Previous Debate: Guy Hamilton's contributions to Bond... Positive or negative?

Guy Hamilton and his "contributions" to Bond:

Four movies which saw Bond become more of a sitcom punster than a secret or deadly agent. Maybe the scripts were responsible for this to a decent degree, but Hamilton himself has admitted wanting to lighten the whole thing up.

Unfortunately, at least in the case of Goldfinger IMO, Hamilton's "lighter touch" led to smugness, while in Live And Let Die we have a Bond completely at odds with the sinister settings around him because he's acting like he's in a TV sitcom. In DAF, while the script provides plenty of wit, we also have the return of unspeakably awful dumbassed hoods and there's little to suggest that it's better moments are down to Hamilton. TMWTGG sees a somewhat strong performance from Roger Moore completely undercut by outlandish and ridiculous way beyond coincidence comedic elements which, while amusing, aren't consistent enough to make the whole thing work as just a guilty pleasure laugh riot, instead we end up with something that's funny in parts but tonally inconsistent or boring for quite a few stretches, not to mention that for the second film in a row things feel a bit TV-movie-ish.

So, while his 70s flicks provide me with a few priceless "so stupid it's hilarious" moments, I ultimately still rue the day he was appointed as director for Goldfinger. So I'm gonna have to vote negative here, especially when I think of what Terence Young and Peter Hunt were capable of when directing Bond films immediately prior to Hamilton's stints; The difference is bloody massive to me.

Agree or disagree? Vote, debate, contribute, etc....

I'm going to give Guy Hamilton a soft positive.

Positives
-He made GOLDFINGER. Sure, it was the basis for the later trend of more jokes, more gadgets, more effects and lesser time on the more important things, but thats no reason to hate the actual film itself. Coming off the back of two strong, decently successful thrillers, Hamilton made the Bond series iconic and enduring by adding a few different strings to the Bond bow, adding in more wit, a larger than life villain and those magnificent set-pieces. Sure, those aspects have given us plenty of pain in the years since, but they've also provided plenty of awesomeness too. And the film itself remains one hell of a ride.
-He also made LIVE AND LET DIE. Coming off a film that was meant to rejuvenate Bond for a 70s audience which, while being a hit, was a f*cking lazy film beyond some decent witticisms, Hamilton returned and made Bond groovy again. A different beast from what might have been had Young and Hunt endured, but a far sight better than what it could have been had we followed down the DAF trail.

Negatives
-He made DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. Casting aside it doesnt follow on from OHMSS, the film's also a massive letdown in the effort involved in making the film. OHMSS looks and feels like its a labour of love - DAF feels like a foregone conclusion because theyve got Connery back. They patch together a lame story, fill it with masses of gags and lay back on the coolness of Connery and the oddities of Vegas. Its not enough, and gladly he remedied it with the next film.
-He made THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN. Nuff said.

He made two great Bond films, two lazy ones. He also made the series iconic and enduring, but left it with some hallmarks that have been shamefully reused in the following years. But thats not overly his fault.

Positive.

From what I've heard, the fluctuation in quality in Halmilton's films could be placed on who the dominating producer on set was. Diamonds and Golden Gun had Cubby, LALD had Saltzman. Overall, he had a positive impact on the series, if only for keeping Bond alive in the early 70's. Even though he wasn't present, his lighthearted approach fit well with the spectacle driven late 70's and fit Roger to a tee. He also defined the Q/Bond relationship, a trait unique to the Bond series.

On the negative, his last two works where largely derivative of popular film trends at the time (blaxploitation, Kung Fu). And TMWTGG is a pile of suck. His overall contributions, however, are positive and end up setting Bond apart from other spies in past and present eras.

For kicks, overall Bond director ranking (from memory)
-Hunt
-Young
-Campbell
-Hamilton
-Spottiswoode
-Gilbert
-Forster
-Apted
-Tamahori

What Guy Hamilton brought to Bond was a style-over-substance, lighter touch - that took its influences from the French New Wave - yet with an Ealing Studios sense of comedy. Hamilton perfected this to an art form in his finest Bond film DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. A macabre farce that acknowledges the absurdity of 007, and takes the piss. TMWTGG tries to hit a similar vibe, but doesn't quite get there. LALD is let down by its weak script, sluggish pacing, rookie lead performance, and a lack of atmosphere. It plays like a minor entry in the series, and despite George Martin's solid efforts, John Barry is sorely missed.

His inaugural Bond film - GOLDFINGER, is a flawed but dynamic entry. It has a briskness and levity that the Young films lack, like a good juggler. It must be said however, that while it lacks a sense of danger, or investment in much of the character, it is the first Bond film to be self-aware, and make fun of itself in a way obvious to the audience, yet without breaking the fourth wall.

