Uvanovic conference talk university of west london 22 may 2018 saltzman bond vs palmer 1964 1967

Prof. Dr. ŽELJKO UVANOVIĆ uvanovic@gmail.com & zuvanovic@ffos.hr Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek www.unios.hr Faculty of Humanities and Social Studies - http://www.ffos.unios.hr Department of German Language and Literature Chair of German Literature

List of publications: http://bib.irb.hr/lista-radova?autor=211164

Comparison of Harry Saltzman’s double productions of representations of the British spy based on three James Bond and three Harry Palmer adaptations 1964-1967

In the period 1964-1967, Harry Saltzman simultaneously (co)produced the film adaptations of both Ian Fleming’s and Len Deighton’s spy novels using Sean Connery and Michael Caine as respective star actors performing the roles of James Bond and Harry Palmer. (Well, he paid the casting people to do the job and agreed on the choices.)

We can focus on three adaptations from the James Bond series with Sean Connery’s representations of the British spy in the film versions of Fleming’s novels Goldfinger, Thunderball (authorship credit shared with 2 collaborators by court decision), and You Only Live Twice.

The box office success of these movies crossed the line of 100 million USD. Both the literary author Fleming and the movie star Connery could continue their work with rising popularity.

On the other hand, we can analyse Michael Caine’s representations of the British spy Harry Palmer in the film interpretations of Len Deighton’s novels The IPCRESS File, Funeral in Berlin, and Billion Dollar Brain, a series that was less successful and less fruitful.

Was the TRILOGY a PLAN? What if the series had been successful? Would then a new franchise called HARRY PALMER have been created?

Saltzman could earn much money together with Brocolli from the Bond franchise – so he could afford to lose money with e.g. FUNERAL IN BERLIN?

The aim of this paper is to compare the pictures the readers can obtain while reading the authors’ novels with the film representations of the British spies Bond and Palmer incarnated by Connery and Caine in the context of complete film productions.

Although Guy Hamilton directed both Goldfinger (1964) and Funeral in Berlin (1966), the response from the audiences was different. The aim of the paper is also to find out the reasons for this discrepancy.

Some speculations on lack of success with FUNERAL IN BERLIN: - lack of appeal with the anti-hero spy character having still his own moral scruples and questions - unpleasant history issues like the Holocaust, disposession of Jews, compensation of Jewish claims, guilt of the international banking and of the Swiss banks

A look on the SUCCESSFUL SERIES: -coproductions with Albert R. Brocolli - best James Bond actor Sean Connery (better than Daniel Craig?)

- concept of franchising and innovative repetitions of paradigmatic situations, characters with humour

- Partially, a postmodernist aesthetics of commercials and promoting sales of entertaining magic technological gadgets by a star spy - film music and songs performed by international stars - aesthetics of hetero-eroticism - humour and charm - excellent choreography of men’s fighting

A look on the commercially UNSUCCESSFULL 3-part Harry Palmer SERIES: - low-quality choreography of men’s fighting (too obvious!)

- some/many scenes should have been reshot for reasons of low verbal persuasiveness / audio recordings - too much irony / sarcasm - the British spy as pawn in the game of the big players

- British spy as anti-hero - Harry Palmer has no licence to kill – he rather avoids killings!

- Michael Caine’s acting without identification with positive features of the British spy role(s) – no background message: follow me!

- no adequate film music

Bad Box Office of Adaptations of Deighton’s novels

Excellent Box Office of Adaptations of Ian Fleming’s novels

In both SERIES the same: (co)producer Harry Saltzman film director Guy Hamilton (only in Funeral in Berlin)

How come Guy Hamilton’s GOLDFINGER could earn 125 mil.

USD and FUNERAL IN BERLIN nothing?

No Brocolli, no profit? No Connery, no profit? No appealing film music and songs, no profit?

DIFFERENCES: - initial budgets in the series - James Bond as franchising from the start - contribution of Albert R. Brocolli in the James Bond series - hero vs anti-hero of the main characters - 2 Oscar winners (Goldfinger, Thunderball) vs. success of The IPCRESS File

Different social origin status of the two writers and the measure of investment of money and talent by adaptors?

IAN FLEMING’s origin from a wealthy family.

LEN DEIGHTON’s father a chauffeur and mechanic, mother a part-time cook – Or it was not important?

Why to make books and characters of an author with less privileges in life from the start more attractive and successful then the books and characters of an author from a rich family enjoying best possible society and connections in the British intelligence community? – Or this did not play any role??

Commercially successful books / films do not treat diffucult matters and do not reveal too deep truths. They do not provoke. They cooperate.

LEN DEIGHTON is otherwise. He reveals too much and lets his unnamed hero (baptized Harry Palmer in film adaptations) put unpleasant question (e.g. employment of ex-Nazis, Reinhard Gehlen’s influence in international intelligence organizations after WWII etc.)

Two general conclusions 1. - too many reasons for the success of the James Bond franchise and the 3 films in comparison with the intellectual provocation of the Harry Palmer productions 2. – too many reasons for the commercial failure of the Harry Palmer trilogy

Moneypenny is better than Jean, M is better than Palmer’s superiors, deus ex machina super potent technological gadgets are not in the hands of Harry Palmer‌ James Bond is an interesting winner, Harry Palmer is a boring intellectual, a loser.

Harry Saltzman proves to be a ‘double agent’ in experimenting with two different types of British spy models.

He (co)produced a super-hero beyond good and evil when it comes to shooting without previous legal procedures – and he produced a sceptical spy character declining 800 GBP award to buy himself a new car at the same time!

Harry Saltzman’s double productions 1964-1967 show the film producer’s openness for alternative optics and self-criticism on the part of what can be defined as the victors of the WWII. Both mainstream entertainment and inclusion of the reception of the audiences (e.g. in Japan) and on the other hand existential questions and absurd visions.

Sometimes you earn much money (in team with Brocolli) - and sometimes you just let Michael Caine destruct Sean Connery’s positive image of the British spy on the screen three times.

Commercial failure guaranteed.

Except with The IPCRESS Files. But who cares?

THANK YOU! ☺☺☺