Was OHMSS actually forgotten?

As for Tracy‘s death having an impact: I would argue it absolutely has and gives OHMSS the gravity no other Bond film has.

Because this death affects Bond completely.

His universe does revolve around him and him only, and Tracy would have been part of this. Having her taken away, by his arc enemy, is the worst thing that could happen to him.

And maybe that’s why OHMSS was forgotten for a while. Nobody wanted to see Bond end up failing.

NTTD has Bond succeed in giving his family a chance to live (without him being a threat), but he is failing as the hero for an audience which vicariously wants to survive with him.

Will NTTD be forgotten at some point? Only if the next era will be successful and spring so many films that Craig will be just one of those guys from earlier times.

Otherwise the film will be the one always mentioned as „the one which ended everything by killing of the hero“.

3 Likes

The conclusion of every Bond movie is inconsequential/pointless–that is what keeps the series going. St. George doesn’t get married, father children, or have a backstory. He merely shows up where needed, just as James Bond always returns. Some actor will play the role in the next movie.

Exactly, which means that Tracy is doomed from the start, and must end up dead. It is the logic of the series.

All 25 endings have been undone–some more strenuously so than others.

Until DAF, where Connery Bond in the PTS gives an indication that the death affected him, and after that is fine–save a fleeting moment in the exchange with Moneypenny–which makes Bond a great spy/assassin–he can move on.

There may be a cohort within the audience that approaches film watching through vicarious identification with the hero, but it is a segment, not the entirety.

3 Likes

I would say it‘s the biggest segment seeking wish fulfillment, as with any other hero in this kind of mass entertainment.

4 Likes

Have they? I cannot remember any.

2 Likes

I don’t see any reason to believe that the events of one film were undone by the next one, except perhaps in the fact that Bond seems to retain no memory of scenarios and villainous schemes that would lead most of us to say, “Hey, this is just like that case I was on two years ago…”

In fact, a line of dialog in FRWL confirms the events of DN, references to Tracy’s death in OHMSS are made or implied in TSWLM, FYEO and LTK, and Craig’s entire tenure is (however clumsily) supposedly linked together by SP.

I frankly don’t see anything in Connery’s performance that suggests even a “fleeting moment” of reflection or sadness when Moneypenny makes that remark and I’m frankly not convinced Sean was aware of its potential implications. And frankly that is for the best because if Moneypenny remembered Tracy at all, her remark is easily her crassest, tackiest action in the entire franchise history. And it would be a shame to grant that distinction to Lois given Samantha’s penchant for innuendo so crass it made Bond look like a Puritan.

This is an interesting idea to me and one perhaps worthy of its own thread. I would say that historically one of, if not THE key draw of cinematic Bond has been his appeal to the Walter Mittys of the world, offering the viewer an escape from the doldrums of everyday life into a world of exotic locales, beautiful companions, swashbuckling daring-do and casual extravagance. And yes, the promise of indulging in all those things with no real threat of failure.

That said, I find this element increasingly diminished over the course of the Craig era and arguably before it. Bond’s 24-hour Pity Parties started, for me, with Brozza-Bond being betrayed by 006, Elektra and MI-6 itself, haunted by his past love Paris, locked up in prison, etc. It went into overdrive with Sad Sack Craig and his endless list of troubles, to the point where I really don’t think Bond is intended as an aspirational figure any more. Yes, he has nice clothes (til he ruins them) and nice cars (til he junks them) but he’s utterly miserable, which for most of us is not an enviable state.

So yeah, I’d say the number of viewers still watching Bond and saying, “I wish I was that guy” has likely dwindled, but it would be interesting to know who they were replaced by, and what the draw is, now. Obviously based on box office receipts, Eon’s found some kind of draw, but I’d honestly be interested to know what it is. I would say it’s the action, but the Bonds have lagged behind M:I and other franchises on that front, as well. It’s a mystery.

4 Likes

I agree - and yet I believe even CraigBond, being so tough and cool, offers a kind of vicarious thrill of the sort „oh, if only I could withstand that kind of troubles“.

And he still gets the beautiful women.

1 Like

Maybe it hits the same pleasure centers as watching someone else fall on a banana peel.

As Homer would say, “It’s funny 'cause it’s not me.”

3 Likes

I am not sure that it is the biggest segment. It may have been at one time. More thoughts below in my response to David_M.

Okay.

That is a big “except perhaps” and makes my point better than I could have. The success of the series is that each film is a stand-alone product that lightly/gracefully nods at its series mates, without becoming beholden to them (until the Craig era, but more about that later. In fact, all about that. Sorry. Could not resist).

M can give Bond an assignment; M can be irritated with Bond; Bond and Moneypenny can flirt; Bond can go rogue; Bond can obey; Q can come up with gadgets and complain about Bond’s treatment of them; a villain can plan to conquer the world or some segment of it; Blofeld can encounter Bond across multiple films, and not always recognize him.

The parts are shaken out of the tool kit, some are selected to assemble a movie (taking into account the prevailing zeitgeist), and post-release, the film becomes another object destined to be scavenged.

