While I do think there’s are some sly bits of movie magic to be gained from the early Bonds, you’re bang on the money that it’s hard to view them with modern eyes as the balls to the wall action movies they were intended to be.
Still, as every expensive travelogues of fancy locales frozen in amber, they’re pretty neat. The slow editing pace helps with that. I’m thinking of one of the Istanbul scenes in From Russia with Love in particular. If I remember right, the camera is plunked down on a tripod, and, in an unbroken take, we see Bond and Bond Girl enter a hotel, walk across the lobby, check in at the front desk, and then walk to the elevators. For better or for worse, this scene would be chopped to bits in a modern movie. But, in 1963, you have all the time in the world to look around at the architecture and costumes and extra business going on in the periphery. Admittedly, I’m a history geek, so I understand that this may sound like, “oh you’re bored by watching paint dry? Have you tried watching grass grow?”, but it works for me!
I somewhat disagree that such a long take would be chopped to bits in a modern movie. There are contemporary examples of great long takes and I think this really comes down to the creatives behind the movie. If anything, modern technology has made long takes even better (see 1917 as an example), they just go underutilized.
Yes, modern movies do occasionally employ oners, but they are usually employed for specific stylistic or narrative reasons. I’ve not seen 1917, but I have seen Children of Men, which I believe has similar rationale behind the choice, i.e. the characters are in intense, overwhelming, violent and chaotic situations, and the technique is to allow the audience to experience the environment in a way which approximates how the characters are perceiving it. Even if you don’t buy my back-of-napkin film theory, you can surely agree that memorable oners from modern movies typically keep the audience’s interest by having lots of stuff happen in-frame, managing energy through blocking rather than editing.
Notably, modern oners aren’t typically done by rooting the camera in place, and having a mundane scene play out with minimal movement, intrigue, or information being communicated. It’s not unheard of, see Zemeckis’ Here, or It Follows, but in both cases that decision is informed by the movies’ premises. In the case of the latter, it actually wrings tension out of the mundane by using dramatic irony to show things to the audience that the characters are unaware of, and the long takes let you marinate in dread.
However, this is not the case in From Russia with Love. In the scene I mentioned, I don’t recall any serious exposition being delivered, or anything of note being shown off by the decision to not cut. Instead you’re just watching Bond check into a hotel from the middle of the lobby. Rather it was just the style of the time to let scenes play, regardless of whether or not it was serving the story. In a modern movie, you would accomplish the same thing with an establishing shot of an Aston Martin pulling up to swanky hotel, a cut to Bond and Girl at the counter for perhaps a bit of witty repartee, and then a cut to them in the room. If there’s no narrative or stylistic reason for the audience to see the logistics of how characters get from here to there, it’s excised.
Like I said, I like em, but it’s because these choices make it feel like I’m watching somebody’s grandparents’ Uber expensive home movie from a vacation they took in the 60s.
While I do think there’s are some sly bits of movie magic to be gained from the early Bonds, you’re bang on the money that it’s hard to view them with modern eyes as the balls to the wall action movies they were intended to be.
Still, as every expensive travelogues of fancy locales frozen in amber, they’re pretty neat. The slow editing pace helps with that. I’m thinking of one of the Istanbul scenes in From Russia with Love in particular. If I remember right, the camera is plunked down on a tripod, and, in an unbroken take, we see Bond and Bond Girl enter a hotel, walk across the lobby, check in at the front desk, and then walk to the elevators. For better or for worse, this scene would be chopped to bits in a modern movie. But, in 1963, you have all the time in the world to look around at the architecture and costumes and extra business going on in the periphery. Admittedly, I’m a history geek, so I understand that this may sound like, “oh you’re bored by watching paint dry? Have you tried watching grass grow?”, but it works for me!
I somewhat disagree that such a long take would be chopped to bits in a modern movie. There are contemporary examples of great long takes and I think this really comes down to the creatives behind the movie. If anything, modern technology has made long takes even better (see 1917 as an example), they just go underutilized.
Yes, modern movies do occasionally employ oners, but they are usually employed for specific stylistic or narrative reasons. I’ve not seen 1917, but I have seen Children of Men, which I believe has similar rationale behind the choice, i.e. the characters are in intense, overwhelming, violent and chaotic situations, and the technique is to allow the audience to experience the environment in a way which approximates how the characters are perceiving it. Even if you don’t buy my back-of-napkin film theory, you can surely agree that memorable oners from modern movies typically keep the audience’s interest by having lots of stuff happen in-frame, managing energy through blocking rather than editing.
Notably, modern oners aren’t typically done by rooting the camera in place, and having a mundane scene play out with minimal movement, intrigue, or information being communicated. It’s not unheard of, see Zemeckis’ Here, or It Follows, but in both cases that decision is informed by the movies’ premises. In the case of the latter, it actually wrings tension out of the mundane by using dramatic irony to show things to the audience that the characters are unaware of, and the long takes let you marinate in dread.
However, this is not the case in From Russia with Love. In the scene I mentioned, I don’t recall any serious exposition being delivered, or anything of note being shown off by the decision to not cut. Instead you’re just watching Bond check into a hotel from the middle of the lobby. Rather it was just the style of the time to let scenes play, regardless of whether or not it was serving the story. In a modern movie, you would accomplish the same thing with an establishing shot of an Aston Martin pulling up to swanky hotel, a cut to Bond and Girl at the counter for perhaps a bit of witty repartee, and then a cut to them in the room. If there’s no narrative or stylistic reason for the audience to see the logistics of how characters get from here to there, it’s excised.
Like I said, I like em, but it’s because these choices make it feel like I’m watching somebody’s grandparents’ Uber expensive home movie from a vacation they took in the 60s.