{"id":1779,"date":"1965-01-09T14:02:15","date_gmt":"1965-01-09T14:02:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/qa-www.rivistapirelli.org\/selezione_antologica\/chi-ha-paura-di-james-bond\/"},"modified":"2019-05-15T15:44:35","modified_gmt":"2019-05-15T15:44:35","slug":"chi-ha-paura-di-james-bond","status":"publish","type":"selezione_antologica","link":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/selezione_antologica\/chi-ha-paura-di-james-bond\/","title":{"rendered":"Who\u2019s afraid of James Bond?"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"featured_media":2514,"template":"","categories":[],"tags":[39],"class_list":["post-1779","selezione_antologica","type-selezione_antologica","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","tag-cinema-tv-music-and-entertainment"],"acf":{"edizione":"N.1, 1965","autore":[{"ID":366,"post_author":"1","post_date":"2019-04-09 09:55:56","post_date_gmt":"2019-04-09 09:55:56","post_content":"Film critic and journalist (1924-2015). He worked as a contributor for the newspapers \u201cLa Notte\u201d and \u201cIl Giorno\u201d and for the monthly \u201cDuellanti\u201d as a film critic. In 1964 he played a role in Bernardo Bertolucci\u2019s film Before the Revolution<\/em>. He authored many monographs on great directors such as John Huston and Eisenstein and the great work Storia del cinema <\/em>in 4 volumes together with Goffredo Fofi and Gianni Volpi. In 1998 he was awarded the Flaiano Prize. With his wife Laura and daughter Luisa, he authored for seventeen years the celebrated Dizionario dei film - Il Morandini<\/em>. Director of the festival \u201cAnteprima\u201d in Bellaria, in 2004 he founded the \u201cLaura Film Festival\u201d in Levanto in memory of his wife.","post_title":"Morando Morandini","post_excerpt":"","post_status":"publish","comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","post_password":"","post_name":"morando-morandini","to_ping":"","pinged":"","post_modified":"2019-04-30 10:48:06","post_modified_gmt":"2019-04-30 10:48:06","post_content_filtered":"","post_parent":0,"guid":"http:\/\/internal-pcons-be-fondazione-fr-dev-elb-1449244171.eu-west-1.elb.amazonaws.com\/?post_type=autori&p=366","menu_order":0,"post_type":"autori","post_mime_type":"","comment_count":"0","filter":"raw"}],"riassunto":"","composizione_articolo":[{"acf_fc_layout":"composizione_articolo_testo","composizione_articolo_testo_testo":"

All in all, we are not really so fond of James Bond. We\u2019ve watched all three films of the 007<\/em> Series, we\u2019ve read one of Ian Fleming\u2019s novels (out of professional curiosity: we wanted to study the ways and means of transposing it from page to screen), we\u2019ve pondered on our reactions as amused spectators and reflected on those of worried or appalled critics, and we\u2019ve come to the conclusion that James Bond is somewhat unpleasant.<\/p>\n

