery from within. Anglo-American relations in the central role of America in the defence of the West, that Fleming is very aware of. The tensions comparing that of Britain trying to retain its empire and its image of empire in the world. As Kingsley Amos wrote, “The American take orders from Bond who does much better than the American agent.”
So, Fleming is constantly ironically playing with who’s leading the West, what’s happened to the British Empire. In “Goldfinger,” “Live and Let Die,” “Dr. No,” it’s Bond, the British agent who has to sort out an American and Western problem. So, finally, to mention a little bit about Connery is that he by chance, 1953, he was in London at a bodybuilding competition and had a little bit of a fantasy and a friend of his suggests maybe see if he can come be an actor. He goes and he auditions. And he gets a walk-on part in effect, chorus part in Rogers and Hammerstein, “South Pacific.” Kerry Grant had been given the part of Bond, contract drawn up, just had to be signed, but Grant would only make one film. He was already 58 years old and he refused to commit to a franchise, which Saltzman and Broccoli wanted. Connery, much younger, 32, working-class, Scottish background, bodybuilder, no real actor training or anything. He wasn’t vaguely on the list. And in Fleming, literally, reviled Connery at the beginning, he referred to him as that working-class Scott showing his upper-class prejudicial roots, Fleming. And Fleming said, “I’m looking for Commander Bond. I’m not looking for an overgrown stuntman from Scotland.” Connery appears at the restaurant, as I said, all of that happens. But as Broccoli and Saltzman wrote, and Dana, the wife, said that, “Connery had,” and I’m quoting, “an assertive, reckless masculine touch, a confidence in the way he walked and spoke.” The director, Terence Young of the first one, “Saw a diamond in the rough, essentially.” I’m quoting from Terence Young and helped prepare him for a role. And Terence Young took him to his own hairdresser, took Connery for a grooming, he taught him how to be James Bond, the diamond in the rough, rough in the diamond, whichever way we see it.
Fleming, after he saw the first film, he came out raving. He saw the charisma, the masculinity that Connery embodied completely and changed his mind. In fact, in the next novel, “You Only Live Twice,” he gave James Bond Scottish ancestry, which was picked up in one of the Daniel Craig films to mirror Connery’s own Scottish ancestry. The rest’s history. So, the characters become the stuff of pop culture legend. And it’s a defining sense of modern masculinity, I think in a declining state, in a declining global empire, one of the victors of the Second World War. And of course, there’s the gentlemanly ideal together with this masculinity. And I think that’s what’s fascinating together with everything else is said about end of empire times that I think Fleming is touching on knowing the people that he did and the connections that he had. Okay, if we go on to the next slide, please, I’ll show a few clips. Okay, there’s a couple of scenes of Connery as Bond.
Bond. James Bond.
When do you sleep, 007?
Never on the firm’s time, sir.
[Coworker] Does toping mean anything to you?
I want to know what’s happened to Strangeways.
Bond came to see me this morning.
Yes, I know. I gave orders that he should be killed. Why is he still alive?
If you carry a double O number, it means you’re licenced to kill, not get killed.
What are you doing here?
I can assure you my intentions are strictly honourable.
We never met a detective before.
I’m a member of SPECTRE. Unfortunately, I misjudged you. You are just a stupid policeman. You’re persistent trying provoke me, Mr. Bond.
And I’m flattered. ♪ From Russia with love ♪
Press that button now. And out she comes. Good luck, 007.
Thank you, sir.
All of my key employees are my sons. Blood is the best security in this business.
You look surprised.
My orders are to kill you and deliver the lecter. How I do, it’s my business. ♪ To learn I must ♪
Isn’t she working for SPECTRE too? ♪ Return from Russia ♪
You think she’s doing it all for Mother Russia? ♪ With love ♪
Okay, we can hold it there. Thanks, Lauren. If we can go onto the next one, please. It’s that opening, “My name is Bond, James.” that Connery gives to me. Is that brilliant in that one brief moment in that scene captures everything for me of the character, everything we’ve been talking about, and the irony and that sense of self-confidence detachment and a kind of rugged masculinity. Okay, this clip, unfortunately, the sound has come out very soft, but it’s one of the great scenes I think of the writing of these guys who wrote it between Goldfinger and Bond playing golf. And everything is subtle and nuanced. There’s no action in the scene, there’s no violence. And for me, it’s one of the best-written scenes. And so much better in the earlier films where the writing is really good and it keeps the story going and the narrative. It doesn’t need as many of the gadgets and you know, big chase and fight scenes. Okay, we have to skip this one, it’s a bit too soft, unfortunately, it came out, okay? This is one of the great scenes from “Goldfinger” played by the German actor I mentioned.