Hamilton's films in many ways pave toward a non-Terence Young directed series, even Peter Hunt's ON HER MAJESTY'S SERVICE - a film that owes a hell of a lot to Guy Hamilton's legerdemain, while giving it a conviction and sincerity that Hamilton could never muster.

Thanks to that, Hamilton was the key to EON's floodgates, allowing greater stylistic possibilities for the series. All future Bond films are in some way indebted to this man's contribution. For good or ill.

Positives:

DAF
TMWTGG
GF

Negatives:

LALD

Sharky wrote:

Thanks to that, Hamilton was the key to EON's floodgates, allowing greater stylistic possibilities for the series. All future Bond films are in some way indebted to this man's contribution. For good or ill.

This is a good comment, Sharky. Because I wonder if the series could've continued like it was if Hamilton hadn't have made Goldfinger lighter? Would it have crashed and burned only to be rebooted later like most old films/tv and therefore not have shown the growth it has over the years.

On Hamilton's contributions ... I largerly like them for the fun element though I never really take them seriouesly unless its GF. They are a bit of a joke and in some cases like DAF make me want to bash my head against a wall especially was that was the follow-up to OHMSS which failed. There was so much potential there. Then again that does help set up the idea that Bond films are seperate stories with little contunity that anyone can start watching at any point more or less.

Anyway that is all I've got for now - Lazenby, thanks for setting up the thread.

This is Fae, sitting on the fence and OUT

Don't get me wrong. GF is a brilliant movie, and probably did more to cement James Bond's cinematic legacy than either of the previous two films.

That being said, it also single-handedly lead to the downfall of Bond on film reflecting in any way the character created by Ian Fleming.

GF took the films away from Terrence Young, for one, demonstrating to Cubby and Saltzman that Young wasn't necessary for success. That being said, Young was more than anyone the author of the cinematic Bond, the style and panache that had so expertly translated Bond from page to screen. With Young gone, the flavour and personality of DN and FRWL was gone -- TB tried to get it back, but was hampered by McClory's meddling.

GF introduced the focus on lavish sets, comic relief, preposterous gadgets and insane OTT plot elements -- while none of this was out of place in GF, their success here lead to their repetition in other entries -- the entire Moore era is essentially based off of Hamilton's direction of DAF, which would've never happened without GF.

DAF is basically the Moore era minus Moore. It's the template for that era -- jokey, campy, over the top. And the Moore era lasted longer than any other cinematic Bond era, cementing the gadgets, comedy, and science fiction elements in the public consciousness, leading to the rejection of the back-to-basics approach of Dalton, leading to the six year dead wait period til GE. The Brosnan era is essentially a corporate, shiny synthesis of all the eras up to that point, leading eventually to the bloated beast that is DAD.

Reaction to DAD was so negative that EON has swung entirely the other way for the Craig era -- rejecting almost every signature element of the series. While that has ejected the comedy and the OTT and the sci-fi and returned Bond to a realistic, gritty, setting -- it's also removed nearly everything that made Bond... Bond.

If I could have a universe where Young directed TB after FRWL, then OHMSS and then YOLT, maybe followed by TMWTGG -- I would take that universe of six Terrence Young/Sean Connery Bond films over the current crop of 25.

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

If I could have a universe where Young directed TB after FRWL, then OHMSS and then YOLT, maybe followed by TMWTGG -- I would take that universe of six Terrence Young/Sean Connery Bond films over the current crop of 25.

I can definitely understand this viewpoint, as much as I'd miss some of the admittedly guilty pleasures (and to be fair, some strong moments) of the Rog era, not to mention the awesomeness of Dalton, with my main reservations about the above being obviously the lack of George Lazenby, which I would never, ever accept.

My own real gripe is that Bond IMO didn't need to go where Hamilton & co took it from GF onwards; Following FRWL, there were at least seven more books to cull original and involving story-driven thrillers from, with enough to engage, excite and thrill to the point where the camping up and over-reliance on gimmicks, bloatedness etc could have easily waited until the novels had all been given decent treatments first by either Young or Hunt. I'm over the moon with DN, FRWL, TB and OHMSS as they stand, and see no reason why (IMO) GF, YOLT, DAF, LALD, TMWTGG and MR couldn't have been given similarly-approached screen treatments. There was already ample spectacle, action and humour in Bond both prior to GF in FRWL, and a pretty perfect balance tonally later in TB (the kind of classier tone, balance and sheer ass-kickery I wish the more lightweight GF had). I just think the bad things in Bond turned up way too quickly and Hamilton, among others, was a culprit.

I basically agree with Shark's very well expressed summary but also very much ejoy other well thought out offerings on this page.

On a personal level, I've always enjoyed the Hamilton films the most, even the two Rog movies.

