by Mark Edlitz
We also had a terrific production designer, Allan Cameron [Highlander (1986), Willow (1988), and The Da Vinci Code (2006)]. There were a lot of sets and a lot of different locations [including Southeast Asia, Mexico, and Germany]. Because the production is so complicated and it’s easy to lose sight of the story, it’s important to make sure the visuals convey the text and the subtext. Everyone was on the same page with that.
You use slow motion, which isn’t all that common for a Bond film. Was that a holdover from your Peckinpah days?
I started with Sam who had a habit of shooting too much at ninety-six frames; he was a real pain in the neck about it. [Laughs.] It was beautiful at moments in The Wild Bunch (1969) but it was less useful in The Getaway. The use of slow motion back then was a subject of much debate and discussion with Sam in the cutting rooms, where we tried to figure out ways of using it. I like it but only a little bit. I’m wary of it. As a general rule, I prefer when style doesn’t call attention to itself.
Can you talk about working with Barbara Broccoli and Michael Wilson?
It’s their franchise, and they allow and encourage a lot of input and discussion, but at the end of the day, it has to be something that works for them. They’re open to suggestions, but they are the guard. They’re the producers and the owners. It’s their cottage industry, and it’s a big cottage. It’s a profitable one that has survived for a long time because it’s better than most and because it’s been carefully looked after. Few family businesses survive as long as this one.
Besides the scope of it, was it a daunting task to direct a Bond film?
Yes, but that’s also the muse. That’s the interesting part. You want to see if you can change, alter, or at least further develop different facets of characters that are known by everyone. Many people are invested in Bond but often in different ways. That’s a constant challenge. Working with Barbara and Michael, who continue to be so involved and know the films backwards, makes it an enjoyable ping-pong-like back and forth creative process—we can try this, we can try that. So many ideas have been explored in previous Bond films that it’s difficult to find a new approach.
You don’t do a Bond film unless there is a part of the history that intrigues you, and it certainly intrigued me. You have to make them with affection, otherwise it won’t work. You have to try to find ways that look at it somewhat freshly while at the same time acknowledging that audiences come there for some of the same things. They come there for a Bond that fulfills certain sorts of fantasy elements of whatever one’s idea of a perfect English spy might be and of a world that doesn’t exist but that might exist as a similar version of the actual world. It’s complicated. How much one can change the Bond films and reinvent them is intriguing. How one approaches the film reflects what you personally find interesting.
Some people find having an amused and ironic main character more appealing than having a darker one—just a different take on the way English characters should be portrayed and what one finds interesting in a character. You’re also balancing how close to or far away from reality you are.
Would Bond still be Bond if he were not working for the secret service? Is his sense of duty to king and country essential for the character? Would he still be Bond if he were hired out by another agency?
That’s a good question. If you’re going to do that particular work, if you’re going to have to live your entire life as a sort of fiction, as a lie, you can’t tell anyone what you actually do. You need something to get you through it. You’re not going to get paid a lot. You’re not going to get support. I would think that you do have to believe in something. Whether it’s queen and country or a set of ethics that, however fragile, you believe can protect and enhance the overall quality of life in your country.
I would think you probably need something. That’s why there are presumably some good spies and there were some incredible traitors whose allegiance is firmly on the other side. The famous list of English traitors—Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean [two of the five students at the University of Cambridge who were recruited by the Soviet Union]—were absolutely locked in step with post-Stalinist Russia. So, I don’t know, but it’s an interesting question and one that must be relevant to some real-life spies.
Daniel Craig embraced the darker qualities of 007.
ILLUSTRATION BY PAT CARBAJAL
Bond is an isolated or closed-off figure who seems attracted to danger. Is that what makes the job perfect for his sensibilities?
Yes. I think so. It certainly attracts people with those qualities. Those are prerequisites. There may be some other qualities as well—like an enduring sense that you can be a public servant in a rather exotic field. There are such things as being servants of the public, servants of the queen, servants of your country; it is a worthwhile occupation. Spies are not people who would fit into the military. They’re certainly not people who would fit into the police force. And I do think there are occupations that attract people who are temperamentally preselected; they select themselves.
If you take your kids on their school outings to any fire stations, as I did when we lived in California, you meet the same type of person. It’s always the same group of people. And they’re all versions of brave, tough, strong characters. They’re loners who can work in teams. They have no interest in carrying weapons. They do not want to attack anyone. Instead, they will go out and do the most amazing things to save people’s lives. They don’t talk much about their work. They don’t necessarily have college educations but they have educations of life and of humanity.
They’re different from police or other professions where they carry weapons. I do think that there must be people in the secret world of espionage who possess certain qualities that attract them to it, and the service in every country finds them, and they’re an unusual group of people.
A lot of times firemen and policemen are lumped together.
