Pynchon

Since Thursday I have not turned on the computer or even thought about the computer. Frankly it's done me the world of good. I needed the break. I think that sometimes you can get into the ridiculous situation in which you imagine you are letting people down by not blogging, not forcing the words out and not having anything interesting to say. Just ridiculous and stupid. I'm not going to get into that mindset again.

So, let's start this again. Where was I? Ah, yes. "Goldfinger", with Graham, last Tuesday at the Cineworld on Broad Street. Part of the Summer Of British Films festival.

But first, as requested by the lovely Katy, a picture of the sex beast that was Sean Connery.



(By the way, the lady on left is Margaret Nolan who played the crucial part of 'Dink' in "Goldfinger" and was also the 'Golden Girl' who appeared over the main titles. Later on she appeared, without many clothes, in a whole heap of 60's, 70's and 80's TV shows and movies, including a few of the "Carry On" films. I have no idea if she could act or not. I cannot say it concerned me a very much. Ha! Ha! Ha!)

It was an interesting evening.

It started with a little talk about "Goldfinger" by Graham Young, who is the film editor of the Birmingham Post and Evening Mail. In my opinion Graham Young is the worst film reviewer to see print since the days of horror when Paul Ross (Jonathan Ross' brother) used to write in the "News Of The World" (he might still do - I don't know - I don't read it) and appear on cutting edge television programmes like "GMTV" talking drivel.

Much more interesting was 'Big Mike', chief projectionist of the Cineworld at Broad Street, who took us through the differences between digital and film prints. (Basically a cartridge that you plug into a machine and press 'start', as opposed to reels of film being spliced together by a professional, while making minute adjustments to colour, tone, sound, etc. 'Big Mike' seemed a bit sad at this state of affairs'.

So, what did I think of "Goldfinger" in 2007?

Hmm... Difficult because, well, "Goldfinger" has dated, (hell, it was made in 1964 - everything made in 1964 has dated), but if you can get beyond the terrible quips (Bond electrocutes a baddie, puts his jacket on and, practically winking at the camera, says "Shocking"), lazy plotting (why doesn't Goldfinger just take the mobster who decides not to join in with his plans outside and shoot him, rather than go through the whole rigmarole of getting him to drive away so that Oddjob can kill him and crush his car?) and displays of the power of rampant machoness (Bond turns the mercenary Pussy Galore - by the way, the greatest Bond girl name of all time! -to his side, just by nobbing her in the barn) it is still a great and very enjoyable movie. "Goldfinger" is still incredibly funny, has brilliantly choreographed action scenes, looks brilliant in the new digital transfer and, of course, Connery is still effortlessly cool. No wonder that people still consider him to be the definitive movie Bond. He still has utter sexuality and magnetism.

It's not the best Bond film (Hi there "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" !), but it is a good movie.

Graham wrote a quite interesting little bit about "Goldfinger" here, which I would urge you to read. Much more interesting than the bit I have just written.

My introduction to the world of Bond was via the big bang method.

In the early 70's (1974 or 1975, memory fades) the Odeon Cinema on New Street did a James Bond retrospective. Over a week they showed every Bond film made up to that point, excluding the Moore Bond's and "Casino Royale" (which didn't count, anyway). Every day my Dad gave me money and every day I trooped to the cinema to be regaled with stories of a cool secret agent, beautiful women, deadly villains and their global threatening nefarious schemes. Great stuff.

I think that my real interest in cinemagoing was probably still a couple of years away, but that week was definitely the first dawning.

Labels: Movies