PART 1: THE ROADSHOW ENGAGEMENTS

The roadshow engagements of The Blue Max were big-city exclusives that preceded general-release exhibition of the film.  Out of hundreds of films released during 1966, The Blue Max was among only twelve given deluxe roadshow treatment.  Much like a stage show, these featured reserved seating, an advanced admission price, and were screened an average of only ten times per week.  Souvenir program booklets were sold, as well.

What follows is a (work in progress) list of the domestic theatrical “hard ticket” roadshow engagements of The Blue Max, arranged chronologically by date of premiere.  The duration of the engagements has been included for some entries.  These roadshow presentations were presented in 35mm ’scope with four-track stereophonic sound (though some sources claim 70mm blow-up prints were made and used for some bookings) and included an intermission and entr’acte.

• 1966-06-21 ...  New York, NY – Sutton [18 weeks]
• 1966-06-28 ...  Dallas, TX – Wilshire [16 weeks]
• 1966-06-28 ...  Los Angeles (Beverly Hills), CA – Beverly [14 weeks]
• 1966-06-28 ...  Phoenix, AZ – Cine Capri [17 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Boston, MA – Cheri [14 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Buffalo, NY – Kensington [11 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Chicago, IL – Cinestage [14 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Cincinnati, OH – Capitol [11 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Detroit, MI – Summit
• 1966-06-29 ...  Jacksonville, FL – Cedar Hills
• 1966-06-29 ...  Louisville, KY – Rialto
• 1966-06-29 ...  Miami (Miami Beach), FL – Lincoln [16 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Minneapolis (St. Louis Park), MN – Park [17 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Salt Lake City, UT – Studio [31 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  San Antonio, TX – Laurel [14 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  San Diego, CA – Capri [17 weeks]
• 1966-06-29 ...  Washington, DC – Playhouse
• 1966-06-30 ...  Halifax, NS – Hyland
• 1966-06-30 ...  Montreal, QC – York [19 weeks]
• 1966-06-30 ...  Ottawa, ON – Elmdale [13 weeks]
• 1966-06-30 ...  San Francisco, CA – Parkside [23 weeks]
• 1966-06-30 ...  Vancouver, BC – Park [16 weeks]

• 1966-07-06 ...  Pittsburgh, PA – Kings Court [15 weeks]
• 1966-07-14 ...  Fort Worth, TX – Ridglea
• 1966-07-20 ...  Seattle, WA – Paramount [16 weeks]
• 1966-07-20 ...  Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA – Newport [10 weeks]
• 1966-07-21 ...  Toronto, ON – Fairlawn [16 weeks]
• 1966-07-22 ...  Fresno, CA – Country Squire
• 1966-07-27 ...  Atlantic City, NJ – Center
• 1966-07-27 ...  Cleveland, OH – Palace [6 weeks]
• 1966-07-27 ...  Denver, CO – Esquire [17 weeks]
• 1966-07-27 ...  Kansas City, MO – Brookside [9 weeks]
• 1966-07-27 ...  Philadelphia, PA – Goldman [15 weeks]
• 1966-07-28 ...  Charlotte, NC – Manor

• 1966-08-03 ...  New Haven, CT – Crown [8 weeks]
• 1966-08-10 ...  Hartford (East Hartford), CT – Cinema 1 [10 weeks]
• 1966-08-12 ...  Baltimore, MD – Hippodrome [10 weeks]
• 1966-08-19 ...  Indianapolis, IN – Indiana [12 weeks]
• 1966-08-24 ...  Atlanta, GA – Rhodes [17 weeks]
• 1966-08-24 ...  Omaha, NE – Indian Hills [17 weeks]
• 1966-08-25 ...  Houston, TX – Gaylynn [12 weeks]
• 1966-09-15 ...  Des Moines, IA – Ingersoll [8 weeks]
• 1966-09-21 ...  Albuquerque, NM – Fox Winrock [7 weeks]
• 1966-09-21 ...  Columbus, OH – Grand [17 weeks]
• 1966-09-21 ...  Portland, OR – Hollywood [13 weeks]
• 1966-09-21 ...  Toledo, OH – Showcase 1 [9 weeks]
• 1966-09-21 ...  Wichita, KS – Uptown [18 weeks]
• 1966-09-28 ...  Newark (Fair Lawn), NJ – Hyway
• 1966-09-28 ...  Oyster Bay, NY – Pine Hollow
• 1966-09-28 ...  Richmond, VA – Westhampton [7 weeks]

• 1966-10-05 ...  Las Vegas, NV – Fox [11 weeks]
• 1966-10-19 ...  Tulsa, OK – Continental
• 1966-10-26 ...  Reno, NV – Century 21 [5 weeks]

• 1966-11-09 ...  Sacramento, CA – Crest [17 weeks]
• 1966-11-10 ...  Syracuse (DeWitt), NY – Shoppingtown [6 weeks]
• 1966-11-23 ...  St. Petersburg, FL – Center [12 weeks]

• 1966-12-08 ...  Winnipeg, MB – Kings [9 weeks]
• 1966-12-23 ...  Oklahoma City, OK – Tower
• 1966-12-29 ...  New Orleans, LA – Saenger-Orleans [8 weeks]

• 1967-01-19 ...  Lubbock, TX – Winchester [6 weeks]

 The first roadshow engagement of The Blue Max held outside North America was in London (at the Odeon Leicester Square) and commenced July 6, 1966, following one week of general-release exhibition.  The first foreign-language roadshow engagement was in Paris and commenced August 26, 1966.  The first of thousands of domestic general-release engagements were held during the autumn of 1966.

PART 2: THE INTERVIEW

Jeff Bond is a writer and editor and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases.  Jeff currently is the executive editor of Geek Magazine.  For several years he covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter.  His books include The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999) and Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011).

Jeff spoke to The Bits recently about The Blue Max, including Jerry Goldsmith’s musical score, its new Blu-ray Disc and CD soundtrack releases, and why Goldsmith is one of the most admired and celebrated film composers of all time.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits):  How did you get involved with this soundtrack project?

Jeff Bond:  I write liner notes for several different soundtrack labels including regular work for La-La Land Records.  Michael Gerhard, who runs La-La Land with Matt Verboys, is very generous in giving me a heads up on projects he’s working on and he’s also well aware that I’m a huge Jerry Goldsmith fan, so he alerted me about the Blue Max release several months ago.  Julie Kirgo had already written some excellent liner notes for the previous release of the score put out by Intrada, and Michael asked me to augment those with track-by-track descriptions of the Blue Max score cues as they play in the movie.

Coate:  A soundtrack album for The Blue Max has been issued numerous times over the years.  What is different about this new release from La-La Land Records?

Bond:  This is probably the most exhaustive issue and to my ears it is one of the best-sounding.  Michael Matessino has done an amazing job in refining the sound of the elements – he is one of the finest in the business at reconstructing classic film scores.  Neil S. Bulk also did an amazing job at assembling the score, determining which takes of music were used and where they were used in the actual movie and how all the music was edited together, because sometimes one music cue will consist of two or three separate takes of a performance by the orchestra.  This version also includes some versions of specific cues that have not been released before, simply because they were edited together differently in previous releases of the soundtrack.

Coate:  Why did La-La-Land choose to issue a soundtrack for The Blue Max?

Bond:  This release is designed to tie together with Twilight Time’s Blu-ray release of The Blue Max.  One of the key things about that movie for people who followed the career of Jerry Goldsmith is that, a) The Blue Max is one of the greatest film scores he ever wrote and arguably one of the finest film scores ever written, and b) a lot of the brilliant music Goldsmith wrote was never used in the film and is really known from the various soundtrack releases of the score over the years.  So the Twilight Time Blu-ray has two isolated scores that show how Goldsmith originally intended the music to play in the movie.  And the reason there are two isolated scores is there is at least one cue where Goldsmith completed more than one version in an attempt to please the director, so you can really follow his intention for the score through the isolated tracks.  The La-La Land release presents all the various versions of these cues as well as edits of them that have appeared on various albums over the years, so it is really the most complete version of the score ever put out.

Coate:  What is the value of an isolated score on a DVD or Blu-ray?

Bond:  As far as isolated scores go, sometimes that's the only way to listen to the complete score (although at this point most of the major film scores that have been written have been released on CD or on iTunes).  I think isolated scores are best for people who are interested in looking at how the music score works in the film, and it's particularly interesting in cases like The Blue Max where the score the composer originally wrote was not used the way he intended in the film.

Coate:  What are some of the highlight pieces of music from The Blue Max?

Bond:  The score has a wonderful, soaring main theme – in fact, the movie’s director, John Guillermin, liked the romanticism of that piece so much that he really wanted the whole score to sound like that, and that’s the reason Goldsmith got into trouble during his work on the rest of the score, because a lot of the music is incredibly brutal, nasty-sounding war music, and Goldsmith was trying to get an actual idea across in the score, which was the contrast between the bloodless beauty of the war in the air and the ugly, muddy war on the ground.  So there are gorgeous, exciting cues to do with flying in the score – the main title, “First Blood,” “First Victory” and “The Bridge,” and cues like “The Attack” and “Retreat” that are crushing, magnificently ugly evocations of war.

Coate:  Where does The Blue Max rank among Goldsmith’s body of work?

Bond:  You could argue that it’s his first truly “great” score although he had certainly done others prior to that that are highly praised.  There’s an epic scale to The Blue Max that wasn’t quite present in his earlier works, even The Sand Pebbles, which he did around the same time.

Coate:  Why is Jerry Goldsmith so celebrated as a composer?

Bond:  He was a chameleon who could write music in an incredible range of styles, so that you could sometimes hear four scores he’d done in the same year and not recognize they were by the same composer.  He was daring and put effects into his scores no one had tried before so they often had a unique, sometimes shocking sound, but he also put great feeling into his work and wrote a lot of music that is rousing and beautiful, so his music holds together outside his films for which they were written and they tell their own emotional story, so they’re very satisfying to listen to.

Coate:  What is your goal in writing liner notes?

Bond:  I try to talk about the effect of music, what the composer was trying to achieve, and I often try to find some underlying meaning in the work, which is particularly enjoyable in regard to Goldsmith’s work because he always seemed to add an extra level of thought to his scores – even though he often said he worked purely on instinct.

Coate:  What are some of the challenges in writing liner notes?

Bond:  Not being boring!  I don’t always succeed at that – music is really impossible to describe, and I am not a composer and don’t write for people who are experts in music; I try to get musical ideas across to the casual reader/listener.

Coate:  How do you convince the movie music fan who already owns a previously-issued soundtrack of The Blue Max to buy this latest release from La-La Land?

Bond:  I think on the basis of the sound quality alone I would recommend this – I own all the previous releases of the score and this is the one I enjoy listening to most.

Coate:  In the last decade or two there has been a surge in “expanded” or “complete score” CD soundtrack releases.  To what do you attribute the appeal of such a product?

Bond:  The best of these movie scores are fully-composed works, and you get a much better impression of what the composer was trying to accomplish and the whole “world” of the score when you hear all the music.  And for every cue that you or I might dismiss, that one little bit of music might be someone’s favorite moment in the score.

Coate:  What is the legacy of Jerry Goldsmith’s contribution to The Blue Max?

Bond:  It’s one of the greatest war movie scores ever written, certainly one of the most wonderful evocations of flight ever written, and it’s a seminal work by one of the finest composers ever to work in film.

-----

SOURCES / REFERENCES:

The information contained in this article was referenced from regional newspaper promotion and various issues of Boxoffice, Variety and Widescreen Review.

IMAGES:

The Blue Max © 1966 Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation.

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jerry Alexander, Jeff Bond, Sheldon Hall, Kim Holston, Bill Huelbig, Stan Malone, Robert Morrow, Jim Perry, Joel Weide, and all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

- Michael Coate

Field of Dreams concluded a tremendous decade of baseball movies. As well, it was the last in a string of baseball-themed films released during a span of a mere ten months. Between June 1988 and April 1989, moviegoers were treated to not one, not two, not three, but four baseball movies. In addition to Field of Dreams, that period saw the release of Ron Shelton’s Bull Durham, John Sayles’ Eight Men Out and David S. Ward’s Major League. (Arguably, a fifth movie could be lumped into that group: The Naked Gun. Though not specifically a baseball movie, the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker comedy featured a humorous baseball sequence.) At no other time in the history of cinema have so many memorable baseball movies been released in such a short span of time.

At the helm of Field of Dreams was Phil Alden Robinson, who also adapted W.P. Kinsella’s 1982 book Shoeless Joe into an Oscar- and WGA-nominated screenplay. Robinson’s other films have included In the Mood (1987), Sneakers (1992), and The Sum of All Fears (2002). He also directed an episode of the acclaimed TV mini-series Band of Brothers (2001). Taking time out from his busy schedule putting the finishing touches on The Angriest Man in Brooklyn, due out in May, Robinson kindly spoke to The Bits about Field of Dreams and its enduring appeal:

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): It has been twenty-five years since the original release of Field of Dreams. What do you think of the film’s enduring appeal?

Phil Alden Robinson: It’s incredibly gratifying. When you spend a few years of your life making a movie, you always hope – but seldom completely expect – that the audience will so strongly take it to heart and hold onto it. That this happened for us is one of many reasons I feel so lucky to have been a part of it.

Coate: Right before doing Field of Dreams, Kevin Costner, of course, had starred in Bull Durham. Were you concerned about him appearing in back-to-back baseball movies?

Robinson: In those days, baseball movies were considered very uncommercial, so it never occurred to us that Kevin would do two back-to-back. Consequently, we never put him on our list of actors to go out to. But a Universal executive slipped him the script, and when we heard a few days later that he wanted to do it, we were thrilled and immediately offered it to him.

Coate: Why has Costner been particularly good in sports-themed movies?

Robinson: Kevin is really good in a wide range of movies, not just sports. He’s very skillful, has real movie-star charisma, can do drama and comedy, action and romance, takes his job seriously, and is always demanding the best of himself. 

Coate: What was it about W.P. Kinsella's book that compelled you to want to make it into a movie?

Robinson: The story and characters were so original and so compelling, and the story so full of surprises and beautifully imagined visual moments, that I felt certain it could be a very special movie. Alas, no studio agreed for some years, but finally Universal went for it, and I’m eternally grateful they did.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to seeing Field of Dreams for the first time with an audience upon its release?

Robinson: It was opening night in Westwood, there was a line around the block, the theatre was jammed, anticipation was high (perhaps because the reviews that morning were so good), and perhaps most importantly, no one knew the ending yet, so it was the perfect audience. I went back to watch it with different audiences twice more on Saturday, and twice more on Sunday. I found that the visceral reaction of the audience to the movie was my real reward for all the blood, sweat and tears.

Coate: Was Field of Dreams test screened before its release? If so, what, if any, changes did you make to the film as a result of the screening(s) and audience feedback?

Robinson: Near the end of the very first test screening, we could feel that the audience was really with us, but at the very end they were bothered by something. The focus group told us they were upset that Ray didn’t tell the catcher that they were father and son. We’d left the relationship unsaid, because we thought it was perfectly obvious, but the audience didn’t feel it. So when Kevin came in to the studio for looping, we changed “Hey, you wanna have a catch?” to “Hey Dad, you wanna have a catch?” Next test screening went through the roof.

Coate: Do you think movies can be enjoyed in a home setting via VHS, DVD, Blu-ray, etc., or should they be viewed only in a movie theater with an audience?

Robinson: Yes, and unfortunately many movies now have to be shot in ways that make them more compatible for home viewing. And I, like most everyone, wind up watching a lot of movies at home. But for me, nothing can compare to sitting in a dark theatre full of people when the lights go down, and a movie starts to envelop you so deeply that you forget where you are. It’s much harder to achieve that immersion in one’s living room, or on a computer, or (God forbid) on a mobile device.

Coate: We are currently in an era of seemingly endless sequels and reboots. Has there been any pressure put on you to remake Field of Dreams or revisit it in the form of a sequel?

Robinson: Thankfully no. 

Coate: What is the legacy of Field of Dreams?

Robinson: It seems to mean a lot of different things to different people, so I think this question is really for others to answer. But here’s one (of many) reactions I cherish: we showed the film a few years ago in Hanoi, and during the Q&A after the screening, an elderly woman stood up and said (through an interpreter) “I never knew American people cared about their families the way Vietnamese people do. This film has totally changed my view of American people.” What’s better than that?

-----

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jeff Bond, Sue Han, Phil Alden Robinson.

IMAGES:

Field of Dreams © 1989 Universal City Studios, Inc.

- Michael Coate

INDIANA JONES NUMBER$ AT A GLANCE

• 1 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1984 (calendar year)
• 3 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1984 (legacy)
• 7 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 86 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 25 = Number of days movie took to gross $100 million
• 28 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 35.3 = Percentage of second-week drop-off in box-office gross
• 180 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 243 = Number of 70mm prints shown in North America*
• 266 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 1,687 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening-weekend
• $4.7 million = Opening-day box-office gross
• $9.3 million = Highest single-day gross (May 27)*
• $25.3 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (3-day, May 25-27)*
• $28.2 million = Production cost
• $33.9 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (4-day holiday, May 25-28)*
• $42.3 million = Opening week box-office gross (6-day, May 23-28)*
• $45.7 million = Opening week box-office gross (7-day, May 23-29)*
• $64.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $102.0 million = International box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $109.0 million = Domestic box-office rental
• $153.2 million = International box-office gross
• $179.9 million = Domestic box-office gross
• $211.0 million = Worldwide box-office rental
• $333.1 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $426.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $760.1 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*Established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The monster hit factory of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg has finally produced a monster: an unpleasant, slapdash, chaotic and finally yawn-inducing follow-up to Raiders of the Lost Ark…and for the first time Lucas/Spielberg cross over the line between fantasy violence and real pain. They’ve also come up with a heroine who’s such a charmless bimbo that you have mixed feelings every time she’s in jeopardy.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“This movie is one of the most relentlessly nonstop action pictures ever made, with a virtuoso series of climactic sequences that must last an hour and never stop for a second. It’s a roller-coaster ride, a visual extravaganza, a technical triumph, and a whole lot of fun.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Yech! I don’t care if this film makes $100 million. Since when does big box office equate with intelligence, quality, culture or even a smidgen of social conscience?” — Gary Franklin, KCBS-TV, Los Angeles

“If at all possible, see Doom in a movie house showing it in 70mm and Dolby Stereo. Why settle for half the effect?” — Rick Lyman, Philadelphia Inquirer

“This time the 1930s archaeologist/adventurer has a weaker story and wimpier heroine.” — Leonard Maltin, Entertainment Tonight

“Though it looks as if it had cost a fortune, Indiana Jones doesn’t go anywhere, possibly because it is composed entirely of a succession of climaxes. It could end at any point with nothing essential being lost. Watching it is like spending a day at an amusement park, which is probably what Mr. Spielberg and his associates intended. It moves tirelessly from one ride or attraction to the next, only occasionally taking a minute out for a hot dog, and then going right on to the next unspeakable experience.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has to be the greatest action movie ever filmed. No other movie ever has offered such a generous feast of breathtaking thrills, rough-and-tumble spills, colorful-and-funny frills and heart-grabbing chills. Yes, Spielberg and Lucas have done it again.” — Jack Garner, (Rochester) Democrat and Chronicle

“One of the greatest assets Spielberg and Lucas have had was their ability to go straight to the movie myths of their childhoods and, in reworking them, enrich a new generation of moviegoers. This time it feels as though they could never erase these movies from their memories, and now no one else will be able to either.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has a lot of laughs, thrills, noise, detail, darkness and sheer entertainment packed into it. It’s a tribute to hokiness through and through. For being exactly what you’d expect, I give it four little men leaping out of their chairs (though two of them aren’t clapping, they’re gagging on monkey brains). — Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle

“There’s so much movie in this movie—that’s the basic reason that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is so appealing. Its main show, a five-minute chase sequence in mining cars between Indiana and Short Round and Willie in one car and the henchmen of the evil child-abuser Mola Ram in another. This beautifully directed and edited chase is even more exhilarating than one’s childhood memory of the roller-coaster sequence in This Is Cinerama (1952). And it’s almost as exciting as a real trip on Walt Disney World’s Space Mountain. Credit Spielberg and producer Lucas’ special effects team at Industrial Light & Magic for this entry on anyone’s list of filmdom’s greatest chases.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

TRIVIA + PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION

On May 16, 1984, in conjunction with the release of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas placed their hand and foot prints in the cement courtyard of Mann’s Chinese Theater in Los Angeles.

During an era where six months was the average amount of time between theatrical release and home-video release, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom had a theatrical-to-video “window” of 28 months by arriving on home-video formats in September 1986.

The first network television broadcast was on ABC on October 1, 1989. Its first letterboxed release (on LaserDisc) was in 1992. Its first DVD release was in 2003. Its first Blu-ray release was in 2012.

The THX Sound System “Broadway” snipe was introduced with Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is set one year prior to the events in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was screened on the eve of its release as part of the Seattle Film Festival.

The names of the film’s three principal characters were inspired by the names of the filmmakers’ pet dogs: Indiana (George Lucas), Willie (Steven Spielberg), Short Round (Willard Huyck & Gloria Katz).

The movie’s original titles were Indy II and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Death.

The miniature stop-motion-animation footage for the mine-car chase sequence was filmed using a consumer Nikon SLR 35mm camera.

The name of the bar in the opening Shanghai sequence was Club Obi-Wan, an inside joke and reference to one of the popular characters from Star Wars.

The opening of Indiana Jones in the United Kingdom was preceded by a Royal European premiere. The charity event was held on June 11, 1984, and attended by Prince Charles and Princess Diana. Attending on behalf of the movie were Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, Kate Capshaw and Ke Huy Quan.

As with Raiders, where he played the German Flying Wing pilot, producer Frank Marshall had a small role in the movie, this time appearing as a sailor riding a rickshaw during the Shanghai chase scene.

Members of the production crew, including Spielberg and Lucas, played missionaries during the airport scene. Also look for Dan Aykroyd in same scene.

Reaction to the violence and overall intensity featured in the movie (and in the Spielberg-produced Gremlins released two weeks later) prompted the formation of the PG-13 rating.

The movie’s 70-millimeter print order (243) was the largest ever for a North American release. It was reported that the 70mm presentations, which represented 13% of the movie’s bookings, accounted for 30% of the box-office gross during the movie’s first week of release.

Awards won included Visual Effects (Academy Awards) and Special Visual Effects (BAFTA).

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom during the initial weeks of its first-run theatrical release in the United States and Canada. These were, arguably, the best theaters in which to experience the movie. Any move-over, sub-run and international bookings have not been included. As well, the second wave of THX certifications were made in conjunction with this release and are noted in parenthesis where applicable.

** shown on two screens

*** shown on three screens

ALABAMA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Alabama.

ALASKA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Alaska.

ALBERTA

• Calgary – Famous Players PALACE
• Edmonton – Famous Players PARAMOUNT
• Edmonton – Famous Players WESTMALL 5

ARIZONA

• Phoenix – Mann CHRIS-TOWN 5 (THX)
• Phoenix – Plitt CINE CAPRI
• Tucson – American Multi-Cinema CAMPBELL PLAZA 3
• Tucson – Mann BUENA VISTA TWIN

ARKANSAS

• Little Rock – United Artists CINEMA 150

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby – Famous Players LOUGHEED MALL 3
• Vancouver – Famous Players STANLEY
• Victoria – Famous Players CORONET

CALIFORNIA

• Berkeley – Cinerama BERKELEY
• Clovis – Festival Enterprises REGENCY CINEMAS
• Corte Madera – Marin CINEMA
• Costa Mesa – Edwards SOUTH COAST PLAZA TRIPLEX
• Fremont – Syufy CINEDOME 7 EAST**
• Fresno – Festival Enterprises FESTIVAL CINEMAS
• Hayward – Festival Enterprises FESTIVAL CINEMAS
• La Mesa – Pacific CINEMA GROSSMONT
• La Mirada – Pacific LA MIRADA 6
• Laguna Hills – Edwards/Sanborn LAGUNA HILLS MALL TRIPLEX
• Lakewood – Pacific LAKEWOOD CENTER
• Long Beach – United Artists MOVIES 6
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – Mann CHINESE TRIPLEX*** (THX)
• Los Angeles (Northridge) – Pacific NORTHRIDGE 6
• Los Angeles (Sherman Oaks) – Mann LA REINA
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) – Mann NATIONAL (THX)
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) – Pacific TOPANGA 1 & 2
• Modesto – Festival Enterprises FESTIVAL CINEMAS**
• Monrovia – Mann HUNTINGTON OAKS 6**
• Montclair – Sterling Recreation Organization MONTCLAIR TRIPLEX
• Newport Beach – Edwards NEWPORT 1 & 2
• Orange – Syufy CINEDOME 6**
• Palm Desert – Metropolitan TOWN CENTER 7
• Palm Springs – Metropolitan CAMELOT TRIPLEX
• Pleasant Hill – Syufy CENTURY 5
• Riverside – Sanborn CANYON CREST 9**
• Sacramento – Syufy CENTURY 6***
• San Diego – Mann LOMA
• San Diego – Pacific LA JOLLA VILLAGE 4
• San Francisco – Blumenfeld REGENCY I
• San Francisco – Blumenfeld REGENCY II
• San Jose – Syufy CENTURY 22 A-B-C***
• Santa Barbara – Metropolitan ARLINGTON
• Stockton – Festival Enterprises REGENCY CINEMAS**
• Temple City – Edwards TEMPLE 4
• Thousand Oaks – United Artists MOVIES 5

COLORADO

• Colorado Springs – Commonwealth CINEMA 70 TRIPLEX
• Colorado Springs – Commonwealth MALL OF THE BLUFFS TWIN
• Denver – Mann CENTURY 21 (THX)
• Littleton – American Multi-Cinema SOUTHBRIDGE PLAZA 8

CONNECTICUT

• East Hartford – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Orange – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Stamford – Trans-Lux RIDGEWAY

DELAWARE

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Delaware.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington – Kogod-Burka CINEMA

FLORIDA

• North Miami Beach – Loews 167TH STREET TWIN
• Orlando – Plitt PLAZA 1-2

GEORGIA

• Atlanta – Georgia Theatre Company LENOX SQUARE 6
• Atlanta – COLUMBIA
• Augusta – Georgia Theatre Company NATIONAL HILLS
• North Atlanta – Storey 12 OAKS TWIN
• Savannah – Litchfield TARA
• Tucker – American Multi-Cinema NORTHLAKE FESTIVAL 8**

HAWAII

• Honolulu – Consolidated CINERAMA

IDAHO

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Idaho.

ILLINOIS

• Belleville – Bloomer Amusement Company CINEMA
• Calumet City – Plitt RIVER OAKS 1-2-3-4-5-6
• Chicago – Plitt ESQUIRE
• Chicago – Plitt NORTOWN 1-2-3
• Chicago – Plitt STATE-LAKE
• Evergreen Park – Marks & Rosenfield EVERGREEN 4
• Hillside – Marks & Rosenfield HILLSIDE SQUARE 4
• Lombard – General Cinema Corporation YORKTOWN CINEMA I-II-III (THX)
• Mount Prospect – General Cinema Corporation RANDHURST CINEMA I & II
• Norridge – Marks & Rosenfield NORRIDGE 4
• Orland Park – Plitt ORLAND SQUARE 1-2-3-4
• Peoria – Kerasotes BEVERLY
• Schaumburg – Plitt WOODFIELD 1-2-3-4
• Skokie – Marks & Rosenfield OLD ORCHARD 4
• Springfield – Kerasotes TOWN & COUNTRY

INDIANA

• Fort Wayne – Mallers-Spirou HOLIDAY I & II

IOWA

• Cedar Rapids – Dubinsky PLAZA
• Des Moines – Dubinsky RIVER HILLS
• Dubuque – Dubuque CINEMA CENTER

KANSAS

• Overland Park – Dickinson GLENWOOD I & II
• Wichita – Commonwealth TWIN LAKES
• Wichita – Dickinson MALL

KENTUCKY

• Erlanger – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Lexington – Mid States SOUTHPARK 6
• Louisville – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS

LOUISIANA

• Baton Rouge – General Cinema Corporation CORTANA MALL CINEMA I-II-III
• Marrero – Gulf States BELLE PROMENADE 6
• New Orleans – Mann ROBERT E. LEE

MAINE

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Maine.

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg – Famous Players METROPOLITAN

MARYLAND

• Baltimore – Durkee SENATOR
• Woodlawn – General Cinema Corporation SECURITY MALL CINEMA I-II-III-IV

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston – Sack CINEMA 57 TWIN
• Brookline – Redstone CIRCLE CINEMAS
• Dedham – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Revere – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Seekonk – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS**
• Worcester – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS

MICHIGAN

• Ann Arbor – United Artists FOX VILLAGE 4
• Bloomfield Hills – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Dearborn – United Artists THE MOVIES AT FAIRLANE
• Flint – Butterfield FLINT
• Harper Woods – Suburban Detroit EASTLAND TWIN
• Lansing – United Artists SPARTAN TRIPLEX
• Southfield – Suburban Detroit NORTHLAND TWIN
• Sterling Heights – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington – General Cinema Corporation SOUTHTOWN CINEMA I & II
• Minneapolis – Plitt SKYWAY 5
• Minnetonka – Plitt RIDGE SQUARE 1-2-3
• Roseville – General Cinema Corporation HAR-MAR CINEMA XI (THX)
• West St. Paul – Engler SIGNAL HILLS 4

MISSISSIPPI

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Mississippi.

MISSOURI

• Chesterfield – Wehrenberg CLARKSON 6
• Creve Coeur – Wehrenberg CREVE COEUR
• Independence – Mid-America BLUE RIDGE EAST 5
• Kansas City – Commonwealth BANNISTER SQUARE MALL 5
• Springfield – Dickinson CENTURY 21

MONTANA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Montana.

NEBRASKA

• Omaha – American Multi-Cinema WESTROADS 6
• Omaha – Douglas CINEMA CENTER
• Omaha – Douglas Q CINEMA 6

NEVADA

• Las Vegas – Syufy CINEDOME 6
• Reno – Syufy CENTURY 6

NEW BRUNSWICK

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in New Brunswick.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in New Hampshire.

NEW JERSEY

• Edison – General Cinema Corporation MENLO PARK CINEMA I & II
• Paramus – RKO Century ROUTE 4 TENPLEX
• Pennsauken – SamEric ERIC 5 PENNSAUKEN
• Sayreville – Redstone AMBOY MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• Secaucus – Loews MEADOW SIX
• Wayne – Loews WAYNE SIX
• West Orange – General Cinema Corporation ESSEX GREEN CINEMA I-II-III (THX)

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque – Commonwealth CINEMA EAST TWIN
• Albuquerque – General Cinema Corporation LOUISIANA BLVD. CINEMA I-II-III

NEW YORK

• Cheektowaga – American Multi-Cinema HOLIDAY 6
• Commack – Redstone COMMACK MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• Garden City – RKO Century ROOSEVELT FIELD TRIPLEX
• Greece – Jo-Mor STONERIDGE PLAZA TWIN
• Levittown – Loews NASSAU SIX
• New York (Bronx) – Redstone WHITESTONE MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews 34TH STREET SHOWPLACE
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews ASTOR PLAZA
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews ORPHEUM
• Pittsford – Loews PITTSFORD TRIPLEX
• Schenectady – CinemaNational MOHAWK MALL 3
• Valley Stream – Redstone SUNRISE MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• West Webster – Loews WEBSTER 8

NEWFOUNDLAND

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Newfoundland.

NORTH CAROLINA

• Charlotte – Plitt PARK TERRACE 1-2-3
• Raleigh – Plitt CARDINAL 1-2

NORTH DAKOTA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in North Dakota.

NOVA SCOTIA

• Halifax – Famous Players SCOTIA SQUARE

OHIO

• Beavercreek – Mid States BEAVER VALLEY 6
• Columbus – Mid States CONTINENT 7
• Dayton – Chakeres DAYTON MALL 8
• Springdale – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Summerside – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS EASTGATE
• Trotwood – Mid States SALEM MALL 4
• Whitehall – Chakeres CINEMA EAST

OKLAHOMA

• Tulsa – United Artists BOMAN TWIN

ONTARIO

• Hamilton – Famous Players TIVOLI
• London – Famous Players PARK
• Newmarket – Famous Players GLENWAY 5
• Ottawa – Famous Players ELGIN
• Richmond Hill – Famous Players TOWN & COUNTRYE
• Toronto – Famous Players CEDARBRAE 6
• Toronto – Famous Players CUMBERLAND 4 “LA RESERVE”
• Toronto – Famous Players RUNNYMEDE 1 & 2
• Toronto – Famous Players UNIVERSITY

OREGON

• Beaverton – Luxury Theatres WESTGATE TRIPLEX
• Eugene – Moyer WEST 11TH TRIPLEX
• Portland – Moyer ROSE MOYER 6

PENNSYLVANIA

• Monroeville – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS EAST
• Philadelphia – SamEric SAMERIC 3***
• Robinson – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS WEST

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Prince Edward Island.

QUEBEC

• Laval – United LAVAL 4
• Montreal – United IMPERIAL
• Quebec City – United CANADIEN

RHODE ISLAND

• Warwick – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS**

SASKATCHEWAN

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Saskatchewan.

SOUTH CAROLINA

• Greenville – Martin ASTRO TWIN

SOUTH DAKOTA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in South Dakota.

TENNESSEE

• Antioch – Martin BELLE FORGE 6
• Goodletsville – Martin RIVERGATE 6
• Knoxville – Simpson CAPRI 4
• Nashville – Martin BELLE MEADE

TEXAS

• Addison – United Artists PRESTONWOOD CREEK 5** (THX)
• Amarillo – United Artists CINEMA 6 (THX)
• Arlington – Loews LINCOLN SQUARE 6
• Austin – Mann FOX TRIPLEX
• Beaumont – United Artists PHELAN 6 (THX)
• Carrollton – General Cinema Corporation FURNEAUX CREEK CINEMA VII
• Dallas – General Cinema Corporation CARUTH PLAZA CINEMA I & II
• Dallas – United Artists SKILLMAN 6 (THX)
• Dallas – United Artists SOUTH 8 (THX)
• Dallas – United Artists WALNUT HILL 6 (THX)
• Fort Worth – United Artists HULEN 6 (THX)
• Highland Park – Beirsdorf & Brooks VILLAGE 3
• Houston – American Multi-Cinema WESTCHASE 5
• Houston – Loews SOUTHPOINT 5
• Houston – Plitt CINEMA 5
• Houston – Plitt WEST OAKS 7
• Hurst – United Artists CINEMA 6 (THX)
• Mesquite – United Artists TOWN EAST 6 (THX)
• San Antonio – Santikos GALAXY 10
• San Antonio – Santikos NORTHWEST 10
• White Settlement – United Artists LAS VEGAS TRAIL 8 (THX)

UTAH

• Salt Lake City – Mann VILLA
• Salt Lake City – Plitt CENTRE
• South Ogden – Plitt WILSHIRE 1-2-3

VERMONT

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Vermont.

VIRGINIA

• Baileys Crossroads – Kogod-Burka CINEMA 7
• Fairfax – United Artists THE MOVIES AT FAIR OAKS
• McLean – Neighborhood TYSONS CORNER 4
• Richmond – Litchfield MIDLOTHIAN 6
• Richmond – Neighborhood RIDGE 4
• Springfield – General Cinema Corporation SPRINGFIELD MALL CINEMA VI (THX)

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue – Sterling Recreation Organization JOHN DANZ
• Seattle – Sterling Recreation Organization NORTHGATE
• Seattle – Sterling Recreation Organization UPTOWN
• Spokane – Sterling Recreation Organization STATE
• Spokane Valley – Luxury Theatres EAST SPRAGUE 6
• Tacoma – Sterling Recreation Organization TACOMA MALL TWIN
• Tukwila – Sterling Recreation Organization SOUTHCENTER
• Union Gap – Yakima MERCY 6

WEST VIRGINIA

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in West Virginia.

WISCONSIN

• Brookfield – Marcus BROOKFIELD SQUARE 2
• Fox Point – Capitol BROWN PORT
• Greenfield – Capitol SPRING MALL 3
• Madison – Marcus EASTGATE 4
• Milwaukee – Capitol LOOMIS ROAD 4
• Milwaukee – Marcus NORTHTOWN 4

WYOMING

There were no 70mm first-run engagements in Wyoming.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE INTERVIEW

Scott Higgins is Associate Professor of Film Studies at Wesleyan University, where he teaches a course on The Action Film.  He wrote a book about the history of Technicolor called Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow: Color Design in the 1930s, edited a book about the work of early film theorist Rudolf Arnheim (Arnheim for Film and Media Studies), and is finishing a book on the sound-era serial entitled Matinee Melodrama.

Eric Lichtenfeld is the author of the book Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie, an authoritative and entertaining study of the action film genre. In addition, he has written about film, interviewed filmmakers, and moderated panel discussions for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (including a 2011 screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark), the American Cinematheque, Slate, The Hollywood Reporter, and more. He has taught film to students at Loyola Marymount University, UCLA, Wesleyan University, and the Harvard School of Law. He is also a communications and film industry professional whose specialties include motion picture advertising, speechwriting, and others. Eric has also contributed supplemental material for several DVD and Blu-ray releases, including Speed, Predator, and Die Hard.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits):  Indiana Jones was the most successful 1980s movie series. Why?

Scott Higgins:  Partly, the answer is timing.  All three Jones films were released in the 80s vs. only two of the Star Wars franchise.

Eric Lichtenfeld:  They weren’t just great movies; they were also great experiences.  And each was a great experience in its own way—more or less.  And the movie—especially the first and third—lend themselves to both repeat viewings and to all audiences, so you could go back and back with different groups and kinds of the people in your life.

Coate:  In what way is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom worthy of celebration on its 30th anniversary?

Higgins:  The film is a cultural touchstone for a generation, and so it has every right to an anniversary celebration.  It is not as innovative or important as Raiders, which set the iconography in place and launched a cycle of lesser films and television shows, but Doom was hugely popular and well marketed – it left a big footprint.

I think that when people return to Doom they will be surprised by how 80s it seems.  Raiders made the leap to “timeless icon” pretty quickly.  As with Star Wars, it can be difficult to get critical distance from a film like Raiders.  Doom isn’t burdened by being a “classic.”  Things like the Dan Aykroyd cameo, Kate Capshaw’s haircut, and the “racy” sex jokes are abysmal in a very historically specific way.

Lichtenfeld:  I’d like to think that the 30^th anniversary of Temple of Doom might lead viewers to revisit and reevaluate the movie.  For the most part, it has a reputation it doesn’t deserve and it doesn’t have the reputation that it should.  It’s not the masterpiece that Raiders is, but it’s a brave movie.  And visually, it’s practically a feast.  The cinematography is some of my favorite of all time—not just of the series.

Coate:  How are the Indiana Jones movies significant within the action-adventure genre?

Higgins:  It is interesting that you should specify, “action-adventure” rather than “action” as the genre in question.  I think our conception of “action-adventure” as a distinct part of the action film tradition comes largely from the Indiana Jones films.  Part of what makes them “adventure” is tone – they are throwbacks to Fairbank’s Thief of Bagdad and Flynn’s Adventures of Robin Hood in their broadly drawn subsidiary characters, gleefully obvious comedy, and basic sincerity.  These films are rollicking, in a way that adult-oriented action films were not.  For better or worse, they created a model for the “family actioner” – movies pitched broadly enough to play cross-generationally, but still crafted around physical problem solving and violent encounters. I guess I’m describing the basic tent pole film – and it has served the industry well (ID4, Avengers) and disappointed terribly (Wild, Wild West, anyone?). The Indiana Jones films didn’t invent this approach, but they carried it off with originality and set a certain standard.

The Indiana Jones films are also important as an American answer to Bond, which is probably the century’s most important action franchise. It is clear that Spielberg and Lucas were emulating Bond, replacing 007’s romantic and exotic Britishness with an equally romantic and exotic nostalgia for America during the good war. Jones substantially cleaned up Bond’s sexuality, but kept his humor and physical cleverness.

If you think of the landmarks of the contemporary action film, Raiders definitely belongs among the fantasy-oriented trend: Star Wars, Superman, Terminator, The Matrix, etc.

Lichtenfeld:  Strangely, I’ve always seen them as something apart from the action-adventure genre.  At the time the first three were released, they didn’t really look like the rest of the genre.  After all, this was still the era of the R-rated action movie that generally didn’t have the scope or craftsmanship of the Indiana Jones movies.

Coate: How do the Indiana Jones movies pay homage to and improve upon the serials that inspired them?

Higgins:  The Jones films draw iconography and plot devices from serials and studio-era B adventures more generally.  Lucas and Spielberg wanted to recapture the thrills they remembered experiencing in local revival houses when they were growing up, and so these films are steeped in nostalgia for an older cinematic language.  Like serials of the 30s-50s, the Indiana Jones films have a sort of crackpot optimism set alongside stunning depictions of depravity.  Like serials, the Indiana Jones films can fail to make sense on a very basic level.  Like serials, they cover plot holes by simply speeding forward through stunts and chases.

Unlike the serials, the Jones films tend to be unified, coherent, and centered on psychologized characters.  In other words, these are feature films, and they are far more tightly plotted than, say, Captain Midnight.  Also, unlike most serials, Indiana Jones has the benefit of huge budgets.  Spielberg can realize warhorse serial set pieces, like the rope bridge, the crushing room, the abandoned airplane, the ritual sacrifice, or even the horse/car chase and booby-trapped temple at a much, much higher level than the B serials.  What those original movies lacked in budget they made up for in cockeyed ingenuity.   In serials, Spielberg and Lucas found a storehouse of ideas that they could raid and renew.  Incidentally, the Bond franchise first inherited and embellished the serial’s territory, so Indiana Jones is re-appropriating it to American shores.

I think the Indiana Jones films are most successful in emulating the serial’s relentless rhythm of action.  Raiders hits a serial-like tempo of stunt-per-minute toward the end of its second act (from the snake-tomb through the truck chase). In Doom, it feels like the filmmakers realized this was their most successful sequence, and so extended that kind of pacing across the entire second half of the film (everything that occurs underground through the climax).  That decision made the second half of Doom hard to beat in terms of action and absurd spectacle.  Alas, that left too much time in the first half devoted to clumsy exposition and Kate Capshaw.

Lichtenfeld:  They’re structured like serials and they capture the spirit of serials, but they have real production value and, even more, craftsmanship.  It’s hard to get pulpier than with Temple of Doom and yet John Williams’s score is so rich and complex, it’s practically operatic.

It’s as if these are the movies the serials wanted to be, and in that sense, they’re the fulfillment of—I was going to say “a potential” or “a promise,” but that’s not quite it, because the serials could never really hope to achieve that in their lifetime.  People use movies to help them dream of being something else.  If movies could dream of being something else, than the serials dreamed of being the Indiana Jones series!

Coate:  Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Higgins:  Disappointment.  I didn’t see it twice.  In comparison, seeing Raiders for the first time was pure awesome.  That film has this momentum that feels like it can go anywhere, and it had just enough horror and sex to keep my 13 year-old self on the edge of my seat.  It stuck around all summer, so we kept going back, following it through the runs.

Coate:  Was the controversy over Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom’s violence that led to the formation of the PG-13 MPAA rating justified?

Higgins:  Yep.  Thing is, Doom’s violence comes straight from the world of serials, but mixed with a Hammer Horror color design and graphic sensibility.  Serials could be terribly violent, and they were full of graphically violent ideas if not always images.  Dumping people into fire-pits was no big thing.  But serials were not generally submitted to the Hays Office for approval, because they weren’t booked into the major’s theaters.  They got away with a lot during the 30s and 40s.  Hammer slipped through between the end of the Hays Code and the ratings system.  It is fitting that, in trying to tap this tradition of intense violence for kiddies, Spielberg raised the MPAA’s hackles.  Serials benefitted from staying under the radar.

Lichtenfeld:  Personally, I don’t think the violence was as problematic as the nightmarish imagery.  (Of course, you could argue that extracting a still-beating human heart qualifies as both!)  Either way, I think the controversy was justified, as was the creation of the PG-13 rating.

The new rating was Hollywood at its most inspired: socially responsible and good for business!  It would edge up “younger” movies so that younger audiences would want to see them.  As I think Steven Spielberg himself has said, PG-13 is like hot sauce on your movie.

Coate:  Where does each Indiana Jones movie rank among the series?  Among director Steven Spielberg's body of work?

Higgins:  Raiders is clearly the best of the series.  Jaws is the best of Spielberg’s genre films, with Raiders just under that.

Lichtenfeld:  Ranking the Indy movies is harder for me than it should be.  On the one hand, Raiders is clearly a masterpiece that leaves Temple of Doom and Last Crusade duking it out for second place.  I’d give the edge to Temple, because it may be much more flawed than Crusade, but it’s also more daring.  And it looks and feels like a movie with a capital M.  Crusade, on the other hand, feels less ambitious.  And while it’s a much more polished machine than Temple, it’s also a little too safe.  It’s very enjoyable, but Temple is more sumptuous, and of the sequels, it’s the one I respect most.

On an (even more) subjective level, though, I’ve seen Raiders so many times, and studied it so closely, that if I had to pick one to see on the big screen right now, it would be Temple.  In fact, whenever the movies are screened in Los Angeles, it’s Temple that’s the draw for me — and I say that having been the host and moderator for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ 30^th anniversary celebration of Raiders of the Lost Ark!

Coate:  Was it an ideal choice to eliminate Marion from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Higgins:  It still boggles the mind.

Lichtenfeld:  Was it ideal to eliminate Marion? I don’t know. Show me the version that has her in it, and I can answer that!   But ultimately, I do think it was a good choice.  The charm of these movies is that each one is, essentially, a standalone adventure.  Fans refer to the first three as “the trilogy,” but it’s not really a trilogy — not in the sense that Star Wars or Back to the Future or Star Trek II-IV are.  There’s something nice about each movie starting with an unattached Indy.  He could have had one adventure since the last movie or a dozen.

Coate:  Was it essential that The Temple of Doom be a prequel?

Higgins:  This makes very little sense, actually.  For one, wouldn’t an Indy who burned magic stones using an incantation be a lot less skeptical of the whole Ark thingy?  For another, blood cults in 1930s India instead of Nazis???

Lichtenfeld:  I don’t know if it was essential that Temple be a prequel; I always thought more was made of that than was warranted.  But it was useful to make it a sequel in one respect: in this movie, as in Raiders, Indy charts a path from being cynical about the treasures he seeks to having awe for their power.  It humbles and humanizes him.  Had Temple been a typical sequel, it would have been hard to buy his jadedness after what he had witnessed (or not witnessed, as his eyes were shut!) on the island with the Ark of the Covenant.

Coate:  The sidekick, Short Round…what were the pros and cons of the character and performance?

Higgins:  Spielberg handles kids especially well, and this is a good example.  The kid sidekick is another lift from serials, and it could be precious – but Short Round is neither that precocious nor that much of a punching bag.  He works.

Lichtenfeld:  The light touch that Short Round brings offsets the darkness of the movie nicely.  And his relationship with Indy—somewhere between father-and-son and two brothers—gives the movie a warm underpinning, too.

Coate:  The heroine, Willie Scott… what were the pros and cons of the character and performance?

Higgins:  Honestly.  What was anyone thinking?  I’d like to hear someone try to defend this choice.  Admittedly, it is a really tough character to pull off – it requires subtlety and timing that Capshaw just doesn’t have.  I used to think Willie was just a terrible character and a thankless role.  I’ve changed my mind, probably because I’ve seen quite a lot of Jean Arthur, Claudette Colbert, and Barbara Stanwyck since then.  Watch The Lady Eve, or It Happened One Night and then tell me that the problem is the role.

Lichtenfeld:  Kate Capshaw’s performance nicely distills the problems with the movie.  It’s a little all over the place, not very modulated, not disciplined enough.  And it’s too bad because Willie could have been a great foil for Indy.  Unlike Marion, she’s obviously very much at home with her femininity and her sex appeal, which made for a different dynamic between Indy and “the love interest.”  But where the movie uses her for comic relief, she comes off as shrill. Indy says it himself: “The biggest problem with her is the noise.”

Coate:  Given the late 1970s/early 1980s track record of Lucas and Spielberg, was it surprising Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was not the top-grossing movie of 1984?

Higgins:  Going in to 1984 it seemed like the obvious box office champ, but Ghostbusters and Beverly Hills Cop were funnier and fresher, I guess.  By ‘84 Tales of the Gold Monkey had come and gone from the airwaves, and High Road to China and Romancing the Stone had been through the multiplexes. Fatigue.  Also, Capshaw.

Lichtenfeld:  Given how dark Temple skews—even darker than, say, The Empire Strikes Back — it’s not surprising to me that it wasn’t the top-grossing movie of its year.  What’s interesting to me is that even with its darkness, and the controversy surrounding it, an R-rated movie ended up being the top grossing film of the year—and for only one of two times in the entire decade.

Coate:  Should there be more Indiana Jones movies?

Higgins:  NO.

Lichtenfeld:  It’s tempting to say yes. Who wouldn’t want to hear the Raiders March issuing from a movie theater sound system again?  But there probably shouldn’t be.  Rightly or wrongly, the fourth one is a much maligned movie, but one moment I’ve always liked a lot is when Indy’s friend says, “We seem to have reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away.”  At this point, it may be that the most graceful thing the franchise can do is resist the urge to prove that idea wrong.

Coate:  What is the legacy of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom?