They’re entirely different. In the same way that if you spend time with journalists or photojournalists. Now, they are also brave people. They go places that are extraordinarily dangerous and they never pick up a gun. They’re not on either side of a conflict but they’re often committed to strong ideals. Now, their hearts might be on one side, but they do their best to be independent and at the same time they are humanitarian, and yet they’re recording more than anything. They’re extraordinarily brave. They can kid about it and, at times be insensitive in certain areas, but they’re fearless.
I met a lot of the wives who were at the screening for Under Fire. We had a screening for the wives of photojournalists, war photographers, and it was great. Of course, the husbands came, too. At the end of the screening, all the wives came over and were nice. “You got him exactly right.” These are people who don’t want to talk about what is really going on there. They’d rather change the subject and tell you about virtually anything else. They’ll do anything not to talk about what they’re really doing. Even though he’s a spy, I always think of Bond in those terms.
Looking back on the whole Bond experience, what thoughts come to mind?
It was fascinating and challenging to make. There’s no other film quite like them. You have to try and make it different and the same, at the same time. Bond is a great English movie character and there is an extraordinary passion for it both in England and around the world. Part of the passion is for the lingering notion of what the country thought it was going to be. Bits of its own history are wrapped up in it. I’m very glad I did it. It was a fascinating and terrific period—full of surprises.
Did you keep any mementos from the film?
No, I have some photographs and a lot of memories. Well, there’s a watch they gave me. Then they gave me a second-anniversary watch. So, one gets a watch and a lot of very good memories.
JOHN GLEN
John Glen began his illustrious twenty-year association with the Bond franchise as both editor and second unit director of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, The Spy Who Loved Me (1977),
and Moonraker.
Glen’s ability to orchestrate tense action scenes led to his promotion as director of For Your Eyes Only (1981), Octopussy (1983), A View to a Kill (1985), The Living Daylights (1987), and Licence to Kill (1989).
The record-setting director of five consecutive Bond films, Glen shot some of the most iconic images in the series, including the dizzying ski jump that audaciously opens The Spy Who Loved Me. He also directed the most tonally differently films of the franchise, from Roger Moore’s cheeky Octopussy to Timothy Dalton’s gritty Licence to Kill.
Broccoli wanted to press the reset button after the space-themed Moon-raker, which some criticized as being too over the top. For the follow-up film, For Your Eyes Only, the idea was not only to make a more serious picture but also to explore the possibility of casting a new Bond.
Absolutely, that’s correct. The first instruction I got from Cubby Broccoli was, “We’ve got to find a new Bond.” I traveled the world interviewing both experienced and inexperienced actors. However, I’m not sure how serious Cubby was. It could have been a ploy because Roger, who was out of contract by this time, was negotiating a new deal with Cubby. It could have had something to do with remuneration [and keeping Moore’s asking price down]. Cubby was a pretty clever poker player and I think I was a bit of a pawn in the [power] play. Word got back to Roger that I was testing all kinds of people and I think Roger got a little upset. But, as I said, it was all part of a poker game.
The idea of finding a new Bond must have been overwhelming. Especially for a first-time director.
It was a challenge. It was difficult. I tested Pierce Brosnan. I tested him for three days and they were wonderful tests. We did love scenes from some of the earlier Bonds. We did the famous scene in the bedroom in From Russia with Love. It’s the scene with Sean who is trying to get information from this girl, but he’s being spied on by the Russians. That was one of the many things we tested Pierce Brosnan on because it’s a great scene.
Pierce came through with flying colors but unfortunately, he was also under contract with Mary Tyler Moore [whose company MTM Enterprises produced Remington Steele (1982–1987). She had an option on him and when she heard Pierce was
Pierce Brosnan as Remington Steele, Brosnan’s unofficial audition as Bond.
NBC/PHOTOFEST
going to play Bond she took up the option. Straightaway Cubby said, “We can’t have James Bond playing Remington Steele.”
But it was probably for the best. When he was cast as Bond about ten years later, Brosnan was more mature and a better actor. He was a great success as Bond. I was sorry that I wasn’t directing him.
He probably was too young when you were testing him.
That’s a fair comment but we didn’t think so at the time. We thought [his youth would enable him] to go on playing Bond for five or six more films. I was fortunate that Roger came back and did three Bonds with me because I’d had already worked with Roger on a number of films. [Glen is also the second unit director of three non-Bond Moore films: Gold (1974), Shout at the Devil (1976), and The Wild Geese (1978).]
On one occasion I turned up on the set and Moore said, “Am I in your contract or are you in my mine?” Roger’s such a wonderful wit and such a great guy to have around. Very inventive. He directed [multiple episodes of The Saint (1962–1969) and The Persuaders! (1971–1972)] and he knows what a director goes through.
James Brolin also tested for Bond. Did you direct his screen test?
Yes, it was one of many we did. He was good but the idea of an American playing Bond just doesn’t gel. Although it’s perhaps more likely today than it was then. There are a few actors who have English qualities. One is Jon Hamm from Mad Men (2007–2015). He’d make a wonderful Bond. He’s got a nice twinkle in his eye and he does humor well.