A Bond can even morph during the run of one actor: Early MooreBond is different from Middle MooreBond as distinct from Late MooreBond. All iterations are related, but let’s not press the point or look too deeply. I sometimes wonder if Bond fans have been/are more diligent in maintained a continuity/coherence between/among Bond films than the filmmakers were/are–at least until Craig Bond when EON decided to join in the fun. EON’s mishandling of continuity creation upset the fans: leave it to us–we are the professionals at it!

In fact, it may be a condition of fandom: teasing out and leaning into connections between the films. I experience something similar as an auteurist. This last week or so I have been watching the films of Jean-Pierre Melville with a young friend. He has been enjoying them, and talking about how movie x is so much better than movie y, and I am responding how movies x and y are connected and similar, and more differentiated by chronology than anything else.

After Moneypenny’s suggestion “In a ring,” Connery pauses for a moment before offering a tulip as an alternative.

His awareness (or lack of it) is not capable of being determined. All we have to go on is the text.

Agreed.

As I typed it, I thought: there has been a shift.

Agreed, but I think that moment has passed. There still may be older viewers or shut-ins who take the vicarious path, but I do not think they are the majority. The desire to be transported has been replaced by the desire to be reflected.

Because audiences today prefer their protagonists to be relatable rather than aspirational. For a long time, movies presented characters and plotlines that were not reflective of the daily life of viewers (especially if the viewer was neither white nor male). Paradoxically, at the very time the Bond franchise was taking off, a trend began to have films better reflect the lives of their audiences. Reality TV was not even a concept when DN came out, and look at it today.

Exactly. CraigBond may be a sad sack, but obviously people responded to him, and in great numbers.

Same as with Ibsen, who made his career by showing the newly emergent middle class that the issues it faced in daily life were worthy of being presented on stage as art, and treated with serious consideration. People seeing protagonists having the same issues/difficulties they face never gets old (though we may be headed into a moment when distraction/vicarious entertainment is more desired. We shall see).

1 Like

This was my reaction when rewatching DIAMONDS last time:

2 Likes

From the article that Dustin posted regarding the implosion of EMILIA PEREZ’s Oscar campaign:

Mexican audiences and critics have not known whether to laugh or cry at Emilia Pérez’s depiction of their country and culture. On the one hand, there is the cast’s accents. Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez said of watching Gomez: “Every time she had a scene, we looked at each other to say, ‘Wow, what is this?

Today’s audiences want to see a reflection of their world, not a world they can vicariously escape into.

1 Like

Sean Connery’s master class in acting:

3 Likes

I seriously doubt that. How would you explain then the enormous amount of escapism (superhero films, animation) being massively successful, more than the “reflection of their world” films?

4 Likes

Sean Connery’s master class in acting:

Connery’s expression: “Punch her in the face, yes or no? Nah, I’d have to get up.”

She’s just lucky it’s a Thursday. Fridays always go much worse for women with Connery.

3 Likes

I think the idea of “ring” connecting to “Tracy marriage” must have crossed the filmmakers´ mind, but they probably at that time thought: nah, we don’t want to think of OHMSS. And Connery, who maybe never even saw that film, probably only thought: “My Bond never gets roped in by Moneypenny.”

Of course, if we like we can read into this the secret cruelty of Moneypenny, a tiny but very mean-spirited revenge for being slighted all the time.

3 Likes

You got me there. I know my average work week is tough sledding, what with the constant harassment from guys with cybernetic eyeballs and metal fingernails, not to mention that annoying foster brother who built the global crime ring just to make my life miserable and the engineers at the office who take freaking forever to finish outfitting my personal vehicle with lethal weapons for private use. I swear, if it weren’t for my five thousand dollar bespoke suits and my palatial estates in Scotland and Jamaica, I don’t know how I’d muster the will to keep going. Thank Heaven for a screen hero who understands the plight of us everyday joes.

5 Likes

I would explain it by looking at the enormous amount of anguished/worried/troubled protagonists in superhero and animated movies. Queers flocked to Marvel comics and the movies based on them, as they felt that finally they were being presented characters with whom they could identify. Mutants replaced supermen.

INSIDE OUT 2 anyone? IO2 is the highest grossing animated of all time, and stars the characters: Joy, Sadness, Fear, Disgust, Anger, Anxiety, Envy, Embarrassment, and Ennui.

As I stated above, what actors/writers/producers/directors may or may not have thought is unknowable and beside the point. All we have is the text–beyond that lies the intentional fallacy.

If the text supports that reading, it is a valid reading. I rather like it: Moneypenny in the field, and going for blood.

And I bet you also do not have to cope with burning manuscripts, forging documents to obtain money to pay for your spouse’s medical treatment, or managing your child’s venereal disease. But do you suffer stress or anguish over personal relationships during your work week?

Middle-class audiences sought reflection in theater works of the uncertainties/troubles they felt in their everyday life. Maybe they did not face the same situations, but the emotions were the same. There is a great book on this topic: “Staging Depth” by Joel Pfister. I highly recommend it.