Good evening, 007.
My name is James Bond.
And members of your curious profession are few in number. You have been recognised, let’s say, by one of your opposite numbers, who is also licenced to kill. Oh, that interesting car of yours. I too have a new toy but considerably more practical. You are looking at an industrial laser which emits an extraordinary light not to be found in nature. It can project a spot on the moon or at closer range, cut through solid metal. I will show you. This is gold, Mr. Bond. All my life I’ve been in love with its colour, its brilliance, its divine heaviness. I welcome any enterprise that will increase my stock, which is considerable.
I think you’ve made your point, Goldfinger. Thank you for the demonstration.
Choose your next witticism carefully, Mr. Bond. It may be your last. The purpose of our two previous encounters is now very glittering. I do not intend to be distracted by another. Good night. Mr. Bond.
Do you expect me to talk?
No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die. There is nothing you can talk to me about that I don’t already know.
Are you forgetting one thing? If I fail to report 008 replaces me.
I trust he will be more successful.
Well, he knows what I know.
You know nothing, Mr. Bond.
Operation Grand Slam, for instance.
Two words you may have overheard, which cannot possibly have any significance to you or anyone in your organisation.
Can you afford to take that chance?
What I like about the scene is that it’s just very simple, building up dramatic tension, you know, between Bond and the villain. And we know what’s coming, what may come, but it’s building up, it’s using the dialogue. It’s not overacted, you know, the actors have kept it under control and it’s just building step by step slowly the dramatic tension in watching the scene, doesn’t need much else. And of course, the writing and that great line which has become so iconic in film history of great lines, “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.” You know, and when that was shown for the first time, many audiences burst out laughing when Goldfinger says that line, you know? Bond, “Do you expect me to talk?” You know, do you want me to talk? Do you make me talk? And Goldfinger with that reply. So, I think we see a whole lot of these qualities that I mentioned. And Connery is actually sweating there, you see a few beads of sweat but it’s subtle, it’s kept in this way, you know, in order for us to feel. And I think these earlier films and Daniel Craig, I really believe capture a lot of this early quality. Okay, if we can go on to the next one, please, which will be the last one. So, this is the London Olympics, which was a parody of Bond and the Queen.
Mr. Bond, Your Majesty.
Good evening, Mr. Bond.
Good evening, Your Majesty.
[Announcer] Your helicopter awaits. Music from the Dam Busters by Eric Coates. Several examples of English here, of course. Well, they’re heading East. And here they are. All the way around the stadium. James Bond epic starring Daniel Craig and Her Majesty the Queen.
Yes, we can hold there, please, Lauren. Thanks. So, finally, Bond in 2012 for the London Olympics. It’s a parody on, you know, British nationalism, of course, and, you know, heroism, all the actionary, everything I’ve said, you know, the royalty itself, able to , and parody itself. And it’s the power of this global iconic phenomenon of the Bond character that is able to contain that and move with the times. And I think there is something that is enduring and endearing in understanding how we find in a way pop culture images and pop culture icons at times of anxiety and times of confidence in a culture’s history. Okay, so, I’m going to hold it there. Of course, so many things one can say and do. And to show this, you know, huge franchise of Bond. But I just wanted to share a couple of what I thought were maybe interesting thoughts and some of the individuals involved in creating this global phenomenon. Okay, so, let’s go into questions.
Q&A and Comments:
“Operation Mincemeat was you and Montague’s plan, not Fleming.” Sarah, thank you for that. I’ll have to check. And I think we both have to, let’s have a conversation of where our different sources came from, whose idea it was. If I’m wrong, I apologise.
Menard, “Craig is not my Bond.” Yep. Yeah, I think Connery is the iconic ultimate. But I think Danial Craig’s right up there. He does a superb job, in Skyfall, especially.
Q: Karen, “What about George Lazenby and Pierce Brosnan?”
A: Yeah, good. I don’t think they get, it’s either a bit too much irony or a bit too much parody, or a bit too much masculinity, a bit too much physical expression. For me, it is kind of a rawness.