I don’t think you necessarily have to be the greatest actor in the world to play Bond. You just have to have a certain personality. Roger had this fantastic star quality. You need an actor who is a bit of a throwback to the superstars of yesteryear.
When you were looking for a new Bond, did you have a specific type in mind?
No, I had an open mind. But I did know that it had to be an actor who could handle the humor. What’s unique about Bond is the humor and how it occurs almost all the time, even during the action. It was easy to find the humor with Roger. With other actors, it isn’t quite as easy. So you have to find another way to get to the humor. With the Bond films, you have to have tense and exciting scenes where the audience gets caught up in the action and then you had to have something funny happen at the end of the scene, which releases all that tension.
Roger Moore as James Bond.
ILLUSTRATION BY PAT CARBAJAL
In terms of finding the right balance with the humor, the joke has to be in the right place. Like the line at the end of the chase scene in The Living Daylights. Bond throws the cello over the guardrail and says, “We’ve nothing to declare.” Otherwise, it undermines the tension.
Right. There’s a scene in Octopussy where Bond has to hide in a circus train. I said to Roger, “We’re going to hide you in the monkey suit there.” He looked at me and said, “You’re not serious are you, John?” He thought that was going too far. But I reasoned that Bond has to hide somewhere and it’s the perfect place. It is pretty hokum but it’s also fun. You can get away with that with Roger.
You pushed him to be a grittier Bond in For Your Eyes Only.
Yes, and that was probably the only time that we had kind of a serious disagreement. Roger was conscious of all the youngsters that watched Bond. He didn’t think that pushing this bad guy over the edge of the cliff fit his personal take on the character. He preferred to throw the dove emblem at him, which would upset the car’s balance and send the car over the edge.
I disagreed with him. I said, “No, this man has killed your friend. He deserves a more vicious ending.” I’m looking at the clock and I haven’t got time to argue too long so we shot it both ways. It certainly became an important turning point in the series as far as Roger’s Bond was concerned.
How so?
From that moment, his Bond became a harder-edged person. Prior to that scene, Roger always took a softer view of Bond. You can imagine Sean killing someone in cold blood but it was difficult to imagine Roger doing that. It was difficult to see him as a hardened killer, which Bond is. Audiences had gotten used to him being a comedic actor.
But Moore also plays the action straight and makes sure you feel that he’s in real danger; he doesn’t always find the humor. To name just a few scenes in which Moore’s Bond looks like he’s in jeopardy: while trying to disarm the bomb in The Spy Who Loved Me, when he’s trapped in the centrifuge chamber in Moonraker, and as he’s climbing the cliff in For Your Eyes Only.
I think that’s right. You have to be serious about the action and it has to frighten the audience. It has to put them on the edges of their seats. But once the scene is finished and the danger has passed, then you need the humor to come in and release the tension. That’s a fundamental part of Bond movies.
Talk about the intro in the cemetery in For Your Eyes Only, where Bond visits the grave of his late wife Tracy. It was an effective way to maintain continuity with the previous Bond films.
I wrote that scene. I tended to invent all the pre-title sequences. Cubby would look at me and say, “We need a good pre-title sequence.” I would look around at the writers and think, “Why is he looking at me?” I did quite a lot of them. I worked with Michael Wilson a lot. We did some unusual pre-titles like the free-fall sequence in Moonraker [in which Jaws throws Bond out of a plane without a parachute]. A free-fall sequence like that had never been done before in a movie.
I went out to California and worked on an airfield with young chaps who specialized in free falls. We filmed the free fall in sections. For each jump, we’d get enough for two seconds of usable film. Then we cut it together as we went along. It turned out to be an efficient operation. It was also fun
.
But we were always looking for something new, something original. That’s most essential with a Bond; Cubby would say, “Oh we can’t do that. We did that already.” We’re always looking for something new, and we were often, often imitated but we felt we couldn’t imitate anyone else.
Take the opening sequence [in The Living Daylights] where Bond is participating in a NATO exercise at the Rock of Gibraltar. I spent some time in Gibraltar and I was able to go to all the military establishments there. It’s quite an amazing place. When you get inside the rock, you discover that it’s honeycombed and hollowed out. It’s an awe-inspiring piece of rock.
That sequence had to do double duty. It not only had to be exciting, but it also had to introduce Timothy Dalton as Bond to a new audience.
It’s always a bit of a challenge to introduce a new Bond, and you try to do it in the most dramatic way. I was lucky with Dalton because he was so good at action. When you see him clinging to the roof of that jeep while it’s speeding around those roads on the rock, he did that all himself. He was so fit, very good at action and keen to do as much stuff as he could.
It’s a great intro. How did you find Dalton?
We were in a bit of a jam, to be honest. Pierce Brosnan, our first choice, had dropped out through no fault of his own and we were committed to making this film. Timothy Dalton had been considered many years before to play Bond, but he was on top of the world and he wasn’t interested in playing a character like Bond. But life deals you different cards. Although he was a good theatrical actor who also did lots of films, his career hadn’t taken off as he thought it might.