Lichtenfeld:  I think its legacy is the PG-13 rating — which the movie didn’t even have!  Unfortunately, I don’t think Temple of Doom is remembered the way it should be.  It’s generally seen as the weakest of the (first) three, and I think that’s unfair.  It doesn’t help that Spielberg has basically disowned it.  I wish he’d stick up for it more!  There are a lot of gems to be mined from it—which is a pretty apt metaphor for this movie, when you think about it.

SPECIAL THANKS:

Raymond Caple, Miguel Carrara, Nick DiMaggio, Scott Higgins, Bill Kretzel, Eric Lichtenfeld, Jim Perry, Tim Schafbuch, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; Bantha Tracks, Boxofficemojo, The Hollywood Reporter, Time, Variety, and The Wall Street Journal; the books The Complete Making of Indiana Jones: The Definitive Story Behind All Four Films (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2008) and George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (George Lucas Books/Harper Collins, 2010); the films Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures) and The Making of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures).

- Michael Coate

Loaded with endless pop culture references from Star Trek to Star Wars to Logan’s Run, and an unforgettable performance by William Shatner himself, Free Enterprise received a limited theatrical release during the summer of 1999 but found an audience upon its home-video release (which has included one of the final LaserDiscs ever released and two very loaded Special Edition DVDs). On the occasion of the movie’s 15th anniversary, The Bits caught up with the creative duo behind the project to discuss the appeal and impact Free Enterprise has made over the last decade and a half.

A Few Minutes with Mark A. Altman & Robert Meyer Burnett

(Note: Altman and Burnett were interviewed separately and edited into a single conversation.)

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How is Free Enterprise worth celebrating on its 15th anniversary?

Mark A. Altman (co-writer, co-producer): Free Enterprise is probably the first movie to actually depict genre fans as they really are. All too often, the media confuses geeks with nerds and thinks sci-fi fans are a bunch of pocket protector wearing losers who need to get a life. In our film, the guys were dysfunctional, but they weren’t complete losers. I think it really captured what Rob and my lives were like at the time we made it.

Robert Meyer Burnett (director, co-writer, editor): In many ways, Free Enterprise was a film before its time. The idea of high functioning, semi-professional geeks, with careers and love lives, yet still obsessing over the ins and outs of starship propulsion systems and the relative merits of the heroes of the Marvel and DC universes, was pretty new back in 1999. Kevin Smith’s work had already touched upon this... the Death Star laborer discussion from Clerks, for instance... but we put the L.A./entertainment industry geek front and center.

The film also touched off the career resurgence of William Shatner, leading directly to the Priceline ads, his album Has Been with Ben Folds, and eventually his multiple Emmy-winning turn as Denny Crane.

And now we live in what I like to call the Post Geek Singularity, where everyone knows a Mark and Rob, The Big Bang Theory is still one of the hottest programs on television, Oculus Rift is about to change entertainment, Paramount and Skydance will spend 200 million dollars on a Star Trek movie and they’re shooting Avengers: Age of Ultron all over the planet. If you asked me if this world would exist when we were shooting Free Enterprise back in 1998, I’d never have believed you.

We were just a bit ahead of the curve. If the film had come out in the early 2000s, after the rise of the Internet, I might still have a directing career!

Coate: What did you set out to accomplish with Free Enterprise?

Altman: Being my first movie, the first thing we set out to accomplish was to get a movie produced and, given the old axiom, “write what you know,” it seemed an appropriate way to dive into the pool, so to speak. The second thing was Rob and I are both huge Star Trek fans, obviously, but I’m also a big Woody Allen fan, so the idea was to make a romantic comedy that dealt with our obsessions at the time, and I think we did that. There were a lot of films in the 90s that dealt with the Peter Pan syndrome in twenty-somethings, but I think, arguably, we did it the best.

Burnett: I grew up very much alone in my interests. While a social kid, active in sports and in school, working from an early age and always having girlfriends, my mind was very much in the clouds most of the time, pondering day to day workings of the Federation, the implications of the Crisis on Infinite Earths, whether or not Randall Flagg would ever show up again, and would Blade Runner really be released letterboxed on LaserDisc by Criterion? These were how I spent my days. But there was no one to talk to about these things.

I believed the overall philosophies contained in the flights of fancy I loved the most – Star Trek, Star Wars, The Twilight Zone, The Prisoner, Stephen King novels, DC Comics, etc. – were valuable. In a sense, collectively, all of this geek pop culture was really my religion. I was sort of a Universal Humanist.

When I moved to Los Angeles on June 4th, 1988, I began meeting, for the very first time, like-minded individuals. Sure, we may have specialized in different areas of the geek landscape... but we shared an overall understand of the value of this material. The value and power of imaginative storytelling. I began to gather a very interesting group of very motivated and talented friends I greatly admired. So I really hope Free Enterprise reflects those friendships. It’s also been hugely gratifying to see many of these friends go on to achieve great success and themselves add so much to the expanding universe of geek culture.

That, and to finally come out to the world about my boundless love of Bill Shatner.

Coate: Over the years there has been talk of a sequel? Why do you want to make a sequel, and what is the current status of the project?

Altman: There have been a lot of false starts and shady characters. I’m reluctant to talk about it because I don’t like getting anyone’s hopes up, including mine, but recently a new party entered the picture that claims to be very interested in financing the film and I know Bill still really wants to do the picture, as well, so if the stars align, who knows. As Mr. Spock is fond of saying, “there are always possibilities.” In addition to that, we recently announced a Kickstarter campaign which will launch in mid-July, right before Comic-Con, to promote Geeks, our tentatively entitled Free Enterprise TV series. The plan is to raise the money on Kickstarter to shoot a pilot. Dave Rogers is going to direct, who’s a director/producer on The Mindy Project and also was on The Office and Seinfeld. He also owns his own K.I.T.T. and is a long time Free Enterprise fan, so he’s the perfect person for this. It’s very exciting and we’re hoping all the fans who have wanted to see the Free Enterprise universe back on screen again will help support the campaign. There’s a script now, which is hysterical, and it runs parallel to the events in the sequel so it won’t preclude us from making a sequel film as well.

Burnett: Mark and I did write what I think is a wonderful script. Very, very different in tone from the first film. A much different experience from the original Free Enterprise. In 2010, we came very close to making it, but, unfortunately, weren’t quite able to pull it off. It’s much larger in scope than the first film... and in today’s economic climate, much more difficult to finance. But as Kirk said of Spock at the end of Wrath of Khan, “There are always possibilities.” Shatner himself recently stated he’s still very interested in the film, so you never know. It would absolutely be a blast to make, and, like the first film, it’s pretty unexpected in terms of the direction it goes.

Coate: Why hasn’t Free Enterprise been released on Blu-ray?

Altman: There are a few reasons. First, the film needs a new 4K hi-def transfer and that’s expensive, so we need a company that’s willing to spend the money to do this. Secondly, there have been several near misses with financing for a sequel and everyone who’s been interested in financing a sequel has wanted to acquire the rights to the first film, so there’s more value to that if it hasn’t been overexploited, which is one of the reasons it’s not on Blu-Ray and is currently not airing anymore on cable or TV. It’s sort of like when Disney puts their films in the vault for seven years and then makes a big hoo-ha when they’re re-released. I expect we’ll definitely do something big for Star Trek’s 50th anniversary in 2016 if we don’t do anything before. At least, we will.

Burnett: Proper HD transfers are not cheap and we’ve yet to find any distributor who wants to pony up the cash! Believe me... it fills me with a great sadness I can watch Blu-rays of Lifeforce, Possession, Night of the Comet, El Topo or Thief, but I can’t see my own movie on Blu! Quite honestly, we’re also still holding out hope we can get the money to make the sequel, Free Enterprise: The Wrath of Shatner, and the first film would play a part in that deal, so we don’t want to get in the way of that.

Coate: When I interviewed you in 1999 for Widescreen Review you mentioned wanting to shorten the running time of the movie. Yet, a few years later, Free Enterprise was re-released on DVD with a longer running time (the Five Year Mission Extended Edition). Why alter the film, and which cut do you want issued on Blu-ray?

Altman: At the time, we all felt the film could use some judicious pruning, but you have to remember this was still in the day when movies were shot on film and the negative was physically cut. It’s not like today where everything is digital and then spit out to a DI [Digital Intermediate]. But yes, there was probably a better, or at least tighter, film in there, but when we had the chance to do the 2006 re-release for DVD we couldn’t re-cut and re-mix the entire film; we could only really do lifts and add in a few things. And there were a few scenes we really wanted to put back which we should have never cut out like Shatner’s story about running into the burning building, which we got talked into cutting which was a huge mistake we remedied and something that always disappointed Bill, as well. The CGI for Logan’s Run was just a fun little addition by a young special effects guy who was friends with Rob, Shant Jordan, who did a superb job. And, of course, I couldn’t resist adding the crawl at the beginning because it was fun and easy and we got to put in the joke about many Bothans dying to bring you this film. But if we had the opportunity to start from scratch, that would be ideal, but I can’t ever see that happening. After all, this is a film that talks about LaserDiscs, so it’s definitely a product of its time. Of course, if Criterion came to us today, we’d make a deal immediately.

Burnett: Of the two versions that exist, I much prefer the longer, Anchor Bay Five Year Mission Edition. I think it’s a much more satisfying experience. And we put back Shatner’s speech at the party, which we should never have been removed. But truth be told... I’ve never been totally happy with any cut of Free Enterprise. I’ve learned so much as an editor since then... so, if we do ever get to release a new HD version, I’d love to go in, Oliver Stone Alexander style, and recut the entire film from the ground up. I’d just give the entire film little overall nips and tucks. I wouldn’t lose anything... just make the whole movie a bit more... .polished.

Coate: If and when Free Enterprise gets released on Blu-ray, would you like all of the supplemental material previously produced for the LaserDisc and DVD releases ported over, or would you like to have fresh material created?

Altman: Oh, I’d absolutely want to port over all the special edition features we included in the Five Year Mission Edition, which was fantastic. Anchor Bay did a great job, which was a testament to Mark Ward and Bo Alther at the time. Everything but the commentary on the deleted scenes got on there and I thought that was awesome. We worked really hard, and Rob cut a fantastic documentary about the making of the film in which we went back to all the B-roll Jeff Goldsmith shot on set and included a bunch of deleted and extended scenes in the doc, as well. Technically, it’s not great, but it’s a super entertaining making-of feature that I would absolutely want to include, but I’m sure we’d also want to add some new material, as well, since our perspectives have changed over the years, and we have even more stories to share about the film that have accrued in the subsequent years. I always love to talk about how we went to Cannes with the film, which was the first time Shatner had ever gone to Cannes. He went on the Concorde and we went on the wing of a plane in steerage or something, but it was great walking down the Croisette with him as he turned to us and said with a glint in his eye, “Topless, topless is good.” And we went to a party the distributor was throwing for us and Henry Jaglom was shooting a movie called Festival in Cannes, which starred Maximilian Schell, so it was the first time Bill had seen Maximilian since they filmed Judgment at Nuremberg together over 30 years earlier, and when they were embraced in a bear hug, Rob and I just sat there glassy eyed saying this was the coolest thing ever. It was Captain Kirk and Dr. Hans Reinhardt together! We have a ton of those stories like the time Ricardo Montalban called Bill in the middle of a story meeting and Rob and I joked that it was just like Wrath of Khan: they talk on the phone, but they never meet.

Burnett: Since I now have 15 years of experience creating Value Added Material for home video... I’d love to have EVERYTHING ported over, in addition to doing a new retrospective documentary with all the principals. Give fans of the film something special for what would probably be its last release on physical media. Free Enterprise was one of the last LaserDiscs produced, so why shouldn’t it be one of the last Blu-rays?

Coate: In what way did producing Free Enterprise on a small budget help the film? In what way did a small budget hurt the film?

Altman: It was never the budget that hurt us; it was our inexperience at the time. I don’t think the film suffered from budget other than in the schedule. We actually pulled off a logistically daunting film with finesse for the money we had to spend, and there’s not much I would change. I still am a big fan of the original script where Shatner was a fictional Bogart-like character (a la Play It Again, Sam) who gave the boys advice rather than a real live flesh and blood figure, but that was necessitated to secure his involvement and it all worked out rather well I thought. I still can’t say enough good things about Bill Shatner. I think he’s a very smart, very talented man and I’m so glad my admiration for him only grew as a result of working with him. I always like to tell the story where we were in Cannes and he gave his bomber jacket to Planet Hollywood and told this long and dramatic story about it once belonged to Eddie Rickenbacker. And when he walked off stage, Rob and I were astonished, having no idea about the history of the wardrobe, and he just smiled and said he made it all up. Now, that’s a storyteller.

Burnett: I think Free Enterprise was made for exactly what we needed to do it at the time. For a low-budget indie, there’s a LOT of locations, mostly practical, many speaking roles, and I don’t think there’s anything I didn’t get, which was a testament to the producing team. The only way a larger budget would’ve helped my vision of the film would’ve been to get more classic 80s songs on the soundtrack.

Coate: Had you guys had a bigger budget and/or more time, what would you have done differently?

Altman: Taking bigger fees (laughs). This was truly a labor of love. We made next to nothing on this film because we were young and excited about making our first movie, but for the amount of work it was, I would have like to have gotten paid more. Seriously though, probably I would have wanted to make sure the love story was more organic to the Shatner story as it was in the original drafts, and I probably would have cut the script more and had more extras in the party scene. I also would have talked about DVDs and not LaserDiscs. At the time DVDs were new on the scene and we were staunch LaserDisc supporters. The transfers on those early DVD discs sucked, so we weren’t going to even acknowledge DVDs, but the guys’ obsession with LaserDiscs probably dates the film more than any other thing in the movie other than the fact virtually every bar, restaurant and location in the movie has now gone out of business. So much for product placement.

Burnett: Like all filmmakers, I’d have shot far more coverage and spent more time with the actors crafting their performances.

Coate: Have you stayed in touch with the cast members?

Altman: I wish I could say I have, but other than the people like Daren Dochterman, who I was already friends with, I haven’t stayed in touch with anyone other than Bill. I was good friends with Audie England for a long time, who’s a doll, but we both got married and lost touch regrettably. I always considered her my Diane Keaton, and we even had lunch during production in the restaurant that Woody Allen and Diane Keaton break up in Annie Hall, so that’s a fond memory, too. I ran into Eric McCormack a year or two ago at Kate Mantilini’s, which is also going out of business this week, and he couldn’t have been nicer. He mentions the movie in Warren Littlefield’s book Top of the Rock, which I was amused by since he shot the Will & Grace pilot right after auditioning for us, but right before shooting our movie.

Burnett: I still keep up with Rafer Weigel, who played Robert. He’s now a big time television sportscaster in Chicago, where he’s followed in the footsteps of his late father. He’s married to a lovely woman and is now a father. Because of social networking, I keep up with some of the other cast members, such as Eric McCormack via twitter, and I see Phil LaMarr around at various events such as Comic-Con. It’s always nice running into the cast. Everyone seems to have fond memories of making the film, which is very nice.

Coate: Could you have predicted how big a star Eric McCormack would become?

Altman: Honestly, yes. I remember auditioning Eric and thinking he was terrific, and when he came for the callback he was embarrassed that we spotted him in the parking lot pacing and running his lines. When he came in, I told him he had nothing to worry about, he was going to nail this, and he did. He was so professional and so funny that I knew he would have a long and successful career ahead of him, and I’m glad to see he did. I’d love to work with him again because he’s such a pro and so talented. Unfortunately, he got bad advice from his agent or producer and didn’t really promote the film as much as he could’ve, which disappointed me, but that wasn’t his fault. He’s a terrific guy and I’m glad his new TNT show is doing so well.

Burnett: I could, actually. Eric was the first person we auditioned for the film and it was very apparent he was absolutely a tremendous actor with innate star power. He told me he wanted to do series television and sitcoms and that’s exactly what he did. To this day, I often think how fortunate I was to get to work with him. Both he and Shatner went on to win Emmys.

Coate: The original title was Trekkers. Why was the title changed (and what does Free Enterprise actually mean)?

Altman:  Trekkers came out of Swingers, to be honest. At the time, we were not only influenced by the movie Swingers, but our lives were pretty much like the guys in Swingers in L.A., only we were aspiring filmmakers and not aspiring actors and Rob never got to direct Iron Man, but otherwise all very similar and we didn’t want to hit that nail on the head so hard. Not to mention, we wanted the film to appeal to more than just Star Trek fans, which was a concern so we dropped Trekkers and went with the more enigmatic Free Enterprise. Unfortunately, now it sounds like some kind of Ayn Rand treatise if you don’t know what the movie’s about. Ironically, Paramount needed to get us to release the title with the MPAA in order to release Trekkies, which we respectfully did even though they did us no favors in the making of the film, but we didn’t want to be assholes about it…although we could’ve – and probably should’ve.

Burnett: We changed the title from Trekkers to Free Enterprise because we didn’t want to encroach on Paramount’s desire to use the term in their own productions. Roger Nygard’s Trekkies, released through Paramount, came out very close to us and figured we’d come up with something more uniquely our own. I’ve always thought of the Enterprise of our title to mean one’s life, journey and ultimate destiny. The Voyage itself. Not just evoking the famous Starship, but everywhere she’s been. The Free becomes obvious after that. Also, I was a big Free to Be You and Me fan when I was little.

Coate: How has Free Enterprise helped your careers?

Altman: It’s been an enormous help. I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met who love the film and are fans of the film. When I first met Kevin Feige at Marvel it was because he overheard that I had done Free Enterprise and The Specials and he came up to me to chat. We were very friendly for a while although I’ve lost touch with him in the last few years. That’s happened a lot. It’s a movie I continue to be very, very proud of. I learned a lot from the movie and I’m deeply appreciative to some of the Star Trek filmmakers who were so supportive. Michael Piller came to the premiere and was very generous with his praise, which meant a lot given I wasn’t always so generous with my praise of some of his work. And Ron Moore and I were in a little bit of a spat at the time, but I got the nicest bottle of Dom from him when the film opened, which was an incredibly classy gesture on his part. It’s funny because I’ve never done anything quite like Free Enterprise since, but it was so much a synthesis of my interests sci-fi and Billy Wilder and Ernst Lubitsch and Woody Allen and yet most of what I’ve done has either been TV procedurals, horror/suspense and noir, so I’m really anxious to go back and do something in the Free Enterprise universe since there’s no satisfaction quite like doing comedy when you hear the audience laughing in response to a joke you’ve written.

Burnett: Unfortunately, Free Enterprise is the one thing I’ve ever worked on which never lead to another job for me. I’d like to hope this isn’t a commentary on my filmmaking ability! I did have a blast recently reteaming with Mark on Femme Fatales, the HBO/Cinemax show he created which ran two seasons. I directed five episodes of the show and it was absolutely one of the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had in the business.

Coate: What project(s) are you currently working on?

Altman: We just finished two seasons of a noir anthology for HBO/Cinemax called Femme Fatales, based on the magazine, which is on DVD now and in a holding pattern on season three for a variety of reasons that are too depressing to discuss, but we’ll probably get around to a third season eventually. And my writing/producing partner Steve Kriozere and I have done a bunch of comic books and sold a few pilots, and I’ve worked on a number of network and cable TV series. And I just sold a new book which I’ll be able to discuss in a few months. But I’m really looking forward to doing this Free Enterprise TV pilot as well as a few other projects in various stages that I can’t really discuss including a Holocaust film which, if we nail the tone, will be pretty amazing. And I’m still consulting on Geek Magazine, which Dave Williams has done an incredible job resurrecting, which was actually a magazine inspired by Free Enterprise. It was a fictional magazine then, but a real magazine now. Ultimately, though, Free Enterprise will always be close to my heart no matter what else I do. And it’s funny because Rob and I always contemplated doing Free Enterprise like Michael Apted did with the 28 Up films and Linklater did with his films and coming back to revisit the universe every ten years. Well, we missed the ten year window, but maybe every 15 we’ll see what these characters are up to and what they’re bitching about now.

Burnett: For the past two years, I’ve been working on creating what seems like countless hours of documentary programming for the HD restoration of each season of Star Trek: The Next Generation and the four seasons of Star Trek: Enterprise. It’s been the one job I’ve ever had where I can honestly say I’m probably the most qualified person on the planet Earth to do, which has been great. On the Season Two set of The Next Generation, I was even the on-camera moderator for a round table discussion with the entire principal cast, which was absolutely thrilling for me. I’m finally working on Season Seven now, so that job is coming to an end. I’ve also been hard at work on the script for a vicious little low-budget horror film I’m hoping to direct.

Coate: What do you think is the legacy of Free Enterprise?

Altman: To be honest, there’s probably not a week that goes by in which someone doesn’t mention the film to me, which is extremely flattering to have a film with that kind of impact. Not to mention, I met my wife because of the film at the Telluride Film Festival. She actually recognized me from the DVD special features, which may be the first time that phenomenon has ever occurred so I’ll always be grateful to the film for that most of all. But I do think that Free Enterprise liberated fandom from the “Get A Life” cliché as well as re-defined Bill Shatner to audiences. You have to remember, at the time, he was doing films like Loaded Weapon and action films with Jeff Speakman, and when we made this film, it was pre-Priceline, pre-Third Rock From the Sun, Boston Legal, all that stuff. And no one was making these kind of self-reflexive comedies like Episodes and Curb Your Enthusiasm that are all the rage now. We really pioneered all this and I’m really proud of that and giving Bill this amazing showcase to display his comic chops and redefine his on-screen persona. So, to me, that may be the best thing about it. Plus it doesn’t hurt that I grew up loving Star Trek and Captain Kirk since I was a kid and got to make my first film with William Shatner. About a year or two ago I had to meet Bill out at the riding center and I had my family with me and we walked up to the arena and Bill galloped up to us wearing a cowboy hat on horseback. He greeted my kids and was so sweet, and when he galloped away, my daughter turned to me and asked, “Who was that?” And I looked at her and said, “You just met Captain Kirk. You may not realize it now, but one day you’ll be telling YOUR kids how you first met William Shatner.”

Burnett: I think, if anything, Free Enterprise depicts a lost moment in time: the Dawn just before the world woke up to the Geek Sunrise and embraced the light of the pop culture imagination. It also serves as a reminder William Shatner is, was and ever shall be, one of the greatest personalities to ever work in show business. A man who remains a tireless, timeless example of a life well-lived.

---

You can follow Mark on Twitter at @markaaltman. Mark also writes the occasional MOS DEF column here at The Digital Bits.

You can follow Robert on Twitter at @burnettRM.

Here’s a link to the Free Enterprise TV series Kickstarter campaign announcement.

- Michael Coate

Directed by Ivan Reitman and starring Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Harold Ramis and Sigourney Weaver, plus memorable supporting performances from Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton and Ernie Hudson, Ghostbusters (official on-screen billing: Ghost Busters) has been entertaining audiences for three decades with its exciting visual effects and endless supply of quotable dialogue and hilarious scenes. Home theater enthusiasts will remember Ghostbusters for being among the earliest special edition and letterboxed releases with its Criterion Collection LaserDisc. In addition to retrospective articles (such as this one), thirty-year anniversary celebrations will include a theatrical re-release in August and a new Blu-ray Disc release in September.

GHOSTBUSTERS NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among Columbia Pictures’ top-grossing movies of all time at close of run
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1984 (summer season)
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1984 (calendar year)
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1984 (legacy)
• 6 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 7 = Number of years industry’s top-grossing comedy
• 10 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (including first seven weeks)
• 11.2 = Percentage of second-week increase in box-office gross
• 13 = Number of years Columbia Pictures’ top-grossing movie
• 16 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 32 = Number of days to gross $100 million
• 33 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 94 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 108 = Number of days to gross $200 million
• 334 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 1,339 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend
• 410,000 = Number of home-video units sold to retailers (priced for rental, $80 SRP)*

• $9.4 million = Domestic box-office gross (1985 re-release)
• $13.6 million = Opening weekend box-office gross
• $31.0 million = Production cost
• $53.0 million = International box-office gross
• $70.7 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $128.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $229.2 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release)
• $238.6 million = Domestic box-office gross (original + re-release)
• $291.6 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $563.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $665.4 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*Established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“A month ago, if anyone had told me I’d be giving a favorable review to a movie in which a giant marshmallow attacks New York, I’d have nodded politely at best. But Ghostbusters evokes a very willing suspension of disbelief. After watching the comic demons and possessions, it will be impossible (if it isn’t already) to sit through a Stephen King adaptation with a straight face.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“Hilarious. Delightful. Wonderful. Everyone seems to be working toward the same goal of relaxed insanity. Ghostbusters is wonderful summer nonsense.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Pumped up with special effects, it eventually degenerates into a mindless sound and light show that could have appeared in many other, lesser movies. This film is a whole lot funnier when its characters are talking to and past each other than when everybody is standing around in awe of not particularly awesome special effects.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Rarely has a movie this expensive provided so many quotable lines.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Ivan Reitman is not one of our great comedy directors; he was responsible for Meatballs and the equally miserable Bill Murray comedy, Stripes. But he almost keeps the mixture of comedy and spectacle in Ghostbusters under control, and that's no small feat. Even the overblown finale includes one great sight gag that will be dear to the hearts of Godzilla fans.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Four Stars! An all-out laugh attack… Refreshing comic intelligence… Bill Murray, the unlikeliest heartthrob since Groucho Marx, is seductively hilarious – and without a cigar. This pizza-face with his mossy eyes and satiric scar of a mouth tramples through the movie with comedic assurance, translating para-psychobabble into street-wise-cracks” — Carrie Rickey, Boston Herald

”Of the ghost wranglers, the pair played by writers Aykroyd and Ramis are sweetly earnest about their calling, and gracious about giving the picture to their co-star Bill Murray. He obviously (and wisely) regards Dr. Peter Venkman as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop fully his patented comic character.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Murray is the film's comic mechanism...but nobody else has much in the way of material, and since there's almost no give-and-take among the three men, Murray's lines fall on dead air.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“Ghostbusters towers above most modern comedies. It’s one of the happiest surprises of the summer…miles ahead of its other competitors.” — Rex Reed, syndicated columnist

“Irresistible. Inspired lunacy. Aykroyd and Murray make the perfect summer tonic for raising spirits.” — Peter Travers, People

“Its jokes, characters and storyline are as wispy as the ghosts themselves, and a good deal less substantial.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“Terrific…a comic jackpot. The best summer movie so far.” — Leonard Maltin, Entertainment Tonight

“Ghostbusters is this summer’s comedy blockbuster.” — Joel Siegel, Good Morning America

“Ghostbusters is a convulsively funny classic comedy… A landmark – the one in which a generation of comics put it all together.” — David Denby, New York Magazine

PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION + TRIVIA

By the end of its original release, Ghostbusters became Columbia Pictures’ highest-grossing movie (and the industry’s highest-grossing comedy). It eclipsed the record set by Tootsie two years earlier and held as the studio’s top earner until eclipsed by Men in Black in 1997.

The world premiere of Ghostbusters was held on June 7, 1984, at the Avco Center in Los Angeles.

Ghostbusters was the first project for which three-time Academy Award winner Richard Edlund produced the visual effects upon leaving Industrial Light + Magic and forming Boss Film Studios.

Ghostbusters was the final film on which eleven-time Oscar nominee and three-time Oscar-winning production designer John De Cuir worked.

Collaboration… Ghostbusters was one of six films composer Elmer Bernstein and Ivan Reitman worked on together…. Ghostbusters was the third of five collaborations between Bill Murray and Harold Ramis…. Ghostbusters was the third of four collaborations between Bill Murray and Ivan Reitman.

The American Film Institute voted Ghostbusters Number 28 on AFI’s 100 Years…100 Laughs, part of the AFI’s 100 Years… series.

The coming attractions trailer for Ghostbusters was attached to the prints of Moscow on the Hudson. A trailer for The Karate Kid was attached to the prints of Ghostbusters.

Ghostbusters, itself inspired by the 1946 Bowery Boys film Spook Busters, inspired a sequel, two animated TV series, and several video games. A second sequel/reboot has been in development for several years.

Ghostbusters was among 16 movies released during 1984 with 70mm prints for selected engagements. The premium-format prints cost about eight times that of a conventional 35mm print to manufacture but grossed more than the 35mm engagements in most situations.

Ghostbusters was nominated for two Academy Awards: Visual Effects and Original Song. The movie was also nominated for three Golden Globes and a Grammy. It won a Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film and a BAFTA Award for the song Ghostbusters.

In 1984, musician Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker, Jr. and Columbia Pictures for plagiarism, claiming the Ghostbusters theme song ripped off Huey Lewis and the News’ I Want a New Drug. The case was settled out of court. In 2001, Parker sued Lewis, alleging Lewis violated the terms of the settlement by discussing the incident in a television documentary.

During an era where six months was the average amount of time between theatrical release and home-video release, Ghostbusters had a theatrical-to-video “window” of 16 months by arriving on home-video formats in October 1985.

The first network television broadcast of Ghostbusters was on ABC on September 24, 1987. Its first letterboxed release (on LaserDisc) was in 1989. Its first DVD release was in 1999. Its first Blu-ray release was in 2008.

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Ghostbusters in the United States and Canada. Arguably, these were the best theaters in which to experience Ghostbusters. (The list does not include any 70mm move-over, sub-run, re-release or international engagements.)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver – Odeon PARK

CALIFORNIA

• Cerritos – United Artists CERRITOS MALL TWIN
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – Mann CHINESE TRIPLEX <THX>
• Los Angeles (Northridge) – Pacific NORTHRIDGE 6
• Los Angeles (Tarzana) – Mann VALLEY WEST 6
• Los Angeles (Westwood) – General Cinema Corporation AVCO CENTER <THX>
• Marina del Rey – United Artists MOVIES 6
• Oakland – Renaissance Rialto GRAND LAKE 4
• Orange – Syufy CINEDOME 6
• Pleasant Hill – Syufy CENTURY 5
• Riverside – United Artists PARK SIERRA 6
• San Francisco – Plitt NORTHPOINT
• San Jose – Syufy TOWN & COUNTRY
• Westminster – United Artists WESTMINSTER MALL TWIN

COLORADO

• Littleton – Commonwealth COOPER 7

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington – Circle UPTOWN

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City – Plitt RIVER OAKS 6
• Niles – Essaness GOLF MILL 3
• Norridge – Marks & Rosenfield NORRIDGE 4
• Schaumburg – Plitt WOODFIELD 4

HAWAII

• Honolulu – Consolidated WAIKIKI TWIN <HPS-4000>

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg – Odeon GARRICK 1 & 2

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston – Sack CHERI 1-2-3
• West Springfield – Redstone SHOWCASE CINEMAS

MISSOURI

• Sunset Hills – Mann MARK TWAIN

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus – RKO Century ROUTE 4 TENPLEX

NEW YORK

• DeWitt – Carrols SHOPPINGTOWN 1 & 2
• New York (Brooklyn) – RKO Century KINGSWAY FIVEPLEX
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews NEW YORK TWIN
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews STATE TWIN

ONTARIO

• Ottawa – Odeon ST. LAURENT 1 & 2
• Toronto – Odeon YORK 1 & 2

OREGON

• Beaverton – Luxury Theatres WESTGATE TRIPLEX

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia – SamEric ERIC’S PLACE

QUEBEC

• Montreal – Odeon PLACE DU CANADA

UTAH

• Taylorsville – Plitt MIDVALLEY 6

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue – Sterling Recreation Organization FACTORIA 5
• Lynnwood – Sterling Recreation Organization GRAND CINEMAS ALDERWOOD 5
• Tacoma – Sterling Recreation Organization TACOMA SOUTH 5
• Tukwila – Sterling Recreation Organization LEWIS & CLARK 7

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

• Dr. Peter Venkman – Bill Murray
• Dr. Raymond Stantz – Dan Aykroyd
• Dana Barrett – Sigourney Weaver
• Dr. Egon Spengler – Harold Ramis
• Louis Tully – Rick Moranis
• Janine Melnitz – Annie Potts
• Walter Peck – William Atherton
• Winston Zeddemore – Ernie Hudson

• Director – Ivan Reitman
• Screenplay – Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis
• Producer – Ivan Reitman
• Director of Photography – Laszlo Kovacs, ASC
• Production Designer – John De Cuir
• Film Editors – Sheldon Kahn, ACE with David Blewitt, ACE
• Executive Producer – Bernie Brillstein
• Associate Producers – Joe Medjuck and Michael C. Gross
• Visual Effects – Richard Edlund, ASC
• Music – Elmer Bernstein
• Costumes – Theoni V. Aldredge
• Sound Designers – Richard Beggs, Tom McCarthy, Jr.
• Re-Recording Mixers – Les Fresholtz, CAS; Dick Alexander, CAS; Vern Poore, CAS

• Distributor – Columbia Pictures
• Production Company – Black Rhino/Bernie Brillstein
• Release Date – June 8, 1984
• Running Time – 105 minutes
• Projection Format – Scope / Dolby Stereo
• MPAA Rating – PG

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals The Hollywood Reporter, Time, Variety, and The Wall Street Journal; the website Boxofficemojo, the book George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (George Lucas Books/Harper Collins, 2010); and the film Ghostbusters (1984, Columbia Pictures).

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jerry Alexander, Claude Ayakawa, Raymond Caple, Steve Guttag, Bill Kretzel, Tamir Sharif, Vince Young, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

IMAGES:

Copyright 1984 Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

IN MEMORIAM:

• Harold Ramis (Co-Writer, “Dr. Egon Spengler”), 1944-2014
• David Blewitt (Co-Editor), 1928-2010
• Bernie Brillstein (Executive Producer), 1931-2008
• Laszlo Kovacs (Director of Photography), 1933-2007
• Elmer Bernstein (Music), 1922-2004
• John De Cuir (Production Designer), 1918-1991

- Michael Coate

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the silver anniversary of the release of Batman, Tim Burton’s take on the Caped Crusader starring Michael Keaton as the Dark Knight and Jack Nicholson as the Joker. As with other entries in this series, The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective article featuring two interviews (one with film historian and author Bruce Scivally who discusses the legacy of the film and character, and the other with film music authority Jeff Bond who discusses one of the stand-out elements of the film: Danny Elfman’s music).

The article also includes some quotes from well-known movie critics, production & exhibition information, a list of the movie’s deluxe 70-millimeter presentations, and a revealing compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context.

BATMAN NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (summer season)
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (domestic)
• 1 = Rank among Warner Bros.’ top-grossing movies of all time at close of run
• 2 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (worldwide)
• 3 = Rank among top-grossing movies of the 1980s
• 5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 5 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 10 = Number of days to gross $100 million*
• 12 = Number of years Warner Bros.’ top-grossing movie
• 13 = Number of years industry’s top-grossing superhero/comic book movie
• 25.7 = Percentage of second-week decrease in box-office gross
• 37 = Number of days to gross $200 million*
• 50 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 81 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 179 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 2,194 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend
• 13,500,000 = Number of home-video units sold to retailers on initial release (sell-through, $24.98 SRP)

• $2.2 million = Sneak-preview screenings box-office gross*
• $13.1 million = Opening-day box-office gross*
• $14.6 million = Highest single-day gross (June 24)*
• $40.5 million = Opening weekend box-office gross* (June 23-25)
• $42.7 million = Opening weekend box-office gross* (June 22 sneak previews + June 23-25)
• $53.5 million = Production cost
• $71.8 million = International box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $102.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $152.1 million = Domestic box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $160.2 million = International box-office gross
• $251.2 million = Domestic box-office gross
• $400.0 million = Home video and ancillary market revenue (approximate)
• $411.3 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $501.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $750.0 million = Tie-in merchandise revenue (approximate)
• $786.4 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*Established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The movie of the decade.” — Erik Preminger, KGO-TV, San Francisco

“The Gotham City created in Batman is one of the most distinctive and atmospheric places I’ve seen in the movies. It’s a shame something more memorable doesn’t happen there. Batman is a triumph of design over story, style over substance — a great-looking movie with a plot you can’t care much about.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“…the best of the summer blockbusters because of its originality. Director Tim Burton does not kowtow to the juvenile sensibility of most summertime movies, and the result is a dark, smart and moody drama filled with more than a few laughs provided by Jack Nicholson as the evil Joker.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“The problem — I think — is that while Burton is a great visual stylist, intellectually, he’s as arrested as Pee-wee Herman. Burton’s more interested in fetishistic behavior and surreal/sadistic imagery than he is in ‘girls’ or anything as dull as character development.” — James Verniere, Boston Herald

“Dark, haunting and poetic, Tim Burton’s Batman is a magnificent living comic book. From its opening shots, as the camera descends into the grim, teeming streets of Gotham City, the movie fixes you in its gravitational pull. It’s an enveloping, walk-in vision. You enter into it as you would a magical forest in a fairy tale, and the deeper you’re drawn into it, the more frighteningly vivid it becomes. Ultimately, that’s what Batman is — a violent, urban fairy tale. And it’s as rich and satisfying a movie as you’re likely to see all year.” — Hal Hinson, The Washington Post

“The much-publicized Prince songs are terrible and rather intrusive, but Danny Elfman’s score is as flamboyant and huge as the movie, perfectly complementing the action. And the sets and technical credits are fascinating from beginning to end.” — Chris Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“It comes as no surprise that Jack Nicholson steals every scene in a sizable role as the hideously disfigured Joker. Nicholson embellishes fascinatingly baroque designs with his twisted features, lavish verbal pirouettes and inspired excursions into the outer limits of psychosis. It’s a masterpiece of sinister comic acting.” — Variety

”Well, bat-fans, your days and nights and weeks and months of anticipation and dread have come down to this very day — Batman is playing in theaters. And unlike all the megabuck sequels of the summer, Batman lives up to its billing. It’s original, wild, daring, funny, frightening and unexpected — everything a great film of this sort should be.” — Donald Porter, (Ogden) Standard-Examiner

“Some things are wanted too badly. Case in point: the Batman movie. Could anything satisfy the unprecedented anticipation this film stirred up? The answer, of course, is no. A different kind of want develops while you’re watching. Marveling at its audacious, eclectic design, Jack Nicholson’s certifiably crazed Joker, appreciating Michael Keaton’s efforts to bring dignity and wit to the Dark Knight and his alter ego, Bruce Wayne — for that and more, you want to love it, but you can’t. Batman is one of those films that gets everything right except the script. The core failure undercuts all that the movie does well. But what Batman does well, especially in this summer of risk-free, unimaginative sequels, is worth celebrating.” — Bob Strauss, Los Angeles Daily News

“A triumph. You can’t take your eyes off it. Michael Keaton is astounding. Jack Nicholson paints a classic comic portrait. Tim Burton is a gifted director.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“Anton Furst’s production design is so evocative that one expects to meet a fiend on the order of Dr. Mabuse, Fritz Lang’s master criminal, rather than D.C. Comics’ Joker, who, though brilliantly played by Jack Nicholson, simply isn’t up to the apocalyptic grandeur of the décor…. Thanks to the work of Mr. Furst, Batman is fun to look at, at least for a while. Not since Lang’s Dr. Mabuse: the Gambler (1922), Metropolis (1926) and The Last Will of Dr. Mabuse (1933) have so much talent and money gone into the creation of an expressionistic world so determinedly corrupt…. Yet nothing in the movie sustains this vision. The wit is all pictorial. The film meanders mindlessly from one image to the next, as does a comic book. It doesn’t help that the title character remains such a wimp even when played by Michael Keaton. Nobody could do anything with this ridiculous conceit, but asking Mr. Keaton, one of our most volatile actors, to play Bruce Wayne/Batman is like asking him to put on an ape suit and play the title role in King Kong…. Batman is a movie without any dominant tone or style other than that provided by Mr. Furst. It’s neither funny nor solemn. It has the personality not of a particular movie but of a product, of something arrived at by corporate decision.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Breathtaking! As played by Jack Nicholson, the Joker is Wild!” — Gene Shalit, The Today Show

“Daring, spectacular, exciting. Worth the wait, worth the hype and worth the wait in line. Michael Keaton makes you believe in Batman.” — Pat Collins, WWOR-TV, New York

“Bad news, batfans. In Batman, the Joker finally gets the better of the hero. He pulls off the crime of the century right below the Caped Crusader’s nose: He steals his movie.” — Jeff Strickler, (Minneapolis) Star Tribune

“Wow! This is easily one of the best movies I’ve ever seen in my life. There was not one minute where I was bored. The lighting was right on the mark, the direction superb and the performances flawless. If you don’t enjoy this flick you are comatose, my friend.” — Larry King, CNN

“Batman’s style is both daunting and lurching; it has trouble deciding which of its antagonists should set the tone. It can be as manic as the Joker, straining to hear the applause of outrage; it can be as implosive as Batman-Bruce, who seems crushed by the burden of his schizoid eminence. This tension nearly exhausts the viewer and the film.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“Yes, the Joker is definitely wild in Batman. Nicholson’s role is so large, in fact, that this film should almost be called The Joker… Considering all of the buildup this film has received, many moviegoers will find it a letdown. If Robin were around, he probably would say, ‘Holy Disappointment, Batman!’” — Jeff Bahr, Omaha World-Herald

“Batman is half brilliant. It looks as if Burton was aware of the flaws in this project but that, handed a big-budget blockbuster after only two movies, he couldn’t blast all of them away, as Richard Donner was able to do in the first Superman. There’s hardly a doubt that Batman will reap zillions. Let’s hope that Tim Burton won’t get caught up in the sequel syndrome. He should pursue his own projects — that’s the real excitement of a talent like his.” — Jack Kroll, Newsweek

PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION + TRIVIA

By the end of its original release, Batman became Warner Bros.’ highest-grossing movie and the industry’s highest-grossing comic book/superhero movie. The movie eclipsed the Warners record set by The Exorcist sixteen years earlier and held as the studio’s top earner until topped by Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in 2001. It eclipsed the comic book/superhero record set by Superman eleven years earlier and held as the top-earner until Spider-Man surpassed it in 2002.

Now commonplace with event movies and tentpoles, Batman was the first movie to include nationwide sneak-preview screenings the evening prior to release. Prior to Batman, several high-profile movies—including some James Bond, Star Wars and Indiana Jones sequels, and Cobra—had pre-release screenings (i.e. midnight and/or round-the-clock opening-day screenings) but these were limited to a handful of theaters/cities; Batman appears to have been the first movie to have sneaks on a mass scale.

The world premiere of Batman was held on June 19, 1989, at the Mann Village and Mann Bruin theaters in the Westwood Village community of Los Angeles.

Batman was the first movie to gross over $40 million on an opening weekend.

A new opening-weekend box-office gross record was set three times during a span of a month during the summer movie-going season of 1989. First, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade established a new record with a May 26-28 gross of $29.4 million, eclipsing the previous record of $26.3 million set in 1987 by Beverly Hills Cop II. Ghostbusters II broke Indiana Jones’ record with a June 16-18 opening weekend tally of $29.5 million. That record lasted a week until Batman arrived and established by a wide margin a new industry record with a June 23-25 opening weekend gross of $40.5 million ($42.7 million including its June 22 sneak-preview screenings). Batman’s record held for three years before being topped by Batman Returns ($45.7 million).

Batman had two separate soundtrack albums issued—an unusual practice at the time—one featuring Danny Elman’s symphonic score and the other featuring Prince’s songs.

Batman was the third feature film of Tim Burton scored by Danny Elfman. Subsequently, Elfman provided the music to every Burton-directed film except Ed Wood (1994). Burton & Elfman are among the most prolific director-composer collaborations.

The first coming attractions trailer for Batman was issued in December 1988 and was initially screened with selected engagements of Tequila Sunrise. Subsequently, the trailer was attached to the prints of some of Warner Bros.’ winter and spring 1989 releases, including Her Alibi and Dead Calm. A newer, more polished trailer was issued with prints of Pink Cadillac.  A trailer for Young Einstein was attached to the release prints of Batman.

Batman was among 17 first-run movies and three classic re-issues released during 1989 with 70-millimeter prints for selected engagements. The premium-format prints cost about eight times that of a conventional 35mm print to manufacture but grossed more than the 35mm engagements in most situations. Large-format 70mm was superior to conventional 35mm prints because the larger print allowed a sharper, brighter and steadier projected image and its magnetic soundtrack provided discrete channels of audio with incredible fidelity.

Awards won included an Oscar for Art Direction, a Grammy for Danny Elfman’s music, and a People’s Choice Award for Favorite Motion Picture.

Despite a worldwide box-office gross exceeding $400 million, industry trade publications reported a decade after release that Batman was in the red.

During an era where six months was the average amount of time between theatrical release and home-video release (and even longer for most blockbusters), Batman pushed the theatrical-to-video “window” to under five months by arriving on home-video formats in November 1989, and also marked the first time a summer blockbuster was rush-released to home video in time for Christmas.

The first home-video (VHS & Beta) release of Batman was in 1989. Its first LaserDisc release was in 1990. (It was also released in 8mm and Spanish-subtitled VHS.) The first cable TV/premium-channel broadcast was in July 1990. The first network television broadcast was on CBS on April 29, 1992. Its first DVD release was in 1997. Its first Region 1 Blu-ray release was in 2009 (4-movie anthology set) and 2010 (individual release).

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Batman in the United States and Canada. Arguably, these were the best theaters in which to experience Batman. Less than five percent of the film’s print run was in the deluxe 70mm format. So which theaters received the coveted prints? Read on…. (The list does not include any 70mm move-over, sub-run, re-release or international engagements.)

** shown on two screens

ALBERTA

• Calgary – Famous Players PALLISER SQUARE 1 & 2
• Calgary – Famous Players SOUTHCENTRE 7
• Edmonton – Famous Players WESTMALL 5

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby – Famous Players STATION SQUARE 7 <THX>
• Vancouver – Famous Players CAPITOL 6

CALIFORNIA

• Berkeley – Cinerama CALIFORNIA 3
• Lakewood – Pacific LAKEWOOD CENTER 4
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – Mann CHINESE TRIPLEX <THX>
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) – Syufy CENTURY 7 <THX>
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) – Mann VILLAGE <THX>
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) – United Artists WARNER CENTER 6
• Mountain View – Syufy CENTURY 10
• Newport Beach – Edwards NEWPORT CINEMAS
• Oakland – Renaissance Rialto GRAND LAKE 4
• Orange – Syufy CENTURY CINEDOME 8**
• Sacramento – Syufy CENTURY CINEDOME 8
• Sacramento – United Artists ARDEN FAIR MALL 6
• San Diego – Mann 9 AT THE GROVE <THX>
• San Diego – United Artists HORTON PLAZA 7 <THX>
• San Francisco – United Artists CORONET
• San Jose – Syufy CENTURY 21
• San Jose – Syufy CENTURY 22 A-B-C
• San Rafael – Pacific REGENCY 6
• Santa Ana – Edwards HUTTON CENTRE 8 <THX>
• Santa Barbara – Metropolitan ARLINGTON CENTER
• Universal City – Cineplex Odeon UNIVERSAL CITY 18 <THX>

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington – Cineplex Odeon WISCONSIN AVENUE 6 <THX>
• Washington – Kogod-Burka FINE ARTS

GEORGIA

• Atlanta – Cineplex Odeon PHIPPS PLAZA 3

HAWAII

• Honolulu – Consolidated WAIKIKI 3 <HPS-4000>

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City – Cineplex Odeon RIVER OAKS 14
• Chicago – Cineplex Odeon 900 NORTH MICHIGAN TWIN**
• Chicago – General Cinema Corporation FORD CITY 5
• Hillside – Marks & Rosenfield HILLSIDE SQUARE 6
• Norridge – Marks & Rosenfield NORRIDGE 7
• Schaumburg – Cineplex Odeon WOODFIELD 4

KENTUCKY

• Erlanger – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS**

LOUISIANA

• Metairie – General Cinema Corporation LAKESIDE 5

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg – Famous Players NORTHSTAR I & II

MARYLAND

• Timonium – Loews TIMONIUM 3

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston – Loews CHERI TRIPLEX

MICHIGAN

• Southfield – American Multi-Cinema AMERICANA 8

MISSOURI

• Richmond Heights – American Multi-Cinema ESQUIRE 3

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus – Cineplex Odeon ROUTE 4 TENPLEX
• Secaucus – Loews MEADOW SIX

NEW YORK

• New York (Manhattan) – City CINEMA 1
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews 84TH STREET SIX
• New York (Manhattan) – United Artists/B.S. Moss CRITERION CENTER
• Valley Stream – National Amusements SUNRISE MULTIPLEX CINEMAS

OHIO

• Cleveland Heights – National Theatre Corporation SEVERANCE MOVIES <THX>
• Columbus – General Cinema Corporation NORTHLAND 8 <THX>
• Springdale – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS**
• Toledo – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS

ONTARIO

• Hamilton – Famous Players JACKSON SQUARE 6
• Mississauga – Famous Players SQUARE ONE 4
• Toronto – Famous Players CEDARBRAE 8
• Toronto – Famous Players REGENT
• Toronto – Famous Players UPTOWN 5
• Toronto – Famous Players YORKDALE 6

OREGON

• Portland – Luxury Theatres LLOYD 10 <THX>

QUEBEC

• Montreal – United PALACE 6
• Montreal – United VERSAILLES 6

TEXAS

• Dallas – General Cinema Corporation NORTHPARK 1-2 <THX>
• Houston – General Cinema Corporation GALLERIA 1-2
• San Antonio – Santikos GALAXY 14** <THX>

UTAH

• Holladay – Mann COTTONWOOD MALL 4

VIRGINIA

• Merrifield – National Amusements ARLINGTON BLVD / LEE HWY MULTIPLEX CINEMAS

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue – Cineplex Odeon FACTORIA 8
• Bellevue – Luxury Theatres CROSSROADS 8
• Lynnwood – Luxury Theatres ALDERWOOD 7
• Seattle – Cineplex Odeon OAK TREE 6 <THX>
• Seattle – General Cinema Corporation KING

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

INTERVIEW #1

Bruce Scivally is the author of Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and (with John Cork) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ (Hal Leonard Publishing, 2015). As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art — Chicago and Columbia College.

