Scenes that are impossible to film today: 60 years of Bond film, 60 years of “Dr. no”

Wow, you couldn’t shoot this scene like that today! Oh yeah, that thought crosses your mind several times while watching the very first 007 movie. There is still sexism and racism, unfunny flat jokes and a number of cinematic aspects that sometimes make the oeuvre seem very outdated.

The historical significance of «Dr. No » but immense, because this then modestly budgeted British crime thriller, which could not boast of a major Hollywood star as its driving force, laid the foundations on October 5, 1962 for a film franchise that continues to this day.

And why not «Casino Royale», right? “Dr. No is not the first James Bond novel, nor is author Ian Fleming’s first attempt at bringing Bond to the screen. As early as 1954, Fleming’s novel “Casino Royale” was published as an hour-long episode of the TV crime series “Climax!” implemented on the American broadcaster CBS. American Barry Nelson played “Jimmy Bond”, the violent scenes of the novel were significantly tamed, the sex scenes were completely removed. A few years later, Ian Fleming wrote a draft for a TV adaptation of “Dr. Nee” on behalf of the Jamaican Tourism Authority. The project fizzled out.

Appearance of Canadian film producer Harry Saltzman – an unusual candidate, as he previously excelled at filming socially critical dramas. He secured the film rights to all James Bond novels except “Casino Royale” and “Thunderball” for $50,000.

But Saltzman struggled to sell the acquired film rights to American film studios: Hollywood thought it was too British and too sexual. Finally, together with American producer Albert “Cubby” Broccoli, he founded his own film production company EON Productions and started looking for investors. With the promise of a million dollar budget (a pretty tight budget at the time), the casting began.

Several established film stars were on the wish list of the producers for the role of James Bond – including Cary Grant and David Niven – but they declined or were otherwise unavailable. In the end, the decision fell for 31-year-old Scotsman Sean Connery, an actor who is completely unknown outside of Britain. When casting the female lead of Honey Ryder, a hitherto relatively unknown actress was chosen: 25-year-old Ursula Andress from Ostermundigen BE, who was best known to the tabloid audience for her relationship with James Dean.

Tight budget, unknown actors: In many ways, the investment in “Dr. No guess. A risk that soon paid off. While the reviews ranged from mixed to negative (“a great big furry marshmallow” —Time Magazine), «Dr. No» already in the premiere week of October 1962 as a blockbuster in Great Britain and in Europe. In the US, where it was released in theaters six months later, in May 1963, it was also a success. In the end “Dr. No» brought in more than $6 million – six times the production cost. More importantly, this success justified the production of the sequels. Follow-up movies – 24 in number – are still airing today, 60 years after “Dr. Nee», are still being shot.

So much for history. A great movie in that regard, no doubt about it. However, it is exciting whether “Dr. No» Still 60 years after release increases (to try this so apt Helvetism). Spoilers: part-part.

Here you go – the elephant in the room:

Asian characters are played by two Europeans: Zena Marshall, British actress of Irish-Anglo-French descent, plays Miss Taro, the sexy double agent who is sold to the viewer as Chinese through make-up and clothing style. Beijing villain Dr. Nee, who claims to be descended from “a German missionary and a Chinese mother”, is portrayed by French-Canadian Joseph Wiseman.
Yes, Yellow Faced (casting Southeast and East Asian film roles with Europeans) was commonplace in 1962. Still, it is unaccounted for.

Let’s come to the movie character Quarrel, played by African-American John Kitzmiller: his movie character has long had an almost equivalent work colleague relationship with Bond, … when he hears the rather silly rumor of a “dragon” on the island of Crab Key – what CIA man Felix Leiter dismisses as “superstition of the natives”. And indeed, all those dark “natives” of the film are ultimately submissive henchmen who, like Quarrel, are allowed to demonstrate locally specific expertise at best, but not intellectual equality.

This inherent racism of the film is certainly not an ideological intent. It simply reflects the social realities of its time – which, of course, doesn’t mean it’s good, even in 1962.

And of course: the ubiquitous sexism is just as museum-like. The permanent objectification of women is as much a part of the Bond franchise as the shaken martinis and the Aston Martin. Yes, over the course of the 007 movie franchise, over the course of the 007 movie franchise, in the function of the standout sex symbol, some female characters sometimes take on a power that carries timid feminist traits: a Bond girls come riding on motorbikes and fight against karate. In “Dr. No, this aspect is limited to the dangerously thick knife Honey Ryder carries on the belt of her Amazon bikini.

‘Remember that he [Bond] actually hates women,” Daniel Craig reminded us of it himself in 2019. But this fact isn’t the real problem. Phoebe Waller-Bridge, screenwriter for the recent Bond film No Time to Die, said: “The most important thing is that the film does the female characters right. Bond doesn’t have to. He has to stay true to his character.” In this regard “Dr. No» a product of its time. When three men want to physically hold the suspect Annabel Chung against her and hurt her and the screenplay allows this to happen without comment, then you see how old the film is.

It took two more films to finally solidify the structure of a Bond film with all its traditions. In 1965, “Goldfinger” created the completed scheme that continues Bond films to this day. “Dr. No» is still a prototype; a fun little thriller with a fairly stylish hero doing his job without the aid of advanced military hardware or flashy gadgets.

But when it comes to iconography, “Dr. No» already with the largest possible trowel:

“Bond, James Bond”: This introductory scene created an icon that lives on more or less unchanged to this day. Also the 007 logo, pistol barrel sequence, opening titles and opening scene with the great James Bond theme song: All this is in “Dr. No” is already there.

Joseph Wiseman’s Yellowface is all the more tragic because its portrayal of the archetypal supervillain is another timeless part of the burgeoning genre. Also a novelty that quickly becomes a classic element: the reflection of megalomania in Ken Adam’s incredible set design. Never before has modernist interior design been implemented in such a cinematic way as first in «Dr. No “.

“Dr. No» stands with one foot in the past and the other in the modern; outdated and timeless at the same time. At the time of filming in 1961-1962, Jamaica was a British colony, structural racism and sexism were a coded part of everyday society. On the other hand, as James Bond, Sean Connery, like Albert Finney and Peter O’Toole, whose careers began around the same time, also foreshadows a major social change in terms of class, fashion and behavior.

This is where you could ask the big “What if…?” questions: What if Hollywood had jumped in and approved a bigger budget? And so you could have cast David Niven? Or would James Bond have been rewritten as American? Could more elaborate scenes from the novel have been adapted, such as Honey Ryder being tortured by crabs or Bond fighting a giant squid underwater? The answer to all questions is probably: then James Bond would have remained a unique genre piece of its time, from which the franchise as we know it today would hardly have arisen.

Because of its timeless iconography and historical significance, “Dr. No» is still a movie worth watching 60 years after its release. Likewise, the outdated elements sometimes make it seem museum-like, which sometimes cannot do without its charm: car chases or fight scenes sometimes seem almost more believable in their lack of thrill than some crazy action scenes from current film productions. On the other hand, it means you can forgive a slightly dusty film a lot more. In 2022, the public will see racism and sexism as historical aspects of 1962 and not as a current ideological statement. Especially if the film is the first in a whole series of funny spy comics that half the world associates with positive childhood memories. As a kid, who wasn’t thrilled when your parents allowed you to watch Bond on St. Stephen’s Day (even though you might be under the age limit)? And then, as seven- or eight-year-olds, we didn’t worry about colonialism or structural sexism. Nowadays, as an adult, you can use the 60-year-old ‘Dr. Put on and – although you like to watch the movie – mention: Wow, you couldn’t shoot this scene like that today!