To be clear: ours is a psychological reaction, removed from any moralism. As we watched Goldfinger<\/em>, we caught ourselves silently rooting for Auric Goldfinger, the villain in the story. Of course, we knew James Bond would win and his sinister rival be defeated: the film\u2019s logic, the future of producers Saltzman and Broccoli and the survival of the United States relied on it, but, in our heart of hearts, we were sorry. […] Why, then?, we wondered. The answer is simple: because Goldfinger is smart. Better yet: he\u2019s a genius. Let\u2019s be honest about it: Auric Goldfinger is, at least in Ian Fleming\u2019s train-journey inspired, snobbish literature, an Evil Genius. And he has the supreme quality of a genius: creative imagination, which is better and different from imagination itself. Look at what he says in the novel, on page 127: \u201cThis is my last feat, Mr Bond, and also my most important… Mankind has climbed Everest and explored the depths of the ocean. It has launched rockets into space and split the atom. It has invented, imagined, created across all sectors of human activity and it has always triumphed; it has performed miracles. I say all sectors, but one has been left behind, Mr Bond. And that is, the human activity commonly known as crime. So-called great crime committed by individuals… I\u2019m obviously not referring to their stupid wars, the absurd practice of destroying one another… So-called great crimes, I mean, are but miserable petty crime: insignificant bank robberies, meaningless fraud, counterfeiting a few notes. Yet, a few hundred miles from here, an opportunity exists for the worst crime in history. The scene is set, a huge prize awaits the winner, only the actors are missing. Finally, the director is here, Mr Bond… and he has already chosen his orchestra. The screenplay is being read this afternoon to the main cast members, then rehearsals will begin, and one week later the curtain will go up for the only scheduled performance. Applause will break out for the biggest raid of all time. For centuries, Mr Bond, the echo of that applause will propagate throughout the world\u201d. It may sound a little overemphasized, but it\u2019s an effective example of oratorical prose: Goldfinger is aware of his own genius. And who\u2019s upsetting his cunning plan? An ordinary James Bond, who isn\u2019t the smartest apple in the orchard […]. In cinema, Bernard Bergonzi\u2019s stern condemnation in a 1958 New Statesman <\/em>issue still resonates: \u201cThe fact that Ian Fleming\u2019s books are published by a highly reputable publisher and are regularly reviewed \u2013 and widely acclaimed \u2013 in our proud intellectual weeklies, is a testament to the current state of our culture, more so than a whole book of random critiques\u201d.<\/p>\n

\"\"Therefore, is it our duty to be concerned about James Bond\u2019s success, to be afraid of 007\u2019s mysticism, to denounce the exaltation of violence, poisonous eroticism, shabby sadism and disguised racism to which we, corrupt spectators of the western world, are exposed?<\/p>\n

This phenomenon was not a flare-up. Dr. No <\/em>(007-Licence to Kill<\/em>, 1962) only became a blockbuster in the uk where Ian Fleming\u2019s novels already had an average circulation of a million copies; in Italy it was almost shunned. From Russia with Love <\/em>(1963) doubled its uk success, it was a hit on the North-American market. However, in Italy it only reached 22nd position at the end of the 1963-64 season in terms of box office. Goldfinger <\/em>(1964) catapulted Bond to superstardom. London exceeded the previous year\u2019s box office sales. In the 29 theatres where it was distributed in the us, Goldfinger <\/em>raked in over a million dollars in its first week, overtaking My Fair Lady<\/em> to lead at the box office, where it stayed for three months.<\/p>\n

[…] In Milan and in Rome, the scene at cinema entrances where Goldfinger<\/em> was released was as much \u201con fire\u201d as in the days when La dolce vita <\/em>was all the rage: tumultuous queues, shattered window panes under the weight of the crowd, dead tired box-office staff, spectators in their fur coats fainting, baffled police officers being trampled over, calls clogging Police Head Quarter lines.<\/p>\n

What\u2019s the criticism? Let\u2019s begin with an obvious observation. James Bond\u2019s feats are all built around the same formula: as an envoy of \u201cM\u201d \u2013 in a British film critic\u2019s words, \u201ca Secret Services Prospero\u201d \u2013 Bond single-handedly takes on a luxuriously furnished enchanted fortress filled with the most advanced, creative hi-tech gadgets. The bad guy (Dr. No, Mr Big, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Goldfinger) captures him; there is a lot of hustle, everything blows up, the baddie dies and James Bond is saved by the bell, emerging unscathed with a lady on his arm. It isn\u2019t a magic formula, but it works. […]<\/p>\n

The opinion on Goldfinger <\/em>is almost unanimous. Its flashiest, action-packed ten minutes appear at the start, even before the opening credits, and have nothing to do with the story: following a tnt blast James Bond removes his wetsuit, revealing a crisp dinner jacket; he straightens his lapels and walks into a nightclub. Bond puts his arms around a woman and sees a figure attacking him from behind his back reflected in her eyes (Hitchcockian…). He violently pushes the attacker into a water-filled bath, and, finding nothing else handy, throws a curved lamp at him.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