The Bits caught up with Bruce to discuss the impact of the 1989 movie and the enduring appeal of the Batman character.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Batman worthy of celebration on its 25th anniversary?

Bruce Scivally: Batman was a true movie phenomenon. It was a film that, after taking nearly 10 years to launch, encountered enormous skepticism and criticism while it was in production, but in the months leading up to its release, the newly-designed Batman symbol was seen on posters practically everywhere you looked. By the time it hit theaters, audiences were primed for something special, and the film delivered. It was a totally fresh take on the Batman character, achieving what producer Michael Uslan had hoped for — it made viewers forget the campy Adam West TV series with its “POW! BAM!” pop-art graphics. It also began the trend of superhero’s outfits being almost totally black with muscles sculpted into the uniform. And in the summer of 1989, it was both a box-office and merchandising powerhouse.

Coate: This year also marks the 75th anniversary of the Batman character, dating back to his first appearance in the comic books. Why has the character endured?

Scivally: Batman has endured for the same reason that Superman, James Bond and Madonna have endured — he keeps being reinvented. Every decade or so, a new generation of writers and artists makes changes to the character or his universe to keep him current and up-to-date. In the 40s, Batman was a much cheerier character, trading quips with Robin while they pummeled the bad guys. In the 50s, the stories moved out of Gotham and into the realms of fantasy or sci-fi, with Batman time-traveling, turning into a baby and being annoyed by the inter-dimensional Batmite, while the Batman family expanded to include Batwoman, Batgirl, and Bat-dog. In 1964, the blocky Bob Kane-inspired artwork gave way to the more rounded lines of Carmine Infantino when the “New Look” Batman (with the bat symbol in a yellow oval) premiered, and the ancillary characters and sci-fi storylines were jettisoned to one again ground Batman in Gotham, facing the classic villains, though the tone was still rather campy and kid-oriented. As the 1970s dawned, writer Denny O’Neil returned Batman to his dark roots, sending a grown-up Robin to college, moving Bruce Wayne out of his mansion and into a penthouse, and making Batman more of an international, 007-type character. In the 1980s, writer/artist Frank Miller debuted The Dark Knight Returns, a Batman story geared for what was fast becoming a more adult comic book market, with the comics themselves now being called “graphic novels.” Miller’s take on the character has endured, reflecting the uncertainty of modern times. But through all of these incarnations, Batman has remained, at his core, a character motivated by revenge, a human impulse so primal that it is at the core of almost every action film ever made.

Coate: What was the objective with your Batman book?

Scivally: When I went around to comic book conventions promoting Superman on Film, Television, Radio and Broadway, people kept asking, “When are you going to write a book about Batman?” I thought it would take about a year to do so, but it was more than two years of research and before I was finally able to complete it. The objective was to chart the evolution of Batman in popular media, with the differences in his portrayals from his first comic book appearances to the serials, his appearances on the Superman radio show, the iconic 1960s TV series (inspired by the “new look” of the Batman comics), the films of the 1980s and 90s (inspired first by Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns and then by the studio’s response to the negative reaction of kids creeped out by Batman Returns), and the Christopher Nolan films (which were inspired by the 007 films).

Coate: How is Batman significant within the comic book/superhero genre?

Scivally: Although Batman began as Bob Kane’s idea for riding on the coattails of Superman’s comic book success, as developed by Kane and writer Bill Finger (who is the unsung hero who contributed much to the character but never received the same credit or notoriety as Kane), Batman was a totally different style of hero. Batman didn’t come from another planet or get his powers from a wizard or magic lantern or special ring — he was just a regular guy, albeit an insanely rich one, who developed his mind and body to perfection to fight crime. And, unlike Superman, whose aims were selfless and altruistic and who represents goodness and hope and the best that we have within us, Batman is on a mission of vengeance, avenging the deaths of his parents by punishing all criminals; there’s a darkness and bitterness in his soul that often skates dangerously close to representing the worst of what we have inside us. As I said in the preface to my book, Superman represents who we aspire to be, while Batman represents who we are. Besides that, a hero is only as good as the villains he opposes, and Batman always had the coolest villains, with Dick Tracy a close second.

Coate: Were you a fan of the Batman character prior to seeing the 1989 movie?

Scivally: Honestly, I’ve always been more of a Superman fan, and my brother is more of a Batman fan. But I was about five years old when the Batman TV show premiered in 1966, which is the perfect age for it. For the next couple of years, I was totally enamored of Batman, and when I got a bit older, I began buying the Batman comics (along with all kinds of other comics). This was the early 70s, when Denny O’Neil revamped the character by sending Robin off to college and moving Batman into a penthouse apartment and making him more of an international adventurer — the first attempt at “James Bond-izing” Batman.

Coate: What was your reaction to the first time you saw the 1989 Batman movie?

Scivally: I first saw the movie under special and unusual circumstances. At the time, I was working for a talent agency in Beverly Hills, and when I learned that the premiere was going to be in Westwood, near UCLA, I called up an old friend of mine and we decided to try and “crash” the premiere. So, as soon as we were off work, we went to Westwood and joined the crowds congregating around the theater. The helium balloons from the film’s finale were hovering over the street and there were fans in the crowd in costume as Batman, Robin and the Joker, so there was a festive mood. We saw the limousines drive up and deposit the stars at the red carpet; I remember Jack Nicholson just nodded and waved at the fans and walked on in, but Michael Keaton did a little helicopter spin with his arms out slapping the hands of several fans before he went inside. Then word filtered through the crowd that there would be a second screening after the premiere for all the fans waiting outside, so we waited. Sure enough, when the premiere was over, we were allowed into the theater. As we took our seats, a spotlight shone a Batsignal onto the theater curtain. After everyone was inside, the lights dimmed, the curtains parted, and in a theater where the air was electric with anticipation, the film began. Now, it would be difficult for ANY film to live up to that level of hype, but it started out strongly. When Batman first appeared, floating down in the background as two criminals were talking in the foreground, there was an audible “Oooooh!” in the audience. The following scenes of the Joker’s origin also played well. But as the film went along, I felt the plot kind of went off the rails, and by the time it got to the ending, with the Joker pulling an extremely long-barreled pistol out of his pants and shooting the Batplane out of the sky, I felt it had reached a level of silliness even beyond the campiness of the TV series. So, I left the theater with mixed feelings, a little disappointed. I liked the mood established earlier in the film, but felt that Tim Burton’s penchant for “quirkiness” sabotaged that mood in the final half, too often going for the cheap laugh. And I felt the Joker’s plot wasn’t explained very clearly. In many regards, it was a better film than I had expected, but ultimately it didn’t live up to the promise of its first half.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Michael Keaton’s performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of Batman?

Scivally: When Keaton was cast, there was an uproar in the fan community — “Mr. Mom” as Batman? But Tim Burton’s conception was that he wanted an “everyman” in the role, not a square-jawed, muscle-bound bodybuilder type (in Burton’s view, if someone were that great a physical specimen, why would they need the Batsuit?). Burton also felt Bruce Wayne was a little psychotic, and since the cowl would accentuate an actor’s eyes, he wanted an actor whose eyes expressed a restlessness and craziness. Having just worked with Michael Keaton on Beetlejuice, and feeling that Keaton possessed those qualities, he hired him. While I was one of those who looked askance at that choice, when I saw the film I thought he was quite good at contrasting Batman’s vengefulness with Bruce Wayne’s low-key emotional vulnerability and obsessiveness. His Bruce Wayne was even more brooding in Batman Returns. Certainly, his was a more psychologically complex performance than that of Adam West before him, but West’s performance was pitch-perfect for the campy tone of the TV series. As for the actors who came after Keaton, while Val Kilmer and George Clooney had better physiques, their performances lacked Keaton’s depth, though Kilmer was quite good and Clooney had potential but was hampered by an inadequate script. And Christian Bale’s films were a different concept entirely, with more focus on Bruce Wayne and placing Batman in more of a “real world” versus “fantasy world” environment, so his was a different interpretation...with a too-easily-ridiculed gravelly-voiced Batman.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Jack Nicholson’s performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of the Joker?

Scivally: Cesar Romero was my first live-action Joker, and I loved his performance, even though you could see his trademark mustache under the white make-up. When Nicholson was cast as the Joker, the consensus in Hollywood was that it was a real coup, and it was in the sense that it lent credibility to the project in the same way that casting Brando in Superman marked that film as a “serious” endeavor. But I feel that Nicholson so often played over-the-top characters that his Joker was little more than The Shining’s Jack Torrance in clownface. It wasn’t so much The Joker we saw on-screen as Jack doing his “Jack” thing. And physically speaking, Nicholson was too pudgy to match the tall, gangly concept of the Joker from the comic books, so while I’ve enjoyed Nicholson in other films, I’m not a huge fan of his Joker. Heath Ledger’s performance was mesmerizing, as a real certifiable nut-job, but while he embodied the spirit of the Joker of the comics, his kinetic, straggly-haired, sweating and swaggering Joker at times came off as a drug addict on a very, very bad trip.

Coate: What did Burton’s Batman do well that previous incarnations, sequels, imitations and reboots have not?

Scivally: Tim Burton’s movies have always been long on style and short on substance, and his Batman films are no exception. The 1989 Batman, with Anton Furst’s production design, did a terrific job of creating an alternate world for Batman to exist within, one that seems slightly futuristic and, at the same time, anachronistic, with the fedora-wearing detectives and mobsters looking like they’ve just stepped out of a 1930s Warner Bros. crime thriller. Coupled with Danny Elfman’s score, the film sets a mood, particularly in the early scenes, of mystery and menace. The sequel was even darker, prompting nightmares in small children that led the studio to insist that the next installments be more kid-friendly, so that we got the silliness of neon-covered machine guns and the Batmobile chasing villains across gigantic statues. When Christopher Nolan rebooted the series with Batman Begins, he sought to situate Batman in the real world, though his “real world” is more like the “five minutes into the future” setting of most 007 films.

Coate: Where does Batman rank among director Tim Burton’s body of work?

Scivally: I would rank Batman highly among Tim Burton films, though it’s one of his least personal works; personally, I think his best film is Edward Scissorhands. But after the low-budget fun of Pee-wee’s Big Adventure and the quirky weirdness of Beetlejuice, Batman proved that Burton could handle a mega-budget film and still give it some of his trademark visual flair, so in that regard it’s the film that legitimized him as a commercial filmmaker in Hollywood.

Coate: What is the legacy of Batman?

Scivally: Along with Superman, Batman is a character who influenced all the comic book heroes who came after him. And perhaps his biggest legacy is that the Batman comics introduced the notion of the kid sidekick, the character who was supposed to be the adolescent reader’s avatar in the comics. But really, didn’t those early comic creators understand that when kids imagine themselves as their favorite comic book characters, they want to be the hero, not the sidekick?

INTERVIEW #2

Jeff Bond is the author of Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011). Jeff currently is the executive editor of Geek Magazine. For several years he covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases. His other books include The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999) and (with Joe Fordham) the forthcoming Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014).

The Bits caught up with Jeff to discuss the impact and appeal of Danny Elfman’s Batman score.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Danny Elfman’s Batman music worth celebrating on the silver anniversary of its release?

Jeff Bond: This is one of the great orchestral film scores of all time, in terms of its impact both in the movie and to the general public. Danny Elfman was basically regarded as an anomaly and just a quirky cartoon/comedy composer until he did Batman—after that he became THE A-list composer of his era and he is still probably the most imitated film composer apart from Bernard Herrmann (who Danny has admittedly imitated many times).

Coate: Burton & Elfman are among the most prolific and celebrated director/composer collaborations the industry has seen.  Why are Burton/Elfman a good combination?

Bond: They share a sensibility — at its core Elfman’s music reflects Burton’s vision, which is soulful, eccentric and quirky, playful, and just strange. The music Elfman writes for the Burton films is really straight from Elfman’s personal musical voice — he has the ability to work in many styles and evoke many styles and eras of music, but I think when he writes for Burton he’s just himself, and that evokes Burton’s mentality and his visual world perfectly.

Coate: What are the highlight pieces of music from Elfman’s Batman score?

Bond: Apart from the fantastic opening title music, which immediately heralded Danny Elfman as a major new, “serious” film composer, there are some early action set pieces — the long piece at the factory that ends with the Joker being created, with that wonderful, muscular, repeating figure running all through it, and especially the music for Batman’s drive to the Batcave with Kim Basinger in the car — that Holst/Stravinsky-like choral chanting and the feeling of velocity — Descent into Mystery. Those are both signature, iconic cues that Elfman now plays in his Burton concert suites and they are just incredibly exciting pieces of film music. But I love the whole score — it really creates an incredible world of its own.

Coate: Where does Batman rank among Elfman’s body of work?

Bond: Elfman has said it is still the hardest score he ever had to write — it’s the biggest hurdle he ever jumped in his career. It put him on an entirely new plane, so I think you would have to rank it in the top five pieces of film scoring that Elfman ever did. Certainly it’s one of the scores most embraced by the public.

Coate: Why is Elfman a popular composer?

Bond: He just exploded onto the film scoring scene with a unique, distinctive sound that was both familiar because of what Danny absorbed and worshipped himself from the grand traditions of film scoring, and completely different because of Elfman’s own personality and background. He came from kind of a cross between a rock band background and a theatrical background, and you hear that in his work — the theatricality. He’s a born showman.

Coate: What is the legacy of Elfman’s contribution to Batman?

Bond: You can hear Danny Elfman’s Batman score, to this day, at least in the corners of the comic book film scores being written. For years that sound was THE sound of the comic book movie and it was ripped off by everyone. There had been no model for those kinds of films before that, apart from John Williams’ Superman, which was this very bright, almost patriotic work — so Danny invented the “dark” superhero sound, and we still hear echoes of that to this day.

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

• Batman / Bruce Wayne – Michael Keaton
• Joker / Jack Napier – Jack Nicholson
• Vicki Vale – Kim Basinger
• Alexander Knox – Robert Wuhl
• Commissioner Gordon – Pat Hingle
• Harvey Dent – Billy Dee Williams
• Alfred – Michael Gough
• Grissom – Jack Palance

• Director – Tim Burton
• Producers – Jon Peters and Peter Guber
• Screenplay – Sam Hamm and Warren Skaaren
• Story – Sam Hamm
• Co-Producer – Chris Kenny
• Executive Producers – Benjamin Melniker and Michael E. Uslan
• Director of Photography – Roger Pratt, BSC
• Production Designer – Anton Furst
• Editor – Ray Lovejoy
• Songs – Prince
• Music – Danny Elfman
• Costume Designer – Bob Ringwood (and Linda Henrikson)
• Casting – Marion Dougherty
• Special Visual Effects – Derek Meddings
• Sound Mixer – Tony Dawe
• Supervising Sound Editor – Don Sharpe
• Re-Recording Mixer – Bill Rowe

• Distributor – Warner Bros.
• Production Company – Guber-Peters
• Release Date – June 23, 1989
• Running Time – 126 minutes
• Projection Format – 1.85:1 / Dolby Stereo
• MPAA Rating – PG-13

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, Time, Variety, and The Wall Street Journal; the website Boxofficemojo, the books Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Bruce Scivally, Henry Gray Publishing, 2011), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Sheldon Hall & Steve Neale, Wayne State University Press, 2010), and George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (Alex Ben Block, editor; George Lucas Books/Harper Collins; 2010); and the motion picture Batman (1989, Warner Bros.).

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jerry Alexander, Claude Ayakawa, Jeff Bond, Raymond Caple, Bill Gabel, Steve Kraus, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Bruce Scivally, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, Vince Young, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

IMAGES:

Copyright 1989 Warner Bros. Inc.

Westwood Village photos and premiere ticket courtesy of Bill Gabel.

IN MEMORIAM:

• Warren Skaaren (Co-Writer), 1946-1990
• Anton Furst (Production Designer), 1944-1991
• Bill Rowe (Re-Recording Mixer), 1931-1992
• Derek Meddings (Special Visual Effects), 1931-1995
• Bob Kane (Batman creator), 1915-1998
• Ray Lovejoy (Editor), 1939-2001
• Don Sharpe (Supervising Sound Editor), 19??-2004
• William Hootkins (“Eckhardt”), 1948-2005
• Jack Palance (“Grissom”), 1919-2006
• Pat Hingle (“Commissioner Gordon”), 1924-2009
• Michael Gough (“Alfred”), 1916-2011
• Marion Dougherty (Casting), 1923-2011

- Michael Coate

APOCALYPSE NOW NUMBER$

• 3 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend
• 7 = Number of years film industry’s top-grossing Vietnam War movie
• 14 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1979 (calendar year)
• 43 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 729 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies

• $61,211 = Domestic box-office gross (1987 re-release)
• $118,558 = Opening weekend box-office gross (Aug 17-19, 1979)
• $322,489 = Opening week box-office gross (Aug 15-19, 1979)
• $4.6 million = Domestic box-office gross (2001 “Redux” re-release)
• $22.9 million = Domestic box-office rental (1979 calendar year)
• $31.0 million = Production cost
• $36.8 million = Domestic box-office rental at close of original release
• $78.8 million = Domestic box-office gross at close of original release
• $83.5 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release + 1987 & 2001 re-releases)
• $101.2 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $274.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Years and years from now, when Coppola’s budget and his problems have long been forgotten, Apocalypse will still stand, I think, as a grand and grave and insanely inspired gesture of filmmaking.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“…not so much an epic account of a grueling war as an incongruous, extravagant monument to artistic self-defeat. The Vietnam War was a tragedy. Apocalypse Now is but this decade’s most extraordinary Hollywood folly.” — Frank Rich, Time

“The air strike was a visual rouser and sums up whatever points the filmmaker has to make about wanton American violence in Vietnam.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post

“Dolby makes a big difference in most of the movies that avail themselves of it—and in Apocalypse it makes a stupendous difference. The film is fully as aurally stimulating as it is visually and intellectually stimulating.” — Susan Stark, The Detroit News

“Profoundly anticlimactic intellectual muddle.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“As a noble use of the medium and as tireless expression of national anguish, it towers over everything that has been attempted by an American filmmaker in a very long time.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“It’s a complex, demanding, highly intelligent piece of work, but it’s coming into a marketplace that does not always embrace those qualities.” — Dale Pollack, Variety

“[Apocalypse Now has] a hallucinatory dramatic power that is almost palpable.” — Derek Malcolm, The Guardian

“Like the war itself, Apocalypse Now is big, long, stupid, expensive, casually cruel and technologically obsessed. Perhaps Coppola thought that money could buy meaning, the same way generals that cash could purchase victory. Of all the films based on the war in Vietnam, Apocalypse Now is the one which adds the least to our understanding of the horror.” — David Rosenbaum, Boston Herald American

“The problem is the character played by Marlon Brando. Obese and photographed in shadows, Brando’s character comes on like some kind of burlesque clown. What he has to say is mostly inaudible, and what is audible doesn’t make any sense. That’s a powerful letdown when you’ve been traveling upriver for two hours to meet the guy.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“It’s the most ballyhooed movie since Gone with the Wind, and it’s a much better one. If it has flaws they are the flaws of a romantic genius with the courage and tormented drive to transcend his limitations. It is, in short, a masterpiece worth every bit of publicity it has received…Apocalypse Now is such a personal, agonized vision of war in general and the Vietnam war in particular that even by ending, in Eliot’s words, ‘not with a bang, but a whimper,’ it towers above almost any other film one can think of—including Coppola’s own triumphant earlier Godfather pictures—and is a magnificent example of the power of art both to scourge and redeem erring humanity.” — Richard Freedman, The Springfield (MA) Union

“As a personal look at Vietnam, it echoes several of the films Coppola wrote and/or directed during the war, including The Godfather, with its visually inventive scenes of ritual slaughter, and Patton, with its general who admits to an obsessive love of battle. The best single sequence in Apocalypse Now is a combination of both: the magnificently staged helicopter attack and the characterization of a battle-hungry officer who talks like the real Patton’s son (“I love the smell of napalm in the morning”).... The journey upriver does have a cumulative effect on the audience, immersed in Vittorio Storaro’s 70-millimeter imagery and Walter Murch’s quadraphonic sound, though it’s a very impersonal, lonely journey without the guidance that a well-developed Sheen character might have provided.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“The film is maddening because Francis Ford Coppola, who produced, directed and co-wrote it, leaves clues scattered like bread crumbs, all of which hint at what a terrific movie (as well as a superb piece of cinema) he could have made. But if you admire Apocalypse Now, it will be at a distance. It’s not a film that engulfs you emotionally. It leaves you numb rather than drained….If compressed and kept in lean perspective, Apocalypse Now could have been glorious instead of simply a glorious mess, bloated with self-importance.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Apocalypse Now in the United States and Canada. These were the best theaters in which to experience Apocalypse Now…and the only way to faithfully hear the film’s then-new “quintaphonic” split-surround audio mix. The film was shown without opening or closing credits or any studio logos; instead, a program was handed out to moviegoers. The August and September openings shown on a reserved-performance, guaranteed-seat basis. So… which first-run theaters screened the 70mm version of Apocalypse Now? Read on....

Note: The list does not include any 70mm move-over, sub-run, re-release or international engagements, nor does it include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements.

• 1979-08-15 … Los Angeles, CA – Pacific CINERAMA DOME (13 weeks)
• 1979-08-15 … New York, NY – Walter Reade ZIEGFELD (12)
• 1979-08-15 … Toronto, ON – Famous Players UNIVERSITY (18)

• 1979-09-21 … Newport Beach, CA – Edwards NEWPORT TWIN (7)
• 1979-09-21 … Orange, CA – Syufy CINEDOME 6 (20)
• 1979-09-21 … San Francisco, CA – Plitt NORTHPOINT (12)
• 1979-09-21 … San Jose, CA – Syufy CENTURY 21 (12)

• 1979-10-03 … Washington, DC – Circle UPTOWN (11)

• 1979-10-05 … Chicago, IL – Plitt STATE-LAKE (7)
• 1979-10-05 … Chicago (Calumet City), IL – Plitt RIVER OAKS QUAD (11)
• 1979-10-05 … Chicago (Evergreen Park), IL – Marks & Rosenfield EVERGREEN TRIPLEX (11)
• 1979-10-05 … Chicago (Niles), IL – Fink & Fink GOLF MILL TRIPLEX (11)
• 1979-10-05 … Chicago (Oak Brook), IL – United Artists OAKBROOK TWIN (11)
• 1979-10-05 … Montreal, QC – United YORK (25)
• 1979-10-05 … Vancouver, BC – Famous Players STANLEY (25)

• 1979-10-10 … Boston, MA – Sack CINEMA 57 TWIN (10)

• 1979-10-12 … Seattle, WA – Sterling Recreation Organization TOWN (24)

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

INTERVIEW

Jon Lewis is the author of Whom God Wishes to Destroy…Francis Coppola and the New Hollywood (1995, Duke University Press). He teaches film and cultural studies at Oregon State University. His other books include The Road to Romance and Ruin: Teen Films and Youth Culture (Routledge, 1992), Hollywood v. Hard Core: How the Struggle over Censorship Saved the Modern Film Industry (NYU Press, 2000), The End of Cinema as We Know It: American Film in the Nineties (NYU Press, 2001), and BFI Film Classics: The Godfather (British Film Institute, 2010). Lewis has also appeared in the documentary films Inside Deep Throat (2005) and This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006).

Lee Pfeiffer is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.” He also is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006).

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” format:

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Apocalypse Now worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Jon Lewis: “Worthy” is a difficult word, I think—it was, in 1979, an important film for a number of reasons. It marked the beginning of the end of the auteur era (UA’s freak-out as the budget and Coppola seemed to spin out of control, showed how anxious execs were about indulging auteur directors). It marked the end of a run of artistic and commercial success for its director that remains unequaled: Godfather I and II, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now in just seven years, and it is a terrific film—with iconic scenes, memorable performances, and a point-of-view on Vietnam at a time when Hollywood was still reluctant to look at that war.

Lee Pfeiffer: Apocalypse Now represented the kind of mad, obsessive dream project that directors used to be driven by but which are sadly lacking in today’s film industry. Francis Ford Coppola threw his body, mind and soul into his most personal films and none was more of a personal ambition than Apocalypse Now. Coppola, in this respect, was like John Wayne when he oversaw a decade-long plan to bring The Alamo to the screen. Both men’s obsessions led to them violating the first rule of movie producing: don’t sink your own money into any film project, even if you are convinced it will be a masterpiece. Coppola, like Wayne, succeeded artistically but saw the potential for major profits evaporate into a sea of soaring budget overruns. It was Coppola’s well-publicized personal woes in making the film that took on an addictive soap opera aspect in the pre-Internet age when movie geeks had to follow every mishap through the trade papers. By the time the epic movie was screened in an incomplete status at Cannes, the knives were out, as critics anticipated an artistic disaster. What Coppola delivered was the kind of crazy, bold, esoteric product that seemed destined to be even more revered in the years to come, a fate the film has indeed enjoyed. 

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Apocalypse Now?

Lewis: Yes, I thought it was a unique movie event—and it confirmed my sense of Vietnam as an insane waste.

Pfeiffer: I saw Apocalypse Now at its New York opening engagement. The anticipation was so great that you had to order tickets in advance through the mail to ensure you had a seat. I went with a bunch of fellow early twenty-somethings. We stopped at a few bars beforehand and some of the gang had smoked some weed. Some of them claimed that it enhanced the mystical experience of the film’s ending, much as 2001 had done for the previous generation. I can’t answer as to the validity of that. I had been so eager to see the film that I didn’t want any artificial substance detracting from the experience. I was mesmerized by that first screening, although—like many critics—I felt the ending was very bizarre and somewhat disappointing because the much-anticipated assault sequence on Kurtz’s compound never materialized. I later realized how ballsy this was on Coppola’s part. It took far more courage to end the film on a whimper instead of a clichéd “bang.” Coppola was so unconventional that the film was originally shown in its roadshow engagements sans any opening or closing credits. Instead—as with a Broadway play—you received a printed program that provided all the technical credits as well as cast and crew. This was too much for local theater owners who feared their local patrons were too unsophisticated to understand a movie without final credits. In response to their objections, Coppola had to tack on final credits which were imposed over images of Kurtz’s compound being bombed. It was probably the only artistic compromise he made in relation to the marketing of the film. 

Coate: What did Apocalypse Now contribute to 1970s Cinema?

Lewis: As previously mentioned: It marked the beginning of the end of the auteur era (UA’s freak-out as the budget and Coppola seemed to spin out of control, showed how anxious execs were about indulging auteur directors). It marked the end of a run of artistic and commercial success for its director that remains unequaled: Godfather I and II, The Conversation and Apocalypse Now in just seven years.

Pfeiffer: When someone commented a few years ago that you can’t make that kind of movie today, Coppola replied that you couldn’t make it then, either—that’s why he had to sink his own personal fortune into it. Nevertheless, the film symbolized what will probably remain the most diverse, exciting period in Hollywood history, when studios did back wildly ambitious, epic films that may have had dubious commercial appeal. If it were done today, it would be a star-driven action movie in the mode of The Expendables.

Coate: How is Apocalypse Now significant within the war film genre?

Lewis: For my generation (I was the last Vietnam draft birth year, 1955) it insisted that Vietnam was a different sort of war (than WWII) and required a different sort of film. Coppola said he wanted to make the ultimate anti-war film…then confessed that he probably made war look like too much fun. The film evinced a fundamental problematic for the war film—that a successful (interesting, exciting, memorable) war film inevitably makes war look and sound and feel exciting.

Pfeiffer: Apocalypse Now isn’t a war movie in the traditional sense any more than Paths of Glory was. Yes, it had major battle sequences, but it was a character-driven film that had surrealistic qualities to it. I don’t think it did influence the war movie genre, per se, because there has never been a film quite like it. 

Coate: What did Apocalypse Now do well? What were the negative or disappointing aspects, if any, to the film?

Lewis: It was an amazing, beautiful spectacle…a great film.

Pfeiffer: The film was a thinking man’s epic odyssey filled with ambiguous meanings that meant different things to different people in the way that the classic TV series The Prisoner did. It’s hard to find anything “wrong” with it, although some people still think Brando was sleep-walking through his performance, while others believe he delivered brilliantly.

Coate: Where does Apocalypse Now rank among Francis Ford Coppola’s films?

Lewis: I’m reluctant to give films grades (like reviewers do). It’s a terrific film—one of the four great films Coppola made in the 1970s.

Pfeiffer: I think The Godfather Part II is Coppola’s ultimate masterpiece, but Apocalypse Now certainly ranks near it in terms of its artistic merits.

Coate: Where does Apocalypse Now rank among war-themed films?

Lewis: Tough question again, because I don’t like to rank films. What makes it significant, even brilliant, for me is how the film immerses you in the conflict—it’s unrelenting in its visual and aural re-imagining of war (which is what I like about Black Hawk Down and Platoon—two other war films I really admire).

Pfeiffer: As I don’t think it is a “war” movie in the traditional sense, it’s pointless to compare it to The Dirty Dozen or The Longest Day. 

Coate: What was the benefit of Apocalypse Now initially playing exclusive engagements with higher-than-normal admission pricing and in 70mm format before playing regular engagements?

Lewis: I was lucky enough to go to one of these—it was the last real showcase engagement I ever went to—ushers, playbills, etc. —the 70mm, as I recall, was just dazzling. A real event.

Pfeiffer: In those days, films were shown as “roadshow” releases, playing with great hype for many months in only very limited engagements in key cities. Hollywood no longer does that. They open a film “wide” in as many theaters as possible. Therefore, you can see a blockbuster film in some cases where the theater is half empty because it is playing in so many venues. Roadshow movies were genuine “events.” If you scored a ticket to one, it gave you bragging rights around the water cooler the next morning at the office. 

Coate: What is the legacy of Apocalypse Now?

Lewis: It is the last great auteur film.

Pfeiffer: Apocalypse Now has only grown in stature in our era of computer-generated “epics.” This was the real deal—no blue screen, no phony effects. Its power continues to grow among younger moviegoers. The best compliment I can give is that my daughter saw the Redux version when she was in college. She still maintains it’s one of the greatest cinematic achievements of all time. It will probably remain so because it retains an emotional impact that will never dissipate. 

--END--

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

• Colonel Kurtz – Marlon Brando
• Lt. Colonel Kilgore – Robert Duvall
• Captain Willard – Martin Sheen
• Chef – Frederic Forrest
• Chief – Albert Hall
• Lance – Sam Bottoms
• Clean – Larry Fishburne
• Photo Journalist – Dennis Hopper

• Director – Francis Coppola
• Producer – Francis Coppola
• Screenplay – John Milius and Francis Coppola
• Narration – Michael Herr
• Co-Producers – Fred Roos, Gray Frederickson, Tom Sternberg
• Photography – Vittorio Storaro, AIC
• Production Designer – Dean Tavoularis
• Supervising Editor – Richard Marks
• Music – Carmine Coppola and Francis Coppola
• Sound Montage and Design – Walter Murch
• Production Recordist – Nathan Boxer
• Supervising Sound Editor – Richard Cirincione
• Re-Recordists – Walter Murch, Mark Berger, Richard Beggs, Dale Strumpell, Thomas Scott

• Distributor – United Artists
• Production Company – Omni Zoetrope
• Release Date – August 15, 1979
• Running Time – 141 minutes (70mm) 153 minutes (35mm) / 202 minutes (Redux)
• Projection Format – Scope / Dolby Stereo
• MPAA Rating – R

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals The Hollywood Reporter and Variety; the website Boxofficemojo, the books 5.1 Surround Sound: Up and Running (Tomlinson Holman, Focal Press, 2000), The Apocalypse Now Book (Peter Cowie, Da Capo Press, 2001), Beyond Dolby (Stereo): Cinema in the Digital Sound Age (Mark Kerins, Indiana University Press, 2011), Coppola (James Clarke, Virgin Books, 2003), Coppola: A Biography (Peter Cowie, Scribners, 1989), The Dolby Era: Film Sound in Contemporary Hollywood (Gianluca Sergi, Manchester University Press, 2004), Easy Riders, Raging Bulls: How the Sex-Drugs-Rock ‘N’ Roll Generation Saved Hollywood (Peter Biskind, Simon & Schuster, 1998), Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Sheldon Hall & Steve Neale, Wayne State University Press, 2010), Francis Ford Coppola: A Filmmaker’s Life (Michael Schumacher, Crown, 1999), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (Alex Ben Block, editor; George Lucas Books/Harper Collins; 2010), The Great Movies (Roger Ebert, Broadway Books, 2003), How Movies Work (Bruce F. Kawin, University of California Press, 1992), In the Blink of an Eye (Walter Murch, Silman-James Press, 1995), The Movie Brats: How the Film Generation Took Over Hollywood (Michael Pye and Lynda Myles; Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1979), Notes on the Making of Apocalypse Now (Eleanor Coppola, 1995), Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas (Dale Pollack, Harmony, 1983), Whom God Wishes to Destroy…Francis Coppola and the New Hollywood (Jon Lewis, Duke University Press, 1995); and the motion picture Apocalypse Now (1979, Omni Zoetrope/United Artists).

SPECIAL THANKS:

Ioan Allen; Raymond Caple; Dolby Laboratories, Inc.; Laura Kerepesi; Bill Kretzel; Roberto Landazuri; Jon Lewis; Tim O’Neill; Lee Pfeiffer; Brian Whitish.

IMAGES:

Copyright 1979 Omni Zoetrope

IN MEMORIAM:

• Carmine Coppola (Composer), 1910-1991
• Bob Peak (promotional material illustrator), 1927-1992
• Marlon Brando (“Colonel Kurtz”), 1924-2004
• Sam Bottoms (“Lance”), 1955-2008
• Nathan Boxer (Production Sound Recordist), 1925-2009
• Dennis Hopper (“Photo Journalist”), 1936-2010
• G.D. Spradlin (“General”), 1920-2011

- Michael Coate

The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring an interview segment with some film historians who discuss the movie and its enduring appeal.

We also offer a compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context, quotes from movie critics, production & exhibition information, and a list of selected presentations from its original first-run release in theaters. 

MARY POPPINS NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among Disney’s top-grossing movies of all time at close of run
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1965 (calendar year)
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movie musicals (adjusted for inflation)
• 4 = Rank among top-grossing movies of the 1960s
• 4 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 5 = Number of Academy Awards
• 13 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 25 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 36 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1964 (calendar year)
• 554 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 8000 = Approximate number of theaters that played the movie during original release

• $4.4 million = Production cost
• $28.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (original release)
• $33.8 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $45.0 million = Domestic box-office rental (original release + re-releases)
• $102.3 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release + re-releases)
• $345.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $637.2 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

THE INTERVIEW

This segment of the article features a Q&A with Sheldon Hall, Kim Holston, Matthew Kennedy, Jeff Kurtti, and Charles Solomon. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” format.

Sheldon Hall is a senior lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK, and is co-author (with Steve Neale) of Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Wayne State University Press, 2010). He also is the author of Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It–The Making of the Epic Movie (Tomahawk Press, 2005) and co-editor (with John Belton and Steve Neale) of Widescreen Worldwide (Indiana University Press, 2010). Sheldon participated in the recording of an audio commentary track for DVD and Blu-ray releases of Zulu and Once Upon a Time in the West.

Kim Holston is the author of Movie Roadshows: A History and Filmography of Reserved-Seat Limited Showings, 1911-1973 (McFarland, 2013). Kim is a part-time librarian in the Multimedia Department of Chester County Library (Exton, PA) and lives in Wilmington, DE, with his wife Nancy and a menagerie of pets. In addition to Movie Roadshows, he is the author of various film and performing arts books, including Richard Widmark: A Bio-Bibliography (Greenwood Press, 1990), Starlet (McFarland, 1988), Susan Hayward: Her Films and Life (McFarland, 2002), and (with Warren Hope) The Shakespeare Controversy (McFarland, 2nd ed., 2009), and Attila’s Sorceress (New Libri Press, 2014). He is presently at work with Tom Winchester on a follow-up to their 1997 book, Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes.

Matthew Kennedy is the author of Roadshow! The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s (Oxford University Press, 2014). He is a writer, film historian, and anthropologist living in San Francisco. He has written several other books, including Marie Dressler: A Biography (McFarland, 1999, paperback 2006), Edmund Goulding’s Dark Victory: Hollywood’s Genius Bad Boy (University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), and Joan Blondell: A Life between Takes (University Press of Mississippi, 2007). He is the film and book critic for the respected Bright Lights Film Journal and currently teaches anthropology and film history at the City College of San Francisco and San Francisco Conservatory of Music.

Jeff Kurtti is one of the leading authorities on The Walt Disney Company and its history. The author of more than 25 books, including Disneyland Through The Decades (Disney Editions, 2010), Kurtti worked for Walt Disney Imagineering, the theme park design division of The Walt Disney Company, and then for the Corporate Special Projects department of Disney. More recently he was creative director, content consultant, and media producer for The Walt Disney Family Museum. Jeff was one-half of Kurtti-Pellerin Productions, which produced value-added content for home-video releases (including material for several editions of Mary Poppins). He was also a producer on the feature documentary The Boys: The Sherman Brothers’ Story.

Charles Solomon is a lecturer at the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television and is an animation critic and historian. He has written on the subject of animation for The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, TV Guide, Variety, and others. He has written numerous books, including Enchanted Drawings: The History of Animation (Random House, 1994), The Art and Making of Peanuts Animation: Celebrating Fifty Years of Television Specials (Chronicle, 2012) and The Toy Story Films: An Animated Journey (Disney Editions, 2012).

--

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Mary Poppins worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Sheldon Hall: It’s a well-loved and extremely popular movie, widely regarded as one of Disney’s finest (mostly) live-action films.

Kim Holston: It has timeless appeal. Parents are still renting/buying it for their children. (When my son Michael was around five he requested and received for Easter a red and white-striped jacket and white pants similar to what Dick Van Dyke wore in the Jolly Holiday number. We had no difficulty enrolling him in dance school.) It was from the era when virtually every movie musical’s songs were good or great. Chim Chim Cher-ee won the Oscar but any number of others in the film were as worthy. 

Matthew Kennedy: It’s worthy on several counts. 

The visual effects are absolutely super and age very well. They’re in strong contrast to so many movie comic book franchises with their stomach-flipping swoops and epic designs, starting with an eyeball and zooming out out out until we’re in space. It all looks so cold and bloodless and fake. In contrast, Mary Poppins’ magic is in flying that looks like flying and seamless live action and animation. It also never loses sight of being an intimate story centered on two kids. Poppins comfortably wears its sweetness and the modesty of its storytelling. 

Original musicals for the screen were all but extinct when Mary Poppins came along, so having it work so well was something of a miracle. Within a decade, attempts at original musicals would flop badly with Goodbye, Mr. Chips and Lost Horizon, among others. It’s telling that My Fair Lady, a lumbering film adaptation of a Broadway musical if ever there was one, took most of the Oscars in competition with Poppins that year. I suspect there is more love today for Poppins than Lady.

Poppins launched Julie Andrews’ career in a very big way. It’s populated by delightful character actors such as David Tomlinson, Reta Shaw, Hermione Baddeley, Elsa Lanchester, and Ed Wynn. It’s chock-a-bloc full of good songs by the Sherman Brothers—Chim Chim Cher-ee, A Spoonful of Sugar, Let’s Go Fly a Kite, and Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.

Jeff Kurtti: Even fifty years later, Mary Poppins remains a fresh, fun, and remarkable film on its own merit—even without any cultural and nostalgic patina. The performances are winning, the direction is brisk, the technical craftsmanship is solid, the story is meaningful, and (of course) the music weaves all the elements together with a timeless richness and skill.

Charles Solomon: It’s one of Walt Disney’s last films and one that clearly meant a great deal to him, given the years he spent obtaining the rights to the book. I don’t know if the story that he promised his daughter he would film the book is true, and unfortunately we can’t ask Diane. Joe Grant recalled that his wife read the book to Diane and Sharon when Walt would bring them when he visited. Certainly all the time he spent pursuing it, and the attention and money he poured into it, show that it was a “passion project” for him.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Mary Poppins?

Hall: I saw it for the first time on a UK cinema rerelease in the mid-70s, possibly 1973 or 1974. Even then, at the age of nine or ten, I found it a little too saccharine and preferred Bedknobs and Broomsticks, which was in some respects the Disney studio’s attempt to repeat its success but which I had seen earlier. But as a fan of Disney movies and of musicals generally I enjoyed Mary Poppins well enough. I had a long wait to see it again, as it wasn’t shown on British network television until Christmas 1984.

Holston: My mother and I saw it on a weekday evening in Philadelphia. It was a minor adventure as we had to take the train from Marcus Hook into Center City and walk to the Midtown Theater. The Midtown was often a roadshow venue, but Disney didn’t do reserved-seat films until 1967’s The Happiest Millionaire. Mary Poppins could have been a roadshow. Add a 10-minute intermission to the 139-minute feature and.... I soon had the album and played it many times. 

Kennedy: Mary Poppins is one of my very first movie memories. It came out when I was seven. I remember being particularly delighted with the I Love to Laugh number, giggling right along with the actors. Feed the Birds also made a deep impression. I remember being thoroughly swept away by the music, fantastic look of the film, and the charms of a youthful Julie Andrews. What child wouldn’t want her for a nanny? 

Kurtti: I was five years old, and I’m told that I sat without moving for two hours and twenty minutes, turning when the film ended to ask, “Can we see that again?” From that moment on, I wanted to know everything about Walt Disney and all of his work. The childhood obsession started by Mary Poppins became a career.

Solomon: I remember enjoying the film as a little boy: The animation/live action combinations were enchanting, and who can resist Julie Andrews’ charm? But it didn’t mesmerize me the way Fantasia and Sleeping Beauty did.

Coate: Where does Mary Poppins rank among Disney films?

Hall: If you mean artistically, it is one of the studio’s better 1960s films, despite—or perhaps because of!—Dick Van Dyke’s atrocious mock-Cockney accent (a standing joke on this side of the Atlantic).

Holston: Personally, I’d rank Mary Poppins at #2 with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea my favorite live-action Disney film.

Kennedy: I’m far from an expert on Walt Disney’s films, but it’s probably the most successful and acclaimed made in his lifetime. Its competitors for “best” would be animated—Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, and Disney Renaissance hits The Little Mermaid and The Lion King. With Pixar Disney made Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. Mary Poppins holds a special place, not only because it’s predominantly live action, but because it has a certain came-out-of-nowhere quality. It was an altogether unexpected triumph. The only live action-animated hybrid that favorably compares to Mary Poppins is Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Kurtti: Mary Poppins represents the pinnacle of Walt Disney as a filmmaker. Within it, every element that he built his career and fame on can be seen in fine form: storytelling, animation and art, music, technology, and deep understanding of the audience and flawless intuition about what would connect with them. Another of Walt’s great skills was assembling amazing creative teams—and for this film the talent he put together was truly one-of-a-kind.

Coate: Most musicals during the era in which Mary Poppins was produced were roadshows. Do you have any thoughts on Disney’s decision not to have Mary Poppins exhibited as a roadshow (in the United States, at least) on original release?

Hall: I’d guess this marketing decision was due to a number of factors. Disney’s only previous roadshow releases, Fantasia and the independently-produced 70mm biblical epic The Big Fisherman, had not been very well received commercially and had lost money. All three had to some extent been sold on their technological innovations (stereophonic sound in the case of Fantasia), and while Mary Poppins was replete with special effects it was not photographed or presented in a large-format process such as Super Technirama or Super Panavision (though it did have magnetic stereo prints for some cinemas). There were also a number of competing roadshow films in circulation at that time, most of which did utilize large formats, and it may simply have seemed to be tempting fate to compete with them either for audiences or for roadshow venues. In addition, Mary Poppins was aimed at children and family audiences rather than adults, and it may have seemed that the pattern of reserved seats, separate performances and raised prices was not suited to this market. Of course, if it had been produced after The Sound of Music rather than before, the film’s distribution pattern might well have been different! But the roadshowing of United Artists’ Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and Fox’s Doctor Dolittle, both comparable generically as musical fantasies, was not notably successful, nor was Disney’s own family musical The Happiest Millionaire, so Disney’s original instincts may have been correct. In the UK, incidentally, Mary Poppins was not roadshown but was generally released with advanced prices, though there were isolated reserved-seat engagements in London’s West End on both the initial release and the 1973 re-issue.

Holston: It’s only an opinion, of course, but I imagine Disney felt his youthful audience would be better served by a film running continuously and costing less than a roadshow. Second, there would be a clamor for general release by parents and children in the suburbs and small towns. Third, for a roadshow Disney would have to line up large urban theaters well in advance because of other roadshows taking up space. As we know, Disney didn’t do roadshows until 1967’s The Happiest Millionaire. It might have been a financial or a “technical” decision not to put a new distribution system into place. 

Kennedy: Films appealing to young kids weren’t often roadshowed in the United States, and Disney didn’t have the administration of Fox or MGM for roadshow distribution. When Mary Poppins proved to be so phenomenally successfully, Disney got on the bandwagon and released The Happiest Millionaire, a film slightly more adult in content than Mary Poppins, as a roadshow. It flopped. The standard release Jungle Book came out at the same time and did far better. Disney didn’t have good luck with roadshows.

Coate: In what way did Saving Mr. Banks contribute to the legacy of Walt Disney and Mary Poppins?

Kennedy: Hard to say how Saving Mr. Banks will affect the legacy of Walt Disney and Mary Poppins. It tidies up a relationship between Disney and P.L. Travers that was by accounts highly adversarial. Two strong-willed people have their own ideas about how it should be adapted to the screen, and apparently Disney won most of the battles. Travers never came to embrace the film—disdaining the animation and for making her magical nanny so likable and chipper. Saving Mr. Banks, in contrast, succumbs to a happy-ish ending as Disney’s Mary Poppins, not her own, heals some of her childhood wounds. How much more interesting it might have been had it stuck closer to accuracy, with Travers permanently embittered by the Disneyfication of her books. It might have been a darker, more contemplative film about art, commerce, ownership, and creativity. Saving Mr. Banks is not shamelessly “feel good,” but Disney’s corporate interests are on rather clear display throughout. 

Kurtti: Not much. It was not a good film. It presented a strangely erroneous and false image of the creation of Mary Poppins. Walt and the filmmakers were flatly shown as clueless buffoons, and Travers as an unredeeming harpie. Maybe it got some people to look at the film again—but then to mistakenly believe that Mrs. Travers had anything to do with the movie’s greatness, beyond writing the book on which it is based.

Solomon: I thought Saving Mr. Banks was half a good movie: Emma Thompson is always wonderful, and I thought the actors playing the Sherman Brothers were quite good. But how did Travers go from the Australian waif to the primmest woman in the British Empire? It did make clear how long and hard Walt worked to get the rights to Mary Poppins, however.

Coate: What is the legacy of Mary Poppins?

Hall: I’m not at all sure—Julie Andrews’ subsequent career?

Holston: The memorable songs, the introduction of Julie Andrews to the moviegoing audience, paving the way for exceptional mingling of live action and animated figures. It proved that a movie from out of nowhere, so to speak, could outshine the heralded super musical of the year: My Fair Lady. Mary Poppins cost less to make and grossed more. As you know, there was media shock that Audrey Hepburn did not receive a Best Actress nomination but that Andrews did—and won. A superstar was born (after years on the stage).

Kennedy: Mary Poppins the movie has become a cultural touchstone beyond the source books by P.L. Travers. Everyone, it seems, remembers seeing it as a child. And only a highly familiar and beloved film could be the inspiration for a “making of” treatment such as Saving Mr. Banks. It has also found seemingly inexhaustible life as a stage production. Like Harry Potter, it shrewdly plays with our undying desire to experience joy and magic. And it deftly plays on our yearning for a warm and love-infused family. The Banks are dysfunctional until Mary sets them on the right course. It’s a common theme in the movies—an outsider has a powerful, life changing effect on a family. Boudu Saved from Drowning, Sitting Pretty, and E.T. come to mind. Mary Poppins played on that deeply emotional theme with great skill. It feels like Mary Poppins will live forever. 

Kurtti: The fact that we are still discussing it fifty years on is evidence of its importance and lasting value. For Disney and other film studios, it represented the continued viability of original screen musicals for a decade afterward, and many efforts since have tried to duplicate its winning result—without much success. Like so many films such as The Wizard of Oz, Singin’ in the Rain, and The Sound of Music, something about the film’s mix of transporting fantasy, memorable characters, unforgettable music, and essential humanity will continue to speak to audiences for decades to come.

Solomon: Mary Poppins set a standard for animation/live action combinations that wouldn’t be surpassed until Roger Rabbit decades later. It also remains a charming and entertaining film in its own right.

--END of Interview--  Continue onto Page 2 (link here) for more.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a (work-in-progress) list of selected first-run theatrical engagements of Mary Poppins in the United States and Canada. The objective here was to cite the majority of the first-run markets and principal cities of each state and province to illustrate the slow, staggered nature of film distribution and exhibition during the 1960s and to provide some nostalgia for those who saw the movie during its original release. Some non-first-run small-town engagements have been included, as well, though the entries included represent only a fraction of the thousands of total bookings of the film. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, is provided for some entries.

A portion of the print run was prepared in the 4-track magnetic stereophonic sound format. All of the engagements that commenced during 1964 were believed to have been stereo presentations, as were the majority of the engagements that began during January 1965. From February onward, the majority of the presentations were monaural.