Margaret. Yeah, as I said, you know, he was a Scotsman. Which is one of the things that Ian Fleming didn’t like about him at all, working-class Scotsman.
No, Gita, it was Albert Broccoli’s wife Dana. She pushed Broccoli and Saltzman, the two producers as you know, to take a chance with the total unknown actor, untrained Connery. I don’t understand if the woman in the film was painted or gold.
Ah, Rita, “Goldfinger” remains. You know, we forget the story, the plots and all those things, I can’t remember most of them, but some of the images really remain. And that’s when there was a shift for me in the writing that I mentioned. You know, first, it was much more character, plot, and sort of narrative writing style. But a little bit later he developed the imagery in his books, and she was covered in gold on the bed because she had betrayed Goldfinger and slept with Bond.
Gail, hope you’re well and hope you’re okay in Joburg. I like Timothy Dalton. Ah, yeah, okay, and I agree. The scripts he didn’t have yet we’re not great. Absolutely.
Balena, “And Sir George Grenfell-Baines was an architect. They both knew Erno Goldfinger.” Wow, and that came on the Kindertransport. That’s extraordinary. Thank you so much for sharing that. That’s incredible. This is what lockdown really does. There’s incredible human, you know, realities from people’s lives. Thank you for sharing that, Balena.
Q: Pamela, “What do you think the role and portrayal of women?”
A: Well, I purposely left out that today, because that’s a whole conversation to get into, and obviously, there are the debates around, you know, it’s just a misogynistic, paternalistic, you know, pretty damning portrayal of women in the films. Changes later with Judy Dench and others coming in and different actresses playing different roles, it changes. But there is, there’s racism, there’s anti-feminism, there’s all sorts of things in those novels, there’s no question. It’s not an excuse, but I think when we see these books as part of the times we see what they’re feeding in terms of popular prejudice going for and against popular prejudices in their times. And I think from an educational point of viewpoint to understand that, to get that.
Rose, “Love this, especially striking to me as the male dominance.” Yep, organisational roles.
“Daniel Craig comes along with Judy Dench leading instructions. Change of time.” So, clear. Absolutely. So, it’s what I’m saying. And even the ability to parody, you know, the Queen and others, it’s an ability to constantly move with the times that I think is part of this remarkable film franchise, and character, and zeitgeist. Perhaps a lot more than many others. You know, that sort of iconic figures who’ve become a franchise or characters.
Rita, thank you. Sorry, it’s just gone here.
Ron, “An anecdote. Someone ran Goldfinger’s London office, one of his staff on city personated Goldfinger.” That’s great.
Pat, “Acknowledgement is a wonderful theme tune.” Absolutely, I couldn’t cover everything. So, the theme tune is stunning. And the Paul McCartney version, I think, for me, stands out. The “Goldfinger” one stands up. Brilliant cover songs, you know, have been nominated for Academy Awards. The McCartney one for me is by far, and the “Goldfinger” one perhaps stand out and from “Russia with Love.”
Phyllis, “One Connery, two word.” But we can debate it, Phyllis. I agree, you know? And fascinating the two kinds of Englishmen they portray in terms of that ironic detached attitude of the upper-class English, I think it was John Le Carré, who wrote, “You’ll never be a better disassembler than the privately educated Englishman.” And that’s I think part of Fleming, Eton College, and part of the world he’s creating for Bond.
Wendy, “Daniel Craig was my favourite.” Yeah, well, Daniel Craig combines that masculinity, that rawness of the action hero that Connery has. He’s not afraid to show feelings. A new kind of romantic hero, which he does fantastically. Liliana, thank you.
Rita, “Love Moneypenny.” And these names, you know, they’re so obviously self-ironic in Fleming writing them, you know? They’re such fun and playful. So, within the crime writing genre that he’s working in, he’s working with fun and playfulness, and we can imagine laughing as writing it. Thank you.
Q: Irene, “Who wrote all the scripts?”
A: I try to mention that, you know, Richard Maybaum, worked on 12, Wolf Mankowitz, and some of the early ones. You know, usually a team. So, usually, a couple of writers. There’s so many that, you know, to go into right now. Okay, well, thank you very much, everybody. And hope you’re well, hope you have a great rest of the weekend, bit of fun for August.
And go look at Barbra Streisand next week and I’m sure there’ll be lots of fantastic comments. And to be really selective there. And also, thanks so much to Lauren. And take care.