All four are real campy but tempered with a dark and violent edge.
Sean is awesome and deadly dangerous in all his films but he's allowed to have more fun in the Hamilton films.
He deftly embraces the dark humour, tempers it but without any danger of descending the character into frivolity.
Heck Sean could probably do an Austin Powers film and still be dangerous.

Rog for the most part behaves himself in his two Hamilton films. It wasn't until Spy and MR that Rog lost his mind and introduced Laurel and Hardy Bond with his sidekick Jaws.

Guy at least kept Rog on the straight and narrow however I do wish Guy could have found a way to shoot around Rog's lumbering fight skills.

Rog's first ever Bond action fight scene in the alley behind the Filet of Soul Harlem, looked like it was shot in slow motion. The two hoods seemed to obligingly pause, allowing Rog to get the drop on them, swing the ladder and put them down.
Easy as pie when the hoods kinda work with you on the move.

Could Hamilton not have worked harder to make this scene a little more violent and fluid? Could he not have used some editing tricks to sell Moore more convincingly as a decisve and deadly action man. Apparently not.
Rog's fights were all down-hill from here.

That's my only beef with Guy. He should have worked harder to make Rog more believable as deadly Bond.
Guy had first crack at shaping new Bond but he set the bar so low with Rog's physical skills that it doesn't seem the next two Rog directors felt compelled to raise the bar closer to Sean or George standards.

Thank you to Guy for some very entertaining Bond films. His films remind me of TV Batman series but with real danger and suspense. Wint Kidd, Oddjob, Tee Hee, Whisper, Samedi, Tall Scaramanga, Little Knick Knack, Goldfinger, Camp Blofeld, Big and Kananga. These are all colourful characters, but unlike TV Batman villains, they are also deadly dangerous characters. Compare with Greene and Elvis (groan). Even the Hamilton Bond-girls are high camp - Pussy Galore and Tiffany Case. Talk about sass and bombast. Every adolescent male's unrealistic fantasy female.
I know Fleming created these Bond girls but Hamilton brought them to life on screen; Solitaire another Fleming created, Hamilton imagined Bond girl and while Goodnight and Anders weren't quite as colourful, Hamilton nicely contrasted Ekland's flighty blonde bombshell with Adam's more alluring Black Velvet mystery.

Hamilton was a style genius, and as a bonus he also made the Remo Williams film, about the pure assassin, introduced in Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir's partially Bond inspired, over-the-top, 1970's Masters of Sinanju, Destroyer adventures.

Camp - but with a dark and colourful edge. That's the great Guy's legacy IMO.

Hamilton did fine.

I've enjoyed reading the responses but my take is slightly different. I really enjoy Goldfinger and some to most aspects of TMWTGG and DAF. LALD is, I feel, his weakest, given it's drabness, Moore's ridiculously edgy performance and slow pacing. And, given the excellence of the novel, I was more disappointed of how little was taken from it. Fleming provided the readers with an ambiance that could have wonderfully translated on screen.

With the other three films, they all boast brilliant points, and some negative, which I've said over and over. Goldfinger's first half is amazing, DAF's camp, yet crude style is quite Flemingesque, and I love the more down-to-earth nature of TMWTGG (when it's not contradicted by the whistle, arse squeezing, etc). However, they were all treated that little too lightly, which detracts from the moodiness of the literary James Bond. And this is something that was easily translated into the likes of DN, FRWL and TLD, so it isn't like it couldn't be achieved. For this reason, I've given Hamilton a negative.

Hamilton should've been a one Bond film director.
Positives - GF

Negatives - DAF, LALD & TMWTGG

Did more harm to Bond than any other director in the series. Too many changes, too far from the character created from Fleming. To fey. Shit director.

I wouldn't say he's a shit director. More so, an inconsistent director with the wrong intentions. John Glen, for me, was better because while visually they weren't as exciting, at least he had the right direction in which to take Bond in.

Had Hamilton not returned to direct Bond in the 1970s, I would've voted "positive" based on the iconic but imperfect Goldfinger. However, the sitcom trilogy was one of the most bizarre and unnecessary things to happen to Bond. I'll watch any of DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG with great pleasure though, as they are still good entertainment.

It's tough this. Goldfinger is in my top six Bond films and is one of my favourites, Diamonds Are Forever is in the middle and is good fun but Golden Gun and Live And Let Die are two of my least favourite Bond films (still enjoyable but just nothing special). Some of my other least favourites were influenced by Guy Hamilton's Bond films and not in a great way. If there was a "neither" option in the poll I could probably sit on the fence but based on my rank list and comparing him to better Bond directors and better Bond films, I'd say negative if pushed.

Good to have this debate topic off the ground, some very good posts here as well.