For a few very large markets (including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York) subsequent release waves have been included, whereas in most cases only the first booking in a given market has been cited.

In a few cases, the name of a location has changed (annexation, incorporation, etc.) since 1964/65 and such cases have been listed according to the city or town name at the time of the engagement.  

The list does not include any international or re-release engagements.

So… which theaters played Mary Poppins on first release? Read on...

• 1964-08-27 … Los Angeles, CA – Chinese (17 weeks)

• 1964-09-24 … New York, NY – Radio City Music Hall (7)

• 1964-10-13 … San Francisco, CA – St. Francis (26)
• 1964-10-14 … Chicago, IL – State-Lake (17)
• 1964-10-16 … Detroit, MI – Adams (19)
• 1964-10-21 … Denver, CO – Aladdin (22)
• 1964-10-21 … Philadelphia, PA – Midtown (21)
• 1964-10-21 … Washington, DC – Ontario (21)
• 1964-10-22 … Atlanta, GA – Martin Cinerama (22)
• 1964-10-22 … Boston, MA – Gary (21)
• 1964-10-22 … Dallas, TX – Esquire (17)
• 1964-10-22 … Houston, TX – Delman (18)
• 1964-10-22 … St. Louis, MO – Mid-City (17)
• 1964-10-22 … Toronto, ON – Hollywood (40)
• 1964-10-27 … Pittsburgh, PA – Nixon (16)
• 1964-10-29 … New Orleans, LA – Martin Cinerama (13)
• 1964-10-29 … Salt Lake City, UT – Centre (17)

• 1964-12-25 … Cleveland, OH – Ohio (13)
• 1964-12-25 … Los Angeles, CA – Carthay Circle (moveover from Chinese, 6 [23])
• 1964-12-25 … New York, NY – Cinema Rendezvous (16)
• 1964-12-25 … Newark (Upper Montclair) NJ – Bellevue (11)
• 1964-12-25 … Oyster Bay (Syosset), NY – Syosset (11)

• 1965-01-12 … Virginia Beach (Norfolk), VA – Memrose (12)
• 1965-01-13 … Baltimore, MD – Mayfair (22)
• 1965-01-14 … Miami (Coral Gables), FL – Coral (26)
• 1965-01-14 … Omaha, NE – State (8)
• 1965-01-14 … San Antonio, TX – Laurel (18)
• 1965-01-14 … Tampa, FL – Palace (11)
• 1965-01-15 … Indianapolis, IN – Lyric (11)
• 1965-01-15 … Milwaukee, WI – Capitol Court (23)
• 1965-01-15 … Ottawa, ON – Regent (16)
• 1965-01-15 … Peoria, IL – Palace
• 1965-01-15 … Vancouver, BC – Strand (21)
• 1965-01-19 … Charlotte, NC – Park Terrace
• 1965-01-20 … Buffalo, NY – Century (14)
• 1965-01-20 … Dayton, OH – Victory
• 1965-01-20 … Harrisburg, PA – Senate (5)
• 1965-01-20 … Oakland, CA – Roxie (15)
• 1965-01-20 … Raleigh, NC – Colony (11)
• 1965-01-20 … Reading, PA – Astor (5)
• 1965-01-20 … Richmond, VA – Willow Lawn (10)
• 1965-01-20 … Trenton, NJ – Trent (14)
• 1965-01-21 … Cincinnati, OH – Keith’s (12)
• 1965-01-21 … Columbus, OH – Northland (11)
• 1965-01-21 … Kansas City, MO – Uptown (18)
• 1965-01-21 … Minneapolis, MN – State (11)
• 1965-01-21 … Rochester, NY – Monroe (12)
• 1965-01-21 … Rockford, IL – Times (16)
• 1965-01-21 … Wilmington, DE – Loew’s
• 1965-01-22 … Ann Arbor, MI – Michigan
• 1965-01-22 … Calgary, AB – Capitol (12)
• 1965-01-22 … Edmonton, AB – Capitol (12)
• 1965-01-22 … El Paso, TX – Pershing (8)
• 1965-01-22 … Louisville, KY – United Artists (11)
• 1965-01-22 … Memphis, TN – Plaza (12)
• 1965-01-22 … Palo Alto, CA – Varsity
• 1965-01-22 … Sacramento, CA – Fox (18)
• 1965-01-22 … Saginaw, MI – Temple
• 1965-01-22 … San Diego, CA – Fox (11)
• 1965-01-22 … San Jose, CA – Fox (17)
• 1965-01-22 … Seattle, WA – Blue Mouse (31)
• 1965-01-22 … Syracuse (DeWitt), NY – Shoppingtown (18)
• 1965-01-22 … Winnipeg, MB – Gaiety (17)
• 1965-01-27 … Akron (Cuyahoga Falls), OH – Falls
• 1965-01-27 … Allentown, PA – Colonial (12)
• 1965-01-27 … Birmingham, AL – Ritz
• 1965-01-27 … Columbia, SC – Ritz
• 1965-01-27 … Hartford (West Hartford), CT – Elm (17)
• 1965-01-27 … New Haven (Hamden), CT – Cinemart (16)
• 1965-01-27 … Providence, RI – Majestic (13)
• 1965-01-27 … Springfield, MA – Capitol (15)
• 1965-01-28 … Honolulu, HI – Royal (10)
• 1965-01-28 … Ogden, UT – Egyptian (6)
• 1965-01-28 … Phoenix, AZ – Palms (22)
• 1965-01-28 … Tulsa, OK – Brook (10)
• 1965-01-28 … Worcester (Shrewsbury), MA – White City
• 1965-01-29 … Albuquerque, NM – Hiland (7)
• 1965-01-29 … Boise, ID – Ada (5)
• 1965-01-29 … Burlingame, CA – Fox
• 1965-01-29 … Fresno, CA – Wilson
• 1965-01-29 … Grand Rapids, MI – Majestic
• 1965-01-29 … Lancaster, PA – Grand
• 1965-01-29 … Lansing, MI – Michigan
• 1965-01-29 … Montreal, QC – Westmount (27)
• 1965-01-29 … Muskegon, MI – Regent
• 1965-01-29 … Oklahoma City, OK – Center (11)
• 1965-01-29 … Redwood City, CA – Fox
• 1965-01-29 … South Bend, IN – State
• 1965-01-29 … Stockton, CA – Fox

• 1965-02-03 … Las Vegas, NV – Huntridge
• 1965-02-03 … New York, NY – Rivoli (4)
• 1965-02-04 … Chattanooga, TN – Brainerd Cinerama
• 1965-02-04 … Jacksonville, FL – Center (10)
• 1965-02-04 … Nashville, TN – Crescent Cinerama
• 1965-02-04 … Wichita, KS – Miller
• 1965-02-05 … Bakersfield, CA – Fox (5)
• 1965-02-05 … Downey, CA – Meralta (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Fullerton, CA – Fox (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Glendale, CA – Alex (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Huntington Beach, CA – Huntington (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Joliet, IL – Rialto
• 1965-02-05 … Knoxville, TN – Tennessee (4)
• 1965-02-05 … Long Beach, CA – Crest (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Los Angeles (Central City), CA – Orpheum (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Los Angeles (Northridge), CA – Fox (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Los Angeles (Sherman Oaks), CA – La Reina (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Los Angeles (Westchester), CA – Loyola (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Lubbock, TX – Village (4)
• 1965-02-05 … Pasadena, CA – Academy (9)
• 1965-02-05 … San Bernardino, CA – California (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Santa Barbara, CA – State (14)
• 1965-02-05 … Torrance, CA – Rolling Hills (9)
• 1965-02-05 … Waukegan, IL – Academy
• 1965-02-10 … Albany, NY – Palace
• 1965-02-10 … Schenectady, NY – Proctor’s
• 1965-02-11 … Alton, IL – Grand (3)
• 1965-02-11 … Belleville, IL – Lincoln
• 1965-02-11 … Chicago, IL – Beverly
• 1965-02-11 … Chicago, IL – Gateway
• 1965-02-11 … Chicago, IL – Jeffery
• 1965-02-11 … Chicago, IL – Uptown
• 1965-02-11 … Chicago Heights, IL – Nortown
• 1965-02-11 … Decatur, IL – Lincoln
• 1965-02-11 … Elmwood Park, IL – Mercury
• 1965-02-11 … Glen Cove, NY – Glen Cove
• 1965-02-11 … Glencoe, IL – Glencoe
• 1965-02-11 … Hempstead, NY – Calderone
• 1965-02-11 … Lynbrook, NY – Lynbrook
• 1965-02-11 … Manhasset, NY – Manhasset
• 1965-02-11 … Morristown, NJ – Park
• 1965-02-11 … Mount Vernon, NY – Parkway
• 1965-02-11 … Nanuet, NY – Route 59 (12)
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Bronx), NY – Dale
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Bronx), NY – Valentine
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Fox
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Granada
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Seaview
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Queens), NY – Bay Terrace
• 1965-02-11 … New York (Queens), NY – Midway
• 1965-02-11 … Newark, NJ – Adams
• 1965-02-11 … Niles, IL – Golf Mill
• 1965-02-11 … Norwalk, CT – Norwalk (12)
• 1965-02-11 … Oak Brook, IL – Oakbrook
• 1965-02-11 … Orlando, FL – Parkwood
• 1965-02-11 … Plainfield, NJ – Liberty
• 1965-02-11 … Scarsdale, NY – Plaza
• 1965-02-11 … Skokie, IL – Old Orchard
• 1965-02-11 … Springfield, IL – Orpheum (4)
• 1965-02-11 … Tucson, AZ – Catalina (14)
• 1965-02-11 … Wantagh, NY – Wantagh
• 1965-02-12 … Austin, TX – Varsity (5)
• 1965-02-17 … Englewood, NJ – Plaza
• 1965-02-17 … Fort Lee, NJ – Lee
• 1965-02-17 … Hackensack, NJ – Fox
• 1965-02-17 … Hazlet, NJ – Plaza
• 1965-02-17 … Passaic, NJ – Montauk
• 1965-02-17 … Paterson, NJ – Fabian
• 1965-02-17 … Ridgewood, NJ – Warner
• 1965-02-17 … Toledo, OH – Showcase Twin (11)
• 1965-02-17 … Westwood, NJ – Pascack
• 1965-02-17 … Youngstown, OH – State
• 1965-02-25 … Dallas, TX – Preston Royal (6)
• 1965-02-25 … Mesquite, TX – Big Town (5)

• 1965-03-10 … Pittsburgh, PA – Fulton (4)
• 1965-03-12 … Colorado Springs, CO – Chief
• 1965-03-12 … Greeley, CO – Colorado (3)
• 1965-03-12 … Pueblo, CO – Cooper (4)
• 1965-03-17 … Framingham, MA – Shoppers World Twin
• 1965-03-18 … Palm Beach, FL – Paramount (5)
• 1965-03-19 … Elkhart, IN – Elco (2)
• 1965-03-24 … Bedford, OH – Stillwell
• 1965-03-24 … Chagrin Falls, OH – Falls
• 1965-03-24 … Columbus, GA – Beverly
• 1965-03-24 … Lakewood, OH – Homestead
• 1965-03-25 … Des Moines, IA – Des Moines (5)
• 1965-03-26 … Amsterdam, NY – Mohawk (4)
• 1965-03-26 … Boulder, CO – Flatiron
• 1965-03-26 … Glens Falls, NY – Rialto
• 1965-03-26 … Gloversville, NY – Glove
• 1965-03-28 … Berea, OH – Berea
• 1965-03-28 … Independence, OH – Willow
• 1965-03-28 … Willoughby, OH – Vine
• 1965-03-30 … Richmond, VA – Westhampton (moveover from Willow Lawn, 3 [13])
• 1965-03-31 … Augusta, GA – Daniel Village (5)
• 1965-03-31 … Clearwater, FL – Capitol (4)
• 1965-03-31 … Fort Myers, FL – Edison
• 1965-03-31 … Lakeland, FL – Polk
• 1965-03-31 … Spartanburg, SC – State (3)

• 1965-04-01 … Daytona Beach, FL – Daytona (3)
• 1965-04-01 … Paducah, KY – Arcade
• 1965-04-01 … St. Petersburg, FL – State (7)
• 1965-04-01 … Salt Lake City, UT – Studio
• 1965-04-01 … Sarasota, FL – Bayshore (4)
• 1965-04-01 … Tampa, FL – Florida (moveover from Palace, 4 [15])
• 1965-04-02 … Charleston, WV – Capitol (5)
• 1965-04-02 … Hamilton, ON – Century (13)
• 1965-04-02 … Lexington, KY – Strand
• 1965-04-02 … Owensboro, KY – Malco (2)
• 1965-04-03 … Fort Wayne, IN – Embassy
• 1965-04-06 … Columbus, OH – University (7)
• 1965-04-07 … Anaheim, CA – Fox (7)
• 1965-04-07 … Brentwood, PA – Whitehall
• 1965-04-07 … Duluth, MN – Norshor
• 1965-04-07 … Glenolden, PA – MacDade Drive-In
• 1965-04-07 … Hamilton, OH – Court (4)
• 1965-04-07 … Huntington, WV – Keith-Albee
• 1965-04-07 … Jackson, MS – Lamar
• 1965-04-07 … Lancaster, CA – Lancaster Drive-In (3)
• 1965-04-07 … Los Alamitos, CA – Fox Rossmoor (11)
• 1965-04-07 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA – Vogue (12)
• 1965-04-07 … Los Angeles (North Hollywood), CA – El Portal (9)
• 1965-04-07 … Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA – Fox (12)
• 1965-04-07 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA – Bruin (11)
• 1965-04-07 … Madison, WI – Orpheum (4)
• 1965-04-07 … McKeesport, PA – Memorial
• 1965-04-07 … Monroeville, PA – Monroe
• 1965-04-07 … National City, CA – Harbor Drive-In (3)
• 1965-04-07 … New Kensington, PA – Liberty
• 1965-04-07 … Newport News, VA – James
• 1965-04-07 … Oceanside, CA – Crest
• 1965-04-07 … Palm Springs, CA – Plaza (2)
• 1965-04-07 … Pasadena, CA – State (20)
• 1965-04-07 … Peters Township, PA – Crest (4)
• 1965-04-07 … Pittsburgh, PA – North Hills
• 1965-04-07 … Pittsburgh, PA – Sheridan Square
• 1965-04-07 … Pomona, CA – Fox (7)
• 1965-04-07 … Redondo Beach, CA – Redondo (7)
• 1965-04-07 … Riverside, CA – Fox (7)
• 1965-04-07 … San Diego, CA – Campus Drive-In (7)
• 1965-04-07 … San Diego, CA – Cove (3)
• 1965-04-07 … San Diego, CA – Midway Drive-In (4)
• 1965-04-07 … Santa Monica, CA – Wilshire (12)
• 1965-04-07 … Spokane, WA – Fox (7)
• 1965-04-07 … Tacoma, WA – Rialto
• 1965-04-07 … West Covina, CA – Capri (8)
• 1965-04-08 … Champaign, IL – Co-Ed
• 1965-04-08 … Corpus Christi, TX – Tower (5)
• 1965-04-08 … Dallas, TX – Circle
• 1965-04-08 … Dallas, TX – Lakewood
• 1965-04-08 … Dallas, TX – Wynnewood
• 1965-04-08 … Gastonia, NC – Webb (3)
• 1965-04-08 … Huntsville, AL – Lyric
• 1965-04-08 … Ocean City, NJ – Village
• 1965-04-09 … Amarillo, TX – Esquire
• 1965-04-09 … Anderson, IN – Paramount (2)
• 1965-04-09 … Appleton, WI – Appleton (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Berkeley, CA – California (15)
• 1965-04-09 … Bloomington, IL – Irvin
• 1965-04-09 … Cedar Rapids, IA – Paramount (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Davenport, IA – Capitol
• 1965-04-09 … Eau Claire, WI – Hollywood (2)
• 1965-04-09 … Evansville, IN – Ross
• 1965-04-09 … Kankakee, IL – Paramount
• 1965-04-09 … Kokomo, IN – Sipe (2)
• 1965-04-09 … Lincoln, NE – State
• 1965-04-09 … Little Rock, AR – Capitol
• 1965-04-09 … Manitowoc, WI – Capitol (3)
• 1965-04-09 … Milford, CT – Milford Drive-In (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Mobile, AL – Downtown
• 1965-04-09 … Modesto, CA – Covell (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Monterey, CA – Steinbeck (7)
• 1965-04-09 … Oshkosh, WI – Raulf (3)
• 1965-04-09 … Omaha, NE – State (5)
• 1965-04-09 … Portland, ME – Empire
• 1965-04-09 … Provo, UT – Academy
• 1965-04-09 … Reno, NV – Granada (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Rochester, MN – Chateau
• 1965-04-09 … Salinas, CA – Globe (5)
• 1965-04-09 … San Leandro, CA – Stadium Auto Movie (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Santa Fe, NM – El Paseo (2)
• 1965-04-09 … Santa Rosa, CA – 20th Century West (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Sheboygan, WI – Sheboygan (4)
• 1965-04-09 … Vallejo, CA – El Rey (3)
• 1965-04-09 … Waco, TX – Circle Drive-In
• 1965-04-09 … Waukesha, WI – Park (4)
• 1965-04-13 … Billings, MT – Fox (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Altoona, PA – Capitol (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Anchorage, AK – Fireweed
• 1965-04-14 … Atlantic City, NJ – Virginia
• 1965-04-14 … Auburn, NY – Auburn
• 1965-04-14 … Baton Rouge, LA – Hart (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Benton Harbor, MI – Liberty (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Bergenfeld, NJ – Palace
• 1965-04-14 … Bernardsville, NJ – Liberty
• 1965-04-14 … Binghamton, NY – Crest (8)
• 1965-04-14 … Boonton, NJ – State
• 1965-04-14 … Burlington, VT – Flynn
• 1965-04-14 … Butte, MT – Fox (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Cambridge, MA – Esquire
• 1965-04-14 … Canton, OH – Palace
• 1965-04-14 … Chelmsford, MA – Route 3 Twin (5)
• 1965-04-14 … Chelsea, MA – Parkway Plaza (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Closter, NJ – Closter
• 1965-04-14 … Cumberland, MD – Strand (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Danbury, CT – Palace
• 1965-04-14 … Dedham, MA – Dedham Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Elmira, NY – Elmira
• 1965-04-14 … Fair Lawn, NJ – Hyway
• 1965-04-14 … Fall River, MA – Durfee
• 1965-04-14 … Fargo, ND – Towne
• 1965-04-14 … Fitchburg, MA – Fitchburg (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Great Falls, MT – Liberty
• 1965-04-14 … Hawthorne, NJ – Hawthorne
• 1965-04-14 … Helena, MT – Marlow (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Hyannis, MA – Center
• 1965-04-14 … Ithaca, NY – State
• 1965-04-14 … Johnstown, PA – Embassy
• 1965-04-14 … Kansas City, KS – Granada (5)
• 1965-04-14 … Kingston, NY – Community
• 1965-04-14 … La Crosse, WI – Rivoli
• 1965-04-14 … Lakewood, NJ – Strand
• 1965-04-14 … Lewiston, ME – Empire (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Lockport, NY – Palace
• 1965-04-14 … Madison, NJ – Madison
• 1965-04-14 … Manchester, NH – Strand
• 1965-04-14 … Mansfield, OH – Ohio (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Medford, MA – Medford Twin Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Middletown, NY – Paramount
• 1965-04-14 … Missoula, MT – Fox (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Monsey, NY – Rockland Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Morris Plains, NJ – Morris Plains Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Nashua, NH – State (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Netcong, NJ – Palace
• 1965-04-14 … New Castle, PA – Penn
• 1965-04-14 … New Philadelphia, OH – Quaker
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Bronx), NY – Allerton
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Bronx), NY – American
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Bronx), NY – Wakefield
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Albemarle
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Harbor
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Marboro
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Brooklyn), NY – Nostrand
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Manhattan), NY – 175th St.
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Manhattan), NY – Embassy 72nd St.
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Manhattan), NY – Guild 50th (moveover from Cinema Rendezvous, 19 [36])
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Manhattan), NY – Riviera
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Manhattan), NY – Waverly
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Queens), NY – Astoria
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Queens), NY – Boulevard
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Queens), NY – Parsons
• 1965-04-14 … New York (Staten Island), NY – St. George
• 1965-04-14 … Newark, OH – Midland (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Newport, RI – Strand (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Newton, MA – Paramount
• 1965-04-14 … Norwood, MA – Cinema
• 1965-04-14 … Orangeburg, NY – Route 303 Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Peabody, MA – Cinema
• 1965-04-14 … Pittsfield, MA – Capitol (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Plattsburgh, NY – Strand (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Princeton, NJ – Playhouse (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Quincy, MA – Strand
• 1965-04-14 … Racine, WI – Venetian
• 1965-04-14 … Red Bank, NJ – Carlton
• 1965-04-14 … Ridgefield Park, NJ – Rialto
• 1965-04-14 … Rutherford, NJ – Rivoli
• 1965-04-14 … Saddle Brook, NJ – Route 46 Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Scituate, MA – Playhouse
• 1965-04-14 … Steubenville, OH – Paramount (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Tallahassee, FL – State (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Teaneck, NJ – Teaneck
• 1965-04-14 … Toms River, NJ – Community
• 1965-04-14 … Totowa, NJ – Totowa Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Uniontown, PA – State
• 1965-04-14 … Upper Saddle River, NJ – Route 17 Drive-In
• 1965-04-14 … Utica, NY – Uptown
• 1965-04-14 … Washington, PA – Basle (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Watertown, NY – Olympic (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Wayne, NJ – Wayne
• 1965-04-14 … Wichita, KS – Boulevard (7)
• 1965-04-14 … Wichita Falls, TX – State (4)
• 1965-04-14 … Wildwood, NJ – Ocean
• 1965-04-14 … Windsor, ON – Capitol (3)
• 1965-04-14 … Winona, MN – State (2)
• 1965-04-14 … Zanesville, OH – Liberty (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Charleston, SC – Riviera (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Dubuque, IA – Orpheum
• 1965-04-15 … Halifax, NS – Paramount
• 1965-04-15 … Hutchinson, KS – Fox (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Joplin, MO – Fox (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Lafayette, IN – Mars
• 1965-04-15 … Lethbridge, AB – Paramount (2)
• 1965-04-15 … Lima, OH – Ohio (3)
• 1965-04-15 … London, ON – Capitol
• 1965-04-15 … Medicine Hat, AB – Monarch
• 1965-04-15 … Port Arthur, ON – Odeon (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Quincy, IL – Washington
• 1965-04-15 … Regina, SK – Capitol (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Rochester, NY – Cinema (moveover from Monroe, 11 [23])
• 1965-04-15 … Saint John, NB – Paramount
• 1965-04-15 … St. Joseph, MO – Trail (4)
• 1965-04-15 … Salina, KS – Fox (3)
• 1965-04-15 … Shreveport, LA – Broadmoor
• 1965-04-15 … Sioux City, IA – Capitol
• 1965-04-15 … Sioux Falls, SD – State
• 1965-04-15 … Springfield, MO – Fox
• 1965-04-15 … Victoria, BC – Odeon (5)
• 1965-04-15 … Waterloo, IA – Paramount (3)
• 1965-04-16 … Asheville, NC – Plaza
• 1965-04-16 … Bangor, ME – Bangor Opera House
• 1965-04-16 … Greensboro, NC – Carolina (3)
• 1965-04-16 … Kingston, ON – Capitol
• 1965-04-16 … Meriden, CT – Meriden
• 1965-04-16 … Port Huron, MI – Huron
• 1965-04-16 … Sudbury, ON – Century (3)
• 1965-04-16 … Winston-Salem, NC – Winston
• 1965-04-17 … Brockton, MA – Westgate Mall Twin
• 1965-04-17 … Savannah, GA – Savannah
• 1965-04-21 … New London, CT – Garde (2)
• 1965-04-21 … Uncasville, CT – Norwich-New London Drive-In (2)
• 1965-04-28 … Durham, NC – Northgate
• 1965-04-28 … State College, PA – Cathaum (2)
• 1965-04-30 … Columbia, MO – Missouri (2)
• 1965-04-30 … Lawrence, KS – Granada (2)
• 1965-04-30 … Marshalltown, IA – Strand

• 1965-05-05 … Chapel Hill, NC – Varsity
• 1965-05-05 … Morgantown, WV – Metropolitan (2)
• 1965-05-06 … Cape Girardeau, MO – Esquire (2)
• 1965-05-06 … Gainesville, FL – Florida
• 1965-05-06 … Mason City, IA – Cecil (2)
• 1965-05-07 … Ames, IA – Varsity (3)
• 1965-05-07 … Beatrice, NE – Fox (2)
• 1965-05-07 … Iowa City, IA – Strand (4)
• 1965-05-07 … Manhattan, KS – Wareham
• 1965-05-14 … Fort Collins, CO – Fox
• 1965-05-20 … Kitchener, ON – Capitol (4)
• 1965-05-21 … Rome, GA – De Soto (2)
• 1965-05-21 … St. Catharines, ON – Lincoln (4)
• 1965-05-21 … Saskatoon, SK – Capitol (4)
• 1965-05-26 … Sandusky, OH – State (2)

• 1965-06-09 … Tuscaloosa, AL – Druid (2)
• 1965-06-10 … Fayetteville, NC – Miracle
• 1965-06-10 … Rocky Mount, NC – Center
• 1965-06-10 … Wilmington, NC – Manor
• 1965-06-16 … Bloomington, IN – Princess
• 1965-06-16 … Corona, CA – Corona
• 1965-06-16 … Corsicana, TX – Palace
• 1965-06-16 … Florence, SC – Capri (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Janesville, WI – Jeffris (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Las Cruces, NM – Rio Grande
• 1965-06-16 … Ludington, MI – Lyric (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Massillon, OH – Weslin (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Myrtle Beach, SC – Rivoli
• 1965-06-16 … Neenah, WI – Neenah (1)
• 1965-06-16 … Orrville, OH – Orr (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Stevens Point, WI – Fox
• 1965-06-16 … Texas City, TX – Showboat
• 1965-06-16 … Thomasville, GA – Rose (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Traverse City, MI – Michigan (2)
• 1965-06-16 … Yakima, WA – Yakima
• 1965-06-17 … Burlington, NC – Paramount
• 1965-06-17 … Edwardsville, IL – Wildey (2)
• 1965-06-17 … Great Bend, KS – Crest
• 1965-06-17 … Hickory, NC – Center
• 1965-06-17 … Holland, MI – Holland (2)
• 1965-06-17 … Lawton, OK – Lawton (1)
• 1965-06-17 … Tupelo, MS – Lyric
• 1965-06-19 … Garden City, KS – State
• 1965-06-23 … Alquippa, PA – State (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Annapolis, MD – Capitol (4)
• 1965-06-23 … Atlantic, IA – Atlantic (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Big Spring, TX – Ritz (1)
• 1965-06-23 … Brownsville, TX – Majestic (1)
• 1965-06-23 … Dunkirk, NY – Regent
• 1965-06-23 … Ellsworth, ME – Grand (1)
• 1965-06-23 … Fort Lauderdale, FL – Florida
• 1965-06-23 … Franklin, PA – Kayton
• 1965-06-23 … Frederick, MD – Tivoli (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Fredericksburg, VA – Victoria (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Hagerstown, MD – Colonial (3)
• 1965-06-23 … Hialeah, FL – Essex
• 1965-06-23 … Indiana, PA – Manos (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Las Vegas, NM – Serf (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Logansport, IN – State (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Miami, FL – Boulevard
• 1965-06-23 … Miami, FL – Florida
• 1965-06-23 … Miami Beach, FL – Surf
• 1965-06-23 … Oil City, PA – Drake (2)
• 1965-06-23 … Parkersburg, WV – Smoot
• 1965-06-23 … Quebec City, QC – Capitol (1)
• 1965-06-23 … Rochester, PA – Family (2)
• 1965-06-24 … Carroll, IA – Carroll (2)
• 1965-06-24 … Danville, VA – Capitol (2)
• 1965-06-24 … Hamburg, NY – Palace (1)
• 1965-06-24 … Lawton, OK – Vaska (moveover from Lawton, 1 [2])
• 1965-06-25 … Jefferson City, MO – Capitol
• 1965-06-25 … Menomonee Falls, WI – Falls
• 1965-06-25 … Ottawa, KS – Plaza
• 1965-06-30 … Aberdeen, SD – Capitol (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Alameda, CA – Alameda Drive-In
• 1965-06-30 … Castro Valley, CA – Chabot
• 1965-06-30 … Farmington, NM – Allen (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Fremont, CA – Center
• 1965-06-30 … Fremont, CA – Nimitz Auto Movie
• 1965-06-30 … Gettysburg, PA – Majestic (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Greenfield, MA – Garden
• 1965-06-30 … Hazleton, PA – Grand
• 1965-06-30 … Kennebunk, ME – Kennebunk Drive-In (1)
• 1965-06-30 … Lake Jackson, TX – Lake (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Largo, FL – Largo
• 1965-06-30 … Lebanon, PA – State (3)
• 1965-06-30 … Mitchell, SD – State (2)
• 1965-06-30 … North Hampton, NH – Seacoast Drive-In (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Northampton, MA – Calvin
• 1965-06-30 … Oneonta, NY – Oneonta (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Pinellas Park, FL – Palms
• 1965-06-30 … Portsmouth, NH – Civic (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Portsmouth, OH – LaRoy (2)
• 1965-06-30 … Wichita, KS – Meadowlark Drive-In (2)

• 1965-07-01 … Bristol, VA – Cameo
• 1965-07-01 … Canandaigua, NY – Playhouse
• 1965-07-01 … Cedar Falls, IA – Regent (2)
• 1965-07-01 … Lake Charles, LA – Paramount (2)
• 1965-07-01 … Peru, IN – Roxy
• 1965-07-01 … Massena, NY – Massena (1)
• 1965-07-01 … Sumter, SC – Sumter (1)
• 1965-07-01 … Williamson, WV – Cinderella (1)
• 1965-07-02 … Ironwood, MI – Ironwood (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Alamogordo, NM – Sierra
• 1965-07-07 … Brownwood, TX – Bowie (1)
• 1965-07-07 … Camden, AR – Malco (1)
• 1965-07-07 … Clovis, NM – State (1)
• 1965-07-07 … El Cajon, CA – El Cajon (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Findlay, OH – Harris (3)
• 1965-07-07 … Gallup, NM – El Morro (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Lowell, MA – Strand (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Naugatuck, CT – Salem (2)
• 1965-07-07 … North Adams, MA – Paramount (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Potsdam, NY – Roxy
• 1965-07-07 … Roswell, NM – Plains
• 1965-07-07 … San Diego, CA – North Park (3)
• 1965-07-07 … San Diego, CA – Roxy (3)
• 1965-07-07 … San Luis Obispo, CA – Fremont (2)
• 1965-07-07 … Xenia, OH – Xenia (2)
• 1965-07-08 … Allensburg, OH – Roselawn Drive-In
• 1965-07-08 … Lake Placid, NY – Palace (1)
• 1965-07-08 … Middlesboro, KY – Manring
• 1965-07-08 … Saranac Lake, NY – Pontiac (1)
• 1965-07-08 … Valparaiso, IN – Premier
• 1965-07-09 … Beckley, WV – Beckley (2)
• 1965-07-09 … Eugene, OR – McDonald (4)
• 1965-07-14 … Boston, MA – Strand
• 1965-07-14 … Braintree, MA – South Shore Plaza Twin Drive-In
• 1965-07-14 … Brockton, MA – Colonial
• 1965-07-14 … Brookline, MA – Coolidge Corner
• 1965-07-14 … Cooperstown, NY – Cooperstown (1)
• 1965-07-14 … Corvallis, OR – Whiteside
• 1965-07-14 … Denton, TX – Campus
• 1965-07-14 … East Stroudsburg, PA – Grand
• 1965-07-14 … Emporia, KS – Granada
• 1965-07-14 … Eureka, CA – Eureka (2)
• 1965-07-14 … Foxboro, MA – Orpheum
• 1965-07-14 … Framingham, MA – Gorman
• 1965-07-14 … Franklin, MA – Franklin
• 1965-07-14 … Galveston, TX – Broadway
• 1965-07-14 … Gouverneur, NY – Gralyn (1)
• 1965-07-14 … Lexington, MA – Lexington
• 1965-07-14 … Livermore, CA – Vine
• 1965-07-14 … Lock Haven, PA – Roxy
• 1965-07-14 … Logan, OH – Hocking Drive-In
• 1965-07-14 … Lynn, MA – Warner
• 1965-07-14 … Malden, MA – Strand
• 1965-07-14 … Milwaukee, WI – Avalon (3)
• 1965-07-14 … Milwaukee, WI – Point (5)
• 1965-07-14 … Oakland, CA – Grand Lake
• 1965-07-14 … Petersburg, VA – Century (3)
• 1965-07-14 … Wellesley, MA – Community
• 1965-07-14 … Weymouth, MA – Cameo
• 1965-07-14 … Whitefish Bay, WI – Fox-Bay (4)
• 1965-07-15 … Abilene, TX – Paramount (1)
• 1965-07-15 … Algona, IA – Algona (1)
• 1965-07-21 … Bennington, VT – Harte (2)
• 1965-07-21 … El Dorado, AR – Rialto (1)
• 1965-07-21 … Lumberton, NC – Riverside
• 1965-07-21 … Ruston, LA – Tech
• 1965-07-22 … Elk Rapids, MI – Cinema (2)
• 1965-07-22 … Humboldt, IA – Humota (1)
• 1965-07-22 … Iowa Falls, IA – Met (1)
• 1965-07-28 … Chula Vista, CA – Vogue (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Clearfield, PA – Ritz (1)
• 1965-07-28 … Connellsville, PA – Orpheum
• 1965-07-28 … Coronado, CA – Village (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Coshocton, OH – Pastime (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Edgerton, WI – Rialto (1)
• 1965-07-28 … El Dorado, AR – Majestic (moveover from Rialto, 1 [2])
• 1965-07-28 … Granite City, IL – Bel-Air Drive-In (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Kittanning, PA – State
• 1965-07-28 … La Mesa, CA – Helix (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Newcomerstown, OH – Starlite Drive-In (1)
• 1965-07-28 … Philipsburg, PA – Rowland (2)
• 1965-07-28 … Pulaski, NY – Kallet (1)
• 1965-07-28 … Shelburne Falls, MA – Mohawk Trail Community Drive-In (1)
• 1965-07-29 … Fayetteville, AR – Ozark (1)
• 1965-07-30 … Hays, KS – Fox (1)
• 1965-07-30 … Toronto, ON – Nortown (moveover from Hollywood, 9 [49])

• 1965-08-03 … Wellsboro, PA – Arcadia
• 1965-08-04 … Belleville, KS – Blair Drive-In (1)
• 1965-08-04 … Costa Mesa, CA – Mesa (2)
• 1965-08-04 … East Los Angeles, CA – Golden Gate (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Glendale, CA – Roxy (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Hershey, PA – Hershey (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Imperial Beach, CA – South Bay Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Inglewood, CA – Fox (2)
• 1965-08-04 … La Mirada, CA – La Mirada (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Lancaster, CA – Antelope (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Los Angeles (Baldwin Hills), CA – Baldwin (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Los Angeles (Central City), CA – Warrens (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Los Angeles (Granada Hills), CA – Granada (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Los Angeles (Studio City), CA – Studio (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Los Angeles (Sunland), CA – Sunland Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Oxnard, CA – Vogue (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Redondo Beach, CA – South Bay (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Rialto, CA – Foothill Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Riverside, CA – Golden State (2)
• 1965-08-04 … San Bernardino, CA – Studio (2)
• 1965-08-04 … San Carlos, CA – Laurel (1)
• 1965-08-04 … Simi Valley, CA – Simi Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Thousand Oaks, CA – Fox Conejo (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Ventura, CA – Ventura (2)
• 1965-08-04 … West Covina, CA – Eastland (2)
• 1965-08-04 … Whittier, CA – Wardman (2)
• 1965-08-05 … Fairbanks, AK – Lacey St. (1)
• 1965-08-06 … Pocahontas, IA – Chief Drive-In (1)
• 1965-08-11 … Anaheim, CA – Brookhurst (2)
• 1965-08-11 … Centralia, WA – Twin City Drive-In (1)
• 1965-08-11 … Daly City, CA – Serra
• 1965-08-11 … Los Angeles (Fairfax), CA – Gilmore Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-11 … Los Angeles (Westwood), CA – Crest (1)
• 1965-08-11 … Phoenix, AZ – Indian Drive-In (3)
• 1965-08-11 … San Bruno, CA – El Camino
• 1965-08-11 … Scottsdale, AZ – Round-Up Drive-In (3)
• 1965-08-14 … St. John’s, NL – Capitol (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Banning, CA – Banning (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Cathedral City, CA – Sunaire Drive-In (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Claremont, CA – Village (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Corona del Mar, CA – Port (2)
• 1965-08-18 … East Los Angeles, CA – Brooklyn (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Franklin, WI – Franklin 100 Drive-In (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Hattiesburg, MS – Rebel (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Laguna Beach, CA – South Coast (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Laurel, MS – Arabian (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Long Beach, CA – Belmont (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Los Angeles (Pacific Palisades), CA – Bay (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Manhattan Beach, CA – La Mar (2)
• 1965-08-18 … Newhall, CA – Plaza (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Orange, CA – Orange (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Riverside, CA – Arlington (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Saco, ME – Mutual (3)
• 1965-08-18 … Silver City, NM – Gila (1)
• 1965-08-18 … Yuma, AZ – Yuma (2)
• 1965-08-19 … Atchison, KS – Fox (1)
• 1965-08-22 … Bar Harbor, ME – Criterion (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Alhambra, CA – Garfield (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Azusa, CA – Village (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Bellevue, WA – John Danz
• 1965-08-25 … Bend, OR – Tower (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Buena Park, CA – Buena Park (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Burbank, CA – Cornell (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Camarillo, CA – Ponderosa (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Costa Mesa, CA – Cinema (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Ellensburg, WA – Liberty (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Fort Scott, KS – Fox (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Garden Grove, CA – Grove (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Glendora, CA – Glendora (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Huntingdon, PA – Clifton
• 1965-08-25 … Los Angeles (Leimert Park), CA – Leimert (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Monessen, PA – State
• 1965-08-25 … North Canaan, CT – Canaan Drive-In
• 1965-08-25 … Pulaski, VA – Pulaski
• 1965-08-25 … Redlands, CA – Fox (2)
• 1965-08-25 … Renton, WA – Roxy
• 1965-08-25 … Santa Paula, CA – Fox (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Seattle, WA – Northgate
• 1965-08-25 … Titusville, PA – Penn
• 1965-08-25 … Tukwila, WA – Lewis & Clark
• 1965-08-25 … Upland, CA – Upland (1)
• 1965-08-25 … Yucca Valley, CA – Sky Drive-In (1)
• 1965-08-27 … Osceola, AR – Murr (1)

• 1965-09-01 … Barstow, CA – Barstow (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Bishop, CA – Bishop (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Corona, CA – Corona (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Garden Grove, CA – Gem (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Glendale, AZ – Glen (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Inglewood, CA – Imperial (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Inglewood, CA – Inglewood (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Jasper, IN – Astra
• 1965-09-01 … Los Angeles (Highland Park), CA – Highland (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Los Angeles (Mid-City), CA – Picfair (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Los Angeles (Tarzana), CA – Corbin (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Lucasville, OH – Scioto Breeze Drive-In
• 1965-09-01 … Mesa, AZ – Mesa (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Needles, CA – Needles (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Pewaukee, WI – Lake (1)
• 1965-09-01 … St. Albans, VT – Welden (1)
• 1965-09-01 … San Diego, CA – Linda (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Tustin, CA – Tustin (1)
• 1965-09-01 … Victoria, TX – Uptown (2)
• 1965-09-01 … Victorville, CA – El Rancho (1)
• 1965-09-08 … Brea, CA – Brea (1)
• 1965-09-08 … Huntington Beach, CA – Huntington (1)
• 1965-09-08 … Ojai, CA – Los Robles (1)
• 1965-09-10 … Beaverton, MI – Gem
• 1965-09-15 … Chandler, AZ – Parkway
• 1965-09-15 … Mount Airy, NC – Bright Leaf Drive-In (1)
• 1965-09-15 … Newport Beach, CA – Balboa (1)
• 1965-09-15 … Santa Paula, CA – Santa Paula Drive-In (1)
• 1965-09-17 … Aiken, SC – Cinema

• 1965-10-06 … Huron, SD – State (1)
• 1965-10-07 … Portland, OR – Paramount (18)
• 1965-10-20 … Centerville, IA – Majestic
• 1965-10-20 … Kalispell, MT – Liberty (1)
• 1965-10-20 … Oelwein, IA – Grand (1)
• 1965-10-20 … Perham, MN – Comet (1)
• 1965-10-27 … Columbus, NE – Columbus

• 1965-11-24 … Austin, MN – Adams (1)
• 1965-11-24 … Biloxi, MS – Biloxi
• 1965-11-24 … Columbus, IN – Crump
• 1965-11-24 … Fort Bragg, CA – Coast (1)
• 1965-11-24 … Fort Pierce, FL – Sunrise (1)
• 1965-11-24 … Greenville, MS – Paramount
• 1965-11-24 … Jefferson, IA – Iowa (1)
• 1965-11-24 … Newberry, SC – Ritz (1)
• 1965-11-24 … Ocala, FL – Marion (2)
• 1965-11-24 … Tipton, IN – Diana (1)
• 1965-11-25 … Blytheville, AR – Ritz (1)
• 1965-11-25 … Muscatine, IA – Uptown (1)
• 1965-11-25 … Port Angeles, WA – Lincoln (1)
• 1965-11-25 … Ridgecrest, CA – Ridge (1)

• 1965-12-25 … Alton, IA – Palace (1)
• 1965-12-25 … Fergus Falls, MN – Fergus (1)
• 1965-12-25 … Gadsden, AL – Pitman (2)
• 1965-12-25 … Sioux Rapids, IA – Sioux (1)
• 1965-12-29 … Commerce, TX – Palace (1)
• 1965-12-29 … Sulphur Springs, TX – Mission (1)

-----

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

• Mary Poppins – Julie Andrews
• Bert – Dick Van Dyke
• Mr. Banks – David Tomlinson
• Mrs. Banks – Glynis Johns
• Domestic – Hermione Baddely
• Domestic – Reta Shaw
• Jane Banks – Karen Dotrice
• Michael Banks – Matthew Garber
• Katie Nanna – Elsa Lanchester
• The Constable – Arthur Treacher
• Uncle Albert – Ed Wynn
• The Bird Woman – Jane Darwell
• Mr. Dawes, Junior – Arthur Malet
• Mr. Dawes, Senior – Dick Van Dyke

• Director – Robert Stevenson
• Producer – Walt Disney
• Co-Producer – Bill Walsh
• Screenplay – Bill Walsh, Don Da Gradi (Based on P.L. Travers’ series of books)
• Special Effects – Peter Ellenshaw, Eustace Lycott, Robert A. Mattey
• Costumes and Design Consultant – Tony Walton
• Choreography – Marc Breaux and Dee Dee Wood
• Animation Director – Hamilton S. Luske
• Music Supervisor, Arranger and Conductor – Irwin Kostal
• Music and Lyrics – Richard M. Sherman, Robert B. Sherman
• Sound Mixer – Dean Thomas
• Sound Supervisor – Robert O. Cook
• Consultant – P.L. Travers
• Film Editor – Cotton Warburton, ACE
• Art Directors – Carroll Clark, William H. Tuntke
• Director of Photography – Edward Colman, ASC

• Distributor – Buena Vista
• Production Company – Walt Disney
• Release Date – August 27, 1964
• Running Time – 139 minutes
• Projection Format – 1.75:1 / stereo
• MPAA Rating – G (rated for its 1973 re-release) 

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety; the website Boxofficemojo, the book George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (George Lucas Books/Harper Collins, 2010); the motion picture Mary Poppins (1964, Walt Disney Productions).

SPECIAL THANKS:

Jerry Alexander, Jim Barg, Raymond Caple, Mike Durrett, Sheldon Hall, Kim Holston, William Hooper, Bill Huelbig, Matthew Kennedy, Bill Kretzel, Jeff Kurtti, Mark Lensenmayer, Paul Linfesty, Stan Malone, Robert Morrow, Tim O’Neill, Fredrik Sandstrom, Charles Solomon, John Stewart, Joel Weide, Vince Young, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project. 

IMAGES:

Mary Poppins ©1964 Walt Disney Productions

IN MEMORIAM:

• Ed Wynn (“Uncle Albert”), 1886-1966
• Walt Disney (Producer), 1901-1966
• Jane Darwell (“The Bird Woman”), 1879-1967
• Hamilton S. Luske (Animation Director), 1903-1968
• Carroll Clark (Art Director), 1894-1968
• Arthur Treacher (“The Constable”), 1887-1972
• Bill Walsh (Screenplay, Co-Producer), 1913-1975
• Arthur Treacher (“The Constable”), 1894-1975
• John Lounsbery (Animator), 1911-1976
• Matthew Garber (“Michael Banks”), 1956-1977
• Reta Shaw (“Domestic”), 1912-1982
• Cotton Warburton (Film Editor), 1911-1982
• Hermione Baddely (“Domestic”), 1906-1986
• Robert Stevenson (Director), 1905-1986
• Elsa Lanchester (“Katie Nanna”), 1902-1986
• Milt Kahl (Animator), 1909-1987
• Eric Larsen (Animator), 1905-1988
• Don Da Gradi (Screenplay), 1911-1991
• Robert A. Mattey (Special Effects), 1910-1993
• Irwin Kostal (Music Supervisor, Arranger and Conductor), 1911-1994
• Edward Colman (Director of Photography), 1905-1995
• Robert O. Cook (Sound Supervisor), 1903-1995
• P.L. Travers (Consultant, Author), 1899-1996
• David Tomlinson (“Mr. Banks”), 1917-2000
• Ward Kimball (Animator), 1914-2002
• Frank Thomas (Animator), 1912-2004
• Eustace Lycott (Special Effects), 1914-2006
• Peter Ellenshaw (Special Effects), 1913-2007
• Ollie Johnston (Animator), 1912-2008
• Robert B. Sherman (Music), 1925-2012
• Arthur Malet (“Mr. Dawes, Junior”), 1927-2013
• Marc Breaux (Choreography), 1924-2013

- Michael Coate

Also starring Dick York (1964-69), Dick Sargent (1969-72), Agnes Moorehead, and a bevy of memorable supporting and recurring players, the delightful series was nominated for 22 Emmys (winning three times) and was ranked in the Top 10 in the Nielsen ratings during three of its eight seasons and six times ranked in the Top 25. The show has been available for several years on DVD season sets and a complete series DVD set, but, Sony, where’s a Blu-ray release?

Anyway, let’s (alphabetically) meet the Q&A participants...

Tom Hill is the Creative Director at TV Land and the editor of Nick at Nite’s Classic TV Companion: The All Nite, Every Nite Guide to Better Living through Television (Fireside/Simon & Schuster, 1996). The Ithaca, New York, native’s other books include TV Land to Go: The Big Book of TV Lists, TV Lore, and TV Bests (Simon & Schuster, 2001), What to Expect When Your Wife Is Expanding: A Reassuring Month-by-Month Guide for the Father-to-Be, Whether He Wants Advice or Not (Andrews McMeel, 2007) and (with Steve Slavkin) Salute Your Shorts: Life at Summer Camp (Workman, 1986), which inspired the 1991-92 Nickelodeon television series.

David L. Pierce is the author of The Omni-Directional Three-Dimensional Vectoring Paper Printed Omnibus for Bewitched Analysis a.k.a. The Bewitched History Book (Bear Manor Media, 2012). The Salt Lake City native works as a Case Manager for disability insurance. The Bewitched History Book is his first book.

Herbie J Pilato is the writer of The Bewitched Book (Delta, 1992). The author, producer and consultant has also penned Bewitched Forever: The Immortal Companion to Television’s Most Magical Supernatural Situation Comedy (Tapestry, 1996; and updated in 2004), Twitch Upon a Star: The Bewitched Life and Career of Elizabeth Montgomery (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2012), and The Essential Elizabeth Montgomery: A Guide to her Magical Performances (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2013). The Rochester, New York, native’s other books include The Bionic Book: The Six Million Dollar Man & the Bionic Woman Reconstructed (Bear Manor Media, 2007), NBC & Me: My Life as a Page in a Book (Bear Manor Media, 2008), and Glamour, Gidgets, and the Girl Next Door: Television’s Iconic Women from the 50s, 60s, and 70s (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2014). He heads the production company Television, Ink., and was a consulting producer on the DVD season sets of Bewitched, CHiPs, Kung Fu and The Six Million Dollar Man.

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Bewitched worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Tom Hill: Bewitched is one of the most beloved and iconic shows in all of classic TV. It deserves to be celebrated any time! It was a long-running hit that really helped define an era, the high-concept sitcoms of the 60s and early 70s.

David L. Pierce: Bewitched has never been off the air since it first broadcast on September 17, 1964. You’d be hard-pressed to find anyone (over 25 years old anyway...this younger generation...) that hasn’t heard of it and had fond memories of the show. And in talking with the cast and guest stars all of them only have fond memories of the set, so all that means there definitely should be a celebration of one of the best shows in TV history! Also, on the actual 50th anniversary of the premiere of the series, a group of Bewitched fans from as far away as Australia and Scotland are gathering in Studio City, California, for the Bewitched Fan Fare. The Fan Fare is an event that began in 2000 where eight people gathered in Reno (where one of the group lived) that has grown year over year. In those years following many Bewitched guest stars like Bernard Fox, Erin Murphy, and others have joined us and will join us this year. There will be presentations, guest panels, and memorabilia auctions.