ConneryBond and MooreBond move through their movies without a trace of anguish. They simply get the job done. Their movies practice a double form of escapism: the escapism of their films’ locations plus the escapism of the ease/lack-of-stress with which they accomplish their tasks. Back in the day audiences enjoyed this approach.

CraigBond is moody, pouts and has all sorts of emotions that contemporary audiences can identify with, since they experience them in their daily life. The narrative may be fantasy–they are not speeding through Rome at night in a custom-built car–but the lack-of-stress aspect has been jettisoned. Today’s audiences want Bond to have their problems, if not their day-to-day narratives.

The X-Men phase, so I have heard, indeed made queers identify. But all the other Marvel heroes or even Superman/Batman? And even if secret identities are enough to attract that audience, you forget the larger audience which I assume just wanted to feel like being someone with superpowers to hammer an opponent into oblivion.

Yes, that is a well chosen film for your argument, I give you that. But it still is escapism because our heads do not really work like that, it is just amusing and eye-candy-enjoyable to escape into that world and a triumph over adversity narrative.

Also, IO2 is one film visualizing that particular struggle. Tons of other animated films, while maybe also using elements which suggest daily problems but only using that as an entry point for a fantasy narrative, go full escapism.

Is it unknowable? We do get insights by filmmakersand actors when they talk about their work.

That is a big assumption, I assume.

I detect lots of traces of anguish in their films. But they contain them instead of dwelling on them.

Maybe that’s what some audiences of today embrace and find a similarity in.

4 Likes

Do they want it or do they merely accept it?

I’ll be honest with you, at this point I feel the franchise is idiot-proof and too big to fail. It seems to be coasting along on goodwill and “time honored tradition” status to succeed almost in spite of itself. There are presumably changes that would be viewed as a bridge too far – casting a woman as Bond or maybe (but only maybe) making the next one a musical – and in theory gross technical incompetence would sour folks if it became regular, but short of those things, the franchise is given an awful lot of leeway.

I think audiences will tolerate a miserable Bond just as they tolerated a more comical Bond, a sex symbol Bond and a wannabe Shakespearean Bond, so long as they get gadgets, action, sex and violence in some combination that feels like Bond to them. But I’m dubious that there was public demand for an emotionally tortured Bond any more than I credit Eon with picking up on that and responding. If after CR we had transitioned back to space stations and deadly bowlers, I think viewers would’ve lapped that up as readily as what they did get.

That is to say, if the next Bond follows in the Craig template and makes a ton of money, it’s not confirmation that it’s the kind of Bond people want forever, and likewise if the next one is a return to lighthearted hijinx that makes a ton of money, it’s not confirmation that the public was hungry for a change of gears. The next film, and the one after that, will make money because it has the name “James Bond” attached, full stop.

8 Likes

Batman seems to have a good share of anguish. As for Superman, he seems to be the most torment-free (except for that darn kryptonite), but didn’t DC retcon him once, and lessen his powers?

Thank you Pixar!

Exactly. There are degrees of escapism. Bond movies began on the fuller end of the escapism continuum, and over time moved toward partial escapism status, finally reaching Sad Sack Bond, who could never have done MR as it was conceived and shot.

Insights–yes, but they are usually limited. Look at the interviews of Hawks or Cukor or Mankiewicz (full disclosure: which I edited), and you get some information, but also misremembrances and evasions. The text is the thing.

Yes, but when I look at the film and television landscapes, I see a lot less full full escapism than I did in my youth.

Faint traces. Heroes in those did not display much anguish.

That is one way to read it, but I do not think they so much contained them, as creators airbrushed them away–resulting in the cultural reaction where all heroes must be anguished today.

I think they want it. In society at large, there are increasing calls for representation of all types and kinds in all sorts of venues. Full escapism may be sought in raves, amusement parks, and Civil War reenactments, but in films and television, representation is sought along with escapism. It will be interesting to see how the new Superman film does. In these times, do audiences want/need/believe in an indestructible hero?

Agreed. What is significant is that such a Bond was embraced.

EON has been good at aligning Bond films with the zeitgeist.

Not forever, but in that moment, which is the issue.

Maybe, though I hope you are correct.

2 Likes

But it’s definitely not anguish from the average Joe‘s daily life, only a classical trope „he murdered my parents (loved ones, family, etc.) so I will fight criminals“. That is doing nothing for representation of anyone, especially not since the hero is a billionaire.

I disagree: they always are in full escapism mode, even if the Craig era pretends to be more „realistic“ and „emotionally raw“ - but I am curious: what about them is not pure fantasy?

I see a lot less of that not spoiling it with „we think we‘re Shakespeare even if we‘re just pulp“-pretend-darkness. But there is actually a lot more escapist fare produced (you and me probably avoid to watch those on the many streamers).

I don’t think so at all. These calls do come from those who want it, and they are heard much more due to social media amplification. But the political shift around the world is a signifier for majorities who do not care about these kinds of representation.

Personally, I think more representation is needed and good for society. But the sad discovery of the last decade seems to be: the average Joe only cares about the price of eggs.

3 Likes