[…] Herein lies the true explosiveness of Goldfinger<\/em>, and one of the main reasons for its success: the amazing Aston Martin DB5 coupe (pricetag: 17 million lire!) equipped with a radar and gps dashboard, revolving number plates, bulletproof windscreens and rear shield, machine-gun headlights like on fighter planes, ejector seat, oil slick, smoke screen and wheel-destroying spikes (reminiscent of Ben-Hur\u2019s scythed chariots…), the old Rolls-Royce with removable solid gold bodywork, the absurd circular saw blades which cut through metal like butter, a dart gun, a radio transmitter in the heel of his shoe, an audio-guided game of gin rummy… Rarely have we seen a film such as Goldfinger<\/em>, where the director\u2019s input is subordinate to the production strategy and, in particular, to special effects technicians. The best talent in the movie is, from this point of view, cinematographer Ken Adam (who worked with Stanley Kubrick on Dr. Strangelove<\/em>) […].<\/p>\n

The typical James Bond movie recipe is easy to assess: aside from sex and violence as the two main ingredients (the former displayed along the lines of Playboy-like soft eroticism with a few cautious, yet spectacular, aberrations here and there; the latter bearing a masochistic trait, particularly noticeable in Goldfinger<\/em>) there is an underlying exotic, luxury-tourism element (famous beaches, big hotels, aeroplane travel, etc.), international high-life snobbery (Bond\u2019s elegant taste is less sophisticated and evident on camera than in literature), and technological features bordering on science fiction. However, a clear willingness to demystify is the secret common thread in the three movies, and a sign of intelligence.<\/p>\n

All in all, the authors target adventure, thrill-seeking spirit, entertainment and sensationalism, with just a pinch of provocativeness (and self-deprecating humour at times), which sets the films apart from the books: they are way over the top, but openly so, somehow pleading for spectator approval.<\/p>\n

The applause almost all of us have heard at one time or another at a Goldfinger <\/em>screening speaks for itself. These spectators know for sure what they\u2019re in for, and do not blindly subject themselves, through blissful and stolid ignorance, to the cunning stratagems of hidden persuaders. […]<\/p>\n

There has been much talk of sado-masochism surrounding Goldfinger<\/em>. Over the course of the three films there is a considerable evolution in James Bond\u2019s behaviour, from active to passive: the baddie brandishing a weapon is Auric Goldfinger. But let\u2019s not exaggerate.<\/p>\n

There has been much talk of sado-masochism surrounding Goldfinger<\/em>. Over the course of the three films there is a considerable evolution in James Bond\u2019s behaviour, from active to passive: the baddie brandishing a weapon is Auric Goldfinger. But let\u2019s not exaggerate. As clever British critic Penelope Houston wrote, in Goldfinger <\/em>Bond represents Tom from Tom and Jerry<\/em>: he boasts the same scary elasticity and the same ability to endure punishment. Isn\u2019t the audience actually aware of this, and doesn\u2019t it simply play along, drawn to the film\u2019s purely entertaining nature, an adventure-seeking tale per se<\/em>, with no ideological implications? […]<\/p>\n

Finally, others compare Bond to strip cartoon heroes \u2013 Mandrake, Flash Gordon, Superman \u2013 modern-day demigods, \u201csoulless, carefree, purpose-driven mythological heroes whose mission keeps them detached from their conscience\u201d. […] There is a certain paternalistic streak here \u2013 fathers often worry excessively about the novelties their children are into. In any case, it isn\u2019t the children who tend to take James Bond too seriously.<\/p>\n"}]},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/selezione_antologica\/1779","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/selezione_antologica"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/selezione_antologica"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1779"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1779"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.rivistapirelli.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1779"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}