Herbie J Pilato: Bewitched is worthy of any commemoration in so many ways—and on so many levels. First and foremost, it was one of the first television hits for ABC, which was a relatively young network at the time. The show was a hit from the moment it debuted on September 17th, 1964—and it helped to put ABC on the map. Secondly, and from a creative standpoint, the series was one of the most well-written and thought-out sitcoms of all time; it certainly was the most well-written and thought-out supernatural sitcoms of all time. The pilot episode, written by series creator Sol Saks, has gone down in history as one of the finest crafted half-hours of television ever created—in any genre. It not only sets up the premise of the entire series, it somehow manages to have a solid B-storyline (involving Samantha meeting Darrin’s former fiancé). Also, too, prestigious writers like Danny Arnold, who would go on to create Barney Miller for ABC a decade or so later, and Bernard Slade (Same Time Next Year on Broadway, and The Partridge Family on ABC), contributed some of the best scripts in the entire series—and they both helped to set up the sitcom for years to come. Executive producer Harry Ackerman, and director/producer William Asher—who worked together on I Love Lucy a few years before (when Ackerman was a network executive with CBS), teamed on Bewitched which, in many ways, was very similar to I Love Lucy. Both shows featured a mixed marriage. Housewife Lucy, played by Lucille Ball, was married to a Latin man (named Ricky, played by Ball’s real-life spouse Desi Arnaz). Housewitch Samantha, played by Elizabeth Montgomery, was married to a mortal man Darrin, played by Dick York and Dick Sargent (Sargent stepped into the role after York left the series due to a serious back ailment), Lucy utilized humor to deal with life obstacles; Samantha utilized magic. Also, too, the likable charm of Bewitched’s charismatic, versatile and expansive cast was nothing short of astounding. In addition to Elizabeth, York, and Sargent, the show’s performers included the esteemed Agnes Moorehead, David White, Maurice Evans, Marion Lorne, Alice Pearce, Paul Lynde, Alice Ghostley, and so many more, all of whom came to the show with an extensive list of stellar stage and screen credits. Into this mix, the core themes of the show...  prejudice, strong work-ethic, true friendship...  spoke so clearly to the turbulent 60s in which the show first aired—and continues to strike a chord with the contemporary viewer of our still-unfortunately very troubled times today.

Coate: Can you recall when you first saw the show?

Hill: Strangely enough, I first watched it when I first started working at Nick at Nite! I must have seen it before—but it wasn’t quite the syndication hit that Lucy, Gilligan or Brady were, so I hadn’t see much. I was assigned to write promos, so I sat down and “binge watched” (before there was such a thing). I loved it. First impressions—both Gladys and Abner Kravitz were absolutely hilarious, loved that Darrin worked in advertising... and most of all, I found myself with a serious crush on Elizabeth Montgomery.

Pierce: I answered this very question in the Preface of The Bewitched History Book: The show aired in syndication in the afternoons when I was growing up and I watched it with my mother when I came home from Kindergarten. I was captivated by the supernatural reality presented where I saw people and things disappear, objects float, and historical figures brought back to life. But most of all I was captivated by the gorgeous enchantress known as Samantha played by Elizabeth Montgomery. Liz was so classy, yet funny. And her features were so mesmerizing: her green eyes capped by pointy eyebrows, her cute nose which somehow she managed to wiggle in order for Samantha to perform magic, and her beautiful golden hair. She was perfect. And she definitely was the reason I watched day after day, though the magic happenings were a huge plus.

Pilato: I was only four years old when the show debuted, but I remember watching it first in reruns on ABC in the daytime, and then in prime-time when it began to be broadcast in color, in its third season, which was 1966-1967. In fact, not only do I remember watching the show, but it’s one of my first general memories in life. The first memory I have is watching John F. Kennedy’s memorial service on television. The second was watching an episode of Bewitched (in which Samantha’s next-door neighbors Abner and Gladys Kravitz [played by the great George Tobias and Alice Pearce], separate—and Samantha literally brings them together, by magic, in the middle of the street). That said, the Kennedy memorial telecast would prove somewhat interlocking to the show, as both Elizabeth Montgomery and her husband Bill Asher were friends with President Kennedy. In fact, Asher directed JFK’s famous birthday party event at which Marilyn Monroe sang a breathy Happy Birthday. And as fate would also have it, Bewitched had begun rehearsals on November 22, 1963—the day JFK was assassinated. From there on in, the home viewer embraced Bewitched, and other escapist TV fare like it, to try and forget the troubles of the day. We all wished we could twitch our noses like Samantha to make life easier.

Coate: What was the objective with your books?

Hill: The objective of the Classic TV Companion was to sell a million books. Failing that, it was to launch a series of Nick at Nite books. It did neither. It’s a fine book—but reading about every episode turns out to be less fun than watching every episode. I think the best outcome was that I discovered several excellent writers when I divvied up the work.

Pierce: Also from The Bewitched History Book: The intent of this book is to bring the magic of Bewitched to a bigger audience than just Bewitched fans, but also to bring the magic and wonder of the world that was happening around Bewitched to those fans, like me, that weren’t around to experience it all, so that we can see that even though we think we may have it tough, it’s always been that way, but yet humankind still manages to make it without using witchcraft, like Samantha would try to do. Of course, it wouldn’t always work, but at least we could see that someone so powerful was trying to get along the “hard way.”

Pilato: I wanted to write the first Bewitched Book, which was published by Dell in 1992, because the series deserved a literary companion. But I did not want to write just a trivia book. My objective was to explore the meaning behind the show—and what it meant to the cast, the crew—and, of course, the viewers. And I wanted to make sure I involved as many of the cast and crew members as possible. So, I was very blessed to have access to Elizabeth, Dick York, Dick Sargent, and David White; Harry Ackerman, Bill Asher, and so many more cast and crew members. Then when Elizabeth passed away so young in 1995, I knew I had to revise the book in some way, and the result was Bewitched Forever, which was published by Summit in 1996, then revised again in 2001, and then again by Tapestry Press in 2004—which was the 40th Anniversary of the show’s debut—followed in 2005—which is when Nora Ephron released her feature film edition of the series. Meanwhile, too, I had always known I wanted to write a full-length biography on Elizabeth Montgomery, because she was such a wonderful and influential actress and human being, before, during and after Bewitched. And after my initial interviews with her, I realized there was so much information about her life and career beyond Bewitched, that a biography was inevitable

Coate: Where do you think Bewitched ranks among great TV shows?

Hill: Honestly, Bewitched is great, and brought together a wonderful cast, but it was an era of somewhat formulaic writing and directing, so it would be hard to compare it to the very best sitcoms of all time—Seinfeld, Lucy, All in the Family, Mary Tyler Moore, Dick Van Dyke... sorry! Happy 50th anyway!

Pierce: I think Bewitched is very comfortable being a part of the TV classics like I Love Lucy and The Dick Van Dyke Show. It spawned many copy-cats and therefore I would place it in the top 5 of all time.

Pilato: There’s many wonderful television shows in history, of every genre, and Bewitched is definitely in my Top Ten, along with I Love Lucy, The Twilight Zone, Perry Mason, Father Knows Best, Star Trek, Kung Fu, All in the Family, Reba, and Frasier—all of which are well-crafted in every level of storytelling, production and performance. And really, there are so many more personal favorites... too many to mention.  

Coate: Which are the standout episodes?

Hill: Two standout episodes are Divided He Falls and Illegal Separation. The first is a tour de force performance by Dick York, who is split into two Darrins (no, not THOSE two Darrins)—a fun side and a hardworking side. The latter spotlights Abner and Gladys Kravitz—as Sam mends their marital troubles.

Pierce: There are so many but I’ll try to narrow it down:

The first episode I, Darrin, Take This Witch, Samantha is truly phenomenal as it packs in Darrin and Samantha meeting, dating, getting married, having their honeymoon, Samantha revealing her witchhood, and dealing with Darrin’s ex all within 25 minutes.

A is for Aardvark from Season One also stands out because it essentially explains why Darrin is so against the witchcraft. It’s also a beautiful episode as Samantha reveals that all she truly wants in this world is Darrin, even if she could have anything or anyone she wanted.

And Then There Were Three from Season Two introduces us to Tabitha and Samantha’s twin cousin Serena. It also showed us that Endora had a soft spot in her heart for Darrin, and he for her when he apologizes for accusing her of making Tabitha into an adult by letting the baby have the name Tabitha, which Endora had suggested.

Season Three’s opener Nobody’s Perfect is the first episode aired in color and it also introduced Erin and Diane Murphy as Tabitha, not to mention it was where we learn that she takes after her mother’s side of the family.

The Trial and Error of Aunt Clara from Season Three showed the great love between Samantha and her Aunt Clara who goes on trial to see if she should be stripped of her powers. This episode is also very indicative of the real relationship Elizabeth Montgomery had with Marion Lorne.

Double, Double, Toil and Trouble also known as The Pie Fight episode is always memorable as Darrin and Samantha get into a pie throwing contest when he thinks she is Serena. It’s frightening as it goes along and Endora gets one right to the face along with Serena, but boy is it hysterical!

My favorite episode of the entire series is Allergic to Macedonian Dodos from Season Four. It’s a perfect showcase for Agnes Moorehead’s talents as she really plays up the helpless Endora who has just lost her powers. It’s also great fun to see Aunt Clara with working powers. And, of course, Dr. Bombay makes one of his funny appearances.

One that everyone seems to remember is Season Four’s My, What Big Ears You Have when Darrin’s ears grow to gigantic size after Endora casts a spell on them to grow every time he tells a lie.

Season Five has some great ones even though they don’t have Darrin in them—Mrs. Stephens, Where are You? and Marriage, Witches’ Style, both featuring Serena. It is great to watch Elizabeth play against herself as both Samantha and Serena.

Season Six’s opener, Samantha and the Beanstalk, is memorable as it’s the first one to have Dick Sargent as Darrin. It’s also where Erin Murphy started showing more of her own personality in Tabitha.

Serena Stops the Show from Season Six is also another memorable one as we get to see Serena rock out with singing duo Boyce and Hart.

All of the Salem episodes from Season Seven’s beginning are great as the show shot most of them on location in Salem, MA.

And the Season Eight opener which was in two parts How Not to Lose Your Head to King Henry VIII is great as we get to hear Liz sing.

Pilato: Many of the black-and-white episodes from the first season are some of the show’s finest, including A is for Aardvark, in which Samantha gifts Darrin with the power of witchcraft. And from there he realizes that making strides in life and attaining goals don’t mean anything unless you work for it.  Another segment, Charlie Harper, Winner (ironically referencing Charlie’s Sheen’s character from Two and a Half Men, and his latter-day personal life-coaching slogan) is from the fourth season. Here, Samantha and Darrin grow closer as they confront materialism. Then there’s Samantha’s Thanksgiving to Remember, also from the fourth season, when Samantha and Darrin are thrust into the past and deal head-on with racism and witch burning of Old Salem. The Battle of Burning Oak, from the fifth season, when Samantha and Darrin confront the upper-crest snobs of a private country club; and several more. But my favorite was Elizabeth’s favorite: Sisters at Heart, from the seventh season. It was an episode that directly addressed prejudice, and it was written by the 1971 multi-cultural graduating class of Jefferson High School in Los Angeles.

Coate: Which are the ideal episodes to introduce to someone who has never seen the show?

Hill: Start at the beginning! The first episode is a gem. And stick with Dick York. Dick Sargent could be charming, but he never had the manic comic energy Dick York brought to the role.

Pierce: The pilot episode; Be It Ever So Mortgaged, where they buy the iconic house and where we are introduced to the neighbors, the Kravitzes; Mother Meets What’s-His-Name, where Endora and Darrin meet; The Witches Are Out, which is the first Halloween episode that showed us that the show was really about race relations, and it’s also where we are introduced to Aunt Clara; Just One Happy Family, where we are introduced to Samantha’s father, Maurice; Samantha Meets the Folks, where Darrin’s parents are introduced; A Vision of Sugar Plums, the first Christmas episode and one of the first times we see Samantha in her flying suit; Driving is the Only Way to Fly, which is the first time Paul Lynde guest starred (but not as Uncle Arthur); Alias, Darrin Stephens, where Samantha reveals she’s pregnant; The Joker is a Card, where we are introduced to Uncle Arthur; And Then There Were Three, where Tabitha is born and Serena is introduced; Disappearing Samantha, which is Bernard Fox’s first episode but not as Dr. Bombay; Nobody’s Perfect, The Moment of Truth and Witches and Warlocks are my Favorite Things, where Tabitha’s powers are revealed and tested, Endora Moves in for a Spell and Twitch or Treat, which are Sandra Gould’s first episodes as Gladys Kravitz; Charlie Harper, Winner, where we learn why Darrin is so against the witchcraft; Long Live the Queen, where Samantha is crowned Queen of the Witches; Mirror, Mirror, because it showcases Dick York’s talents plus William Asher is seen briefly with some lines as an irritated driver; Marriage, Witches’ Style, where Serena has really become the character she would remain the rest of the series; Samantha’s Good News, where she reveals she’s pregnant again; Samantha and the Beanstalk, as it has the new Darrin, Samantha’s Yoo-Hoo Maid, where Esmeralda is introduced; And Something Makes Four, which is the birth of Adam; Naming Samantha’s New Baby, where Adam gets his name; all the Salem episodes; Sisters at Heart, which is Elizabeth Montgomery’s favorite episode; How Not to Lose Your Head to King Henry VIII parts 1 and 2 for Liz’s singing and because Dick Sargent and Agnes Moorehead are so funny; Adam, Warlock or Washout, where Adam’s powers are tested and The Truth, Nothing But the Truth, So Help Me, Sam, the series’ last episode.

Pilato: Those I just mentioned as well as Long Live the Queen and If They Never Met, from the fourth season; most from the fourth season, in fact, which I consider as the show’s peak season; the opening segments of the show’s seventh season, when Samantha and Darrin journey to Salem, Massachusetts, so she can attend a witches’ convention; and any episode that features Agnes Moorehead, David White, Marion Lorne and Paul Lynde.

Coate: What are your thoughts on the DVD season sets of the series? Will the show ever get released on Blu-ray Disc?

Pierce: I will begin by saying that I am very grateful that all eight seasons are on DVD in beautiful color, crystal clear image, and great sound. With rare exception they are also all complete. However, Sony really dropped the ball on this one as there are so many extras that should’ve been included like the sponsor openings and closings, sponsor commercials, cast commercials, TV specials the cast was in, etc. Other shows like Get Smart, The Beverly Hillbillies, I Love Lucy, and The Dick Van Dyke Show all received releases with all those extras and there is no reason but laziness why Bewitched shouldn’t have had the same treatment. As far as Blu-ray goes, I doubt Bewitched will ever get that treatment. I thought for sure it would happen for the 50th anniversary.

Pilato: I was involved with the initial DVD release, and I thought Sony did a wonderful job with the extras and documentaries, etc. And it would be wonderful to see a Blu-ray release of the show.

Coate: Do you prefer the black-and-white episodes or the color episodes? And do you prefer the first two seasons be seen in their original black-and-white format or in the colorized version?

Pierce: Although I do own the first two seasons in their colorized form and black-and-white form, I prefer the black-and-white. It gives the show a more classic and sometimes more spooky feel. Plus a lot of the times the colorists got the colors wrong anyway based on color still photos from the time.

Pilato: There are two camps on this, just like there are two camps on the “two Darrins” debate. I enjoy the first two black-and-white seasons because the episodes were more “domestic,” regarding Samantha and Darrin’s relationship... from more of a mortal perspective sprinkled with magic; whereas the remaining six color seasons feature more elaborate special effects—which was a mandate placed on the show by ABC. The network wanted to increase the show’s popularity with younger viewers—and that certainly happened. And as to the great Darrin debate, I like to look at it as how Elizabeth told me she saw it: many people viewed Dick Sargent’s second Darrin as the more manic Darrin than Dick York’s initial interpretation of the role. But as Elizabeth said, the character of Darrin became more accepting of the magic by the time Sargent came to play the role. So his response to the magic mayhem was not as spastic as York’s. But I loved both Dick York and Dick Sargent in the part, regardless.

Coate: What are your thoughts on the 2005 movie with Nicole Kidman?

Pierce: I had always wanted Nicole Kidman to play Samantha so I was so excited when it was announced she would. But then after seeing the movie and how it wasn’t a direct remake and the mess in directing and casting, I’m really not a fan of the movie (though I do have quite a bit of the rare memorabilia from the movie). Will Ferrell was a terrible choice as he’s what brought in the crass jokes, Shirley MacLaine was awful and did Endora no good...and it was just an embarrassment.

Pilato: I was involved with this film as a consultant, and I think Nora Ephron worked diligently to remain loyal to the original series; and her contemporary take, of making it a movie about a real witch coming to Earth to star in a TV remake of Bewitched was quite clever. And the film also paid quite respective homage to Elizabeth Montgomery.

Coate: What is the legacy of Bewitched?

Hill: I’m not the first to say it, but I think one of the most interesting things about Bewitched was that it dealt with a cultural shift, the newly empowered women of the 60s. Sure, it was a silly and often farcical take—but women taking charge, being powerful, there were some legitimate underlying issues that gave the show a relevance even if only in a more or less subconscious way.

Pierce: I think the legacy is that it showed us that although there are differences in people we can all get along. It also shows that a TV show can be funny and good without all the bad language and sexual situations that happen in today’s TV.

Pilato: The legacy of Bewitched is the legacy of love and mutual respect for all peoples that the show represented... and the legacy of its main star, Elizabeth Montgomery, who brought her real-life down-to-earth charm to playing Samantha; how Elizabeth incorporated her true sense of life priorities into the show; and how she used her fame from the series to not only bring so much joy to the world, but to lend her name, time, energy and money to countless charitable causes... before it became fashionable to do so.

Coate: Thank you, Tom, David and Herbie, for participating and sharing your thoughts on Bewitched on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

---

- Michael Coate

As with our previous 007 article, The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012; and recently issued in paperback with an updated Skyfall chapter). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). Based in Washington, DC, he practices antitrust and commercial litigation and has published numerous law review articles in leading academic journals. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (which was quoted in Sir Roger Moore’s memoir, Bond on Bond) is his first book. He is working on a follow-up book and can be reached via Facebook (www.Facebook.com/bondgirlbook) and Twitter (@bondgirlbook).

James Chapman is a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is Editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is now touring festivals.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012); and updated for Kindle which includes a chapter on Skyfall and exclusive interview with Sam Mendes). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies, a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Mark O’Connell is a punditeer (his word) and the grandson of Bond producer Cubby Broccoli’s chauffeur. With a Prelude by Barbara Broccoli and Foreword by Mark Gatiss, his book Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012) is a gilded, unique account of growing up as a Bond fan. He is working on his second book and can be found online here.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

Steven Jay Rubin is the author of The James Bond Films: A Behind-the-Scenes History (Random House, 1981) and The Complete James Bond Movie Encyclopedia (McGraw-Hill, 2002). He also wrote Combat Films: American Realism, 1945-2010 (McFarland, 2011) and has written for Cinefantastique magazine.

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ. As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art–Chicago and Columbia College.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest cueing up the Goldfinger soundtrack album and preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy this conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Goldfinger worthy of celebration on its 50th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: I have always agreed with composer John Barry that Goldfinger is the Bond film “where it all came together”: the style, the song, the score. I think From Russia with Love and Goldfinger mark the high points of 60s Bond, with Goldfinger lightening the mood just a bit, finding the right balance between suspense, danger, fascinating characters and humor. Gert Frobe and Honor Blackman played worthy adversaries for Sean Connery’s 007, and John Barry’s bold, brassy score tied it all together. It’s hard to imagine a more entertaining, satisfying 007 adventure.

Robert A. Caplen: The third film in Eon Productions’ franchise, Goldfinger marked a conscious effort by Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman to tailor James Bond to American audiences. The first James Bond film to be classified as a box office blockbuster, Goldfinger is noteworthy for redefining cinematic success: it became the fastest-grossing film for its time. It also was groundbreaking for its special effects. Goldfinger became the first film to showcase a laser as part of the plot. And no other image has become as recognizable as Shirley Eaton’s “golden girl,” which offered audiences a new aesthetic for fetishizes sex objects. 

There is no question that Goldfinger is deserving of celebration fifty years after its release. The film is equally entertaining today as it was in 1964, and the commentary it offers of social mores—and the portrayals of women—remains highly relevant. 

James Chapman: While Goldfinger wasn’t the first James Bond movie, it was the one that really marked the breakthrough for Bond as a cultural phenomenon and ensured the longevity of the series. The first two films, Dr. No and From Russia with Love, had been big hits in Britain and Europe, but Goldfinger was the first really to score big at the US box office as well. This might be attributed to the film’s predominantly US setting (though a lot of the locations, including the attack on Fort Knox, were shot at Pinewood Studios in England) and the fact that the conspiracy is directed against the United States.

It was also the success of Goldfinger that kick-started the spy craze of the 1960s. There hadn’t been many Bond imitations following the first two movies—the only one I can think of is the spoof Carry On Spying—but after Goldfinger the floodgates opened with the Derek Flint and Matt Helm films and The Man From U.N.C.L.E., Get Smart, I Spy and Mission: Impossible on television, not to mention the revamp of The Avengers (which began in 1961 and had starred a pre-Pussy Galore Honor Blackman) which became more fantasy-oriented with its fourth series. So it was Goldfinger that really got the whole Sixties spy/secret agent cycle under way.

John Cork: Goldfinger is always worth celebrating! It doesn’t matter if it is the 3rd anniversary or the 150th. The film rocks. There are many great villains, but I would argue that there is no greater criminal villain in film than Goldfinger. Henchmen? Would anyone even want to claim that there is a better henchman than Oddjob? Nah. And it is not too much to say that no female character in cinema history had ever confounded more teachers and parents than Pussy Galore. Best car in a movie? The Aston Martin DB5, hands down. It is a brilliant, funny, sexy, clever and satisfying film on every level.

Bill Desowitz: Goldfinger was the game-changer for Bond and the first modern tent-pole. It was an instant blockbuster and influenced pop culture, spawning Bond mania and then spy mania. Everything was grander, more lavish and elevated, from the action to the humor to the greater physicality of Bond to the pacing to the self-reverential attitude of Bond. Plus there was Ken Adam’s fantastical design, the greedy super villain and his deadly henchman, Oddjob; the sexy and powerful Bond girl, Pussy Galore; the stunning John Barry score and Shirley Bassey’s wild title song; and the introduction of the best gadget of them all, the tricked out Aston Martin DB5. The new director, Guy Hamilton, made it more a Bond movie than a spy movie, in which we follow his POV with one obstacle course after another for Bond to get out of. This became the Bond template.

Charles Helfenstein: It is the perfect encapsulation of what makes James Bond so great. The film has everything you can want in a Bond film: a great teaser sequence, iconic imagery with girls painted in gold, an ambitious villain, an indestructible henchman, a tricked out car, an incredible soundtrack, and in the middle of all this is Sean Connery, playing Bond with a casual, bemused cool that personifies the old Etonian ethos of “Effortless Superiority.” 

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Mark O’Connell: Goldfinger is most worthy of a golden celebration. It is the film that changed the Bond series and marked the point when Bond changed mainstream cinema. It is not just Sean Connery who emerges from the shadows at the beginning of the film. The modern blockbuster does too. Goldfinger marks the serendipitous moment when the 1960s finally aligned with Bond to create a cultural fusion that the series is still dominated by to this day (check out the deliberate classicism and nods to the Bond of old in Skyfall). Dr. No and From Russia with Love were still part of the tail-end of the 1950s—with a certain degree of stiff upper Britishness and hemlines. They are part of that small window I call the “Kennedy Sixties” where it looked like America would continue dominating popular culture in the way it did throughout the 1950s. But things were to change. Suddenly Britain, the Beatles, Biba and Bond were to take center stage. Goldfinger is the stylish overture to that where all these creatives suddenly conspired together (accidentally more than anything) to craft a sharp thriller of a 007 blockbuster. And after the male dominated shenanigans of the first two Bond films, Goldfinger marks a possible entry point for the women in the audience. It certainly is the moment when Bond allows the kids of the audience into its world. From Russia with Love and Dr. No are great, but arguably very cerebral cat and mouse thrillers. Goldfinger has great movement—its camerawork, music, direction, editing and story. It inhabits a very visual world (Bond on a laser table, Bond and the car, Pussy Galore’s Flying Circus, the fake duck on the diving cap). These are all great for kids…and global audiences not immediately savvy with the Cold War politics.

Lee Pfeiffer: Goldfinger, more than any other Bond film, influenced the trends in pop culture during the 1960s. The previous two films, Dr. No and From Russia with Love, were sizable hits but it was with Goldfinger that the series found the formula that would define the series for decades to come. Director Guy Hamilton emphasized the tongue-in-cheek aspect of the humor moreso than the first two films had done, yet he was careful not to go “over-the-top” into slapstick. (Ironically, Hamilton would be guilty of doing just that on his three later Bond films: Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun.) It was Goldfinger that primarily launched the spy craze of the mid-to-late 1960s and the introduction of the gadget-laden Aston Martin DB5 was largely responsible for this. The vehicle proved to be such a hit that Bond was still driving the car fifty years later in Skyfall. Goldfinger influenced pop culture on an international level and proved that Bond was not a provincial hero but, rather, a character that people in vastly different cultures could relate to. 

Steven Jay Rubin: Goldfinger was the film that catapulted 007 from a first rate action series to a true international film phenomenon. It was so successful that it was the first movie screened in a movie theater 24 hours a day (in New York City) and probably made money faster than any film since Gone with the Wind. Creatively, it was the film that perfectly balanced Sean Connery’s coolness, throwaway humor and pure sexiness with some terrifically dramatic action scenes. Although there are, arguably, better James Bond movies, Goldfinger is still the launching vehicle for the series, a film that never loses its freshness and remains the 007 adventure that is the most pure fun, without getting silly or stupid. It also features the best prop in the series—the truly ultimate driving machine—the Aston Martin DB5 with modifications.

Bruce Scivally: Goldfinger is the Bond film that really set the formula the films would follow over the next five decades: a megalomaniacal villain, exotic locations, beautiful women (usually three, including the villainess, the sacrificial lamb and the one Bond ends up with), and cutting-edge gadgetry. Dr. No didn’t have any gadgets to speak of (unless you include the Geiger counter) and From Russia with Love had only the trick briefcase, but Goldfinger had the tricked-out Aston Martin, which raised the bar considerably. From this film onward, outrageous gadgetry would become an integral part of the Bond films. Goldfinger is also the film where the tone of the film was perfected, with just the right blend of humor, action and suspense; the first two Bond films leaned more towards straight-ahead spy thrillers. And for me, Goldfinger is the film where Sean Connery really came into his own and took ownership of the role, with a relaxed confidence and swagger only hinted at in the first two films.

Coate: When did you first see Goldfinger and what was your reaction?

Burlingame: It was a long time ago, so I’m not certain. I didn’t see it in its initial run; I suspect it was on a double bill with another Bond film at a drive-in in the late 1960s. Everyone was talking about Bond movies and I finally got the chance to catch up with the early films in second-run exhibition.

Caplen: I first watched Goldfinger on VHS at a young age, perhaps too young to appreciate, let alone understand, the film’s innuendos. I believe Goldfinger was the first James Bond film I viewed, and it piqued my interest in the franchise. I could never image then that I would be writing about Goldfinger and James Bond many years later.

Chapman: I saw it on ITV in Britain in the late 1970s. It was on a Sunday evening, I was about eight, I think, and it was a school day the next day, so I was on my best behavior all weekend to be allowed to stay up and watch it. Everyone was talking about it the next day. As kids I think we particularly liked Oddjob and his hat, and Bond’s Aston Martin with his gadgets and ejector seat. A few years later when it was shown again on Christmas Day, I would have noticed the girls too!

Cork: I first saw Goldfinger on ABC on September 17, 1972. At the time, I liked James Bond, but I wasn’t any kind of serious fan. I was only ten years old. While I was loving the film (despite it being cropped, cut and filled with commercials), it was a typical Sunday night. We had dinner and then most of my family went to bed as the movie ran. My uncle (who was fresh out of college) came over with a friend and made fun of the film as I was watching it. Then, just as Bond was handcuffed to the bomb in Fort Knox, the local ABC station went off the air. It was 1972, and this kind of thing happened regularly. I begged my uncle to tell me how the film ended. Very convincingly, he told me that the bomb went off in Fort Knox, and that it killed Oddjob, but turned James Bond into “a pulsating blue superhuman.” I have to tell you that at age ten, it seemed like a really cool ending for the movie!  When the local station came back on, Bond was on the plane flying to meet the president, and my uncle informed me that I was an idiot for believing him. The first time I saw Goldfinger uncut was when HBO played the Bonds in May/June of 1980. In the fall of 1980, I finally saw Goldfinger on the big screen at the Nuart in Los Angeles. The audience was filled with Bond fans, and it was a great experience. Robert Short, the effects man who worked on many great films, had his DB5 parked out front, and the theater put out a display of Bond memorabilia. It couldn’t have been more fun.

Desowitz: I remember it well. It my introduction to Bond in ‘65 and I was about eight and my parents took me to the La Reina Theater in Sherman Oaks in L.A. on Ventura Blvd., and afterward we had ice cream at Wil Wright’s. I remember asking if that was Bond in the scuba suit in the opening scene and when he fought Oddjob, I whispered that he should grab the electrical wire. It was a distinctive moviegoing thrill and set me on my path to becoming a lifelong fan.

Helfenstein: Unfortunately my first viewing of Goldfinger didn’t quite do it justice—I first saw a butchered, pan-and-scan version of it on ABC in the late 70s. Despite those drawbacks, the film greatly impressed me—especially the tuxedo under the wetsuit, the car, Bond’s fight with Oddjob…and the cornucopia of blondes.

O’Connell: I first saw Goldfinger in January 1987. It was on ITV midweek. It was not the first or even the third Bond movie I had seen but already its mark and stature in the Bond canon was known to me. Like a Greatest Hits album its key beats—the car, the song, the artwork, the gold, the music, and the henchman—were familiar way before I saw it for the first time. It is one of the Bond movies whose reputation precedes itself at every turn.

Pfeiffer: I first saw the film at age eight at the Loew’s Theatre in Jersey City, New Jersey. It’s a peculiarity of “Baby Boomer Generation” males that we seem to have such trivia as where we saw a movie and with whom emblazoned in our minds. Nevertheless, my dad, who had taken me to see the previous Bond film, escorted me to this one. I was blown away by it. I don’t think today’s movies ever have that kind of impact on audiences, who are now rather blasé about special effects and action sequences. But seeing that DB5 in action, the audience howling at the use of the gadgets and finally the “innovative” introduction of a laser beam proved to be unforgettable elements in my mind. On a more crass level, when we returned home, my dad was raving about the film to my mom and I remember him saying, “There’s a woman in it named Pussy Galore!” I didn’t understand why they thought this was so amusing because I equated the name with the benign Miss Kitty on Gunsmoke. Nevertheless, we all trotted back to the theater to see the film again the next night because my mom had to see it for herself. I later went again on my own—the first time I had seen a movie unaccompanied. Mr. Bond has provided many such pleasant memories to countless millions of movie fans around the globe.

Rubin: I saw Goldfinger at Christmas 1964 at the Grauman’s Chinese Theater in Hollywood. It was wonderful. As a junior high school student in Los Angeles, I had read the book before I saw the movie, which was only the second time I had done that (the first was Paul Brickhill’s book that became The Great Escape). Bond was a big event that year—like a Harry Potter or a Star Wars film today.

Scivally: I believe I first saw Goldfinger on television in 1972, when it first aired on ABC. I know it was the first 007 film I saw, and at that young age (I was 11), I was most impressed by the Aston Martin. I continued watching the Bond films whenever they came on television (there was no home video in those days, at least not in rural north Alabama), and when puberty kicked in I began to appreciate them for more than just the spy thrills and gadgets. Coming of age in a very remote, agrarian region, the sophisticated, world-traveling, authority-defying, sexually potent James Bond was a powerful fantasy figure. I was hooked.

Coate: Where do you think Goldfinger ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: Certainly near, or at, the very top. If I had to choose the five best Bonds, I think Goldfinger would be either #1 or #2.

Caplen: It is very difficult to rank the James Bond films, and it depends upon what criteria are utilized. In terms of story line, success, and cinematography, Goldfinger should rank among the top films in the franchise. [In my book] I have focused upon the presentation of women in the franchise, and in that regard, Goldfinger would not receive a high rating from feminists. Regardless, and as I have written, the manner in which the Bond Girls are presented in Goldfinger reinforced an archetype that defined the cinematic franchise. In that regard, Goldfinger cannot be underestimated. 

Chapman: It tends to be seen as the one that really established the Bond formula: megalomaniac criminal mastermind with a grand conspiracy; a strong, silent henchman; and the gadgets that Bond uses. The previous film, From Russia with Love, had been a more realistic spy thriller, quite old-fashioned in some ways, with its Orient Express scenes and a plot revolving around a stolen cypher machine. With Goldfinger the Bond series moved, decisively as it happens, towards techno-hardware and fantasy (e.g. the laser and Bond’s car).

Looked at today the film still seems fresh and hasn’t dated. Sean Connery is relaxed and commanding in the role (though there are tense moments such as the scene where he is spread-eagled before the laser beam) and the casting of the supporting parts such as Shirley Eaton as Jill Masterson and Harold Sakata as Oddjob is spot-on.

Cork: For years, I’ve always said you could just take the first four Bond films and put them on a loop for me. I love them, and like a true fan, I even love them for their faults. I can amuse myself by enjoying the anti-logic of Goldfinger explaining his plan to a bunch of guys he plans to kill, or even having gone to the trouble to have strange flashing lights that go on and off for no reason when poison gas is spraying the hoods’ convention. One can argue that Casino Royale and Skyfall are more engaging to someone who is only now being introduced to Bond, but, I’ll tell you, only Sean Connery in 1964 could pull off wearing a baby-blue terrycloth onesie and still make every woman in the audience breathe a little more deeply and every man want to be him. Goldfinger isn’t only one of the most entertaining Bond films, it is one of the most important films of the Sixties, one of the most essential films ever made. Everyone with a pulse sees that movie and understands the appeal of James Bond.

Desowitz: I think it’s in the top three, still the best for many. I won’t argue with Connery about From Russia with Love being the best.

Helfenstein: If we are ranking the films in the series by how influential they are, then Goldfinger occupies the #1 spot without question. If one were to pick a single film to represent what is great about the James Bond series and what makes it popular, then Goldfinger would be the obvious choice. But if we are choosing a film that is artistically the best film, I would have to edge out Goldfinger just slightly and give that award to On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

O’Connell: It is not the best Bond movie (007 spends a lot of the film passively overhearing and not actively investigating) but it is the one where as I say in Catching Bullets the designer alloys of Ken Adam, John Barry, Peter Hunt, Guy Hamilton, Eon Productions and Sean Connery all come together to gilded effect. I wonder if Goldfinger had not happened in the way it did we would be privy to a continued 007 franchise now. Possibly not. The Bond phenomenon was obviously growing on the success of the first two films and the explosion of interest via Fleming’s books. But it was not a phenomenon at all until Goldfinger gave enough creative and financial confidence to Eon Productions, Cubby and Harry to really go for it with the real box office game-changer: Thunderball.

Pfeiffer: Most people consider Goldfinger the best of the series, though I would argue that valid cases can be made for From Russia with Love, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Casino Royale and Skyfall, the latter two because they so drastically and successfully reinvented the series. 

Rubin: I rank Goldfinger just below the Daniel Craig Casino Royale. So that would be #2. Casino Royale is so good and Craig is such a revelation as Bond, I have to place it #1. However, since Goldfinger was the first 007 adventure I ever say, it remains my favorite. It’s also my favorite script with the best lines of dialogue in the series. It also gets the biggest laugh in the series—not because it’s stupid or inane, but because it’s just funny. And that’s the introduction to Pussy Galore.

Scivally: In my estimation, Goldfinger is still hands-down the most entertaining of all the Bond films. If I wanted to introduce someone who’d never seen a 007 film to Bond, but could only show them one film, I’d choose Goldfinger. To me, it’s simply the distilled essence of Bond. However, that said, it ranks #2 on my list of personal favorite; From Russia with Love is #1, because I enjoy the cat-and-mouse game between SPECTRE and Bond, and 007 operating with almost no gadgets.

Coate: In what way was Auric Goldfinger a memorable villain?

Burlingame: He was among the best ever: truly mad, yet insane in a thoughtful, calculating way! The plot of the movie has one of the greatest twists in Bond: Goldfinger doesn’t need to own the gold in Fort Knox; he just wants to blow it up so that his own stash will be worth even more! How great is that? And Gert Frobe is completely believable in this mad role.

Caplen: Goldfinger, the mastermind of Operation Grand Slam, is, in some respects, more plausible than other over-the-top villains in the franchise, namely Dr. No, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Stromberg, and Hugo Drax. Goldfinger is, in essence, a crooked businessman: a gold smuggler whose obsession leads to him scheme a way of penetrating Fort Knox in order to radiate the American gold supply and increase the value of his own holdings. Thus, his motives are intriguing and extend beyond the prototypical lust for world domination. Goldfinger is memorable because he is essentially the first James Bond villain to out-maneuver the Americans, requiring James Bond’s services to spare Fort Knox and restore order. As one scholar argued, Ian Fleming created James Bond as a vehicle through which to capture some nostalgia for the pre-World War Two supremacy of the British Empire. Defeating Goldfinger on American soil comports with that theory.

Chapman: Goldfinger has some of the best lines (e.g. “No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die!” in response to Bond’s “Do you expect me to talk?”) and Gert Frobe has a commanding presence on screen. The scene where he explains how he intends to “knock off” Fort Knox works because he seems to believe it. For my money Dr. No and Goldfinger were the most memorable of the early villains. Several of the early Bonds revolved around the villain Blofeld, who became a bit of a stooge with his pet cat, but Goldfinger just seems a slightly better-realized character—by the standards of diabolical master criminals that is.

Cork: A great villain needs to get more powerful, seemingly smarter during the course of a story. The film starts with Bond busting Goldfinger as he cheats at cards, then Bond steals Goldfinger’s paid companion. But Goldfinger exacts a brutal price for this. Bond then beats Goldfinger at golf, but all-too-soon Bond finds himself strapped down with a laser pointed between his legs, his car destroyed. This is the halfway point of the film. Hero and villain have traded blows almost as equals. But when we enter the laser room, it is like we have passed through the looking glass. Goldfinger isn’t a rich gold smuggler, but an obsessed man who is on the verge of destabilizing the global economy. Even late in the film, when Bond points out the absurdity of trying to tote the gold out of Fort Knox, Goldfinger is one step ahead. When he discovers that Bond has been able to foil much of the plan, he whips off that overcoat and no one in the audience ever saw his escape coming. Most actors who have played Bond villains gradually allow 007 to get under their skin, to unnerve them as the story progresses. Not Gert Frobe’s Goldfinger. He snaps that pencil early on, and that’s it. He gets calmer and smarter as the film progresses. I love that. He is, for me, the perfect villain.

Desowitz: Goldfinger was the first freelance villain not associated with SPECTRE and is even more larger than life than Dr. No. His obsession with gold and winning at all costs is very personal.

Helfenstein: Goldfinger sticks out as a memorable villain for so many reasons. Compared to Dr. No and Grant, the two previous villains, his personality is so much bigger. While his predecessors were almost robotic, Goldfinger is having a good time because he enjoys being a villain. He toys with Bond and laughs at him. Frobe hit the sweet spot of what makes a villain great.

When I was researching my first book, I was stunned to uncover the fact that screenwriter Richard Maibaum kept trying to bring Gert Frobe back to the series so many times—not just for Thunderball, but also for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Diamonds are Forever, and even as late as Octopussy!

O’Connell: He is pitched as this nearly gauche Toad of Toad Hall figure, the first societal duel Bond has with a villain. He is also the first Bond villain to hold that certain quality that all the great Bond villains (Scaramanga, Silva, Kananga and Largo) have and that is that he is just a bad Bond, or 007 gone wrong.

Pfeiffer: Auric Goldfinger is one of cinema’s most enduring and classic villains, thanks in no small part to the brilliance of casting Gert Frobe in what would become his signature role. Frobe not only fit the bill physically, he was an accomplished actor, as well. What many people don’t know is that he barely spoke a word of English. He spoke his dialogue phonetically and British actor Michael Collins dubbed him in the final cut. 

Rubin: Auric Goldfinger is still the best villain in the series because he’s simultaneously larger than life, but still a real believable person. Like Bond, he never becomes a caricature and he has some truly chilling moments—particularly when he’s about to fry 007’s privates with a laser beam, or lecture a bunch of doomed henchmen on his scheme, or getting 007 to understand the true nature of his plan. He also plays a wicked game of golf, cheating as usual. 

Scivally: As embodied by Gert Frobe and voiced by Michael Collins, Goldfinger was the quintessence of Bond villainy: physically imposing, charming, calculating, ruthless and quite mad. And he had some of the best dialogue of any Bond villain, including his priceless response to Bond’s “Do you expect me to talk?”—”No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to DIE!”

Coate: In what way was Pussy Galore a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: Honor Blackman could not improve on this performance. Tough yet tender, beautiful, resourceful, yet vulnerable at the right moments. Maybe one of the two or three best Bond women.

Caplen: I have written extensively about Pussy Galore in my book, Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. Honor Blackman’s portrayal of this unique character is exceptional. I believe that Pussy Galore is one of the most important Bond Girl characters in what I have termed the Golden Era of the Bond Girl. On the surface, Pussy Galore seems imbued with attributes that would brand her a modern-day feminist. But all that glitters is not gold. I argue that Pussy Galore represents something very different: she actually reinforces a much more traditional archetype addressing women’s appropriate role in society. Pussy Galore is therefore both groundbreaking and reactionary, and no discussion of the Bond Girl evolution can be complete without considering her contributions to the development of the Bond Girl archetype I believe the James Bond franchise developed and continues to refine today.

Chapman: Well, there’s her name for one thing! She was the first of the girls—at least the first of the main girls—who was more than just eye candy but could give Bond as good as she got in return. In the book she’s a lesbian, and her conversion to heterosexuality to help Bond out isn’t very plausible. In the film, though, the lesbianism is downplayed—it’s hinted at but not overtly. And, of course, the characterization was influenced by the casting of Honor Blackman, who brought the association of her role as Cathy Gale in The Avengers. The scene where Pussy shows off her judo prowess seems to have been written specifically for Honor Blackman.

Cork: Two words: “pussy galore.” I mean, come on. That’s a name that makes the right people smile and everyone else’s mouths go dry. But Pussy Galore is also the right character at just the right moment in history. Homosexuality was just wiggling its toe into popular culture. Some Like It Hot was five years earlier, and The Children’s Hour came out in 1961, but both those films play only with the existence of homosexuality without really indulging in it as anything attractive. In Britain, there were a slew of films dealing with male homosexuality: The Victim (a very good, but depressing film with Dirk Bogarde), and, of course, the two Oscar Wilde films (that both played such strange roles in Bond history). From Russia with Love had a very unattractive lesbian with Rosa Klebb, which was more of the standard portrayal in popular culture.

Pussy Galore in Goldfinger was different. Her lesbianism (never explicitly mentioned, but clear to adult viewers) is accompanied by confidence, not self-loathing. It is not portrayed so much as a perversion, but rather a sexually legitimate lifestyle. Viewers are attracted to Pussy Galore, even before she comes over to Bond’s side. She is strong, attractive, alluring and such a refreshing change from the way women were often portrayed in escapist films of the day. Of course, we can wince now at the rather distasteful “rape conversion therapy” that Bond employs to win her over. And younger audiences do roll their eyes, shake their heads and groan when the forced kiss turns into a warm embrace. But the same thing can be said of Rhett Butler carrying Scarlet O’Hara up the stairs in Gone with the Wind, and John Wayne’s Sean Thornton in The Quiet Man pulling Mary Kate into the doorway, twisting her arm up behind her and kissing her. But Pussy Galore in so many ways is a remarkable character. She is a sexually liberated, confident lesbian and audiences loved her. That just didn’t happen in mainstream movies before 1964.

Part of the great success of the character came from a brilliant idea that the filmmakers had (and I can’t tell you if it was one of the screenwriters or Guy Hamilton or someone else), but they took their cue for Pussy Galore from a real person: Barbara “Joe” Carstairs. Carstairs used her family fortune to race boats and later bought a private island in the Bahamas and went “back to nature.” Because the filmmakers had a model they could use beyond the character in the novel, and because there was a great actress in the role (Honor Blackman), the character came to life in ways that might have otherwise been squandered. In her own way, Pussy Galore feels real on some level. Blackman had strength and a swagger in the role that convinced us that she could be the leader of a real flying circus. She was just butch enough and just sexy enough to be something that moviegoers had never encountered.

Desowitz: Pussy Galore is memorable because of the name and getting it by the censors, the fact that she’s a lesbian and resists Bond at first, and is able to share Judo flips with him, and because Bond has to work so hard to seduce her.

Helfenstein: Besides her suggestive name, Pussy Galore is memorable for her homosexuality, greatly toned down in the film compared to the book. Bond’s “conversion” of her would probably not play well with today’s audiences. That scene aside, what makes her so memorable is that she is Bond’s equal. While the two previous girls, Honey and Tanya, were essentially innocents caught up in Bond’s world, Pussy is an operator in the criminal underworld and even has her own team. Her decision to switch sides saves the day.

Actress wise, Blackman shows off her physical skills learned during her time during The Avengers, and was different in the fact that she was older than Connery. That older female to younger male casting age difference has only happened one other time in the series, when they chose Rigg, also an Avengers veteran, for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

O’Connell: Honor Blackman’s Galore is memorable for being the first Bond girl that stands up to Bond. And she was doing it way before the series felt it had to appease any naïve notions of sexism.

Pfeiffer: Although the character of Pussy Galore was watered down for the film version (she’s an overt lesbian in the novel), the character still broke new ground in terms of female empowerment—even if she does fall under Bond’s spell after one kiss. Here was a tough, kick-ass woman who was adept at defending herself and who is every bit as resourceful as Bond or Goldfinger. There are veiled hints about her sexuality (all of her pilots are gorgeous females and she initially tells Bond she is “immune” to his charm), but in retrospect, this was a rather unique female hero to bring to cinema screens in 1964. As with Gert Frobe, so much of the credit must go to the actor, in this case Honor Blackman, who was letter-perfect in the role. 

Rubin: Pussy Galore is memorable because she’s so sexy and cool and has the greatest name ever invented for a fictional character in the history of writing. Honor Blackman has made her a true legend in the series. 

Scivally: Pussy Galore was the first “Bond woman” who seemed to be almost his equal: intelligent, self-assured, capable, an ace at judo and “a damned good pilot.” She wasn’t just a wilting damsel waiting to be rescued; she gave as good as she got.

Coate: What is the legacy of Goldfinger?

Burlingame: I am especially fond of the Goldfinger score as quintessential, top-of-the-line John Barry. After making a hit of the James Bond Theme on Dr. No and crafting a suspenseful, effective score for From Russia with Love, Broccoli and Saltzman gave Barry the opportunity to write both song and score on Goldfinger and Barry didn’t disappoint. From the thrilling opening song (with those diabolical Bricusse & Newley lyrics) belted by Shirley Bassey to the intricacies of his orchestral score, including the brilliant Dawn Raid on Fort Knox variations on the theme, John Barry helped to define the sound of Bond—and indeed, create a new subgenre of film music in his combination of pop, jazz and symphonic music—for all time with this score. I hope that, in all the celebrations of Goldfinger, that accomplishment is not forgotten.

Caplen: Goldfinger opened the American market to James Bond. That fact, by itself, is perhaps Goldfinger’s true legacy. The James Bond franchise would not be as successful today had Goldfinger not had such an important impact upon American audiences. Goldfinger also presented to the world one of Ian Fleming’s greatest “name as sex” jokes, beginning a long legacy that will always be associated with the James Bond franchise and has been parodied by others (such as the Austin Powers trilogy) ever since. 

Chapman: It’s still a classic Bond movie—classic both in the sense of being a favorite with fans and being a representative example of the style and format of the films. I think that when most boys (and men!) fantasize about being Bond, it’s the Bond of Goldfinger—whether for the Aston Martin, the Anthony Sinclair three-piece suit, or simply the opportunity to dally with girls called Pussy.

Cork: I think the biggest legacy of Goldfinger is very different than most folks would imagine. If you look at the top-grossing films of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s, there are very few that one could categorize as part of a franchise. There were franchises, but they were Tarzan, Frankenstein, Francis the Talking Mule and Ma and Pa Kettle films. These films made lots of money, but the following entries were generally B-movie fare—filler for the masses that were not nearly as important to a studio as an “event film” based on an “important” best-selling novel. Bond changed that. The Bond films became the first “tent-pole” films—movies that could virtually be guaranteed blockbuster status just because of the presence of the main character. The folks who grew up on Bond are running studios now. Look at the films the studios bank on in recent years: Harry Potter, Iron Man, Spider-Man, Batman, Transformers (and, yes, Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Huge budgets…no expense spared…but they are selling an endless stream of films, not just one film. Even the failures of recent years like The Lone Ranger and John Carter were attempts to create a franchise. And franchises are where the money comes from. The studios know that they can sell Transformers packages on iTunes or to Netflix or Amazon or in endless rotation on cable networks for decades to come, just as has happened with the Bond packages. And Goldfinger, more than any other single film, is the movie that proved a series could be made like A-films and do the box office of A-films, even out-grossing the films that came before in the series. Every time another big-budget tent-pole franchise film comes out and makes a fortune, I think that those filmmakers should give a tip of the hat to Goldfinger.

