After the financial and critical success of the previous films in the series — Dr. No, From Russia With Love, and Goldfinger — it was decided that Thunderball would be bigger and better in every way, and within the opening minutes of the film, the transition towards a smash-bang intro is made abundantly clear — and would remain a staple of the series from then on. Complete with a fight to the death at a funeral, and a dramatic airborne escape from the baddies via jet pack — an actual working prototype, by the way — the high-wire prologue ignites the fuse on an explosive, and extremely well paced Bond adventure.
As you watch the film, it becomes clear that the filmmakers have perfected the science of producing a James Bond film, but Thunderball is unique because it represents one of the first Bond films to boast a truly spectacular Bond moment. I’m referring of course to the massive underwater climax of the film, which to this day remains as one of the most memorable sequences in Bond history — which earned them an Oscar for visual effects. The complexity of the shoot, and the scale of the production was so far ahead of its time, that you simply can’t help but get swept up into the grandiose battle — even if it does look slightly date. And yet, another reason why it remains a remarkable achievement in the Bond franchise, and in Hollywood at large is that no one has come close to topping it. Part of that is due to production constraints and budgetary concerns, and perhaps self restraint out of respect for the film, but more importantly there are very few films that use water as heavily as Thunderball. It’s said that nearly a third of the film — which is a huge portion — takes place underwater, which if you can imagine was an incredible feat for a production in the mid-sixties.
However impressive that sequence may be, it is only a small piece of the greater whole, and Thunderball is a great movie. At the top of my favorite aspects of the film lies Emilio Largo (Adolfo Celi) who, along with Auric Goldfinger, epitomizes the ever-present Bond villain. There are dozens of reasons of why they stand head and shoulders above the villains that have come and gone, but I think that no one element is greater than their hospitable nature. This might sound strange, because the idea of a hospitable villain goes against the archetype, but this only makes them stronger characters and far more complex villains. Additionally, they are afforded more screen time — because they aren’t limited to a single confrontation in the film’s climax — and so they are solidified as competent adversaries, which is integral to the success longevity of the story. Without this balance, there is no power struggle on screen, no peril and I find that this is an oft-made mistake in run-of-the-mill action films. The villain is a shell, a caricature with an all-too-transparent motive, and the end result is that the audience is never fully engaged. They simply won’t care. Thankfully, Ian Fleming happened to be a genius when it came to this interplay between the hero and his opponent, staging the confrontations as if it were a play, or a game of chess. That is what makes these early Bond films so engrossing and endearing, and yet I find that particular aspect of these films is often overlooked and seldom put it into words.
Naturally though, villains aren’t the only thing that make these films worthwhile. We all know why we’re compelled to return for each installment; because the films excite us, and entertain us. They provide us an opportunity to forgo the mundane actions and troubling thoughts of our daily lives and partake in a spectacular film event. And now, perhaps more than ever, escapism is on the rise, and I can think of no better prescription for melancholy spirits than a two-hour jaunt with the world’s most famous super-spy, James Bond.
No comments:
Post a Comment