FieldsMan wrote:

John Glen, for me, was better because while visually they weren't as exciting, at least he had the right direction in which to take Bond in.

Bullshit. Cubby, Maibaum and MGW were calling the shots in the 80s. Glen shot what they wanted but added nothing. And when he does try to do something of his own it's embarrassing. No flair. No style. And a Bond film without those elements is a terrible thing, no matter how good the screenplay/performances turn out.

Apart from GF, I don't value his contributions too much.

LALD is admittedly a guilty pleasure due to the characters but it was still hackneyed on my last viewing.

The best thing about DAF are Wint and Kidd. There is just too much camp and buffoonery for the film is obviously trying to recapture the magic of Goldfinger, with its setting in the US, but the complete camp and cheese atmosphere and the complete familiarity of Vegas robs any tension from the setting.

Apart from a couple of scenes, TMWTGG is just awful. After the high quality of OHMSS and most Bond's in the 60's, Hamilton's trilogy was just where the series started to drift away to campiness.

Is there anywhere to get a little statue of Guy Hamilton that I could put on my mantlepiece? It would be a coveted possession, along with a Sean Connery as Bond bust.

Well, GOLDFINGER was one of the biggest Bond films of all time, in terms of popularity. While I don't think it's as amazing as its predecessors, I do still enjoy it for being a classic, somewhat campy, but all-around entertaining Bond film. LIVE AND LET DIE was also probably one of the better of the Moore outings, while TMWTGG is one of Moore's finest, in my opinion. And then there was DAF, which is probably his best of the Bond films that he directed. It's sleazy, it's witty, and it doesn't take itself seriously. Today, the Bond producers should really take notes from Hamilton's DAF work, so long as they want to keep milking this franchise.

I vote "positive". There are far worse directors than Hamilton.

Not the best, not the worst. I don't think having a "light" Bond is a particularly heinous transgression.

GOLDFINGER

A markedly weaker film than the Young offerings sandwiching it. It's not necessarily the fact that it's "lighter" than its predecessors - TB is hardly dark and gritty and yet it surpasses GF in most areas - it's really the fact that it offers less meat on the bone. It's almost like the whole movie is Bond traversing from one stuff-up to another and not doing very much at all. I don't really mind the grander OTT elements so I won't fault Hamilton for that.

DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

Owes most of its positives to the script, but I think Hamilton did an admirable job. The film had panache and a lively atmosphere. It might not have been the ideal follow up to OHMSS, but it's an entertaining Bond film in its own right.

LIVE AND LET DIE

The pacing ain't great. It has its moments, but I have to break ranks and declare that I find the oft vaunted boat chase overly long and tiresome, and I'm certainly not one of those ADD kids who can't sit through a film longer than 90 minutes. I would hold the latter half of LALD in higher esteem if the sequence had been trimmed by a few minutes.

THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN

Again, some pacing issues, but a fun, middle-of-the-road filck overall.

So overall, I lean to the "POSITIVE" side of the equation.

Actually the truth is that I would rank all four of the classic era Bond directors as excellent.
I wouldn't change any of those films, at least not the first 7.
And even films 8 and 9, aside from having to adjust to the new Bond actor, are pretty darn good as well.

Spy and MR though, I'd tinker with a bit, but otherwise Gilbert also gave us two great and very Bondian epics, in the tradition of his YOLT, to close out the second decade.

I'd give an A+ to all of Young, Hamilton, Gilbert and Hunt. The original Bond pioneers.

After the original 4 though, not so much. Glen's touch was functional but IMO, not as inspiring or as interesting as the original 4-pak of Directors.

And then there is the post Glen era...................

So now we've reached the end of a 7 day period. Will we add the poll's results and a summary of responses to the opening post, and continue the weekly debate in this thread? Or open an entirely different thread for each debate? That could take up a lot of space, though.

Different topic I think.

It means people can always go back and add views if they ever choosed to.

I think a new topic works, and if nobody minds I'm going to step in with one...

Makeshift Python wrote:

(re: John Glen:)
No flair. No style. And a Bond film without those elements is a terrible thing, no matter how good the screenplay/performances turn out.

That pretty much mirrors my own take, but I would like to remind Guy Hamilton's detractors that he didn't write the scripts for his films either. Don't blame him for the narrative or the lines - just for their delivery.

Philistine that I am, I liked DAF, LALD and TMWTGG better than GF. Even I don't know why, I just do. Must have something to do with Tom Mankiewicz.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Philistine that I am, I liked DAF, LALD and TMWTGG better than GF. Even I don't know why, I just do. Must have something to do with Tom Mankiewicz.

This attitude is quite permissible 8) Guy and Mank were both geniuses. Bring them together and you have sheer brilliance.