Desowitz: The legacy is clear enough with the audience cheering at the DB5’s appearance in Skyfall for the 50th anniversary and then how its destruction elicited the biggest emotional response from Bond in the entire film. Goldfinger made Bond and the franchise a pop culture phenomenon and it was a fitting tribute.

Helfenstein: I think the legacy of Goldfinger is that it moved the series from the smaller-scale, cold war thriller to the wide open grander scale of agent vs super villain. While Terence Young’s two films set the template for Bond’s elegance and panache, Guy Hamilton updated that recipe with a stronger dose of the fantastic, and a larger dose of humor.

When Alfred Hitchcock saw the film, he only had one comment to the director. It wasn’t about the glorious Ken Adam sets, the incredible car, or the blaring soundtrack—he complemented Hamilton on the little old lady that waddles out of the checkpoint with a machine gun.

Bond screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz stated that the instant Connery pressed the red eject button on the Aston Martin, the series changed forever. Anything was possible from then on. Years later the producers would try to transfer some of Goldfinger’s cool to Brosnan and Craig by giving them the Goldfinger Aston Martin, and in Skyfall Craig’s Bond even threatens to deploy the ejector seat with that famous red button, 48 years after the gadget debuted.

Half a century later, Goldfinger’s influence still resonates both in and outside the James Bond series.

O’Connell: The fact that a film known only as Bond 24 is in pre-production. That is its legacy. Goldfinger sealed the deal. It raised Bond onscreen from just being a literary adaptation of a successful run of books to being a franchise at the pinnacle of contemporary music and film scoring, film editing, production design, and marketing. I don’t think the Bond series was a franchise until Goldfinger fired up the enthusiasm of Eon Productions and the world and melted the box office norms by creating a delicious, sexy, dangerous, sadistically sketched narrative and production template for 007. It is not the only template for Bond, but it is the one that the series has been guided by ever since.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of Goldfinger is illustrated by the fact you are still writing about the film fifty years later. It has a timeless quality and presents a moment in time when the Sixties were still kind of fun, at least in more privileged parts of the world. The dissention of the protest movements, high profile assassinations and the heightening of Cold War tensions would all threaten to make Bond look like a relic at least for a period of years. However, Goldfinger represents master filmmaking craftsmanship, from the performances to every aspect of the production. It’s also the last time Sean Connery appeared to be having a genuinely good time playing 007.

Rubin: One hundred years from now, film aficionados will still admire the film for its pure adrenaline rush, its colorful locations and set pieces, witty script, wonderful performances by a great cast and a perfect musical score by John Barry. I believe Goldfinger defined movie cool in the 60s, on a par with the Steve McQueen film Bullitt. Put those two films together and you see all that was cool in the era. Interestingly, Connery and McQueen, born the same year, had similar career trajectories—at least initially, although Sean has had the far more lengthy career.

Scivally: The success of Goldfinger propelled 007 into the popular consciousness, making Bond one of the three most memorable B’s of the 1960s (the other two being the Beatles and Batman). Its success also set off a slew of imitators both in cinemas and on television, sparking the mid-1960s spy craze, and set the style for a series that continues to evolve and attract a massive audience five decades later. It truly was a film with a Midas touch.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts on Goldfinger.

---

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering Thunderball on its 50th Anniversary.

- Michael Coate

Okay, let’s get right on with it and (alphabetically) meet the Q&A participants....

Jason Bailey is the author of Pulp Fiction: The Complete Story of Quentin Tarantino’s Masterpiece (Voyageur Press, 2013). He is a graduate of the Cultural Reporting and Criticism program at New York University’s Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute and has written for The Atlantic, Slate, Salon, and The Village Voice. His latest book is The Ultimate Woody Allen Film Companion (Voyageur Press, 2014).

Jami Bernard is the writer of Quentin Tarantino: The Man and his Movies (Harper Perennial, 1995). The author, media consultant and film critic is a frequent guest on television and radio, including appearances on The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Today Show and The Lynn Samuels Show, and is the founder of Barncat Publishing, which helps writers who are having trouble finishing and polishing their books. Her award-winning film reviews have appeared in the New York Post and the New York Daily News, and her articles have appeared in Entertainment Weekly, Glamour, Self, and Seventeen. She is a member and former chair of the New York Film Critics Circle as well as a member of the National Society of Film Critics. She has written several other books, including First Films: Illustrious, Obscure and Embarrassing Movie Debuts (Citadel, 1993), Total Exposure: The Movie Buff’s Guide to Celebrity Nude Scenes (Citadel, 1995), Chick Flicks: A Movie Lover’s Guide to the Movies Women Love (Citadel, 1996), and Breast Cancer, There and Back: A Woman-to-Woman Guide (Grand Central, 2009).

Wensley Clarkson is the author of Quentin Tarantino: Shooting from the Hip (Overlook Press, 1995), which has also been published under the alternate title Quentin Tarantino: The Man, the Myths and his Movies). He also wrote John Travolta: King of Cool (John Blake, 2005), Tom Cruise: Unauthorized (Hastings House, 1998) and Sting: The Secret Life of Gordon Sumner (Bradford, 1996). Most notably, the investigative journalist and television producer has written numerous true crime books, including The Railroad Killer: Tracking Down One of the Most Brutal Serial Killers in History (St Martin’s True Crime, 1999), The Good Doctor (St Martin’s True Crime, 2002), and The Mother’s Day Murder (St. Martin’s True Crime, 2013). His latest book is Cocaine Confidential: The True Stories Behind the World’s Most Notorious Narcotic (Quercus, 2014).

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Pulp Fiction worthy of celebration on its 20th anniversary?

Jason Bailey: It’s my humble opinion that Pulp Fiction is the starter pistol for modern cinema. Its self-conscious juxtaposition and subversion of genres, tropes, and structure presented a new way of thinking about both the act of making a movie and the act of watching one—and the coupling of that intellectual engagement with its more surface, visceral pleasures was particularly welcome after the formulaic moviemaking of the ‘80s.

Jami Bernard: Pulp Fiction was a true cultural phenomenon, in so many senses. In financial terms, it was the first “indie” film to defy commercial expectations and top $100 million at the domestic box office. There was also the way it seemed to spring from nowhere, feeling so fresh and unlike any other movie out there, even while playing with the conventions of so many known film genres. Pulp Fiction had staying power, too, the way it immediately altered the cinematic landscape, the way that audiences interacted with films, and the kind of kid who subsequently applied to film school. Twenty years later, the movie continues to exert cult appeal even though there is nothing cultish about its broad appeal and how its inside jokes (film references, for example) are wholly accessible. The overall appeal largely comes, auteur-style, from the way Quentin Tarantino was able to transfer his own idiosyncratic quirks, obsessions and pleasures onto the screen and into the zeitgeist (the “Tarantinoverse”).

Wensley Clarkson: It was a ground breaking movie, both structurally and dramatically. Tarantino’s love (and photographic memory) of other movies helps shape each of his projects, and he seems to have this uncanny ability to give the audience what they want in a way that no other director had done before him.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Pulp Fiction?

Bailey: I saw it opening night, and my immediate reaction was, “Okay, when do I have time to see it again?” (That was a Friday. I went back Sunday afternoon.) I knew I’d seen something thrilling and endlessly cool, but it did take a couple more viewings to fully process exactly how fresh and different it was, and to recognize its potential impact.

Bernard: I saw Pulp Fiction at its very first screening, at the 1994 Cannes Film Festival, and it was an insane, unforgettable experience, one of the few times in my life of filmgoing that I literally felt as if I were on a roller coaster, careening from one outrageous thrill (Marvin gets shot in the face by accident!) to the next (Uma Thurman bursting back to life from an adrenaline shot!). In general, critics like to see movies in quiet, cerebral circumstances, but this was a huge, shared audience experience... even though the French journalist sitting next to me clearly hated every minute of the film, while I was screaming and laughing with the sheer joy of it. I think it was the next day that [Pulp Fiction co-executive producer and Miramax co-founder] Harvey Weinstein had a lunch for the critics with all the cast members, and Harvey looked almost pale with the power of what he had on his hands, all the top critics in the world in a trance of excitement.

Clarkson: I loved it. Ironically, it felt more real than most movies even though it was really the stuff of fantasies!!! I liked the way that Tarantino had the courage to break the mold in terms of structure and how he wasn’t afraid to let his actors ramble on in a way that people do in real life. Tarantino is a master at creating his own move “world” in which anything is acceptable. The audience falls in love with horrible characters. That’s down to his writing and filmmaking. It is also a reflection of his own childhood where weird and wacky people seemed “normal” to him because he spent so much time either alone or in a movie theater.

Coate: What was the objective with your Pulp Fiction or Tarantino-themed books?

Bailey: Basically, we wanted to take the occasion of this anniversary to both celebrate the film for what it is and to recognize what made it so special and influential. So I aimed to make a book for both fans and theorists—to delve into the trivia and the making-of details and the fan art and all that fun stuff, while also giving it an intellectually-engaged close reading and analysis. My hope was that in making a book that was both full of surface pleasures and ideas, it would sort of work in the same way that the film does.

Bernard: I first met Quentin at the Toronto Film Festival when he was there for Reservoir Dogs, and he was like a puppy dog, running up to everyone to make sure they had a cassette tape of the soundtrack. With Pulp Fiction, it was clear he was going to be very famous, very fast, and I wanted to capture his beginnings before the puppy-dog-ness wore off and the trappings of fame, fortune, and sycophants set in.

Clarkson: I’m by trade a true crime writer, so the attraction to Tarantino is obvious! I wanted to tell his story in a way that reflected his own movies. I tried to match the pace and the set-ups using his real life as the “plot” so to speak. I hope it worked.

Coate: Where does Pulp Fiction rank among Quentin Tarantino’s films? Is it his best film?

Bailey: I go back and forth on this. It has become one of those movies that has been imitated (and often badly) so many times that it’s easy to devalue it, or take its influence for granted. But I think it remains his masterpiece—the movie that solidified what the Tarantino style was, and spoke most clearly with his cinematic voice.

Clarkson: I prefer Jackie Brown because I felt that it had more heart and soul in it. So I’d rate Pulp Fiction in second place in my top Tarantino list of movies. But having said that, it still stands the test of time. In fact, that’s another thing about Tarantino’s movies. They never seem to date, if you know what I mean. They are also just as entertaining each time you watch them. I find myself getting excited in anticipation of the next scene when it is approaching. It’s a nice personal way to watch movies and gives you a real connection with the story, if that makes any sense!!!

Coate: Pulp Fiction played several film festivals and opened in some international markets before opening in the United States. As well, when it did get released in the U.S. it opened “wide” (i.e. over 1,000 theaters simultaneously), which was not typical for an independent film release. In what way did this help (or hurt) the film?

Bailey: It helped not only this film but independent cinema in general, because it blurred the line between the multiplex and the arthouse, between mainstream and independent—in much the same way that the movie did. It is, after all, a weirdo two-and-a-half-hour Cannes Film Festival winner that’s also a Bruce Willis shoot-’em-up, so by releasing it as though it were only the latter, it was seen (and appreciated) by an audience that perhaps would’ve dismissed it if it’d come to them via a more traditional "platform" release.

Bernard: Before Pulp Fiction, indie films got “platform” releases, starting in one dusty arthouse in hopes of slowly building an audience. The decision to “go wide” had a lot to do with the genius of Harvey Weinstein, and clearly it was a good move. Pulp Fiction burst onto the scene, much the way it bursts into the consciousness of the viewer. In cultural terms, the success of its marketing campaign helped blur the stubborn line between what was thought of as an arthouse film (small, obscure, snobby) and a blockbuster (inflated budget, lowest-common-denominator appeal).

Clarkson: This both helped and hurt the movie, in my opinion, but it was a big test for Tarantino to be “out there” in the real world, so to speak, rather than the cozy confines of the big cities and the movie festivals. Mind you, Tarantino was helped by an amazing, highly commercial cast, wasn’t he? You have to remember that Tarantino is primarily writing movies for himself. He is the core audience and that means everyone else has a varied opinion of his films. He sets the tone. He takes the risks and sometimes a mainstream audience doesn’t always appreciate that. When Pulp Fiction got that wide release, Tarantino had to steal himself for a lot of criticism, some of which he took well and some of which he responded to like a petulant child. But so be it! With Tarantino you get what you see on the packet.

Coate: What is the legacy of Pulp Fiction?

Bailey: Huge question, and hard to answer succinctly. But I think, ultimately, its legacy is that it pulled mainstream moviemaking out of the nosedive into pre-fab formula that the ‘80s has plunged us into; for a good long while after its release, non-independent movies were a good deal smarter and more interesting than they had been (while indies recognized the value of working outside of their bubble, and using genre elements to their advantage). Now, if we could just get another one like it to shake us out of our current stupor... .

Bernard: Among other things, it helped transfer moviemaking into the hands of a new generation, for better or worse. Overall, I guess it was the cultural equivalent of shooting adrenaline into Uma Thurman’s heart: startling cinema back into wakefulness, with a zing.

Clarkson: Undoubtedly, Pulp Fiction set a precedent which few moviemakers have been able to come close to matching. In fact, I feel it is a huge mistake to try and copy what Tarantino does because he is such a unique character that you will always fail! Pulp Fiction was ground breaking in so many different ways that its legacy is a never ending story, but overall I would say it not only survives the test of time but it seems to have some magic ingredient in it which only Quentin Tarantino knows about.

Coate: Thank you, Jason, Jami and Wensley, for participating and sharing your thoughts on Pulp Fiction on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of its release.

----

- Michael Coate

For the occasion, The Bits features a Q&A with two Terminator authorities who discuss the virtues of the film, its impact, and its enduring appeal.

Van Ling is a freelance visual effects supervisor, producer, writer, editor, consultant, and digital artist. Van is a summa cum laude graduate of the University of Southern California’s School of Cinema-Television, and he began his film career as a creative/technical/research/VFX assistant to James Cameron on The Abyss, later serving for several years as the head of production for Cameron’s production company, Lightstorm Entertainment. He later formed (with Casey Cannon) the visual effects company Banned from the Ranch Entertainment, where he was involved from 1994 through 1999. Van’s diverse and award-winning career has included producing added-value content for DVD and Blu-ray (and even as far back as LaserDisc), including material found on the discs of The Terminator, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, Field of Dreams, The Abyss, and Titanic. His graphics work can be seen in the Video Essentials calibration disc and in Disney theme park attractions such as Star Tours: The Adventure Continues, the EPCOT Test Track and The Legend of Jack Sparrow. Passengers aboard the Disney Cruise Ships can see his multiscreen animated city panoramas in the Skyline Lounge. His VFX work can be seen in numerous films including The Abyss, Terminator 2, Twister, Starship Troopers, Titanic, and Doctor Dolittle (1998), in trailers for THX and DTS, as well as in DVD & Blu-ray menu design, including those found on the discs for the Star Wars, The Hunger Games, Independence Day, and Terminator 2. Attentive viewers might even spot Van as an actor in Terminator 2, Alien Nation and Titanic. Van is also an active member of the Visual Effect Branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Producers Guild of America and the Visual Effects Society. He has served six terms on the VES Board of Directors, and is active on the Archives, Vision and Annual Membership Meeting Committees, co-Chairing the latter. His VES 50 Most Influential VFX Films compilation and annual VFX-film montages have been inspiring artists at VES events around the world.

Ian Nathan is the executive editor of Empire magazine and the author of Terminator Vault: The Complete Story Behind the Making of The Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (Voyageur Press, 2013) and Alien Vault: The Definitive Story of the Making of the Film (Voyageur Press, 2011).

The Bits recently caught up with Van and Ian to discuss The Terminator on the occasion of its 30th anniversary. (The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.)

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is The Terminator worthy of celebration on its 30th anniversary?

Van Ling: I still can’t believe it’s been 30 years! The film has become a touchstone for both the action and science fiction genres, and is still an example of great storytelling and creative filmmaking. And even as the technology advances and the barrier between what’s in a filmmaker’s head and what’s on the screen grows thinner and thinner—and a lot of that technical innovation has been initiated or inspired by Jim Cameron—you can still go back to this one little film and say, it all started with great storytelling and compelling characters. It still holds up after 30 years, and it was the first salvo of an upward trajectory, not only of Cameron’s career but of genre filmmaking, that continues to this day. It blasted through a stereotype wall between what was an “exploitation/genre” picture and what was a “great movie.” One might argue that The Terminator’s DNA is present in almost every film since 1984 that unabashedly combines genre elements, dynamic action, emotion and humor into a satisfying narrative. 

Ian Nathan: In simple terms, it is a seminal movie. It invented the career of James Cameron, arguably the most significant director of recent times, certainly the most successful. It defined Arnold Schwarzenegger as an icon, the sublime irony of casting him as a machine. Moreover, despite being made on a micro-budget and designed as a lo-fi science fiction slasher movie, the film remains extraordinary, playful and so influential: everything from The Matrix to The Hunger Games owes it a debt. Sure, it shows its age, and Cameron can’t watch it without wincing, but the propulsive power with which it is made and edited—where the dynamism of the action becomes the plot; story as chase sequence—still hits like a hammer. 

Coate: How is The Terminator significant within the science fiction genre?

Ling: I think it proved that you could take a lot of the classic, often-used tropes of the SF genre—time travel, cyborgs, and the nuclear apocalypse among them—and combine them in a way that still takes place in the realistic present-day and is thus relatable to more than just genre fans. It was satisfying as not only an SF movie, but as an action movie, a horror movie, a thriller and a love story. And even as a political commentary if you want to go there. It also followed Ridley Scott’s Alien in presenting a strong female protagonist in an SF genre film, but in some ways a much more relatable one than Ripley, because Sarah started out as a typical “damsel in distress” and then grew into the kickass warrior she is at the end of the film; she’s someone we can relate to who becomes someone we can aspire to. We mostly take this for granted now, but it was kind of a big deal in 1984.

Nathan: As I said, it is massively influential. No Terminator, no T2 and the whole advance of computer effects and dystopian world building. The time travel games have been echoed in Timecop, 12 Monkeys, Looper, et al. The homicidal robot riff was “borrowed” for Robocop, Real Steel and Transformers, et al. As much as Cameron was playing with classic archetypes, he’s was redefining the genre in his own terms: black humor and strong female characters, apocalyptic themes mixed with family values, horror merging into sci-fi. And just that raw power in the film—Cameron’s almost Hitchcockian ability to push the buttons of the audience. 

Coate: Van, what was the objective with your documentary film, Other Voices: Creating The Terminator (and why hasn’t it been issued on Blu-ray)?

Ling: It was called Other Voices because we had already done a half-hour featurette with just Jim and Arnold talking to each other for a special VHS boxed set back in 1992, and we were including that piece on a 2000 Special Edition DVD. I wanted to do a more in-depth special feature that covered all aspects of making the movie, and we weren’t originally going to be able to get Jim’s time to participate, so I made sure we interviewed almost everyone else we could find that would speak to us about the film. We were in post on the doc when Jim was suddenly available, and MGM was willing to push the release date of the disc by six months to 2001 to allow me to shoot the interview and completely recut the doc to incorporate Jim’s material. Interestingly, the UK distributor chose to release their DVD in 2000 with the Cameron-less version of my doc, so there’s a lesser “alt” version of the doc available on PAL! As for why it’s not on the Blu-ray, I have no idea. Maybe there is some rights issue or something with MGM. I know they lifted the Music and Visual Effects chapters from my doc and stuck them on the initial Blu-ray release of the film as featurettes. 

Coate: Ian, what was the objective with your book, Terminator Vault?

Nathan: Obviously when you tackle classics like the first two Terminator movies, and Alien (with my previous book), you are faced with an immediate dilemma—what is there left to say? My answer was to treat the book as a biography of two films (two parts of one story), to tell the human tales behind the cyborg ones. For me there were three implicit arcs to describe—three creation myths beneath the skin of the making of two great movies. First, it is the story of James Cameron’s unstoppable, quasi-Terminator rise to greatness, whatever the obstacle: from Roger Corman effects, through the debacle of Piranha II, to becoming the most innovative director alive. Second, the rise of Arnold Schwarzenegger to superstardom, and how the first two Terminator films are shaped both by his lack of flexibility (that wonderful mechanical diction) and a genuine subtlety (his movement in both films is sublime). Finally, it is a story about the evolution of special effects from the make-do glories of Roger Corman’s New World Pictures, through model-work and stop-motion, to the epochal arrival of CGI effects. With great access to Cameron, there was so much I never knew. 

Coate: Where does The Terminator rank among James Cameron’s films?

Ling: For me, it’s in the top two or three, along with Aliens and either T2 or Titanic. Certainly for the impact they had on me.

Nathan: Simple: third. First: Aliens. Second: Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Third: The Terminator.

Coate: Where does The Terminator rank among the films in the Terminator franchise?

Ling: Tied at the top with Terminator 2: Judgment Day. There is a saying among some fans that “the first two movies are canon, and the rest are just fan fiction.” I can’t say I disagree.

Nathan: This is harder. I do think T2 is more complete a story, and more ambitious—expanding the world, and adding to the emotional core. Still, The Terminator is the slyer beast, a funnier film and a much darker one. And, of course, Arnie as straight up psychotic killing machine is perhaps the more interesting performance. He allowed us to love the bad guy, even as we willed Sarah Connor to escape.

Coate: Can you say a few words about Arnold Schwarzenegger? Is The Terminator the best role he ever had? Why is this character/performance iconic?

Ling: I think Arnold is one smart guy, who not only knows business, performance and marketing, but more importantly in 1984, he knew his strengths and how to use them. Think about it: he was known as a bodybuilder with a thick Austrian accent whose biggest cinematic claim to fame at that point was playing Conan the Barbarian, and he convinced both Jim and Gale, then the studio, and then the whole world, that The Terminator—the title character written as an infiltration unit designed to be unnoticed—should be played by him rather than by the great Lance Henriksen (who fit the original “creepy but ordinary-looking” concept of the character). And this is when he was being put forward by his agents or managers to play the heroic leading man, Kyle Reese… and he pushed back and said, “No, I’d be better for this villain role with no lines instead.” That took guts and brilliance, both from Arnold and from Jim in running with the idea.

Jim and Arnold reshaped the character and repositioned the actor’s brand in a way that took advantage of his strengths and physicality, and turned the character into something really special. He only says a few dozen words in the whole film, he acts like a robot and can only barely portray a human being… and it turns out that his character IS a robot. It subverted any complaints about acting ability by making it work within the story, gave it humor and some self-reflexive awareness but somehow kept the danger and never diminished the character. They took what could have been a ludicrous, over-the-top take on a fantastical character and made it real, with a sense of implacable purpose. You could laugh at the idea, you could call it stunt casting, but you feared the character and you couldn’t take your eyes off of him. He was badass and pragmatic and didn’t care what anyone thought, and was unstoppable in his pursuit of his goal. That kind of fit Arnold’s own nature perfectly, but in real life Arnold adds a level of charm and humor that soon made him a leading man. And I think his subsequent role in T2 was the perfect confluence of the story and character evolving in perfect sync with Arnold’s career trajectory; he was still a badass Terminator but now he was the good guy, and it STILL made perfect sense within and beyond the film itself. But T1 was the start of it, and now, 30 years later, his portrayal of the role is still so iconic that they can’t make a sequel without him if it’s to be considered legit. You have to respect that kind of achievement.

Nathan: It’s easy to dismiss Schwarzenegger’s performance as stunt casting. He certainly changed the tenor of the character from the planned “infiltration unit” Terminator hidden inside Lance Henriksen. Cameron realized he now had comic elements to play with. But there is so much that Schwarzenegger grasped about the role: how he would shoot without blinking, how he could strip a weapon down and reassemble it blindfold, how he would move not jerkily but smoothly, like a “shark,” said Cameron. Talking about the first film there is almost that veil of irony, however inexpressive the T-800 is designed to be. There is this wonderful veneer of irritation that Schwarzenegger gives to the part. The machine is getting exasperated. By the sequel he is adding all these strange, powerful contours—devotion, determination, and, dare we say it, humanity. That’s just it, Cameron’s finest joke: to make us care about a machine.

Coate: Which sound mix of the film do you prefer: the original mono or the multichannel remix?

Ling: A tough question, but I think I lean towards the mono just because it was the original. I was the producer of the initial remix done by the great Gary Rydstrom back in 2000, and while I think he did an excellent job, there is something monolithic yet raw about the original mono mix that fits the film. Also, we found out later that there was a glaring omission in the remix, which was the metallic sounds—almost like that of a sword being drawn from a scabbard—of the letters in the title sliding past each other in the main titles. It turned out that the reason they were missing in the remix was that they were not on either the sound effects or the music masters for the film… they were on the dialogue stems for some reason. And those stems had been muted during the remix since there was no dialogue during the main titles! Lame explanation, but true. 

Nathan: I know the arguments, but I love Brad Fiedel’s score too much not to love the multichannel mix more.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Terminator?

Ling: It jumpstarted the careers of many key players in the industry, from Arnold and Gale Anne Hurd to Stan Winston. While some of them had already been working in the business for a while, their work on this particular film really got them noticed and took them to a new, iconic level. But the biggest legacy, of course, is that it introduced the world to Jim Cameron, who himself embodied the very essence of the film and its title character: hard-hitting, dynamic, uncompromising and unstoppable, yet with a surprisingly human heart and emotional core. He and the film proved that below the surface of what was ostensibly a “B”-level exploitation movie could lie a powerful storytelling foundation, and it raised the bar for all genre films. The way the current Marvel films have worked is proof of that legacy, where just because you’re making a genre film doesn’t mean you can’t tell a great story with compelling characters. The Terminator was the kind of film that made you think back in 1984, “Man, if this guy could make THIS on a low budget, imagine what kind of movies he could make with $100 million or even $200 million dollars!” I think we know the answer to that now.

Nathan: Let’s speak in bare terms: it was the film that made James Cameron the most successful and influential director on the planet. It invented the phenomenon of “Arnie”—even in office he couldn’t help but finish a speech with the words, “I’ll. Be. Back.” It also remixed the genre from the glistening purity of Star Wars to a grungier, tougher, amoral polyalloy of sci-fi, horror and realism. But, for me, the proof remains in the watching. Despite its budget (or maybe because of it) 30 years later the film still thrills like no other. “You’re terminated, fucker.”

Coate: Thank you, Van and Ian, for sharing your thoughts on The Terminator on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its release.

----

- Michael Coate

7OMM (5-perf 2.20:1 aspect ratio + 5.1-channel Datasat digital sound)

CALIFORNIA

• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – CINERAMA DOME, ARCLIGHT HOLLYWOOD
• Oakland – GRAND LAKE 4

GEORGIA

• Atlanta – CINEBISTRO AT TOWN BROOKHAVEN

MINNESOTA

• Plymouth – WILLOW CREEK 12

NEW YORK

• New York (Manhattan) – CITY CINEMAS
• New York (Manhattan) – ZIEGFELD

ONTARIO

• Toronto – VARSITY 12

TEXAS

• Arlington – STUDIO MOVIE GRILL
• Austin – ALAMO DRAFTHOUSE RITZ
• Dallas – LOOK CINEMAS
• Dallas – STUDIO MOVIE GRILL ROYAL LANE

70MM (15-perf 2.35:1 letterbox with fullframe IMAX sequences + 5.1-channel digital sound)

ALABAMA

• Huntsville – U.S. SPACE & ROCKET CENTER IMAX

ALBERTA

• Calgary – SCOTIABANK CHINOOK IMAX

ARIZONA

• Tempe – ARIZONA MILLS 25 IMAX

CALIFORNIA

• Dublin – HACIENDA CROSSINGS STADIUM 20 IMAX
• Irvine – IRVINE SPECTRUM 21 IMAX
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – CHINESE THEATRES IMAX
• Ontario – ONTARIO PALACE STADIUM 22 IMAX
• Sacramento – ESQUIRE IMAX
• San Francisco – METREON 16 IMAX
• San Jose – HACKWORTH IMAX DOME, THE TECH MUSEUM
• Universal City – UNIVERSAL CITYWALK STADIUM 19 IMAX

COLORADO

• Denver – COLORADO CENTER STADIUM 9 IMAX

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington – LOCKHEED MARTIN IMAX, NATIONAL AIR & SPACE MUSEUM

FLORIDA

• Fort Lauderdale – AUTONATION IMAX, MUSEUM OF DISCOVERY & SCIENCE
• Tampa – MUSEUM OF SCIENCE & INDUSTRY IMAX DOME

GEORGIA

• Buford – MALL OF GEORGIA STADIUM 20 IMAX

IDAHO

• Boise – BOISE STADIUM 22 IMAX

ILLINOIS

• Chicago – NAVY PIER IMAX
• Lincolnshire – LINCOLNSHIRE STADIUM 21 IMAX

INDIANA

• Indianapolis – INDIANA STATE MUSEUM IMAX

IOWA

• Des Moines – BLANK IMAX DOME, SCIENCE CENTER OF IOWA

MICHIGAN

• Dearborn – THE HENRY FORD IMAX
• Grand Rapids – GRAND RAPIDS NORTH IMAX

MINNESOTA

• Apple Valley – GREAT CLIPS IMAX, MINNESOTA ZOO

MISSOURI

• Branson – BRANSON IMAX

NEVADA

• Las Vegas – BRENDEN THEATRES IMAX AT THE PALMS

NEW YORK

• New Rochelle – NEW ROC STADIUM 18 IMAX
• New York (Manhattan) – LINCOLN SQUARE 13 IMAX
• Rochester – TINSELTOWN USA IMAX
• West Nyack – PALISADES 21 IMAX

ONTARIO

• Mississauga – COLISEUM MISSISSAUGA IMAX
• Toronto – SCOTIABANK THEATRE TORONTO IMAX

PENNSYLVANIA

• King of Prussia – KING OF PRUSSIA STADIUM 16 IMAX
• Philadelphia – TUTTLEMAN IMAX, THE FRANKLIN INSTITUTE

QUEBEC

• Montreal – CINEMA BANQUE SCOTIA MONTREAL IMAX

RHODE ISLAND

• Providence – PROVIDENCE PLACE 16 IMAX

TENNESSEE

• Nashville – OPRY MILLS STADIUM 20 IMAX

TEXAS

• Austin – BOB BULLOCK IMAX, TEXAS STATE HISTORY MUSEUM
• Dallas – CINEMARK 17 IMAX
• San Antonio – RIVERCENTER 11 IMAX

VIRGINIA

• Chantilly – AIRBUS IMAX, STEPHEN F. UDVAR-HAZY CENTER

Washington

• Seattle – BOEING IMAX, PACIFIC SCIENCE CENTER

----

- Michael Coate

The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring a film historian Q&A. The article also includes a compilation of box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context and a list of the 70mm “showcase” engagements.

THE INTERVIEW

This segment of the article features a Q&A with Jeff Kurtti, film historian, author, producer and Disney authority.

Jeff Kurtti is one of the leading authorities on The Walt Disney Company and its history. The author of more than 25 books, including Disneyland Through The Decades (Disney Editions, 2010), Kurtti worked for Walt Disney Imagineering, the theme park design division of The Walt Disney Company, and then for the Corporate Special Projects department of Disney. More recently he was creative director, content consultant, and media producer for The Walt Disney Family Museum. While with Kurtti-Pellerin Productions and TV is OK Productions, Jeff was involved with the creation of value-added content for numerous home-video releases (including material for several Disney titles). He was also a producer on the feature documentary The Boys: The Sherman Brothers’ Story (2009).

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is The Little Mermaid worthy of celebration on its 25th anniversary?

Jeff Kurtti: The Little Mermaid marked a hugely successful and quite unexpected return of Disney Animation, in terms of artistic success, critical acceptance, and the commitment of the Company to Animation as a foundational element of its entertainment portfolio. This had begun by littles with The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver & Company, but The Little Mermaid was a huge breakthrough. It felt like traditional “Disney,” but was also significant “modernization” of the archetype that audiences not only found accessible, but irresistible.

Coate: How is The Little Mermaid significant within the musical and animation genres?

Kurtti: As a musical, it hewed to the traditions of a stage musical in terms of its structure, musical conventions, and character development. This important fact is often forgotten, but what the film did first and foremost was return the screen musical form to acceptance and popularity, albeit within the very strict confines of a suspension of disbelief that only animation can get away with. This made it “safe” for audiences who had turned away from the film musical form to reengage with and embrace it again.

As an animated feature, The Little Mermaid showed that the art form, considered passé just a few years before, was actually quite vital and still could engage and enchant audiences as it had since the days of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The strength of The Little Mermaid was bringing in new talents who had been raised on, and had deep respect and passion for, the form and its legacy—but who had little to no experience actually creating an animated feature.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw The Little Mermaid?

Kurtti: I went to a preview screening at the old Avco Theater in Westwood, as I recall there were several Studio employees, press people, and critics there. I remember being enchanted and really pleased, but what I remember most was the spontaneous standing ovation the film got—from Studio “insiders” and film critics!

Coate: Where does The Little Mermaid rank among Disney films?

Kurtti: It signals the true beginning of the Third Golden Age of Disney Animation. (Unlike other scholars and historians, I place two distinct “Golden Ages” in Walt's lifetime: the first from 1937-1942, and the second from 1950-1961.)

Coate: What is it about fairy tales, in particular the work of Hans Christian Andersen, that translate well to a cinematic re-telling?

Kurtti: Fairy tales, folk tales, and fireside legends represent universal ideas, themes, and characters that have a cultural resonance strong enough to be recognized and familiar; at the same time they have been told and re-told enough times in varying versions that they are not sacrosanct to revision, reinterpretation, or adaptation—and some might say improvement.

Andersen can be troubling because his stories are often bleak, his heroes frequently die in aspiration of greater and more spiritual rewards than mortal life. There are frequently quite unhappy (mortal) endings in Andersen tales, as characters achieve nobility in sacrifice, or escape from earthbound hardships in death.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Little Mermaid?

Kurtti: From the strength of The Little Mermaid, Disney saw both the cultural and financial power and reward that a focus on animation as a film genre could bring—and they had a virtual lock on that genre. The success brought further innovation, and new voices and minds to a medium that had just a few years before been relegated to “kid's fare” or simply presumed dead as a cinematic form.

Coate: Thank you, Jeff, for sharing your thoughts on Disney’s The Little Mermaid on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its release.

THE LITTLE MERMAID NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among Disney animated movies (original releases only, 1937-1989)
• 2 = Number of Academy Awards
• 3 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 3 = Rank among top-grossing movies during opening weekend
• 6 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 13 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989
• 28 = Disney feature-length animated production
• 486 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 545 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 994 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend

• $6.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross
• $27.2 million = Domestic box-office gross (1997 re-release)
• $40.0 million = Production cost (estimated)
• $76.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $84.4 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release)
• $99.8 million = International box-office gross (original release + re-releases)
• $111.5 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release + re-releases)
• $211.3 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $212.8 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $403.2 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

THE 70MM ENGAGMENTS

The following is a list of the 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo first-run engagements of The Little Mermaid in the United States and Canada.

• 1989-11-15 … Los Angeles, CA – American Multi-Cinema CENTURY 14 <THX>
• 1989-11-15 … Los Angeles, CA – Pacific CINERAMA DOME
• 1989-11-15 … Los Angeles, CA – Pacific CREST <THX>
• 1989-11-15 … New York, NY – City GRAMERCY
• 1989-11-15 … New York, NY – Guild 50TH STREET
• 1989-11-15 … New York, NY – Loews 84TH STREET 6
• 1989-11-17 … Salt Lake City, UT – Mann VILLA
• 1989-11-17 … San Diego, CA – Mann CINEMA 21
• 1989-11-17 … San Francisco, CA – Blumenfeld ALHAMBRA
• 1989-11-17 … Santa Ana, CA – American Multi-Cinema MAINPLACE 6 <THX>
• 1989-12-15 … Mississauga, ON – Famous Players SQUARE ONE 4
• 1989-12-15 … Ottawa, ON – Famous Players RIDEAU CENTRE 3
• 1989-12-15 … Toronto, ON – Famous Players CEDARBRAE 8
• 1989-12-15 … Toronto, ON – Famous Players YORKDALE 6 

- Michael Coate

INDIANA JONES NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (worldwide)
• 2 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (domestic)
• 2 = Rank among top-grossing movies of 1989 (summer season)
• 3 = Rank among Paramount’s top-grossing movies of all time at close of run
• 9 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 9 = Rank among top-grossing movies of the 1980s
• 11 = Rank on all-time list of top-grossing movies at close of original run
• 19 = Number of days to gross $100 million*
• 27.7 = Percentage of second-week decrease in box-office gross
• 99 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• 145 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 155 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 202 = Number of 70mm prints
• 2,327 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend

• $5.6 million = Opening-day box-office gross
• $11.2 million = Highest single-day gross (May 27)*
• $29.4 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (3-day, May 26-28)*
• $37.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (4-day holiday, May 26-29)*
• $46.9 million = Opening week box-office gross (6-day, May 24-29)*
• $50.2 million = Opening week box-office gross (7-day, May 24-30)*
• $55.4 million = Production cost
• $106.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $115.5 million = Domestic box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $197.2 million = Domestic box-office gross
• $206.5 million = International box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $277.0 million = International box-office gross
• $322.0 million = Worldwide box-office rental (% of gross exhibitors paid to distributor)
• $401.3 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $474.2 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $528.6 million = International box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $904.9 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*Established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the kind of movie that gives pure no-apologies entertainment a good name. It’s a beautiful machine, thought out and revved up to the last detail, with no other purpose but to delight—and it delights.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

“If this new Indiana Jones movie makes a large number of millions at the yahoo box offices, well, then you’ve been had. Every magazine and TV station in the world has been trumpeting stories about this latest epic, which is no more than a well-photographed and not-very-tightly-edited series of fights. Fights on top of tanks, railroads, cliffs, power boats, usually involving Indiana Jones versus a lot of not so funny Nazis. Show me a funny Nazi and I’ll give you five bucks! Depressing and expensive trash hyped to the max.” — Gary Franklin, KABC-TV, Los Angeles

“Did anyone seriously doubt that this would be anything but one of the absolute highlights of the summer?” — Bob Curtwright, The Wichita Eagle-Beacon

“The duet between father and son, and between two actors who always seem to have mischief in their eyes, is the brilliant twist on which the film will live or die. The very idea of Mr. Connery as Indiana’s father seems too delicious to be true.” — Caryn James, The New York Times

“Loud, brutal and infantile, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a declaration of artistic and even moral imbecility. It is all plot without story, all action without life.” — David Elliott, The San Diego Union

“It’s moviemaking in its purest, most spectacular form.” — Jim Verniere, Boston Herald

“Of all the directors working in the movies today, Steven Spielberg has the truest instincts for keeping an audience visually engaged, plugged in. This is his great gift—to put us inside his movies—and at his best, his natural command of the simple mechanics of storytelling, of editing and camera movements and pacing, enables him to evoke a kind of pop transcendence that comes close to the effect of the higher, classical arts. The greatest of his films are pure, pop epiphanies, exhilarating, innocent and uniquely, indelibly his own. Somehow, though, they are your own, too, and the great disappointment of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the largely irrelevant third and (supposedly) final installment in the hair-raising adventures of the superarcheologist, is that it seems to be neither yours nor his…. The first of Spielberg’s films to make us feel heavy in our seats, the first to leave us sitting, passive and uninvolved, on the outside. Watching it, you feel that nearly anyone could have directed it.” — Hal Hinson, The Washington Post

“This deliberately old-fashioned Saturday matinee yarn has everything money can buy, but never really generates a sense of wonder and excitement. A definite improvement over the second Indiana Jones outing, but it still bears the mark of one too many trips to the well.” — Leonard Maltin, Entertainment Tonight

“What can you say about a movie that is as fine-tuned as an Indianapolis 500 race car and travels at the same speed? You could play the cynic and say it is an outrageous piece of audience manipulation. Or, you could say that it is a thrilling exercise in pure cinema. Why not the latter?” — Bob Thomas, Associated Press

“Although this production is exceedingly well made, save for a rousing ending, I wanted more. More humanity…more wit…more laughs. I wanted more of a film like the original Raiders of the Lost Ark.” — Gene Siskel, Siskel & Ebert & the Movies

“Sean Connery (the original James Bond) simply IS Henry Jones Sr.—the telling glances that pass between the two, their mannerisms and grudging respect for each other make this father-son team believable and hilarious.” — Linda Cook, (Davenport) Quad-City Times

“It wobbles at a great rate of speed over a spectacularly bumpy course of adventure, like an old-fashioned touring car with one wheel slightly out of line, suddenly soars in the air with childlike delight and sometimes crashes, only to explode in laughter.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“The greatest adventure in film history.” — Jack Garner, Gannett News Service

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a lively, robust entertainment that serves as a fitting way hang up its hero’s fedora and bullwhip. It also proves something director Steven Spielberg that may well be coming to grips with. Movies, even popcorn-poppers like this one, ultimately stay with us in spite of trickery and finesse, and because of character, imagination and style. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade has state-of-the-art stunts and effects, a smorgasbord of dramatic locations and just about all the Spielbergian bebop you can take. In the end, though, the movie wins you over because Harrison Ford has a, witty partner—the great Sean Connery, in the role of Dr. Henry Jones, Indiana Jones’ single-minded father.” — David Foil, (Baton Rouge) State Times Advocate

“It’s Spielberg’s wide-eyed enthusiasm that turns The Last Crusade into the wildest and wittiest Indy of them all.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“To say that Paramount’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade may be the best film ever made for 12-year-olds is not a backhanded compliment. What was conceived as a child’s dream of a Saturday matinee serial has evolved into a moving excursion into religious myth.” — Joseph McBride, Variety

“Spielberg’s robustly articulate visualization, as well as the film’s magnificently evocative effects are, in Lucasfilm-speak, the ultimate Forces of Good here.” — Duane Byrge, The Hollywood Reporter

“Despite strong acting (the slapstick energy between Ford and Connery is wasted), obligatory chases and stunts and splendid art direction, the virtuoso technique evident in every frame remains formulaic—unaccompanied by revelation, epiphany or surprise.” — TV Guide

“The relaxed and confident Crusade is the first Jones outing to benefit from actual characterizations.” — Mike Clark, USA Today

“The action simply doesn't have the exhilarating, leaping precision that Spielberg gave us in the past. The joyous sureness is missing.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“Steven Spielberg’s new Indiana Jones opus is highly-recommended for armchair adventurers of all ages. It’s not quite as good or as off-handedly rugged as Raiders of the Lost Ark, but it’s a darn sight better than the forced and overproduced Temple of Doom.” — Glenn Lovell, San Jose Mercury News

“You can't roll monstrous boulders straight at audiences anymore and have a whole theater-full duck and gasp with fright—and pleasure. We may be plumb gasped out. And although Harrison Ford is still in top form and the movie is truly fun in patches, it's a genre on the wane.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade may not heed its hero’s advice about the proper approach to archaeological pursuits, but it’s certainly learned the lessons of the first two pictures well. It may not seem as fresh as Raiders (how can it, eight years later?) or be as visually inventive as Temple of Doom, but Last Crusade has more heart (and we’re not talking about the organ the Grand Poobah pulled from the sacrificial victim’s chest in part two) than either of them.” — Jim Emerson, The Orange County Register

“Indy 3 is the same, different and better. Indiana Jones’ last and best crusade.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“Predictable is the film's simplistic treatment of themes from religion and myth. It's curious that Spielberg and Lucas see these venerated objects not as symbols of divine inspiration but as repositories of a blind, undiscriminating force that can be wielded (like the three wishes from a genie or a magic lamp) by whoever gets their hands on them.” — David Sterritt, The Christian Science Monitor

“The opening sequence of this third Indiana Jones movie is the only one that seems truly original—or perhaps I should say, it recycles images from 1940s pulps and serials that Spielberg has not borrowed before. The rest of the movie will not come as a surprise to students of Indiana Jones, but then how could it? The Jones movies by now have defined a familiar world of death-defying stunts, virtuoso chases, dry humor and the quest for impossible goals in unthinkable places. When Raiders of the Lost Ark appeared, it defined a new energy level for adventure movies; it was a delirious breakthrough. But there was no way for Spielberg to top himself, and perhaps it is just as well that Last Crusade will indeed be Indy's last film. It would be too sad to see the series grow old and thin, like the James Bond movies…. If there is just a shade of disappointment after seeing this movie, it has to be because we will never again have the shock of this material seeming new. Raiders of the Lost Ark, now more than ever, seems a turning point in the cinema of escapist entertainment, and there was really no way Spielberg could make it new all over again. What he has done is to take many of the same elements, and apply all of his craft and sense of fun to make them work yet once again.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

TRIVIA + PRODUCTION & EXHIBITION INFORMATION

During the week of the film’s release, the leather jacket and fedora worn by Harrison Ford were donated to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was the first in the series to be rated PG-13, due at least in part to the controversy surrounding the previous two movies’ PG rating.

Box-office records…. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade established an opening-weekend box-office record with a gross of $29.4 million (3-day) and $37.1 million (4-day holiday), breaking the 3-day weekend record of $26.3 million set two years earlier by Beverly Hills Cop II and 4-day holiday weekend record of $33.9 set five years earlier by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom…. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade established an opening-week box-office record with a gross of $46.9 million (6-day) and $50.2 million (7-day), breaking the 6-day record of $42.3 million and 7-day record of $45.7 set five years earlier by Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom…. Last Crusade was the first movie to gross more than $10 million in a single day, a feat accomplished on its fourth day of release (May 27) and again on its fifth day (May 28)…. Last Crusade broke the record for shortest amount of time to cross the $100 million mark, a feat attained in 19 days (the previous record holder, Return of the Jedi, accomplished the feat in 23 days)…. Last Crusade’s opening-day gross of $5.6 million was the third-highest, falling just short of Return of the Jedi’s $6.2 million record set in 1983 and Rocky IV’s $5.7 million second-highest mark set in 1985…. Last Crusade broke the opening-day house record at the fabled Grauman’s Chinese Theater with a take of $40,317.

Doctor Fantasy’s Magic Caboose, featured in the prologue, is an “appearance” by producer Frank Marshall which continued a pattern established by the two earlier movies in the series. (In Raiders, Marshall played the German Flying Wing pilot, and in Temple of Doom Marshall appeared as a sailor riding a rickshaw during the Shanghai chase scene.)

Indiana Jones’ full name, inspired by series creator George Lucas, was revealed during this film: Henry Walton Jones, Jr. (George Walton Lucas, Jr….)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade had a theatrical-to-video “window” of nine months. In comparison, Raiders took 30 months and Temple of Doom took 28 months. (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released to the home-video market in five months.)

Last Crusade was released on a record seven home-video formats on February 1, 1990: Beta, VHS, Spanish-subtitled VHS, Super-VHS, 8mm, LaserDisc (letterboxed), LaserDisc (pan-and-scan). It was subsequently released on DVD in 2003 and on Blu-ray Disc in 2012.

Last Crusade was Paramount’s first Super-VHS release and their first letterboxed release on the LaserDisc format.

Pat Roach was the only actor aside from Harrison Ford to appear in all three of the ’80s Indiana Jones movies. Roach played a Gestapo in Last Crusade, the Chief Guard in Temple of Doom, and had a dual role in Raiders as the Giant Sherpa in the Nepal sequence and the 1st Mechanic in the Flying Wing sequence.

Last Crusade was the ninth feature film of Spielberg’s scored by John Williams. (Spielberg & Williams are among the most prolific director-composer collaborations, with Williams providing the music to 26 of Spielberg’s 27¼ theatrical feature films plus some television and special interest projects.)

Last Crusade earned composer John Williams his 26th Academy Award nomination and marked the eighth time he was nominated for two films in the same year. As well, Williams earned his 21st Grammy nomination, and won a BMI Film & TV Award.

The first coming attractions trailer for Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, a teaser featuring behind-the-scenes footage, was issued in November 1988. A second trailer was issued during spring ’89. The trailers issued by Paramount and recommended to be screened with presentations of Indiana Jones were Black Rain, Let it Ride and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was among only 17 first-run movies and three classic re-issues released during 1989 with 70-millimeter prints for selected engagements. The premium-format prints were made at a cost of approximately $10,000 each (compared to approximately $1,500 for a 35mm print). Large-format 70mm presentations were typically superior to conventional 35mm (regardless of origination format) because the larger print allowed a sharper, brighter and steadier projected image and its magnetic soundtrack provided discrete channels of audio with exceptional fidelity.

The movie’s 70mm print order was the third-largest for a North American feature-film release. Only 2010 and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom had more large-format prints struck for a single release.

Awards…. Last Crusade was nominated for three Academy Awards: Original Score, Sound and Sound Effects Editing, winning the latter. Sean Connery was nominated for a Golden Globe and a BAFTA. Williams’ score was nominated for a Grammy. The movie was nominated for four Saturn Awards and won a Hugo for Best Dramatic Presentation. The DVD release was nominated for three Golden Satellite Awards and two DVD Exclusive Awards.

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a list of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in the United States and Canada. These were, arguably, the best theaters in which to experience Indiana Jones and the only way to faithfully hear the original audio mix. Only about ten percent of the film’s print run was in the deluxe 70mm format. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the majority of the movie’s large-format prints was Dolby “A,” while a few prints (noted in the list below) were in Dolby “SR” (Spectral Recording). As well, Paramount booked the movie in as many Lucasfilm THX-certified venues as possible.

So, which theaters screened the 70mm version of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? Read on….

Note: The list does not include any 70mm mid-run upgrade, move-over, sub-run, re-release or international engagements, nor does it include any of the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements.

** shown in 70mm on two screens

*** shown in 70mm on three screens

ALABAMA

• Hoover – Cobb GALLERIA 10

ALASKA

• Anchorage – Luxury Theatres FIREWEED 7 <THX>

ALBERTA

• Calgary – Famous Players CHINOOK
• Calgary – Famous Players SUNRIDGE 5
• Edmonton – Famous Players LONDONDERRY TWIN
• Edmonton – Famous Players PARAMOUNT <THX>

ARIZONA

• Mesa – Mann SUPERSTITION 5
• Phoenix – Harkins CINE CAPRI
• Phoenix – Mann CHRIS-TOWN 5 <THX>
• Tucson – Mann GALLERIA 6 <THX>

ARKANSAS

• Little Rock – United Artists CINEMA 150

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby – Famous Players LOUGHEED MALL 3
• Burnaby – Famous Players STATION SQUARE 7 <THX>
• Vancouver – Famous Players STANLEY
• Victoria – Famous Players CAPITOL 6

CALIFORNIA

• Anaheim – SoCal CINEMAPOLIS 10
• Berkeley – Cinerama BERKELEY
• Burlingame – Syufy HYATT 3
• Carlsbad – SoCal PLAZA CAMINO REAL 4
• City of Industry – Mann PUENTE HILLS 6 <THX>
• Corte Madera – Cinerama CINEMA <SR>
• Costa Mesa – Edwards SOUTH COAST PLAZA TRIPLEX
• Daly City – Cineplex Odeon PLAZA TWIN <THX>
• Hayward – Mann FESTIVAL 9 <THX>
• Huntington Beach – Edwards CHARTER CENTRE 5
• La Mesa – Pacific GROSSMONT MALL TRIPLEX
• La Mirada – Pacific LA MIRADA 6
• Laguna Hills – Edwards/SoCal LAGUNA HILLS MALL TRIPLEX
• Lakewood – Pacific LAKEWOOD CENTER 4
• Long Beach – United Artists MOVIES 6
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) – Mann CHINESE TRIPLEX <SR> <THX>
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) – Syufy CENTURY 7 <THX>
• Los Angeles (Northridge) – Pacific NORTHRIDGE 6
• Los Angeles (Tarzana) – Mann VALLEY WEST 6
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) – Mann NATIONAL <SR> <THX>
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) – Pacific TOPANGA TWIN
• Mission Viejo – Edwards CROWN VALLEY 5
• Montclair – Pacific MONTCLAIR TRIPLEX
• Mountain View – Syufy CENTURY 10
• National City – Pacific SWEETWATER 6
• Newport Beach – Edwards NEWPORT TRIPLEX
• Oakland – Cinerama PIEDMONT 3
• Orange – Syufy CENTURY CINEDOME 8**
• Oxnard – Pacific CARRIAGE SQUARE 5
• Palm Desert – Metropolitan TOWN CENTER 7
• Pasadena – Pacific HASTINGS 5
• Pleasant Hill – Syufy CENTURY 5
• Riverside – SoCal CANYON CREST 9
• Sacramento – Syufy CENTURY 6
• Sacramento – Syufy CENTURY CINEDOME 8
• San Bernardino – Pacific INLAND CENTER 5
• San Diego – Mann 9 AT THE GROVE <THX>
• San Francisco – Blumenfeld REGENCY I
• San Francisco – Blumenfeld REGENCY II
• San Jose – Syufy CENTURY 22 TRIPLEX***
• Santa Barbara – Metropolitan ARLINGTON
• Temple City – Edwards TEMPLE 4
• Torrance – Mann OLD TOWNE 6
• Universal City – Cineplex Odeon UNIVERSAL CITY 18 <THX>

COLORADO

• Aurora – United Artists COOPER 5
• Denver – Mann CENTURY 21 <THX>

CONNECTICUT

• East Hartford – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Orange – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Stamford – Trans-Lux RIDGEWAY TWIN

DELAWARE

There were no 70mm engagements in Delaware.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington – Kogod-Burka CINEMA 

FLORIDA

• Boca Raton – Wometco SHADOWOOD 12 <THX>
• Miami – American Multi-Cinema KENDALL TOWN & COUNTRY 10
• North Miami – Muvico CALIFORNIA CLUB 6 <THX>
• North Miami Beach – Wometco 167TH STREET TWIN
• Orlando – American Multi-Cinema FASHION VILLAGE 8
• St. Petersburg – American Multi-Cinema CROSSROADS 8 <THX>
• Sunrise – Wometco 8 AT WESTON <THX>
• Tampa – Cineplex Odeon HILLSBORO 8 <THX>

GEORGIA

• Atlanta – United Artists LENOX SQUARE 6
• Duluth – United Artists THE MOVIES AT GWINNETT PLAZA
• Kennesaw – Storey TOWN 8
• Savannah – United Artists TARA 4
• Tucker – American Multi-Cinema NORTHLAKE FESTIVAL 8

HAWAII

• Honolulu – Consolidated WAIKIKI 3 <HPS-4000>

IDAHO

There were no 70mm engagements in Idaho.

ILLINOIS

• Chicago – Cineplex Odeon BIOGRAPH 3
• Evanston – Marks & Rosenfield EVANSTON 5
• Hillside – Marks & Rosenfield HILLSIDE SQUARE 6
• Lansing – Marks & Rosenfield RIVER RUN 8
• Lombard – General Cinema Corporation YORKTOWN 6 <THX>
• Niles – Cineplex Odeon GOLF MILL 3
• Norridge – Marks & Rosenfield NORRIDGE 10
• Northbrook – Cineplex Odeon EDENS 2
• Schaumburg – Cineplex Odeon WOODFIELD 9
• Woodbridge – General Cinema Corporation WOODGROVE FESTIVAL 6 <THX>

INDIANA

• Indianapolis – Loews COLLEGE PARK 8

IOWA

There were no 70mm engagements in Iowa.

KANSAS

• Overland Park – American Multi-Cinema OAK PARK PLAZA 6

KENTUCKY

• Louisville – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS

LOUISIANA

There were no 70mm engagements in Louisiana.

MAINE

There were no 70mm engagements in Maine.

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg – Famous Players PORTAGE PLACE 3

MARYLAND

• Baltimore – Durkee SENATOR
• Bethesda – Kogod-Burka MONTGOMERY MALL 3
• Woodlawn – General Cinema Corporation SECURITY SQUARE 8 <THX>

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston – Loews CHERI TRIPLEX
• Seekonk – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• West Springfield – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Worcester – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS

MICHIGAN

• Dearborn – United Artists THE MOVIES AT FAIRLANE**
• Harper Woods – American Multi-Cinema EASTLAND 2
• Lansing – United Artists SPARTAN TRIPLEX
• Southfield – American Multi-Cinema AMERICANA 8
• Sterling Heights – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS
• Ypsilanti – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS ANN ARBOR

MINNESOTA

• Edina – Cineplex Odeon EDINA 4 <THX>
• Roseville – General Cinema Corporation HAR-MAR 11 <THX>

MISSISSIPPI

There were no 70mm engagements in Mississippi.

MISSOURI

• Chesterfield – Wehrenberg CLARKSON 6 <THX>
• Independence – Mid-America BLUE RIDGE EAST 5
• St. Louis – Wehrenberg UNION STATION 10 <THX>
• Shrewsbury – Wehrenberg KENRICK 8 <THX>
• Springfield – Dickinson CENTURY 21

MONTANA

There were no 70mm engagements in Montana.

NEBRASKA

There were no 70mm engagements in Nebraska.

NEVADA

• Las Vegas – Syufy CENTURY DESERT 12 <THX>
• Las Vegas – Syufy CENTURY CINEDOME 6

NEW BRUNSWICK

There were no 70mm engagements in New Brunswick.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

There were no 70mm engagements in New Hampshire.

NEW JERSEY

• Bridgewater – General Cinema Corporation BRIDGEWATER COMMONS 7 <THX>
• Paramus – Cineplex Odeon ROUTE 4 TENPLEX
• Pennsauken – SamEric ERIC 5 PENNSAUKEN
• Ridgefield Park – Loews RIDGEFIELD PARK 10
• Sayreville – National Amusements AMBOY MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• Secaucus – Loews MEADOW 6
• Wayne – Loews WAYNE 6
• West Orange – General Cinema Corporation ESSEX GREEN 3 <THX>

NEW MEXICO

There were no 70mm engagements in New Mexico.

NEW YORK

• Amherst – General Cinema Corporation UNIVERSITY 8 <THX>
• Cheektowaga – Hoyts WALDEN GALLERIA 12
• Commack – National Amusements COMMACK MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• Garden City – Loews ROOSEVELT FIELD 8
• Greece – Jo-Mor STONERIDGE PLAZA 3
• Hicksville – Town & Country MID-PLAZA CINEMA 6
• Levittown – Loews NASSAU 6
• Medford – National Amusements BROOKHAVEN MULTIPLEX CINEMAS <THX>
• New York (Bronx) – National Amusements WHITESTONE MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews 34TH STREET SHOWPLACE TRIPLEX <SR>
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews 84TH STREET 6
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews ASTOR PLAZA <SR>
• New York (Manhattan) – Loews ORPHEUM TWIN
• New York (Manhattan) – United Artists GEMINI TWIN
• New York (Queens) – Cineplex Odeon FRESH MEADOWS 7
• Pittsford – Loews PITTSFORD TRIPLEX
• Rockville Centre – Cineplex Odeon FANTASY 5
• Valley Stream – National Amusements SUNRISE MULTIPLEX CINEMAS
• Webster – Loews WEBSTER 12

NEWFOUNDLAND

There were no 70mm engagements in Newfoundland.

NORTH CAROLINA

There were no 70mm engagements in North Carolina.

NORTH DAKOTA

There were no 70mm engagements in North Dakota.

NOVA SCOTIA

• Halifax – Famous Players PARK LANE 8

OHIO

• Cincinnati – Loews KENWOOD TWIN
• Columbus – Loews CONTINENT 9
• Dayton – National Amusements DAYTON MALL 8
• North Olmsted – National Theatre Corporation GREAT NORTHERN 7 <THX>
• South Euclid – Loews CEDAR CENTER TWIN
• Toledo – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS

OKLAHOMA

• Oklahoma City – American Multi-Cinema MEMORIAL SQUARE 8

ONTARIO

• Gloucester – Famous Players GLOUCESTER 5
• Hamilton – Famous Players TIVOLI
• London – Famous Players LONDON MEWS 6
• Mississauga – Famous Players SUSSEX CENTRE 4 <THX>
• Newmarket – Famous Players GLENWAY 5
• North York – Famous Players TOWNE & COUNTRYE 2
• Ottawa – Famous Players ELGIN 2
• Toronto – Famous Players EGLINTON <THX>
• Toronto – Famous Players SHERATON CENTRE 2
• Toronto – Famous Players VICTORIA TERRACE 6

OREGON

• Portland – Cineplex Odeon 82ND AVENUE 6 <THX>
• Portland – Luxury Theatres LLOYD 10 <THX>
• Tigard – Luxury Theatres TIGARD 5 <THX>

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia – American Multi-Cinema ORLEANS 8
• Philadelphia – SamEric SAMERIC 4

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

There were no 70mm engagements in Prince Edward Island.

QUEBEC

• Dorval – Famous Players DORVAL 4
• Laval – Famous Players LAVAL 5
• Montreal – Famous Players IMPERIAL <THX>
• Sainte-Foy – Famous Players STE FOY 3

RHODE ISLAND

• Warwick – National Amusements SHOWCASE CINEMAS

SASKATCHEWAN

There were no 70mm engagements in Saskatchewan.

SOUTH CAROLINA

There were no 70mm engagements in South Carolina.

SOUTH DAKOTA

There were no 70mm engagements in South Dakota.

TENNESSEE

• Memphis – Malco WINCHESTER COURT 8 <THX>
• Nashville – American Multi-Cinema FOUNTAIN SQUARE 14
• Nashville – Carmike BELLE MEADE

TEXAS

• Addison – United Artists PRESTONWOOD CREEK 5 <THX>
• Austin – Presidio ARBOR 4 <THX>
• Bedford – United Artists BEDFORD 10 <THX>
• Dallas – United Artists THE UNITED ARTISTS 8 <THX>
• Fort Worth – United Artists HULEN 10 <THX>
• Houston – Loews SAKS CENTER TWIN
• San Antonio – Santikos GALAXY 14 <THX>
• San Antonio – Santikos NORTHWEST 14 <THX>
• Webster – Loews BAY AREA 6

UTAH

• Salt Lake City – Cineplex Odeon TROLLEY CORNERS 3
• Salt Lake City – Mann VILLA

VERMONT

There were no 70mm engagements in Vermont.

VIRGINIA

• Alexandria – National Amusements MOUNT VERNON MULTIPLEX CINEMAS <THX>
• Baileys Crossroads – Kogod-Burka CINEMA 7
• Fairfax – United Artists THE MOVIES AT FAIR OAKS
• McLean – Cineplex Odeon TYSONS CORNER CENTER 4
• Merrifield – National Amusements LEE HIGHWAY MULTIPLEX CINEMAS <THX>
• Richmond – Cineplex Odeon RIDGE 7
• Springfield – General Cinema Corporation SPRINGFIELD MALL 10 <THX>

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue – Cineplex Odeon JOHN DANZ
• Lynnwood – Luxury Theatres ALDERWOOD 7 <THX>
• Seattle – Cineplex Odeon CINERAMA
• Seattle – Cineplex Odeon OAK TREE 6 <THX>
• Tacoma – Cineplex Odeon TACOMA MALL TWIN

WEST VIRGINIA

There were no 70mm engagements in West Virginia.

WISCONSIN

• Greenfield – United Artists SPRING MALL 4
• Milwaukee – Marcus NORTHTOWN 6

WYOMING

There were no 70mm engagements in Wyoming.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE INTERVIEW

This segment of the article features a Q&A with author and film historians Scott Higgins, Eric Lichtenfeld, Joseph McBride, and Jonathan Rinzler. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” format.

Scott Higgins is Associate Professor of Film Studies at Wesleyan University, where he teaches several film courses including Cinema of Adventure and Action. His books include Harnessing the Technicolor Rainbow: Color Design in the 1930s, (University of Texas Press, 2007), Arnheim for Film and Media Studies (Routledge, 2010), and the forthcoming Matinee Melodrama.

Eric Lichtenfeld is the author of the book Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie (Wesleyan, 2007), an authoritative and entertaining study of the action film genre. In addition, he has written about film for Slate and The Hollywood Reporter, and moderated panel discussions for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (including a 2011 screening of Raiders of the Lost Ark) and the American Cinematheque. He has taught film at Loyola Marymount University, UCLA, Wesleyan University, and the Harvard School of Law. Eric has also contributed supplemental material for several DVD and Blu-ray releases, including Speed, Predator and Die Hard.

Joseph McBride is the author of Steven Spielberg: A Biography (Simon & Schuster, 1997; University Press of Mississippi, 2011, second edition; Faber & Faber, 2012, third edition; Chinese translation published in Beijing in 2012). A professor in the Cinema Department at San Francisco State University, McBride has written several other books, including Into the Nightmare: My Search for the Killers of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit (Hightower Press, 2013), Frank Capra: The Catastrophe of Success (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Searching for John Ford (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Whatever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (University Press of Kentucky, 2006), and Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless (Vintage, 2012). He was a co-producer on the documentary Obsessed with Vertigo: New Life for Hitchcock’s Masterpiece and a co-writer of the screenplay for Rock ‘n’ Roll High School (1979).

Jonathan Rinzler is the executive editor of LucasBooks, the publishing division of Lucasfilm Ltd., and the author (with Laurent Bouzereau) of The Complete Making of Indiana Jones: The Definitive Story Behind All Four Films (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2008). He has also written several Star Wars and Lucasfilm-themed books, including The Making of Star Wars (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2007), The Making of The Empire Strikes Back (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2010), The Making of Return of the Jedi (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2013), The Sounds of Star Wars (Chronicle, 2010), and Star Wars: The Blueprints (47North, 2013).

L to R (above): Scott Higgins, Eric Lichtenfeld, Joseph McBride & Jonathan Rinzler

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): Indiana Jones was the most successful 1980s movie franchise? Why?

Scott Higgins: Partly, the answer is timing. All three Jones films were released in the 80s vs. only two of the Star Wars franchise.

Eric Lichtenfeld: They weren’t just great movies; they were also great experiences. And each was a great experience in its own way—more or less. And the movie—especially the first and third—lend themselves to both repeat viewings and to all audiences, so you could go back and back with different groups and kinds of the people in your life.

Joseph McBride: It brought back old entertainment values tried and tested in the thirties and earlier—serials and B movies. But on bigger budgets and with better actors. It came at a time when movies were being dumbed down and focused on juvenilia in synch with the times (the Reagan era) and when Hollywood was turning its back on personal filmmaking in favor of self-conscious genre homages (i.e., rip-offs).

Jonathan Rinzler: You had the best of the best on the crew and at ILM—and then you had two geniuses at the top in Lucas and Spielberg. And sometimes an actor gets the role they were born to play, and that seems to me to be true for Harrison Ford as Indiana Jones.

Coate: How are the Indiana Jones movies significant within the action-adventure genre?

Higgins: It is interesting that you should specify “action-adventure” rather than “action” as the genre in question. I think our conception of “action-adventure” as a distinct part of the action film tradition comes largely from the Indiana Jones films. Part of what makes them “adventure” is tone—they are throwbacks to Fairbank’s Thief of Bagdad and Flynn’s Adventures of Robin Hood in their broadly drawn subsidiary characters, gleefully obvious comedy, and basic sincerity. These films are rollicking, in a way that adult-oriented action films were not. For better or worse, they created a model for the “family actioner”—movies pitched broadly enough to play cross-generationally, but still crafted around physical problem solving and violent encounters. I guess I’m describing the basic tent pole film—and it has served the industry well (Independence Day, Avengers) and disappointed terribly (Wild, Wild West, anyone?). The Indiana Jones films didn’t invent this approach, but they carried it off with originality and set a certain standard.

The Indiana Jones films are also important as an American answer to Bond, which is probably the century’s most important action franchise. It is clear that Spielberg and Lucas were emulating Bond, replacing 007’s romantic and exotic Britishness with an equally romantic and exotic nostalgia for America during the good war. Jones substantially cleaned up Bond’s sexuality, but kept his humor and physical cleverness.

If you think of the landmarks of the contemporary action film, Raiders definitely belongs among the fantasy-oriented trend: Star Wars, Superman, Terminator, The Matrix, etc.

Lichtenfeld: Strangely, I’ve always seen them as something apart from the action-adventure genre. At the time the first three were released, they didn’t really look like the rest of the genre. After all, this was still the era of the R-rated action movie that generally didn’t have the scope or craftsmanship of the Indiana Jones movies.

McBride: Steven Spielberg has a genuine kinetic gift for cinematic action. With Raiders, he was moving fast and working economically to overcome the reputation for overindulgence he had acquired with the bloated 1941, so Raiders benefits from that zip and efficiency and a certain amount of visual and verbal wit (the latter thanks to Lawrence Kasdan’s screenplay). But Raiders is marred by its racist and neocolonialist viewpoint. It was the perfect film to start off the Reagan era in Hollywood studio filmmaking, a miserable period. Spielberg faltered even more badly, in my view, with Temple of Doom, which is so shrill, gross, and racist that it is a deeply embarrassing work. Ironically, that very grossness has made it something of a cult favorite among the undiscriminating. I like the third film in the series, Last Crusade, because instead of Third World villains, it has villains we can all despise (Nazis) and has a visual spaciousness and energy and wit that seems more relaxed than the previous entries. And it has that fascinatingly complex father-son tension between Indy and his Dad (Sean Connery), which goes to the heart of Spielberg’s thematics. I even sort of like Crystal Skull, with all its absurdity, because I believe Spielberg approached it as a lark, a framework for spoofing his earlier work systematically, genre by genre. I even like the “nuking the fridge” scene and especially the self-satire of immolating the iconic Spielberg suburban home.

Rinzler: With the Indy films, Spielberg and Lucas created the film-as-Disneyland-ride. Of course the films have story and character—but at a certain point, usually about a third of the way through, Indy films become like rides—just nonstop fun and adventure and thrills.

Coate: How do the Indiana Jones movies pay homage to and improve upon the serials that inspired them?

Higgins: The Jones films draw iconography and plot devices from serials and studio-era B adventures more generally. Lucas and Spielberg wanted to recapture the thrills they remembered experiencing in local revival houses when they were growing up, and so these films are steeped in nostalgia for an older cinematic language. Like serials of the 30s-50s, the Indiana Jones films have a sort of crackpot optimism set alongside stunning depictions of depravity. Like serials, the Indiana Jones films can fail to make sense on a very basic level. Like serials, they cover plot holes by simply speeding forward through stunts and chases.

Unlike the serials, the Jones films tend to be unified, coherent, and centered on psychologized characters. In other words, these are feature films, and they are far more tightly plotted than, say, Captain Midnight. Also, unlike most serials, Indiana Jones has the benefit of huge budgets. Spielberg can realize warhorse serial set pieces, like the rope bridge, the crushing room, the abandoned airplane, the ritual sacrifice, or even the horse/car chase and booby-trapped temple at a much, much higher level than the B serials. What those original movies lacked in budget they made up for in cockeyed ingenuity.  In serials, Spielberg and Lucas found a storehouse of ideas that they could raid and renew. Incidentally, the Bond franchise first inherited and embellished the serial’s territory, so Indiana Jones is re-appropriating it to American shores.

I think the Indiana Jones films are most successful in emulating the serials’ relentless rhythm of action. Raiders hits a serial-like tempo of stunt-per-minute toward the end of its second act (from the snake-tomb through the truck chase). In Doom, it feels like the filmmakers realized this was their most successful sequence, and so extended that kind of pacing across the entire second half of the film (everything that occurs underground through the climax). That decision made the second half of Doom hard to beat in terms of action and absurd spectacle. Alas, that left too much time in the first half devoted to clumsy exposition and Kate Capshaw.

Lichtenfeld: They’re structured like serials and they capture the spirit of serials, but they have real production value and, even more, craftsmanship. It’s hard to get pulpier than with Temple of Doom and yet John Williams’s score is so rich and complex, it’s practically operatic.

It’s as if these are the movies the serials wanted to be, and in that sense, they’re the fulfillment of—I was going to say “a potential” or “a promise,” but that’s not quite it, because the serials could never really hope to achieve that in their lifetime. People use movies to help them dream of being something else. If movies could dream of being something else, than the serials dreamed of being the Indiana Jones series!

McBride: There’s no comparison, as Spielberg and Lucas quickly realized when they screened old serials and realized how crummy they are. They pay homage to the idea of the old serials.

Rinzler: Like Star Wars in relation to Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, the Indy films in relation to the Republic serials and adventure comics took the essentials out of those earlier media—fun, adventure, cliffhangers, comedy and heroism—and gave them a high-budget sheen and therefore the talents of some of the best filmmakers of their generation.

Coate: In what way is Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade worthy of celebration on its 25th anniversary?

Higgins: We should celebrate The Last Crusade, if only as a blip on our collective nostalgia radar. The film comes right at the moment that Spielberg begins to more or less mechanically “diversify” his output between prestige and popcorn/audience movies. The surrounding films all have this patina of serious ambition about them—Color Purple (‘85), Empire of the Sun (‘87), Always (yes, even Always, also ‘89). From here on, he would alternate between two kinds of film—Schindler’s List (‘93)/Jurassic Park (‘93); Amistad (‘97)/Lost World (‘97)—and we all quickly learned what to expect and not expect from him. But in ‘89 it still wasn’t entirely clear which films belonged to which camp, or even if there were two camps. We could almost expect every bit as much passion, precision, and serious engagement in Last Crusade as we (or the critics) might in prestige bait. Arguably, Jurassic Park carried on the tradition of extremely carefully wrought, audience-pleasing, genre pics, which Jaws had promised, but by then the split was clear. Last Crusade, at the time, felt like a return to form for Spielberg—a flexing of the entertainment muscle. In retrospect, it was just the first swing of the pendulum between middlebrow and populist—the bloom coming off the rose. I’m nostalgic for that rose.

But the film is also much more—it is, in fact, a good movie. A less flawed, more worthy follow up to Raiders. We should celebrate it as a fitting end to the trilogy. If we celebrate hard enough, we might erase all memory of Crystal Skull, and that sinking depression that comes with the announcement of a fifth installment.

Lichtenfeld: Last Crusade is a well-loved movie. It’s brought lots of people lots of joy. And in a way, it’s the most accessible of the first three—it’s not the capital-C classic that is Raiders or the strange, dark detour that is Temple of Doom. And because it’s not a classic like the first or a purely cinematic achievement like the second, I think that when we celebrate Last Crusade, what we’re celebrating is our own memory of it, our own ongoing experience of it—even more than we’re celebrating the actual movie itself. But is that such a bad thing? To me, those are the best things moviegoing ultimately gives us. If they’re not worthy of commemorating, then I don’t know what is.

McBride: It’s the best of the four.

Rinzler: Casting Sean Connery as Indy’s dad was a stroke of genius. All the father-son material in that film is a lot of fun and so well written and acted. I really identify with a lot of those moments.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

Higgins: This movie was the end of childhood. It was an important film in that it so firmly split tastes in my family. I was raised godless, but went to the movies about every Sunday. We LOVED Jaws (seeing it first run as a seven-year-old was largely responsible for me seeking a career thinking about movies), we LOVED Raiders. But in 1989, the Higgins family tastes were running toward the high-middle. Sex, Lies, and Videotape as edgy and worthy, Born on the Fourth of July was meaningful, When Harry Met Sally… was, somehow, old fashioned and respectable. Away from the family, I was either plunging into the abyss of complete pretension (The Cook, The Thief, His Wife, and Her Lover) or seeing unredeemable crap (Friday the 13th Part VIII, Halloween 5). So, I get to Last Crusade and find the film gripping—especially the final reel with the three trials in the cave. When the lights came up, the official family opinion was “well THAT was crap… he just made that for the money….” Ouch. We were no longer on the same page.

I should have fought the fight. I actually enjoyed the damned thing… but it was my last year of college and neither my trendoid college friends, nor my homestead made it seem like the film was worth defending. It did fine at the box office without pleasing either group. Looking back, it was a learning experience—that cinematic pleasure is worthwhile wherever you get it, and that putting ideas first usually leads you astray. But the carefree days of my Spielberg childhood were over.

Lichtenfeld: It’s funny; I have a much more vivid memory of the second time I saw it. And mainly what I remember from that second trip was the sensation of my heart stopping when I realized that I’d left for the theater with my date but not my wallet.

McBride: I was pleasantly surprised. I reviewed it for Variety. I hadn’t much liked Raiders and actively disliked Temple of Doom.  Last Crusade seemed far superior.

Rinzler: I think I saw it in France and I really, really had a good time. When they rode off into the sunset I thought it was a great end to the trilogy.

Coate: What did Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade do well? What were the negative or disappointing aspects, if any?

Higgins: Last Crusade does set pieces beautifully. With the possible exception of the Circus Train Chase (which I can’t get behind because… it is a Circus Train), each is loaded with creative gags and tightly executed. The Cowboy vs. Tank fight deserves serious analysis by today’s action filmmakers. It has two things that seem so sadly lacking in current, assaultive, aesthetics: Rhythm and Variation. Indy faces a series of diagrammatically clear physical dilemmas and overcomes them through clever chains of cause-and-effect. And the stunts/gags modulate between epic heroism, comic fisticuffs, and skin-of-the-teeth brutality. All the while, that tank is trundling along—straight toward the end of the desert. Honestly, it is a great piece of work—we need more of it. The Road Warrior also had it, but today only The Fast and the Furious seems to be plowing that field.

It also does hanging miniatures and matte paintings beautifully. The shot of the Zeppelin as Henry and Indy head across the tarmac is breathtaking and handcrafted—well worth putting up with all the matte lines around the airplanes and the crashing tank, etc. Incidentally, the production design is top notch all around.

It also does serials beautifully. I admire the specificity of the Last Crusade’s homage to Republic Pictures. One of Republic’s standing sets was this cave/cavern space. They used it tirelessly in The Lone Ranger, Zorro’s Fighting Legion, Jungle Girl, Perils of Nyoka. The whole Raiders trilogy is, in a way, a love letter to that cave set. We keep coming back to it, variously redressed and repurposed, across the series. The pertinent serial here is Jungle Girl (1941), which features ‘the cave of Nacros”—a booby-trapped cave that houses a chest of diamonds, guarded by fierce Lion Men warriors and concealed behind a secret sliding door. Trespassers are variously swept from the cavern and through the cliff face by a rushing torrent of water, entrapped in a chamber of poison gas, locked in a room with a retracting floor above a bottomless pit, and forced onto a diamond crushing conveyor-belt contraption. Last Crusade also borrows from Perils of Nyoka (1942), a Middle-Eastern Western with locations like “the Temple of the Moon God” and “The Valley of the Tauregs” shot on Republic’s ranch and cave set. I like to think that the final few shots of Last Crusade, in which Indy and gang ride into the sunset, leaving Petra behind them, honors Republic Pictures, where almost all serial genres ended up as Westerns in disguise.

The film also does the “professor’s fantasy” beautifully. Today, the moment that Indie ducks out of office hours, through his window, and immediately commences an adventure is intensely fulfilling for me.

Alas, the film does the “2000-year-old-man routine” rather badly. Maybe it is the fact that he speaks modern English, his unintentionally funny swordsmanship, or that the makeup and concept remind me of Mel Brooks, but Indy’s discovery of the ancient knight breaks the spell for me. Also, I’m not entirely fond of the Circus Train prologue, but at least it is thematically important and a nice glimpse of River Phoenix’s movie-star chops. He could easily have grown up to be Leo or Brad.

Lichtenfeld: The greatest strength of Last Crusade is its tone. This movie returned the fun and breeziness to the series. Fairly or not, Temple of Doom is widely seen as when the franchise went off the tracks (an apt image considering the movie’s signature mine car chase). It just has so much darkness and gore and outright weirdness. Last Crusade corrects for that.

That’s not even a full accounting, though. Last Crusade may have a light touch—even lighter than Raiders’—but it also has resonance in just the right places. It’s light without being insubstantial. In that sense, it’s Spielberg at his most “Spielberg.”

But at the same time, there’s something about this that has always felt a little calculated, even machined, to me. Maybe that’s because the movie is so obviously a correction for Temple of Doom. Last Crusade is safe, whereas Temple of Doom (whatever else you want to say about it) is gutsy. And Temple of Doom also looks like a movie—a great big, all-out movie, a spectacle—while visually, Last Crusade comes off as the smallest of the original three. Its style isn’t as distinctive; its set pieces aren’t as conceptual or as memorable. (With the arguable exception of the circus train sequence.) It reminds me a little of what Harrison Ford says in a certain other movie: “She may not look like much, kid, but she’s got it where it counts.”

So it’s a little bit of a mixed bag. But all mixed bags should be as good and as enjoyable as this one is.

McBride: The one negative aspect for me is a rather bland heroine.

Rinzler: See [my previous comments].

Coate: In what way was Professor Henry Jones (Sean Connery) an effective and/or memorable character?

Higgins: The role starts as an extremely satisfying bit of stunt casting and becomes a breathing character. Connery works by both playing against Bond (fuddy-duddy academe) and being Bond almost despite himself (bedding Elsa). The fighter-plane-strafing scene replays bits of the helicopter-strafing scene in From Russia with Love, but with a far cleverer payoff. Professor Henry has Bond’s problem-solving panache, but in an extraordinarily fusty way. That is brilliant.

Also, though the ancient knight seems like a misfire, Connery’s reaction to the ancient knight is priceless. They have this momentary recognition of one-another’s iconic greatness, before the cave starts falling in and Indy pulls them apart.

Lichtenfeld: Of all the characters, Henry Jones most embodies the movie’s overall tone. Much of its lightheartedness and its pathos stem from him. I think that’s why he’s more important than your typical supporting character. He’s like the whole movie distilled.

He’s also interesting in that he provides comic relief in some distinctly different ways. Sometimes it’s through his wry disapproval of Indy. Other times it’s through his sheer enjoyment of what’s happening around him—an enjoyment that captures the schoolboy giddiness Elsa refers to.

And these reactions are important because they’re the same ones we’re having in the audience. So he’s like our representative up on the screen. It’s like he’s speaking for us inside the movie. And each time he does it, each time we see ourselves in him—or him in us—the pleasure we get from that is like the movie rewarding us for our exuberance.

Coate: In what way was Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) an effective and/or memorable heroine, and in what way was Walter Donovan (Julian Glover) an effective and/or memorable villain?

Higgins: She’s no Marion Ravenwood. But then, she’s no Willie Scott. On balance, I’m more grateful that she’s no Willie Scott.

Lichtenfeld: I don’t know if Elsa Schneider and Walter Donovan are memorable characters so much as they are effective ones. The way they’re sketched and performed, they harken back to their B-movie ancestors, but with much more craft and finesse. In other words, they might be stock, but they’re not cardboard. And that makes them well suited for an Indiana Jones movie!

Coate: Where does each Indiana Jones movie rank among the series? Among director Steven Spielberg's body of work?

Higgins: Raiders is clearly the best of the series. Jaws is the best of Spielberg’s genre films, with Raiders just under that.

Lichtenfeld: Ranking the Indy movies is harder for me than it should be. On the one hand, Raiders is clearly a masterpiece that leaves Temple of Doom and Last Crusade duking it out for second place. I’d give the edge to Temple, because it may be much more flawed than Crusade, but it’s also more daring. And it looks and feels like a movie with a capital M. Crusade, on the other hand, feels less ambitious. And while it’s a much more polished machine than Temple, it’s also a little too safe. It’s very enjoyable, but Temple is more sumptuous, and of the sequels, it’s the one I respect most.

On an (even more) subjective level, though, I’ve seen Raiders so many times, and studied it so closely, that if I had to pick one to see on the big screen right now, it would be Temple. In fact, whenever the movies are screened in Los Angeles, it’s Temple that’s the draw for me — and I say that having been the host and moderator for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ 30^th anniversary celebration of Raiders of the Lost Ark!

McBride: I know many Spielberg fans love these movies, but to me they are second- or third-tier works.

Rinzler: I like Raiders best, then Crusade, then Temple, then Crystal. Among director Steven Spielberg's body of work? I think the first three are among his best work, though for me his best material is: Duel, E.T., Jaws, Close Encounters, but his later work is great, too.

Coate: What did Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade contribute to the summer 1989 movie-going season?

Higgins: Summer ‘89 was a sequel fest: Lethal Weapon 2, Ghostbusters II, and I think Crusade is the best of the lot—maybe because the franchise had purged itself on Temple of Doom. Looking at the box office returns, I can’t argue with Crusade’s place at number 2, behind Batman. But then it was the end of my childhood, apparently. Don’t forget, though, 1989 was also the year of Road House—brilliance was in the air.

Lichtenfeld: This is a hard question to answer objectively, mainly because of nostalgia. I think that for movie-lovers of a certain age or generation, the summer of 1989 stands out as one of those summers. It was just so stuffed with movies. Big ones such as Indy, Batman, Lethal Weapon 2, and The Abyss. Surprises such as Do the Right Thing and Sex, Lies, and Videotape. And even the disappointments, which still belonged to big franchises including Ghostbusters, Star Trek, The Karate Kid, James Bond. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a bright spot in that crowded field. It was also an early entry that set that feeling of bigness.

To me, that summer was the biggest and one of the last really special times when the movies would linger in the imagination long after they opened. If you were a kid back then, you could see Indiana Jones, go to sleepaway camp for a month or more, and when you came back, the movie would still be playing. At the very least, people would still be talking about it.

Now, look…some of that is nostalgia talking. Some of that is the fact that this kinds of movie will resonate with that 14-year-old differently than it will with a 40-year-old. Those things are definitely true. But what’s also true is that the industry has changed. Movies are distributed and marketed differently than they used to be. Tentpoles are packaged as huge events that then burn through screens so damn fast. And the market becomes so crowded with these things that a few weeks after one of them opens, it’s like it never even happened.

Last Crusade made just 15 percent of its total domestic gross in its opening weekend. This means that the movie had legs. It kept going and going. The other hugely successful movies of that summer—Batman and Lethal Weapon 2—did around the same thing. Last summer’s biggest action/adventure movies? Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, and Fast and Furious 6? All of those movies made over 40 percent of their money in just those first few days. And it’s not that they were unsuccessful; they were hugely successful! They just didn’t stay around. They couldn’t. Virtually nothing can. The conditions aren’t there; they’ve changed.

So to me, the real question is not so much, “What did Last Crusade contribute to the movies of Summer 1989?” To me, the real question is, “What did Summer 1989 contribute to your life as a movie-lover?” And the answer is this: it was a time when I began to really think about film and follow the industry and when big, fun, crowd-pleasing movies had the space to feel like they mattered. I’m really glad I had that.

Coate: Should there be more Indiana Jones movies?

Higgins: NO.

Lichtenfeld: It’s tempting to say yes. Who wouldn’t want to hear The Raiders March issuing from a movie theater sound system again? But there probably shouldn’t be. Rightly or wrongly, the fourth one is a much maligned movie, but one moment I’ve always liked a lot is when Indy’s friend says, “We seem to have reached the age where life stops giving us things and starts taking them away.” At this point, it may be that the most graceful thing the franchise can do is resist the urge to prove that idea wrong.

McBride: Hopefully not.

Rinzler: If the public wants them, yes.

Coate: What is the legacy of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade?

Higgins: Last Crusade will always shine as the final film of the Jones trilogy. It is a fitting end to the series—thank god they didn’t make another!

Lichtenfeld: For a movie as well-loved and fondly remembered as this one is, that’s also a hard question to answer—partly because Kingdom of the Crystal Skull really complicates the whole picture.

Last Crusade plays like the end of a trilogy (even if it wasn’t truly a trilogy per se). And starting in ’81, and ending in ’89, it was series that encapsulated the decade, a decade which George Lucas and Steven Spielberg helped define, no less. So Last Crusade—especially the end—has a real feeling of summation. But now there’s this fourth movie: a sequel largely rejected by fans who now double-down on the idea that the first three constitute the trilogy!

It’s also hard to answer because, of the first three movies, it’s the one that least has its own identity. It’s clear how large the other two loom over it. It’s a very self-conscious reversal of the course set by the second one. It’s also a very definite throwback to the experience and the fun—and the world and the story structure—of the first one.

So in the end, it may be that the legacy of Last Crusade is that you can go home again—while the legacy of Crystal Skull will be that you can’t.

Coate: Thank you, Scott, Eric, Joseph, and Jonathan, for sharing your thoughts on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its release.

---

PRINCIPAL CAST & CREW:

• Indiana Jones – Harrison Ford
• Professor Henry Jones – Sean Connery
• Marcus Brody – Denholm Elliott
• Elsa – Alison Doody
• Sallah – John Rhys-Davies
• Walter Donovan – Julian Glover
• Young Indy – River Phoenix

• Director – Steven Spielberg
• Producer – Robert Watts
• Screenplay – Jeffrey Boam
• Story – George Lucas and Menno Meyjes
• Executive Producers – George Lucas, Frank Marshall
• Music – John Williams
• Editor – Michael Kahn, ACE
• Director of Photography – Douglas Slocombe
• Production Designer – Elliot Scott
• Costume Designer – Anthony Powell with Joanna Johnston
• Casting – Maggie Cartier; Mike Fenton, CSA; Judy Taylor, CSA; Valorie Massalas
• Visual Effects Supervisor – Micheal J. McAlister
• Sound Designer – Ben Burtt
• Sound Mixer – Tony Dawe
• Supervising Sound Editor – Richard Hymns
• Re-Recording Mixers – Ben Burtt, Gary Summers, Shawn Murphy

• Distributor – Paramount
• Production Company – Lucasfilm Ltd.
• Release Date – May 24, 1989
• Running Time – 127 minutes
• Projection Format – Scope / Dolby Stereo
• MPAA Rating – PG-13

SPECIAL THANKS:

Chris Argyropoulos, Jim Barg, Bert Branson, Raymond Caple, Daily Bruin, Nick DiMaggio, Axel Fransberg, Bobby Henderson, Scott Higgins, Brendan Hornbostel, Bill Kretzel, Eric Lichtenfeld, Lucasfilm Ltd., Joseph McBride, Jim Perry, Jonathan Rinzler, Tim Schafbuch, Kristen Taketa, University of California Los Angeles, and a huge thank you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

SOURCES/REFERENCES:

Numerous newspaper articles, film reviews and theater advertisements; the periodicals Daily Bruin, The Hollywood Reporter, Newsweek, Time, and Variety; the website Boxofficemojo, the books The Complete Making of Indiana Jones: The Definitive Story Behind All Four Films (Ballantine/Del Rey, 2008) and George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success (George Lucas Books/Harper Collins, 2010); the motion picture Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989, Lucasfilm Ltd./Paramount Pictures).

IMAGES:

Copyright 1989 Lucasfilm Ltd.

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States & Canada except where stated otherwise.

IN MEMORIAM:

• Robert Eddison (“Grail Knight”), 1908-1991
• Denholm Elliott (“Marcus Brody”), 1922-1992
• Elliot Scott (Production Designer), 1915-1993
• River Phoenix (“Young Indy”), 1970-1993
• Jeffrey Boam (screenwriter), 1946-2000
• Pat Roach (stunts, “Gestapo”), 1937-2004
• Michael Moore (Second Unit Director), 1914-2013

- Michael Coate

Originally intended to appear in a special issue of Cinefantastique magazine, the 672-page work has remained unpublished… until now, exclusively through Creature Features (click here for the order page).

The Bits caught up with Preston to discuss Star Trek: The Motion Picture and his book, Return to Tomorrow: The Filming of Star Trek: The Motion Picture — An Oral History of the Legendary Production Documented as It Happened.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Star Trek: The Motion Picture worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Preston Neal Jones: Clearly, it’s highly deserving of celebration when considered purely in the context of Star Trek, because it was the Big One, the one that made all the difference—the film which proved to Paramount that Roddenberry and the fans had been right all along when trying to convince the studio executives that they were sitting on a goldmine in this long-ago-canceled TV series. ST:TMP opened the floodgates for all the sequels, and then for all the subsequent Trek franchises, which, of course, continue right up to the present day.

That said, whatever one thinks about the overall film, I think it’s safe to say that it features many individual components which are worthy of celebration on their own terms, from what is perhaps Jerry Goldsmith’s finest score, to the fact that this was the last major movie directed by Robert Wise, and the first major picture supervised by Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

Jones: I can not only recall my first reaction to seeing ST:TMP, I’ve got an audiocassette which preserves the reactions of one of the first audiences to see the film at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. You can hear the thrill at the first blast of Goldsmith’s main title march, the applause greeting all the individual cast members’ names in the credits, the gasps of awe and wonder at the sight of the dramatic effects in the opening Klingon/V’ger battle, the laughter at McCoy’s first entrance, the audible approval at the mild bits of profanity which would never have passed the NBC censors, and on and on.

It’s hard to recall my own individual impression, partly because I was already as familiar with the story as if I had actually worked on the movie, thanks, of course, to my research. But I definitely enjoyed it—especially seeing it on that big screen with that enthusiastic audience—and I wasn’t particularly a Trekker, just a fan of fantasy and science fiction in general.

Coate: How is Star Trek: The Motion Picture significant within the science fiction genre?

Jones: In terms of filmed science fiction, it completes an unofficial s-f trilogy directed by Robert Wise—after The Day the Earth Stood Still and The Andromeda Strain—and the first one to afford Wise the opportunity to explore outer space. And it certainly cemented the burgeoning box office popularity of big, expensive s-f epics with dazzling special effects.

Coate: What was the objective with your book?

Jones: The first objective with the book was to research it, by interviewing sixty cast and crew members. The second objective was to write it. Who knew that the third and final objective—to get it into print—would end up taking all these decades? On another level, my aim with ST:TMP was the same as with my first book, on the 1955 suspense classic The Night of the Hunter (Heaven and Hell to Play With: The Filming of The Night of the Hunter), not to simply slap a lot of Q&A on the pages, but to edit all the answers into what I call “a montage of memories.” Ideally, this gives the reader a “you are there” experience, hearing a round robin discussion of the movie’s creation in the words of the people who actually filmed it.

Coate: Why has it taken 35 years for this Star Trek: The Motion Picture work of yours to get published?

Jones: As some of your readers may already know, this project originated as a commission to do a special double issue of Cinefantastique magazine, similar to ones the periodical had produced on Star Wars and Close Encounters. In the event, for reasons that will have to remain mysterious, the editor who had promised his readers Return to Tomorrow and who alas is no longer with us, never kept that promise. So my little manuscript has been wandering through the wilderness of book publishing ever since, finally finding its champion in Taylor White of Creature Features, (may his tribe increase). 

Coate: In what way is your book different/unique compared to the numerous existing books written about Star Trek?

Jones: Frankly, I think the in-depth approach undertaken in Return to Tomorrow not only sets it apart from most other Star Trek books but also most film history books in general. I don’t think a major studio blockbuster production of that era has ever been examined in as much detail as you’ll find in Return to Tomorrow. For all the Trekkers who urged me to pack the volume with “minutia,” I hope the book delivers. Film historians in general will also find much meat. And the average reader, I hope, will enjoy the dramatic story of a highly troubled production.

Coate: Which version of Star Trek: The Motion Picture do you think is best: the theatrical cut or the Director’s Cut?

Jones: My own preference is for the Director’s Cut, which Robert Wise was finally able to put on video years after the fact. It moves better, and is greatly improved by the addition of much material which was dropped from the first version in the hell-for-leather race to get it into theaters in time.

Coate: What are the attributes of Star Trek: The Motion Picture? What are some of its flaws/disappointments?

Jones: In addition to components already mentioned, I must, of course, single out the extraordinary special effects, produced under incredibly trying conditions by John Dykstra and Doug Trumbull. The overall film probably doesn’t surpass the sum of its excellent parts, and I think my book will go some way to explain why this is so.

Coate: Was Robert Wise a good choice for director? What skills, sensibilities, etc. did he bring to the project?

Jones: I’ll state flatly that if anyone else but Robert Wise had directed Star Trek: The Motion Picture, it probably wouldn’t have gotten made. He was the eye of the hurricane, the patient, enduring, hard-working, sweet-tempered, inventive soul who withstood every setback and surmounted all obstacles to achieve for the studio executives what he, himself, didn’t really think was possible: to pull it all together and put it in theaters by their drop-deadline of December 7, 1979. If my book has a hero, it’s Robert Wise, and for a short time it was a privilege to know him.

Coate: What is the legacy of Star Trek: The Motion Picture?

Jones: Well, that brings us right back to my answer to your first question, doesn’t it? Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the movie that made all the other Star Treks possible, the one that made the fans’ and Roddenberry’s long-held dreams a reality—and how many pictures can lay claim to such a legacy as that?

Coate: Thank you, Preston, for sharing your thoughts on Star Trek: The Motion Picture on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its release.

SPECIAL THANKS:

Neil S. Bulk, Bill Gabel, Preston Neal Jones.

- Michael Coate

As with our previous 007 articles (available here and here), The Bits celebrates the occasion with this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of James Bond authorities who discuss the virtues and shortcomings of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and why the passage of time has been particularly kind to this film more than any other in the long-running series. The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants….

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012; and recently issued in paperback with an updated Skyfall chapter). He also authored Sound and Vision: 60 Years of Motion Picture Soundtracks (Watson-Guptill, 2000) and TV’s Biggest Hits: The Story of Television Themes from Dragnet to Friends (Schirmer, 1996). He writes regularly for the entertainment-industry trade Variety and has also been published in The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He started writing about spy music for the 1970s fanzine File Forty and has since produced seven CDs of original music from The Man from U.N.C.L.E. for the Film Score Monthly label.

Robert A. Caplen is an attorney and the author of Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (Xlibris, 2010). Based in Washington, DC, he practices antitrust and commercial litigation and has published numerous law review articles in leading academic journals. Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond (which was quoted in Sir Roger Moore’s memoir, Bond on Bond) is his first book. He is working on a follow-up book and can be reached via Facebook (www.Facebook.com/bondgirlbook) and Twitter (@bondgirlbook).

James Chapman is a Professor of Film Studies at the University of Leicester and is the author of Licence to Thrill: A Cultural History of the James Bond Films (Tauris, 2007). His other books include Inside the Tardis: The Worlds of Doctor Who—A Cultural History (Tauris, 2006), Saints and Avengers: British Adventure Series of the 1960s (Tauris, 2002), and (with Nicholas J. Cull) Projecting Empire: Imperialism and Popular Cinema (Tauris, 2009). Chapman is also a Council member of the International Association for Media and History and is Editor of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television.

John Cork is the author (with Bruce Scivally) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He also wrote (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007). He is the president of Cloverland, a multi-media production company, producing documentaries and supplemental material for movies on DVD and Blu-ray, including material for Chariots of Fire, The Hustler, and many of the James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He recently wrote and directed the feature documentary You Belong to Me: Sex, Race and Murder on the Suwannee River for producers Jude Hagin and Hillary Saltzman (daughter of original Bond producer, Harry Saltzman); the film is now touring festivals.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012; www.jamesbondunmasked.com; and updated for Kindle which includes a chapter on Skyfall and exclusive interview with Sam Mendes). He is the owner of Immersed in Movies (www.billdesowitz.com), a contributor to Thompson on Hollywood at Indiewire and contributing editor of Animation Scoop at Indiewire. He has also contributed to the Los Angeles Times and USA Today.

Charles Helfenstein is the author of The Making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (Spies, 2009) and The Making of The Living Daylights (Spies, 2012).

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001), and (with Dave Worrall) The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999). He also wrote (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002) and (with Dave Worrall) The Great Fox War Movies (20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, 2006). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the founder (with Dave Worrall) and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.” 

Bruce Scivally is the author (with John Cork) of James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). He has also written Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006), Billion Dollar Batman: A History of the Caped Crusader on Film, Radio and Television from 10¢ Comic Book to Global Icon (Henry Gray, 2011), and the forthcoming Dracula FAQ. As well, he has written and produced numerous documentaries and featurettes that have appeared as supplemental material on LaserDisc, DVD and Blu-ray Disc, including several of the Charlie Chan, James Bond, and Pink Panther releases. He teaches screenwriting, film production and cinema history and theory at The Illinois Institute of Art–Chicago and Columbia College.

And now that the participants have been introduced, might I suggest cueing up the On Her Majesty’s Secret Service soundtrack album and preparing a martini (shaken, not stirred, of course), and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service worthy of celebration on its 45th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is without a doubt one of the all-time great Bond films. It’s been fashionable for a long time to complain about it because of George Lazenby’s one-shot take on 007, but that ignores the impressive accomplishments of the movie in every other respect, from script to direction to locations to music. It’s still a masterpiece.

Robert A. Caplen: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is worthy of praise for imbuing the series with a more humanistic approach, depicting the vulnerability of James Bond as he falls in love with and mourns the death of Tracy di Vicenzo. While the film has garnered significant criticism, it endures and remains entertaining. And, with SPECTRE on the horizon in 2015, there is a possibility, unless I read too much into the SPECTRE teaser art, that OHMSS could experience a renaissance.

James Chapman: All Bond movies are worth celebrating, though On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a special case as it’s unique in the Bond series. I think for a long time it was the black sheep of the Bond family, the one film in the series that was supposedly a failure. Let’s put that one to bed straight away. OHMSS was a failure only in so far as it was less successful at the box-office than the previous four Bond movies; it was still one of the biggest-grossing films of 1970 and was the top box-office attraction in Britain. And when I looked at the critical reception when I was researching my book on the Bond movies, I found that, while the reception was mixed, it was no more mixed than the response to Dr. No—in fact, some critics thought it was an improvement on Thunderball and You Only Live Twice.

This is a cliché, but it’s a film that improves every time I watch it. It’s the closest of all the films to the source, and, while I don’t think that fidelity to Fleming is necessary for a great Bond movie (viz. The Spy Who Loved Me or Skyfall), I think that a lot of the qualities I like in OHMSS are from the book. I’m glad they kept the ending, for example. In fact, I think it’s the downbeat ending that was probably responsible for the film’s lesser performance at the box-office than George Lazenby, who became something of a whipping boy after the event and carried the can for its supposed “failure.” It’s an old film industry adage that a happy ending doubles the box-office. As Molly Haskell said in her review of the film for Village Voice: “If you like your Bonds with a happy ending, don’t go.”

John Cork: Majesty’s holds an almost magical significance for many Bond fans, particularly the fans of my generation. The cinematic Bond has always tread this fine line between absurdist spectacle, nearly mythic storytelling and this sense that there is something a bit more human going on at the heart of Bond than meets the eye. We can love Bond battling Dr. No in a nuclear reactor as fuel rods are melting down, but that is balanced by the cold resignation of Bond shooting Professor Dent and listening to Honey describe murdering the man who raped her. But just four and a half years later with You Only Live Twice, the human element had all but evaporated. Did we really care if Aki is killed? Sure, YOLT is a fun film—great score, lovely locations—but it lacks any of the soul of literary 007. Majesty’s was a big, strange bet on Ian Fleming’s Bond, and in so many ways (and fans will hate that I say this) it failed. It almost killed the Bond franchise. Yet, I would argue it stands shoulder to shoulder with Goldfinger as the most influential Bond film in the series. How this happened is a remarkable story.

After OHMSS aired on ABC, fans were outraged at the way the film had been re-cut for the two-night run, with voice-over from an actor who was clearly not George Lazenby. Those who remembered the film well were very vocal in defending the movie. Richard Schenkman, president of the James Bond Fan Club in the US confronted Cubby Broccoli about it personally in 1977. Cubby was again questioned about it publically at a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art in 1979. There were soon two drumbeats that became constant in the fan community: one was about Kevin McClory’s attempt to remake Thunderball, and the other was about how OHMSS was the forgotten, underrated Bond film, and how the things that made it great were the very things missing in the Roger Moore Bond movies of the 70s.

After the success of Moonraker, Michael G. Wilson became a much more important creative partner in the series, and he tried to bring the Bond series back to Fleming and very much to setting the clock back to 1970. If you think of For Your Eyes Only almost as a sequel to OHMSS, you will get the idea. There’s Bond at Tracy’s grave. There’s Blofeld wearing the neck brace. The film is grounded in reality. Looking beyond that, we see the action scenes remind us of OHMSS—the skiing, the bobsled, the fight on a beach, the mountaintop lair. Before John Glen was tapped to direct the film, Eon reached out to Terence Young, who said no, and to Peter Hunt, the director of OHMSS. Hunt had other commitments and grave misgivings about going back to Bond at that point.

And after For Your Eyes Only, there is this continual battle over how much of the Fleming Bond is going to be present in the cinematic Bond, and, even more importantly, how that will be portrayed. The tone of Majesty’s is a strong and direct influence on Licence to Kill. It played a big role in the development of The World Is Not Enough. The shadow of Majesty’s permeates every bit of the Daniel Craig Bond films, and Eon’s buy-out of McClory’s rights ensures that the filmmakers can work with that part of Bond’s literary history again.

Bill Desowitz: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is a landmark Bond movie in so many ways: the first without Sean Connery; the sole appearance by newbie actor George Lazenby; the first and only directorial effort of editor Peter Hunt; the most faithful Fleming adaptation; a return to the lean, mean espionage of From Russia with Love; the first movie centered on Bond and falling in love with Tracy, played engagingly by Diana Rigg (who left The Avengers); the best action in the snow in franchise history; the most haunting score by John Barry; and the most devastatingly tragic finale with the murder of Tracy by Blofeld and his assistant, Irma Bunt.

Charles Helfenstein: It is the crown jewel of the James Bond series. Somewhat ignored and dismissed after its initial release, the film has enjoyed a well-deserved renaissance. It is a masterpiece, and those who ignore it just because of George Lazenby are missing out on something incredibly special…Ian Fleming’s world perfectly captured on film.

Lee Pfeiffer: The stature of OHMSS among critics and the public has risen appreciably since the film was released in 1969. At the time, virtually any film that followed the Connery era would have been met with derision. The film was not judged fairly, though hardcore Bond fans seemed to like it. The fact that the film grossed far less than the Connery Bonds also added to the mistaken notion that it was a dud. Lazenby did himself no favors by announcing he was quitting the role after one film, so critics could be excused for predicting that the Bond era was over. Yet, it’s precisely because of the oddball, one-off nature of the film that it resonates as one of the best entries in the series. Most of the credit has to go to Peter Hunt, who had edited the early Bond films. This was his directorial debut and it must have been a very sobering challenge for him to undertake a big-budget film with such high expectations. Hunt was determined to revitalize the series by thinking outside of the box. He correctly presumed that the series could not go any further into gadgetry and spectacle, especially in the wake of You Only Live Twice, which is a marvelous film but one that finally soured Connery completely in regard to playing 007. His criticism was well-founded: Bond was becoming a less interesting character and simply a catalyst for big action sequences. Hunt once told me that he felt by this point, Bond was simply a guy who presses a few buttons to utilize gadgets to get out of a jam. Hunt wanted to go back to the essence of Fleming’s novels, and he succeeded admirably. OHMSS is a thinking man’s Bond flick in the way that From Russia with Love was. There was a lot of tension during the making of the film. Hunt and Lazenby barely spoke. The producers, Broccoli and Saltzman, not only had troubles between themselves, but they were understandably upset that their new investment—George Lazenby—would not be doing another film. (It’s the only movie where “James Bond 007” gets above-the-title billing instead of the lead actor. Why promote someone who was moving on from the role?) There was also controversy about the running time of the movie with some of the “suits” arguing that it needed to be cut. But Peter Hunt stood his ground. The film was still successful financially but not nearly as much as its predecessors. Yet, its qualities have only grown with time and people have taken a much more mature attitude evaluating its merits.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Bruce Scivally: Why is On Her Majesty’s Secret Service worthy of celebration? Because it is a James Bond film like no other. It has an emotional resonance lacking in the earlier films, innovative editing, less reliance on gadgetry than almost any other film in the series, top-flight action scenes, an epic scope, beautiful cinematography, and one of the best scores in the series. It’s the bridge between the “classic” Bond of Sean Connery and the lighter, breezier Bond films of the 1970s. It was an attempt to return Bond away from the cartoon extravagance of You Only Live Twice and back to the Bond of Ian Fleming. It has the best screenplay of the series. And the biggest reason it’s worth of celebrating: Diana Rigg.

Coate: When did you first see On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and what was your reaction?

Burlingame: OHMSS was the first Bond I actually saw in a movie theater during its initial run, just after Christmas 1969 in upstate New York. I was “wowed” and it hooked me not only on Ian Fleming’s hero but on all things Bond, from novels to films to (of course) soundtrack albums.

Caplen: I recall watching OHMSS for the first time as a teenager and thought it was unique among the Bond films. The Louis Armstrong-crooning love scenes and the concept of a brainwashing a group of women as Blofeld’s angels of death were striking. The humor peppered throughout the film contrasted the final scene, which I thought was jarring and unsettling. Ultimately, I think that George Lazenby’s 007, despite all the negative criticism, fits the part in OHMSS quite well, and I view the film as a perfect bridge as the franchise moved into the 1970s.

Chapman: It would have been the occasion of its first TV screening on ITV (around about 1979 or 1980?). I have to confess that at the time I was rather underwhelmed. I was disappointed that it wasn’t the same as Goldfinger or You Only Live Twice and that it didn’t have Sean Connery in it. I’ve changed my mind since!

Cork: I first saw OHMSS at the Martin Twin theaters in Montgomery, Alabama, on its original release. I was just barely eight years old, and frankly, I had few concrete memories. My favorite moment was the snow plow, of course. And in a brutally honest confession, I didn’t understand Tracy’s fate at the end until my grandfather explained it to me.

Folks talk about the “downer ending,” but this was the era of Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Planet of the Apes, all huge hits, all with downer endings, and three of them involved key characters dying in a hail of bullets. Regardless, eight-year-old me thought Tracy just might have been taking a rest. I mean, that’s what James Bond was telling me.

Desowitz: I saw it first run at a new theater [in the San Fernando Valley region of Los Angeles] called the Valley Circle across from the Motion Picture Retirement Home. I saw it two weeks in a row because I enjoyed it so much. It had such rare emotional impact for a Bond movie. I missed Connery, but this was the most exciting and riveting for me.

Helfenstein: I first saw it on TV in the late 70s, and although it was a butchered, pan-and-scan version courtesy of ABC, Majesty’s is so brilliant that those presentation flaws didn’t matter—I was blown away. The hyper-kinetic fight scenes, Diana Rigg’s breath-taking beauty, the gorgeous cinematography, John Barry’s score, the final assault on Piz Gloria—it hit me like a ton of bricks.

Pfeiffer: I don’t know why, but men always seem to remember exactly where they saw virtually every movie they’ve ever experienced. I saw OHMSS at the State Theater in my home town of Jersey City, New Jersey. The fact that the studio didn’t have much confidence in it was illustrated by the fact that it was the first Bond movie in years to open with a second feature attached (Guns of the Magnificent Seven). Ordinarily, Bond films never played on double features because the theaters could make far more money by simply playing the latest 007 flick back-to-back. I recall being optimistic but wary. I was 13 years old and my mom and dad accompanied me. My mom was hooked on Connery and she hated the film. She thought Lazenby was a poor successor to him. She also said the film was far too loud and seemed endless. 

Scivally: I first saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service when it was broadcast on ABC-TV on February 16 and February 23, 1976. In that notorious broadcast, the film had been chopped in half to accommodate two 90-minute time slots over two evenings, and to pad it out to the requisite length, the ski chase scene was put at the beginning, with an actor who sounded nothing like George Lazenby doing a lame voice-over as 007. It then “flash-backed” to the actual beginning of the film...for a bit. Then it was the car rally scene. Then Bond’s meeting with Draco. In short, the re-edit bowdlerized the film, making it incomprehensible. After about half an hour of this travesty, I turned it off. When ABC ran the film again sometime later, I was a more dedicated James Bond fan, and determined that I would watch the film all the way to the end, no matter how horrible, so I could truthfully say I’d seen all the films in the series. This time, the network ran the film in a 3-hour slot (with commercials), and without any goofy re-editing. It was a revelation. By the time it was over, I was sure I’d seen one of the very best films of the series; it was as though the Connery films were the “Hollywood version” of the exploits of the “real” James Bond presented in Majesty’s.

Coate: Where do you think On Her Majesty’s Secret Service ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: Within the top five, unquestionably. I’d place one or two of the Connery films ahead of it and maybe the Daniel Craig Casino Royale. But it’s near the top, for sure. One of the reasons it’s so great is John Barry’s extraordinary score. Barry knew going in that the music, as much as any element of OHMSS, would have to reinforce the idea that this new fellow was 007 just as much as his predecessor. So the score is strong and memorable at every turn: the stylish main theme, the beautiful love theme (We Have All the Time in the World, sung so memorably by Louis Armstrong), the cutting-edge use of the Moog synthesizer, and thrilling music for the action sequences, all contributing to one of the greatest Bond scores of all time.

Caplen: I struggle ranking the films as I enjoy them all for different reasons. For me, OHMSS deserves its own category because it has a different feel than the other films. Given my focus on the franchise’s portrayal of women, I cannot say that OHMSS departs in any meaningful way from the films immediately preceding and postdating it. As I have written, OHMSS perpetuates the Bond Girl archetype by introducing a harem theme and the easy manipulation of women for pecuniary or other gain.

Chapman: For me it’s in the top three along with From Russia with Love and The Spy Who Loved Me. (My Bond tastes encompass both the traditional spy-type Bond pictures and the big spectacular action-adventure Bond pictures!)

Cork: This really depends. For me—and some folks will hate me for this—it personally ranks in the middle. There is so much I love about the film, but I think Michael Reed and Peter Hunt played with the look of the 60s Bond films a bit too much. I think it could be shorter. I wish some of the editing was bit less abstract. The scene where Draco talks about Tracy after kidnapping Bond seems to go on for weeks. Norman Wanstall’s sound editing is sorely missed, and the sub-standard sound effects and looping in places are a real distraction for me. Ultimately, the lack of on-screen chemistry between Tracy and Bond hobbles the film for me.

On the other hand, there is so much going for it, so much of the mood of Fleming’s writing, so much spectacle that is mind-blowingly wonderful. Barry’s score is among the best of his career. I think one of the things that I find frustrating about the film is just how close it came to being the movie that truly re-defined Bond for audiences when it came out. But it didn’t. It would take filmmakers who so loved Majesty’s to find a way to do that with Casino Royale and Skyfall.

Finally, in many ways, I can judge the film differently. Not by how successful it was at doing what it set out to do, but by what it aimed for, by travelling the path less taken, by aspiring to give Bond back his soul.

Desowitz: In the Top 10. For me it’s my personal favorite. It’s a meta-Bond; unappreciated in its day but beloved by many fans today. It has stood the test of time really well and served as the template for Casino Royale in many ways. Chris Nolan even paid homage to it in Inception.

Helfenstein: Artistically it is the best film in the series. It excels in four key areas. (1) The script. It is hands-down the most faithful adaptation of an Ian Fleming novel. (2) The visuals. Director Peter Hunt’s vision, cinematographer Michael Reed’s lighting and camera work, combined with the lush, dense sets created by production designer Syd Cain make a striking cinematic environment that simply hasn’t been topped since. To quote director Steven Soderbergh: “Shot to shot, this movie is beautiful in a way none of the other Bond films are—the anamorphic compositions are relentlessly arresting.” (3) The action. While Bond films are always on the cutting edge in the action department, stunt personnel that I’ve interviewed said OHMSS was about a decade ahead of its time with the fight scenes and stunts. (4) The love story. Hunt was astonishingly able to combine a technically brilliant action film with a heart-tugging, tragic love story.

Pfeiffer: I would rank the film alongside Goldfinger as my favorites of the series. It has aged very well, unlike some of the Bond flicks of the 1970s. It’s got a strong script and the type of exotic production values we’ve come to associate with the series. If I have any gripe about the films made since For Your Eyes Only, it’s that they lack the kind of spectacular endings that the Bond films were once known for. It seems like every film has Bond and the villain going mano-a-mano at the end. I’m second to none in my admiration for Daniel Craig and the great work he’s done in revitalizing the franchise. However, I would like to see something like the finale of OHMSS, with Bond leading an assault force against the bad guys. 

Scivally: When I went to Los Angeles to go to USC, I would go to James Bond double- and triple-features at the “revival house” movie theaters, and it was there that I saw the film on the big screen, in wide-screen, sans commercials. After seeing all the other Bond films at the revival houses, I decided that the best of all of them was From Russia with Love, and the next best was On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, followed by Goldfinger. Those films remain my top three favorites. The thing I find most appealing about From Russia and Majesty’s is that both of those films present 007 as a character who must use his brains to get out of dangerous situations, rather than, say, pushing a button on his wristwatch. There’s a very good example in Majesty’s, where Bond is imprisoned in the wheelhouse of the cable car, and with no gadgets, and no winter gear, he rips the pockets out of his slacks to use as makeshift gloves. That shows Bond to be clever, to be a little smarter than the average bear. Pressing a button on a gadget to get out of a bad situation—heck, I could do that.

Coate: Charles, what was the objective with your On Her Majesty’s Secret Service making-of book?

Helfenstein: My primary goal was to document not only the technical details (exact dates and times, locations, finances, challenges overcome, equipment used, etc.) but to uncover the influences of the key personnel. Not just the “how” it was filmed, but “why” the creative decisions were made. I started at the beginning, with the source material for the novel, in author Ian Fleming’s archives. Then I plumbed the depths of screenwriter Richard Maibaum’s archives, for the fascinating five years of work he did on the screenplay, including alternate drafts when Connery was still attached to the project, as well as ones with strange tangents including plastic surgery, and ones where Bond befriends a chimpanzee!

Film fans aren’t just interested in what made it to the screen, they want to know about what didn’t, so not only did I uncover the unused material from the early drafts, I also acquired storyboards from scenes cut including a large chase sequence through London and in the postal subway system, as well as a strange scene with a train full of corpses.

A large number of the call sheets, production memos, correspondence and 600-plus photographs in the book came directly from the OHMSS production archive of director Peter Hunt, which I acquired after he passed away in 2002. All told, the book took me about 10 years to put together, and judging from the tremendous response of both James Bond fans and the OHMSS cast and crew, my efforts paid off.

Coate: Compare and contrast George Lazenby’s turn as Agent 007….

Burlingame: Coming after Connery’s five films, it was impossible for Lazenby to measure up. I sometimes wonder whether we would have thought him more “acceptable” had there not been a Connery before him. Every actor has made his own mark on 007, from the more lighthearted Moore to the more serious Dalton, the somewhere-in-between Brosnan and now the modern-day Craig. But Lazenby did a creditable job. Had he stayed around to do Diamonds Are Forever, would he have grown into the role and be less “dismissed” today? One wonders.

Caplen: George Lazenby was tasked with the unenviable role of replacing Sean Connery as James Bond. Of course, no one can truly replace an original, so Lazenby was severely handicapped. To add insult to injury, Lazenby never seemed to win the full support of the producers, who continued to search for a replacement even after he was cast. Film reviews were particularly unforgiving. I recall one likened Lazenby to exuding the expressiveness of an Easter Island statue. Each time I watch the film, though, I am reminded that ”the other fellow” arguably would not have been able to deliver the James Bond required for OHMSS. It’s difficult to analyze Lazenby in the one-film vacuum, but I find that his portrayal of 007 has an energy and pace that is missing from Connery’s return in Diamonds Are Forever.

Chapman: Lazenby gets better in my eyes every time I watch the film. First—he looks good and moves well, nearly as well as Connery and Craig. Second—he’s superb in the action scenes. I think that of all the Bonds, Lazenby was the best at staging the fisticuffs. And the action scenes in OHMSS are some of the best in the whole series. And third—he proves himself a perfectly competent actor. Granted, he doesn’t have Connery’s confidence, and there are one or two scenes where he doesn’t get it right, notably the meeting with Draco. But I think he nails the final scene pretty well. In a sense, the fact that Lazenby wasn’t an experienced actor works in the film’s favor. His Bond reveals a degree of vulnerability, that’s there in the novel but not in the other films, at least until Casino Royale. For me Lazenby’s best scene is at the ice rink where he’s being hunted by Blofeld’s men after the ski chase. He looks frightened—note his reaction when he knocks into the person in the giant bear costume. This is psychologically plausible: he’s just skied down the mountain and fought off the two heavies in the bell-room so he must be exhausted. In the book Fleming writes that Bond was at the end of his tether and there wasn’t any stuffing left in him for another fight. The scene in the film has the same feeling.

Again, when I read the contemporary reviews, I found that the response to Lazenby was mixed. About half the reviews I read compared him unfavorably with Connery, but the other half thought he brought a freshness and new vitality to a series that some thought was starting to become stale after five movies. And, to be fair, the critical response to Connery in Dr. No was also mixed—some critics thought he was too thuggish and brutal (compare to the reaction to Daniel Craig), while others thought he fitted the role like a Savile Row suit. Connery’s performance in Dr. No is edgy: he really came into his own in From Russia with Love and Goldfinger. I do think that he was sleep-walking through the part by the time of Thunderball and You Only Live Twice, and in that sense it was time for a change.

Cork: It is almost unfair to talk about Lazenby. He is so honest when he talks about his own turn in the role. There is that great Sondre Lerche song, Like Lazenby, which was inspired by Lazenby’s interviews on the special features I helped produce for the DVD / Blu-ray releases of the film. The opening line is, “It’s a travesty, where do I begin…” That says a lot. George Lazenby is a fantastic guy. I’ve been fortunate enough to spend a bit of time with him, and had lunch with him earlier this year. He’s a great person, owns the room when he enters. But Bond was not kind to him. Peter Hunt believed he could edit a great performance out of him. Harry Saltzman advised him to act like a star and let no one push him around. And the press was brutal to him long before the film came out. It was a very harsh spotlight. For audiences, there was a real problem with what happened with Lazenby. For a significant portion of the film, he is impersonating someone else, a reasonably openly gay man. That was a tough burden for your typical James Bond audiences to stay within 1969/70. It wasn’t that they were offended, but one of the great appeals of Bond was his overt heterosexuality. But even worse, Lazenby is dubbed during this section of the film, robbing audiences of a key part of his performance. But, ultimately, he needed a stronger director, one that really knew how to draw a performance out of an actor rather than one who believed he could edit that performance into being. The result are some key scenes where Lazenby looks slightly lost. He is too often looking around like, “What the hell is going on?” There is a YouTube video intercutting the Bond casino scenes to make it appear that all the Bonds are playing against one another. In it, you can see how lost Lazenby looks compared to the others. It is a director’s job to make sure that Bond’s inner confidence can be seen throughout. I was friends with Peter Hunt. I think in so many ways he was vital to the success of Bond, a brilliant editor, but not an actor’s director. He did Lazenby no favors by under-directing him.

Desowitz: By all logic, Lazenby should’ve been a total disaster. And yet he was wonderful. He was handsome and had raw power and handled the action well. He was too young for this movie and had never acted before and it showed dramatically. Yet he was like a cipher without any previous baggage and I accepted him from the outset. (I think the opening line about “This never happened to the other fella” was a great icebreaker.) He was physically capable and unafraid of being vulnerable. We believed he was devastated at the end. He was a new kind of Bond, and it’s a shame he couldn’t be even more of himself instead of being directed in the mold of Connery.

Helfenstein: His massive physicality is evident from the pre-credits sequence onwards. The viewer has no trouble believing that this man is paid to kill people. Lazenby is without a doubt the Bond with the greatest amount of swagger. Those are his two greatest strengths. He’s certainly believable in the love scenes. Where he falls flat is the expository dialog scenes, especially the ones as Sir Hilary Bray, where he was dubbed. Those were the first scenes shot, and rather than bog down with getting the accent right, Hunt built Lazenby’s confidence by accepting takes he knew he would fix later in post-production. I think Lazenby’s overall confidence and happiness work very well in the film, and that positive outlook makes the gut-punch ending that much more powerful. Is George Lazenby the greatest “Actor” with a capital A to ever play James Bond? Of course not. But is he absolutely perfect for the part in OHMSS? Indubitably!

Pfeiffer: Lazenby was wise not to take the obvious route by trying to blatantly imitate Connery. Whether you like his interpretation of Bond or not, he did play the role in his own unique style and brought his own unique qualities to the role. 

Scivally: George Lazenby is the weakest link in the cast of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. He lacks the sheer animal charisma and seductive voice of Sean Connery, but he has a great physique, is classically handsome, and performs most of his scenes with assuredness; his initial encounter with Marc-Ange Draco (Gabrielle Ferzetti) is his least accomplished bit, but he’s quite good in his scenes with Telly Savalas’s Blofeld, and shows real tenderness and sincerity in his scenes with Diana Rigg. He manages to invest Bond with an air of vulnerability missing in Sean Connery’s portrayal, and his worst moments are no worse than some of the leaden scenes played by Connery in You Only Live Twice. By the end of the film, when he seems more polished, it’s easy to buy him as James Bond. It has always seemed to me that with every actor who played the role, it takes three films for them to fully grow into it. I think it’s a shame that Lazenby didn’t get three chances to perfect his Bond persona. It would have been interesting to see him in Diamonds Are Forever and Live and Let Die.

Coate: In what way was Telly Savalas’s Blofeld a memorable villain?

Burlingame: Savalas might just be the best of the Blofelds. (It’s either him or Pleasence.) He’s not at all to be taken lightly, and he and Ilse Steppat as Irma Bunt make a formidable duo. He was so good that I had a lot of trouble thinking of him as a good guy when he took the Kojak role a few years later.

Caplen: The Blofeld we see in OHMSS is devious, maniacal, and cunning. But he is also somewhat more plausible than his prior iteration on You Only Live Twice. His facial scar replaced with no earlobes, the OHMSS Blofeld is a character that is more amenable to anonymity and disappearing without much fanfare. He can also be taken seriously, which cannot describe his campy successor in Diamonds Are Forever. Casting Telly Savalas (and Diana Rigg) around newcomer George Lazenby undoubtedly strengthened the film’s acting credentials. 

Chapman: “Okay, we’ll head them off at the precipice!” The first time I saw the film, I was surprised to see Blofeld taking such an active role in the ski chase, as in the other films he’s presented as a hands-off supremo who leaves the physical work to his henchmen. But in YOLT (novel) he has a sword fight with Bond. So in that sense Savalas’s more active Blofeld is consistent with the books. I like it when the villain represents a physical threat to Bond regardless of whether he has a big henchman, so for that reason I prefer Savalas to the other Blofelds. Donald Pleasence with his scarred eye looks great in YOLT but his stature and delivery are nothing like the silhouetted Blofeld we’ve seen in previous films. And while I think Charles Gray is a marvelous actor, the less said about his Noel Coward turn as Blofeld in DAF the better.

Cork: Savalas was this great figure. I encountered him twice, and each time he had that same easy Greek smile that confounded you as to whether he was about to invite you to have dinner or simply slice off your head and show it to his friends. That is a great quality, and Savalas was a very skilled actor. Savalas dominates virtually every scene he’s in, but I do wonder what his performance could have been with just a bit more direction. During the ski chase and the final chase, where so much could have been done with his close-ups and his lines, so little is. In particular, I think of his reaction shot to Piz Gloria blowing up or him dropping the grenade in the bobsled or the shot of him driving at the very end of the film. He seems weak. Those are moments where a director and actor can lift something up, infuse a standard reaction with something that brings the character into focus. Think of Goldfinger’s little glance around when he’s briefly in the vault in Fort Knox. You just know this guy wants to have sex with that gold. Or think of Rosa Klebb’s reactions in From Russia with Love. Savalas is also saddled with the scene where he’s smitten with Tracy and trying to convince her to become his mistress, and that scene works for her, but not for him. He seems smarmy, clownish and awkward. Again, a strong director working with an actor of his caliber could have made that scene work, built up a real dangerous sense of sexual tension, and had the audience in the palm of their hand.

Yet, all my nitpicking aside, Savalas is always fun to watch, and one of the things he does best is chew up the scenery. He knows how to speak with this marvelous imperious tone. But those who know his body of work also know what he was capable of doing.

Desowitz: Savalas, like Lazenby, was miscast on the surface but was the best Blofeld: urbane, physically fit, witty, serious, pretentious—not at all like the thugs he usually played. In fact, The Assassination Bureau (which co-starred both Rigg and Savalas) was like a warm up for him. You almost felt sorry for him when he witnesses Piz Gloria going to pieces at the end. The bobsled climax was thrilling too.

Helfenstein: When Salavas was first interviewed in 1968 about what sets Blofeld apart from other Bond villains, he answered “Flair,” and I think that answer can apply to Savalas himself. While some people complain that Savalas seems a bit thuggish to be a criminal mastermind, I think he fits the part like a glove. Hunt did not want to re-hire the previous Blofeld, Donald Pleasance, because he was simply too slight, and he “waddled rather than walked.” He would not have worked with such a physical movie like OHMSS. Savalas has a commanding presence, an authoritarian voice, and he’s quite believable as the head of SPECTRE. You can picture him working his way up the ladder, taking out rivals with his bare hands if need be. My favorite Savalas moment is the demented cackle he makes after his grenade explodes—sending Bond hurdling out of the bobsleigh. You can tell this guy enjoys being evil!

Pfeiffer: There are plenty of fans who think that Savalas was poorly cast as Blofeld. It’s true that Savalas was primarily known for playing earthy tough guys and had recently come off playing two such characters in The Dirty Dozen and The Scalphunters. The main complaint against him is that he was out of place playing an aristocratic villain and intellectual. There is some validity in this. He lacks the sophistication that someone like George Sanders would have brought to the role, and certainly Donald Pleasence cast a larger shadow as Blofeld, bringing nuance and mystery to the character. However, there is no way Pleasence could have played Blofeld in OHMSS, given the requirements of the script which mandated that this time around, Blofeld had to pose a physical challenge to Bond. It wouldn’t have thrilled audiences very much to see George Lazenby tossing around a slightly built, much older man like Pleasence. So count me among those who feel that Savalas acquitted himself quite well in the role, not only in terms of the physical demands, but also in terms of interpreting the character. What he may have lacked in sophistication, he made up for in the area of wit and humor. 

Scivally: Telly Savalas is a menacing presence, and is believable as an athletic, physically capable adversary of Bond. One can’t easily imagine Donald Pleasance or Charles Gray in the ski chase. But while Pleasance gave Blofeld a slightly Germanic accent, Savalas plays it with his own Garden City, New York, American accent, making his more of a Bronx Blofeld. With Savalas, the polished veneer of civility really does seem like just a veneer—you sense that he’s a tough SOB underneath, whom you don’t want to cross. Charles Gray, by comparison, is so charming and civilized that it’s difficult to believe he would do the nasty things Blofeld is supposed to do. And while Pleasance has an oily, evil presence, he lacked the physical stature to make a credible physical adversary to Bond; he would never have seemed like a threat in the hand-to-hand fighting of the bobsled scene. With Savalas, you can believe that he might just get the best of 007.

Coate: In what way was Tracy (Diana Rigg) a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: Really, do you even have to ask? Diana Rigg is one of the great actresses of our time, from Shakespeare to The Avengers, and coming off the role of Emma Peel, she was simply ideal casting. If there is a problem with Lazenby in the role, it’s simply the fact that he just couldn’t match Rigg as Tracy and they had very little chemistry together. It was such a great part—the woman who finally won James Bond’s heart—and she still melts mine. I think Diana Rigg may just be the greatest “Bond girl” of all.

Caplen: I discuss Tracy di Vicenzo at length in Shaken & Stirred: The Feminism of James Bond. She is a significant female character in the franchise. Flawed, rebellious, and “untamed,” she must be repositioned by James Bond, the man who saves her from suicide at the beginning of the film but cannot shield her from Blofeld’s bullets at its conclusion. OHMSS shows the audience, through Tracy, what befalls a woman who challenges the role reserved for her in a patriarchal society. 

Chapman: “Her price is far above rubies—or even your million dollars.” I’m biased because I’ve had a major crush on Diana Rigg ever since I first saw The Avengers! But I think she was the first of the Bond “girls” with any real depth of characterization—partly due to the writing and partly to the performance. Most of the early Bond women are beautiful to look at but at best are two-dimensional characters. Even Pussy Galore isn’t all that well fleshed out, though Honor Blackman is superb in the role. But Pussy, having been set up as an independent woman resistant to Bond’s charms, succumbs pretty easily in the end. Tracy is different. I think Diana Rigg captures both the vulnerability and the bravado of the character. And for once the woman is seen acting independently—she saves Bond when she turns up at the ice rink. In fact I’d say she’s my favorite heroine in the whole series. A shame that she had to be killed off at the end, but there again, that’s what makes this film distinctive and provides a degree of emotional investment that we don’t really get in the other films.

Cork: Diana Rigg is beyond a doubt the greatest thing in the film. She owns the screen. The character of Tracy is, internally, the most complex Bond woman. Sure, Vesper is tormented, but more because of external factors. Tracy is a troubled mess who doesn’t know if life is worth living, and it is the loss of her life that becomes one of the most powerful moments in any Bond film. Bond saves her as a stranger, and loses her as the love of his life. I get great joy from the action and many other things about OHMSS, but it is Tracy’s story and Rigg’s performance that makes the film one I can watch over and over.

Desowitz: Tracy is the best Bond Girl because she’s the first that won his heart. Rigg evoked Emma Peel with her spunk and sense of fun and adventure. Tracy is such a sad soul who has nothing to live for in the beginning but is given a new lease on life after the wedding, only to have it taken away from her. She could hold her own in a fight and could match wits with 007. The proposal scene is touching and romantic, the car rally is good fun, and the closing sight of her corpse is unforgettable.

Helfenstein: The typical method of casting Bond girls involved finding unknowns, except for Goldfinger, and they decided to follow that alternate recipe exactly by hiring another Avengers veteran, and thank God they did. The role required a real range of emotions, not just window dressing. Rigg plays Tracy with an incredible mix of sophistication and elegance, emotional vulnerability, and independent spirit. Her physical abilities, honed by her years on The Avengers, caused the filmmakers to rewrite the climax so she would have a fight scene to show off her talents. It is difficult to imagine any Bond girl of any era coming close to the full package Rigg brought to OHMSS. There is only one woman on the planet that can get 007 to give up his bachelorhood, and her name is Diana Rigg.

Pfeiffer: Until Diana Rigg appeared in OHMSS, most Bond women were (unjustifiably) written off as beautiful airheads. That really isn’t true. Most of the airhead characters came after this film (those played by Jill St. John, Britt Ekland and Tanya Roberts being the most egregious examples). It can be said that Bond women represented liberated female characters. Sure, they may have swooned in Bond’s presence, but they were generally courageous, self-reliant women who were getting along just fine before Bond entered their lives. With the character of Tracy in OHMSS, there was much more of an overt attempt to present her as a modern, liberated woman. This was, after all, a film made in the burgeoning days of the Women’s Lib movement. Tracy was also Bond’s intellectual equal and was presented as a daring risk-taker. It didn’t hurt that she was portrayed by an actress of exceptional skill. This seemed to be the first time critics gave some grudging respect to a leading female character in a Bond film. 

Scivally: Long before I saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, I was in love with Diana Rigg. She was my idea of the ideal woman—beautiful, brainy and able to kick butt. I was a big fan of The Avengers, and wanted to grow up to be Mr. Steed so I could run around with Emma Peel. So, I was already pre-disposed to like Rigg before I saw the film. But her portrayal of Tracy di Vicenzo differs from her role of Mrs. Peel. Tracy has an inner melancholy that, when we first see her, is driving her to attempt suicide, and afterwards seems to be just under the surface. When she helps Bond escape from Mürren, the excitement of the situation—and his proposal—lifts her spirits and brings her to life; for the first time in her life, she’s really happy, and that makes her untimely death all the more tragic. Rigg, being an immensely skilled actress, makes us feel for Tracy from the first frame she’s in to the last.

Coate: What is the legacy of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?

Burlingame: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service demonstrated (conclusively, even at the time) that a tight, Fleming-based script; direction by the guy who had so brilliantly edited the previous five films; a genuinely inspired music score; great actors including Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas; superb production design; well-chosen locations and eye-popping action sequences; could ensure that a top-notch Bond film was possible even without Sean Connery. To this day OHMSS ranks as one of the finest 007 films ever made.

Caplen: OHMSS serves as proof that the character of James Bond transcends the actor cast for the role. Sean Connery’s departure ultimately had little impact on the franchise and paved the way for continuity with different actors portraying our favorite protagonist. Whatever your opinion of George Lazenby may be, he served a greater function than merely portraying James Bond in one film, and that aspect is often overlooked.

Chapman: I think there are both short-term and longer-term legacies. Its perceived “failure” at the box-office meant that the producers changed direction for the next film. So in the short term the legacy of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was Diamonds Are Forever: Connery back, gadgets back, more or less a remake of Goldfinger but even more excessive in its bizarre situations and visuals. I know that some fans maintain that the Roger Moore films ruined the Bond series. I don’t. And the style of the 1970s Bonds was set by Diamonds, which has more silliness and more camp than any of Roger’s films. Blofeld was never meant to be a realistic character, but the moment he appeared in drag ruined him as a plausible villain for me. Diamonds was back up at the box-office, though, suggesting that’s the style that audiences at the time preferred. But it meant the Bond movies steered away from any attempt at psychological or emotional realism, and instead embraced spectacle, visual excess and campy humor.

In the longer term, though, I think the influence of OHMSS can be seen in the modern Bond movies. With Casino Royale we had a vulnerable Bond again, grieving over the death of a woman he has fallen in love with. And with Daniel Craig, the Bond films have again explored Bond’s sense of duty and loyalty, most obviously in Skyfall, but it’s also there in the other two. The action set pieces in the recent films are also influenced by Majesty’s, I think: big and spectacular—and in the case of the pre-title sequence of Skyfall extended like the ski chase in OHMSS—but not silly or entirely impossible. I’ve been used to saying in recent times that I thought, in hindsight, Licence to Kill was the first Daniel Craig Bond movie—albeit without Daniel Craig. But perhaps, I might suggest, OHMSS was the first Daniel Craig Bond movie?

Cork: I answered this one way back in the first question. I’ll answer a different way now. I’ve talked about how Majesty’s influenced Bond films that echo its tone and style, but there is a counterpoint to that. When Majesty’s came out and did not become a breakout success on the scale UA hoped for, it changed the Bond films. UA made it very clear to Cubby and Harry that there were no more blank checks, that the studio would be heavily involved in the future Bonds, and David Picker personally became a major influence on Diamonds Are Forever. He got Connery back. He selected Tom Mankiewicz to do re-writes on the script. He almost succeeded in getting the film made in Hollywood where studio supervision would have been even more apparent. Most of all, Picker declared that what he wanted, and what he believed audiences wanted, was more Goldfinger and more humor. Until the end of the Brosnan era (with the exception of Licence to Kill), we are looking at a tone for Bond that is very heavily influenced by Picker’s creative input on Diamonds Are Forever. That’s an unexpected legacy, but it comes straight from OHMSS’s lack of box-office success.

Another legacy has to do with the way the producers and studios approached the job of directing Bond. I can’t speak for them, but we can look at their actions. Cubby’s big advice to Michael and Barbara was always not to let others screw up Bond. When you hire a director, it is a big leap of faith. Although Cubby later approached Peter Hunt for For Your Eyes Only, he was not pleased with Majesty’s. Peter was not someone he could relate to on a personal level. Terence Young, Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert were directors who were brilliant, but never pulled the “artiste” card. John Glen was a craftsman. And Cubby saw them all as problem-solvers. Peter as a director on On Her Majesty’s Secret Service was not seen as a problem solver. He was seen as a bit of an artiste. It would be twenty-five years before the filmmakers would hire a director with whom they did not already have a working relationship. Now, with Mendes—who was brought in at Daniel Craig’s suggestion—there is again the kind of creative trust with a director that Peter Hunt was given because of his history with the series.

There is one last legacy I want to mention that Majesty’s instilled in the series. For many years, the legacy was “stick to the formula, and don’t go stray or the audience will punish you.” But you can read in the interviews with Michael and Barbara that the films in the series that they keep talking about are Goldfinger and Majesty’s. They keep coming back to Majesty’s. Like me, I believe that they felt in a way that it was so close, so wonderful, but it wasn’t quite there. With the casting of Daniel Craig, it is clear they finally felt they had the right actor to take the kinds of creative chances that Majesty’s took, and to learn from the places where Majesty’s didn’t win over audiences. Bond films used to be very safe creatively. Now, they aren’t. Now they are taking chances like they did in 1969 with Majesty’s. But no longer is it one first-time director trying to steer the Bond juggernaut back to Fleming with the producers and the studio simply believing that Bond would never slide at the box-office. Now, it is the entire creative team encouraged by Michael and Barbara to take risks, to dig into the character of Bond, to challenge our expectations. And, in that sense, the legacy of Majesty’s is the continued success of the Bond films today.

Desowitz: The legacy is that it gave the franchise permission to be dark and tragic, and every now and then the franchise returns to the tone of this special movie, most recently with Craig’s trio of films. It also proved that the franchise could last without Connery, even though it would’ve been great to see Connery make this tender story as his Bond finale.

Helfenstein: It’s a legacy of risk-taking and a legacy of influence. While producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were known gamblers, both in casinos and in the movie business, they gambled to the extreme with OHMSS. Peter Hunt was a first time director. George Lazenby had never acted before. Think about that. They were replacing the world’s best known movie star with an absolute novice. They also took a risk by keeping Fleming’s tragic ending, and keeping the lengthy run time.

From an artistic standpoint the gamble paid off beautifully, with a masterpiece of a film. Financially however, the film did not make as much as some of its predecessors, and so it caused the pendulum to swing away from serious films to more light hearted ones.

The legacy of OHMSS influence has been demonstrated by nods and homages in every subsequent Bond actor era from Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig. The most prolific James Bond film director, with five entries under his belt, John Glen, is a huge fan of OHMSS, and that love for the film is seen throughout his work.

Marc Forster, the director of Daniel Craig’s second Bond film, states that his favorite Bond film is OHMSS, and when asked about his favorite Bond girl, Craig answers that it is Diana Rigg. Forty-five years later, Craig is currently filming SPECTRE, where he will face a villain named Blofeld, and a henchwoman named Irma.

But OHMSS’s influence reaches far outside the Bond series as well. A-list directors like Christopher Nolan and Steven Soderbergh profess their love for the film, and the climax of Nolan’s Inception is a direct nod to OHMSS. OHMSS’s influence isn’t limited to just cinematic film makers. The plot of the second season premiere of the BBC’s wildly successful Sherlock TV series, A Scandal in Belgravia, was influenced by the unused “death train” scene from OHMSS. Series co-creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss discuss the influence of OHMSS, as well as my making-of book, in the audio commentary of the episode.

Forty-five years later, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is no longer seen as the failed experiment, but as the cinematic triumph it truly is.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of OHMSS is that the Bond producers are generally rewarded, at least in the artistic sense, when they are willing to take risks. They did so with Roger Moore, who was the antithesis of Connery but was undeniably the popular choice during the years he played 007. The Dalton films could have been a major turning point in the series but only half-measures were taken and he never really got the opportunity he deserved to introduce an entirely new incarnation of Bond. They got it right with Brosnan, who was pivotal in bringing the series back from a six-year hiatus and proved Bond was relevant in the post-Cold War period. The producers’ big gamble with Daniel Craig has also paid off big time, and it illustrates the most daring gamble they ever took in terms of rebooting the entire series. But we shouldn’t forget that the first ballsy move in that regard occurred with OHMSS. The film was a painful experience for most of those involved due to infighting and bad press, but its legacy is that it holds up as being far superior to most of the CGI-filled monstrosities that pass for thrillers in the modern cinema. 

Scivally: After the gadgetry of Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice threatened to make technology the real star of the 007 films, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service returned the focus to James Bond, making him a more human character. For many years after its release, pundits said it was a shame that it did not star Sean Connery, salivating over the prospects of a Connery-Diana Rigg pairing when both were at the height of their sex appeal. But had Connery agreed to make the film, it would have been a very different movie. First of all, there would have been no need to have a stronger actress be the “Bond woman,” since Rigg was hired precisely because Lazenby was an inexperienced unknown. Secondly, Connery’s 007 was a much more callous lady-killer; Lazenby’s Bond showed more sensitivity. One can believe that Lazenby’s Bond would fall in love, and be shattered when his wife is murdered. In the prior film, You Only Live Twice, Bond seems to be falling for Aki, yet when she is killed, he immediately begins speaking to Tanaka about the mission, as if Aki’s death is merely a nuisance, like, say, a hangnail. Furthermore, it was because a new actor was taking on the role that director Peter Hunt felt emboldened to reinvent the series by taking it back to a tone closer to Ian Fleming’s source material and away from the jokey gadget-fests the Bond movies had become. Sadly, the film stumbled at the box-office (though its reputation has grown over the years), and the subsequent 007 films veered away from the more reality-based spy thriller mold of Majesty’s and back to the fun-filled romp model, beginning with Connery’s return in Diamonds Are Forever. James Bond would never be so serious again until Casino Royale. Lastly, the lasting impact of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is that it showed that a James Bond film could be made without Sean Connery in the lead role. The producers maintained that audiences came to the films to see James Bond, not necessarily the actor playing him. Majesty’s helped prove that point.

Coate: Thank you, everyone, for participating and for sharing your thoughts about On Her Majesty’s Secret Service on the occasion of its 45th anniversary.

---

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering A View to a Kill on its 30th Anniversary.

- Michael Coate

The Digital Bits is pleased to present this retrospective commemorating the 35th anniversary of the release of Star Trek: The Motion Picture, the first big-screen adventure of the crew of the USS Enterprise. This serves as a companion piece to our recent interview with film historian and author Preston Neal Jones about his newly-published book on the making of the film. This time around we feature a Q&A with an esteemed group of Star Trek authorities who began as fans and are now film industry professionals (with credits on Star Trek-related projects) and we discuss the virtues and shortcomings of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and examine whether or not the film has endured. (The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format.)

Okay, let’s (alphabetically) meet the participants…

Mark A. Altman co-wrote and co-produced Free Enterprise, the beloved Star Trek-inspired cult classic starring William Shatner, as well as The Specials and DOA: Dead or Alive. In addition, he has been a writer and producer on several television series including Castle, Necessary Roughness and Femme Fatales, which he co-created. He is the founding publisher of Geek magazine and was the editor-in-chief of Sci-Fi Universe magazine. His books include Charting the Undiscovered Country: The Making of Trek VI (Cinemaker, 1992; co-authored with Ron Magid and Edward Gross), Great Birds of the Galaxy: Gene Roddenberry and the Creators of Trek (Boxtree, 1994; co-authored with Edward Gross) and Trek Navigator: The Ultimate Guide to the Entire Trek Saga (Back Bay, 1998; co-authored with Edward Gross). His new book, The Fifty Year Mission, co-written with Edward Gross, is an oral history of the Star Trek franchise and will be published in 2016 by St. Martin’s Press.

Jeff Bond is the author of The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999). He also wrote Danse Macabre: 25 Years of Danny Elfman and Tim Burton (included in The Danny Elfman & Tim Burton 25th Anniversary Music Box, Warner Bros., 2011) and is co-author with Joe Fordham of Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014). Jeff is the former editor of Geek magazine, covered film music for The Hollywood Reporter for ten years, and has contributed liner notes to numerous CD soundtrack releases. He also has portrayed Dr. McCoy on the Star Trek New Voyages: Phase II Internet series.

Neil S. Bulk is a music editor and soundtrack producer. He co-produced Star Trek: The Original Series Soundtrack Collection and was involved with over 150 other CD soundtrack/original score releases including the Lethal Weapon Soundtrack Collection, North by Northwest, The Blue Max, and Dennis the Menace. He recently was hired by Bruce Botnick (the executive producer on the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture soundtrack album) to edit The Legacy Collection release of The Little Mermaid. Neil also appeared as a cadet in J.J. Abrams’ first Star Trek film.

Robert Meyer Burnett directed, co-wrote and edited Free Enterprise and co-produced and edited the supplemental material for the Blu-ray season sets of Star Trek: The Next Generation and Star Trek: Enterprise. He has worked as a consultant for Star Trek: The Experience at the Las Vegas Hilton. He co-produced Agent Cody Banks and The Hills Run Red, as well as directed and edited several episodes of the Cinemax series Femme Fatales. He is the owner of Ludovico Technique, which specializes in the production of Value Added Material for DVD and Blu-ray releases. He has produced VAM for titles such as The Usual Suspects, Superman Returns, X-Men, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe.