For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a historical/reference listing of the film’s first-run theatrical engagements; and, finally, an interview segment with an esteemed group of film authorities and historians.

ROCKY NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among films in the Rocky franchise (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Number of opening-week engagements
• 1 = Peak Billboard chart position for Gonna Fly Now
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1976 (legacy)
• 2 = Rank among United Artists’ all-time top-earning movies at close of original run
• 3 = Box-office rank among films in the Rocky franchise
• 3 = Number of Academy Awards
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1977 (calendar year)
• 6 = Number of sequels and spinoffs
• 7 = Number of weeks North America’s top-grossing movie (weeks 10-16)
• 8 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 10 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 15 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1970s
• 20 = Number of days of principal photography
• 26 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 36 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a single-screen theater)
• 52 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a multiplex)
• 78 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)

• $5,488 = Opening day box-office gross
• $33,809 = Opening week box-office gross
• $1.6 million = Production cost
• $6.8 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $55.9 million = Domestic box-office rental
• $107.8 million = International box-office gross
• $117.2 million = Domestic box-office gross
• $222.9 million = Domestic box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $225.0 million = Worldwide box-office gross
• $430.1 million = International box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $467.6 million = Domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $676.3 million = Domestic box-office gross (entire Rocky franchise)
• $897.5 million = Worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $1.6 billion = Domestic box-office gross (entire Rocky franchise; adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Rocky is a movie overtly about a boxer, a stale jock in his decline, which is knee-deep in clichés without tripping over any of them. It is a simple story that is not simple-minded; it is a warm and human film with blunt emotions leavened by humor and above all, it is a totally derivative movie that manages to be original…. We live in a time that disparages heroism because there is no longer an accepted definition of it, and Stallone has been smart or, more accurately, sly enough to sense the gap that is left. He has filled it with earthy humor, poignance and decency and there is still enough of that around for Rocky to find the vast audience and success that it deserves.” — Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Rocky is a pugnacious, charming, grimy, beautiful fairy tale. A formidable accomplishment. One of the best scripts and performances of the year.” — John Simon, New York

“There have been a number of first-rate American films released in 1976, but none has combined, to the degree Rocky does, artistic excellence, emotional impact and a good, old-fashioned, romantic, happy ending. It is both gripping and up-beat — that rare bird which is a so-called audience picture and a so-called critic’s picture.” — John L. Wasserman, San Francisco Chronicle

“The climactic fight sequence is brutal and breath-taking — guaranteed to reduce even the most skeptical observer to a quivering fan. Even the most jaded preview crowds have burst into applause at the film’s closing.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Not since The Great Gatsby two years ago has any film come into town more absurdly oversold than Rocky, the sentimental slum movie…. Under the none too decisive direction of John G. Avildsen, Mr. Stallone is all over Rocky to such an extent it begins to look like a vanity production. His brother composed one of the film’s songs and appears briefly, as does his father, while his dog, a cheerful mastiff named Butkus, plays Rocky’s dog. It’s as if Mr. Stallone had studied the careers of Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola and then set out to copy the wrong things.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“A lot of [the credit] goes to Stallone when he wrote this story and then peddled it around Hollywood for years before he could sell it. He must have known it would work because he could see himself in the role, could imagine the conviction he’s bringing to it, and I can’t think of another actor who could quite have pulled off this performance. There’s that exhilarating moment when Stallone, in training, runs up the steps of Philadelphia’s art museum, leaps into the air, shakes his fist at the city, and you know he’s sending a message to the whole movie industry.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Rocky is a glowing tribute to the human spirit. A wonderfully tender love affair. It’s the creation of a truly sensational new talent, Sylvester Stallone.” — Kathleen Carroll, New York Daily News

“A delightfully human comedy that will undoubtedly wind up as the sleeper of this movie year. Packed with comedy, perception, and sensitivity, Rocky is a sincere, rousing film that raises the spirits and gladdens the heart.” — Judith Crist, Saturday Review

“Writer Stallone’s own acting in the central role is an expert catalogue of dese-dem-dose speech patterns and Adorable Bum mannerisms. At times his work is more like a nightclub routine than a complex characterization. But lovable he sets out to be and lovable he is, and you’d need a heart of granite not to be cheering for him when the bell rings.” — Clyde Gilmour, The Toronto Star

“[Rocky] gives the movie season a shot of adrenalin. As modern as today, it is nevertheless made like an old fashioned movie, with vitality and heart. A real upper in a year of downers.” — Bob Thomas, Associated Press

“Rocky hits right on the button! Rocky seems as brilliantly orchestrated as a fine if raucous symphony…. Stallone’s own performance is a once-in-a-lifetime coming together of man and material…. Rocky got roaring, sustained, standing ovations the likes of which I can’t remember hearing at a movie before.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“Although Rocky is a familiar kind of screen romance, in which a nobody gets a chance to become a somebody, watching the film is still an invigorating experience. For one thing, it glows with sincerity. It also introduces an outstanding performer, Sylvester Stallone, who has passed virtually unnoticed in earlier, not particularly noteworthy, pictures. Rocky makes a star of Stallone.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press

“Despite realistic touches like Rocky’s apartment and his girl friend’s frumpy wardrobe, Rocky isn’t a realistic movie. The purpose is escapism, and the audience’s howls during a fight scene make it plain that Rocky appeals to the lurking punk in all of us…. Rocky, the Italian Stallion, is kind of hard to take seriously. What, for instance, is an audience to make of a black leather jacketed shakedown man with a fondness for turtles, goldfish and big, dumb dogs?” — Joel Clark, The Grand Rapids Press

“When it opened in New York and Los Angeles late last year, a low-budget movie about a small-time boxer called Rocky was widely heralded as the sleeper of the season. It has since been the subject of a phenomenal media blitz, won two major awards as the year’s best movie, and will undoubtedly figure prominently in the Oscar nominations. When it makes its local debut, Rocky won’t be a sleeper anymore, but if no one’s likely to be taken by surprise by its virtues, neither is there likely to be a significant post-hype letdown. The film is such an exuberant audience-pleaser that it’s practically hype-proof.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“A great movie? Hardly. Stallone as the next Brando? You’ve got to be kidding. A nice little fantasy picture? Maybe.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Sylvester Stallone will have to appear in some additional film before it will be possible to tell whether his performance is real craft or just an initial exposure to the actor’s charismatic reality.” — Tom McElfresh, The Cincinnati Enquirer

“Rocky is a winner. The movie is the kind of tight, rewarding and entertaining little movie that has kept the industry alive. Indeed, it may be a sign of the present desperate condition of the business that a good film like Rocky seems even better than it is. We’ve had so few genuinely engaging and human-scaled films lately that it shines more brightly by comparison. But, even if it has been overpraised in some quarters, a movie like Rocky deserves our best wishes for the clarity and honesty of its vision.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“The story is achingly familiar, and the though Stallone has a certain power, he is certainly not the subtlest actor to crawl out from under Marlon’s overcoat.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Not since Jaws has there been a crowd-pleaser like Rocky, where the pleasure can be gauged by the crowd’s audible response.” — Susan Stark, Knight News Wire

“The movie is a tremendous victory, not only for Rocky, but for its creator Stallone. Both serve as inspiration that the dream of America as the land of untold possibility and opportunity might not be so preposterous after all.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“The film has brought a great deal of pleasure to many audiences, and I liked it a lot. But ‘liking it a lot’ won’t do; Rocky is a film which insists you must love it. The truth is, though, that Rocky manipulates its audience as clearly as any 1930’s movie that pops up on the Late Show. There’s nothing wrong with a film’s being manipulative (most of my favorite movies have been knowing, willing manipulators); but John Avildsen’s direction lets us see the strings once too often.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“If you already thought boxing is the sport of barbarians, Rocky should do nothing to dispel the notion. If any notion is dispelled, it should be that they don’t make movies like they used to. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they make them better today than they did then. Rocky may be one of those times.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“There are Marty overtones in abundance here, and that’s a strong commercial omen for the $1,000,000 gamble herein. The very best way to enjoy Rocky is not to examine it too carefully; better simply to relax and roll with the Walter Mitty, Cinderella, or what-have-you notion that the least of us still stands a chance of making it big.” — A.D. Murphy, Variety

THE FIRST-RUN THEATRICAL ENGAGEMENTS

The following is a (work-in-progress) historical/reference listing of the first-run theatrical engagements of Rocky in the United States and Canada. It is not a complete listing. The objective here was to cite the major first-run markets and principal cities of each U.S. state and Canadian province in which the film first played to illustrate the slow, staggered nature of (most) 1970s era film distribution and exhibition as well as to provide some nostalgia for those who saw the movie during the original release. A sprinkling of small-town and college-town engagements have been included, as well (even though they fall below the population threshold of this project), but understand these represent only a fraction of the thousands of total bookings throughout the many cycles of distribution over the course of the film’s release. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, is provided for some of the entries to provide a sense of the movie’s popularity.

For a few of the very largest markets (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.) the subsequent release wave(s) have been included, whereas in most cases only the first booking in a given market has been cited. With a couple of exceptions, “moveover” continuation engagements have not been included.

Some liberties have been taken in regard to some of the generically named theaters (i.e. “Cinema,” “Cinema Twin”). Typically such theaters were located in shopping plazas and as such they have been identified in this work whenever possible by the name of the shopping plaza even if, technically, such wasn’t the actual name of the venue.

Regarding multiplex venues, effort has been made to identify the total number of screens in a complex (at the commencement of the engagement) even if in some situations a “complex” consisted of screens spread out among separate buildings or an expansion/renovation occurred during the run. Additionally, simplified nomenclature for the sake of stylistic consistency has been utilized for venue screen counts (i.e. “twin,” triplex,” 4-plex,” etc.) instead of retaining the (often inconsistent) individualistic usage of numbers or Roman numerals that may have been present in advertising or used on marquees. In cases where the film was screening in more than one auditorium in a complex, both engagements are cited but the numbers provided represent print numbers and do not necessarily reflect the auditorium number in which the film was playing.

In a few cases, the name of a location has changed since 1976/77 (typically due to annexation or incorporation) and such cases have been listed according to the city or recognized name at the time of engagement.

The chain names have not been included, and the work does not include any international or re-release engagements.

The release prints of Rocky were spherical 35mm with an intended aspect ratio of 1.85:1 and with standard monaural audio.

So…which theaters played Rocky on first release?

• 1976-11-20 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Paramount (world premiere screening)

• 1976-11-21 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Cinema II (9 weeks)

• 1976-12-01 … Los Angeles (Westwood Village), CA — Plaza (20)

• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — 86th Street East (9)
• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Murray Hill (9)
• 1976-12-10 … New York (Manhattan), NY — State Twin (9)
• 1976-12-10 … Totowa, NJ — Cinema 46 Triplex (#1: 6)
• 1976-12-10 … Totowa, NJ — Cinema 46 Triplex (#2: 6)
• 1976-12-10 … Woodmere, NY — Five Towns (6)

• 1976-12-16 … San Francisco, CA — Regency I (15+)
• 1976-12-16 … San Jose, CA — Century 21 (15)

• 1976-12-17 … Anaheim, CA — Century 21 Twin (22)
• 1976-12-17 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall Twin (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Costa Mesa, CA — South Coast Plaza Triplex (40)
• 1976-12-17 … El Monte, CA — Starlite Drive-In (15)
• 1976-12-17 … Long Beach, CA — Los Altos 3-Screen Drive-In (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Los Angeles (Hollywood), CA — Pix (26)
• 1976-12-17 … Los Angeles (Studio City), CA — Studio (15)
• 1976-12-17 … Pasadena, CA — Academy (22)
• 1976-12-17 … Santa Ana, CA — Harbor Blvd. Drive-In (8)
• 1976-12-17 … Torrance, CA — United Artists (18)

• 1976-12-21 … Chicago, IL — Water Tower 4-plex (#1: 20)
• 1976-12-21 … Chicago, IL — Water Tower 4-plex (#2: 20)
• 1976-12-21 … McLean, VA — Tysons Corner 5-plex (#1: 27)
• 1976-12-21 … McLean, VA — Tysons Corner 5-plex (#2: 22)
• 1976-12-21 … Philadelphia, PA — Eric Rittenhouse Square Twin (#1: 18)
• 1976-12-21 … Philadelphia, PA — Eric Rittenhouse Square Twin (#2: 18)
• 1976-12-21 … Toronto, ON — Uptown 5-plex (52)
• 1976-12-21 … Washington, DC — Avalon Twin (#1: 27)
• 1976-12-21 … Washington, DC — Avalon Twin (#2: 15)
• 1976-12-21 … Wynnewood, PA — Eric Wynnewood (21)

• 1976-12-22 … Boston, MA — Cheri Triplex (27)

• 1977-01-14 … Goleta, CA — Fairview (16)

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

• 1977-01-19 … Babylon, NY — Babylon (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Bay Shore, NY — Bay Shore Drive-In (3)
• 1977-01-19 … Bedford, NY — Playhouse (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Brick, NJ — Brick Plaza Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Brookfield, CT — Fine Arts (14)
• 1977-01-19 … Carmel, NY — Cinema Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Clifton, NJ — Allwood (5)
• 1977-01-19 … East Brunswick, NJ — Brunswick Square Twin (18)
• 1977-01-19 … East Hampton, NY — Easthampton Twin (3)
• 1977-01-19 … East Meadow, NY — Meadow Brook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Freehold, NJ — Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Garden City Park, NY — Park East (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Greenwich, CT — Greenwich (15)
• 1977-01-19 … Hackettstown, NJ — Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Hanover, NJ — Morris County Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Hazlet, NJ — Cinema Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Huntington, NY — Shore Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Jersey City, NJ — Hudson Plaza Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Long Branch, NJ — Movies Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Lynbrook, NY — Lynbrook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Massapequa, NY — Jerry Lewis Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Monticello, NY — Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New Rochelle, NY — Town (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Bronx), NY — Interboro (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Bronx), NY — Paradise Triplex (19)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Alpine Twin (18)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Brook (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Brooklyn), NY — Kingsway Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — 83rd Street Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Columbia Twin (9)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Manhattan), NY — Greenwich (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Cross Bay Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Forest Hills (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Queens), NY — Meadows (5)
• 1977-01-19 … New York (Staten Island), NY — Richmond (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Newburgh, NY — Windsor (12)
• 1977-01-19 … Paramus, NJ — Route 17 Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Patchogue, NY — Patchogue (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Pearl River, NY — Pearl River (18)
• 1977-01-19 … Plainview, NY — Morton Village (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Poughkeepsie, NY — Juliet (16)
• 1977-01-19 … Rutherford, NJ — Route 3 Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-19 … Rye, NY — Rye Ridge (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Secaucus, NJ — Harmon Cove 4-plex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Shrewsbury, NJ — Shrewsbury Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Smithtown, NY — Smith Haven Mall (5)
• 1977-01-19 … South Plainfield, NJ — Middlesex Mall Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Suffern, NY — Lafayette (16)
• 1977-01-19 … Toms River, NJ — Ocean County Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Union, NJ — Union Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-19 … Watchung, NJ — Blue Star Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … West Orange, NJ — Essex Green Twin (5)
• 1977-01-19 … Westport, CT — Fine Arts Triplex (15)
• 1977-01-19 … Yonkers, NY — Central Plaza Twin (5)

• 1977-01-21 … Berkeley, CA — Oaks Twin (23)
• 1977-01-21 … Carmel, CA — Golden Bough (22)
• 1977-01-21 … Citrus Heights, CA — Sunrise 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Closter, NJ — Closter (5)
• 1977-01-21 … Dallas, TX — Cine Twin (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Dallas, TX — Park Forest (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Fresno, CA — Movies 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Fresno, CA — Sunnyside Drive-In
• 1977-01-21 … Hayward, CA — Festival 6-plex (28)
• 1977-01-21 … Houston, TX — Gaylynn Terrace
• 1977-01-21 … Independence, MO — Blue Ridge 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Las Vegas, NV — 1-2-3 Cinemas Triplex (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Leawood, KS — Ranch Mart 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Oakland, CA — Century 21 (10)
• 1977-01-21 … Palo Alto, CA — Palo Alto Square Twin (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Pleasant Hill, CA — Century 5-plex (#1: 48)
• 1977-01-21 … Pleasant Hill, CA — Century 5-plex (#2: 23)
• 1977-01-21 … Reno, NV — Granada Twin (25)
• 1977-01-21 … Sacramento, CA — Century 5-plex
• 1977-01-21 … San Mateo, CA — Manor Twin (27)
• 1977-01-21 … San Rafael, CA — Montecito (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Santa Cruz, CA — Rio (21)
• 1977-01-21 … Stockton, CA — Stockton Royal 4-plex
• 1977-01-21 … Wayne, NJ — Willowbrook (5)

• 1977-01-26 … Ann Arbor, MI — Fifth Forum
• 1977-01-26 … Brockton, MA — Westgate Mall 5-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Cicero, NY — Penn-Can Mall Triplex (24)
• 1977-01-26 … Colorado Springs, CO — Peak (8)
• 1977-01-26 … Dearborn, MI — Dearborn Entertainment Center Triplex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — Colorado 4-plex
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — Denver (The Pub)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — U-Hills Triplex (#1)
• 1977-01-26 … Denver, CO — U-Hills Triplex (#2)
• 1977-01-26 … DeWitt, NY — Shoppingtown Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Harper Woods, MI — Eastland Twin (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Honolulu, HI — Waikiki Twin
• 1977-01-26 … Lawrence, MA — Showcase 4-plex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Livonia, MI — Livonia Mall Triplex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Modesto, CA — Briggsmore
• 1977-01-26 … New Hartford, NY — Paris (21)
• 1977-01-26 … Norfolk, VA — Circle 6-plex
• 1977-01-26 … Palm Springs, CA — Village (15)
• 1977-01-26 … Pikesville, MD — Pikes (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Portland, OR — Bagdad Twin (14)
• 1977-01-26 … Portsmouth, NH — Jerry Lewis Twin (21)
• 1977-01-26 … Pueblo, CO — Pueblo Twin (14)
• 1977-01-26 … Roseville, MI — Macomb Mall Triplex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Sayreville, NJ — Amboys Drive-In (2)
• 1977-01-26 … Seekonk, MA — Showcase 4-plex
• 1977-01-26 … South Burlington, VT — Century Plaza Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … South Portland, ME — Maine Mall Triplex (16)
• 1977-01-26 … Southfield, MI — Northland Twin (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Sterling Heights, MI — The Movies at Lakeside 4-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Sterling Heights, MI — Showcase 5-plex (10)
• 1977-01-26 … Stratford, CT — Stratford (16)
• 1977-01-26 … Taylor, MI — Southland Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Timonium, MD — Yorkridge Twin (22)
• 1977-01-26 … Toledo, OH — Franklin Park Twin (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Waterford, MI — Pontiac Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-01-26 … West Springfield, MA — Showcase 8-plex (20)
• 1977-01-26 … Westland, MI — Quo Vadis Entertainment Center 4-plex (17)
• 1977-01-26 … Worcester, MA — Showcase 4-plex (19)

• 1977-01-28 … Atlanta, GA — Greenbriar Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Atlanta, GA — Lenox Square Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Birmingham, AL — Eastwood Mall Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Brighton, MI — Brighton Triplex (14)
• 1977-01-28 … Carlsbad, CA — Plaza Camino Real 5-plex (23)
• 1977-01-28 … Decatur, GA — North DeKalb Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Decatur, GA — South DeKalb Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Fall River, MA — Center Twin
• 1977-01-28 … Gretna, LA — Westside Twin (18)
• 1977-01-28 … Knoxville, TN — Capri 70
• 1977-01-28 … Metairie, LA — Lakeside 4-plex (22)
• 1977-01-28 … Montreal, QC — Loews 4-plex (25)
• 1977-01-28 … Nashville, TN — Crescent (8)
• 1977-01-28 … New Orleans, LA — Kenilworth Twin (27)
• 1977-01-28 … New Orleans, LA — State Triplex (16)
• 1977-01-28 … Orange, CT — Showcase 5-plex (20)
• 1977-01-28 … Ottawa, ON — Elgin Twin (22)
• 1977-01-28 … Peoria, IL — Westlake Triplex
• 1977-01-28 … Richmond, VA — Westhampton (20)
• 1977-01-28 … Rockford, IL — Belford (8)
• 1977-01-28 … Rockford, IL — North Towne Mall Twin (15)
• 1977-01-28 … San Diego, CA — Campus Drive-In (15)
• 1977-01-28 … San Diego, CA — Cinerama (8)
• 1977-01-28 … Smyrna, GA — Cobb Center Triplex
• 1977-01-28 … Windsor, ON — Capitol Triplex (20)

• 1977-02-02 … Albuquerque, NM — Los Altos Twin (34)
• 1977-02-02 … Allentown, PA — Eric Twin
• 1977-02-02 … Boulder, CO — Flatirons
• 1977-02-02 … Buffalo, NY — Amherst Triplex
• 1977-02-02 … Casper, WY — Rialto (4)
• 1977-02-02 … Cheektowaga, NY — Como Mall 6-plex
• 1977-02-02 … Claymont, DE — Eric Tri-State Mall Twin (12)
• 1977-02-02 … Cincinnati, OH — Carousel Twin (27)
• 1977-02-02 … Cincinnati, OH — Studio Twin (25)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Continent 4-plex (32)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Forum Triplex (#1: 23)
• 1977-02-02 … Columbus, OH — Forum Triplex (#2: 13)
• 1977-02-02 … Doylestown, PA — Barn 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-02 … East Hartford, CT — Showcase 5-plex (20)
• 1977-02-02 … Edwardsville, PA — Gateway
• 1977-02-02 … Eugene, OR — Valley River Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Fairless Hills, PA — Eric Twin (16)
• 1977-02-02 … Fort Collins, CO — Aggie (7)
• 1977-02-02 … Frazer, PA — Eric Twin (26)
• 1977-02-02 … Harrisburg, PA — Eric East Park Center Twin
• 1977-02-02 … King of Prussia, PA — Eric King Twin (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Lancaster, PA — Eric Twin
• 1977-02-02 … Leominster, MA — Leominster 4-plex (14)
• 1977-02-02 … Little Ferry, NJ — Hackensack Drive-In (2)
• 1977-02-02 … Louisville, KY — Showcase 7-plex (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Montgomeryville, PA — Eric Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Murray, UT — Fashion Place 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-02 … Penfield, NY — Panorama (29)
• 1977-02-02 … Pennsauken, NJ — Eric Twin (16)
• 1977-02-02 … Phoenix, AZ — Chris-Town 5-plex (29)
• 1977-02-02 … Princeton, NJ — Eric Garden (15)
• 1977-02-02 … Provo, UT — Pioneer 2-Screen Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-02 … Provo, UT — Paramount (3)
• 1977-02-02 … Reading, PA — Eric Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Salem, OR — Southgate Triplex (10)
• 1977-02-02 … Salt Lake City, UT — Highland 2-Screen Drive-In (6)
• 1977-02-02 … Salt Lake City, UT — Trolley Square 4-plex (20)
• 1977-02-02 … South Salt Lake, UT — Century 5-plex (26)
• 1977-02-02 … Stratford, NJ — Eric Twin (21)
• 1977-02-02 … Tempe, AZ — University Twin (23)
• 1977-02-02 … Trenton, NJ — Eric Independence Mall Twin (19)
• 1977-02-02 … Tucson, AZ — El Dorado Twin (15)
• 1977-02-02 … West Seneca, NY — Seneca Mall Twin

• 1977-02-04 … Augusta, GA — Miller (1)                       
• 1977-02-04 … Baton Rouge, LA — Broadmoor Twin (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Baton Rouge, LA — North Park Twin (6)
• 1977-02-04 … Biloxi, MS — Surfside Twin (15)
• 1977-02-04 … Cedar Rapids, IA — Stage 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Charlotte, NC — Charlottetown Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Chattanooga, TN — Brainerd Village
• 1977-02-04 … Coral Gables, FL — Gables (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Deerfield Beach, FL — Ultravision Twin (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Des Moines, IA — Fleur 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Des Moines, IA — Sierra Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Evergreen Park, IL — Evergreen Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Fort Lauderdale, FL — Coral Ridge Twin (16)
• 1977-02-04 … Gainesville, FL — Royal Park 4-plex
• 1977-02-04 … Greendale, WI — Southridge Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Hampton, VA — Coliseum Mall Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Hattiesburg, MS — Broadacres 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Hialeah, FL — Palm Springs Twin (12)
• 1977-02-04 … Hollywood, FL — Florida Twin (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Homewood, IL — Diana Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Jackson, MS — Jackson Mall (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Jacksonville, FL — Cedar Hills
• 1977-02-04 … Jacksonville, FL — Plaza Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Lake Charles, LA — Charles Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Lauderdale Lakes, FL — Lakes Mall 6-plex (#1: 22)
• 1977-02-04 … Lauderdale Lakes, FL — Lakes Mall 6-plex (#2: 10)
• 1977-02-04 … Little Rock, AR — Heights (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Madison, WI — East Towne Mall Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Madison, WI — Strand (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Mary Esther, FL — Santa Rosa Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Merrillville, IN — Crossroads Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Miami, FL — Concord Twin (12)
• 1977-02-04 … Miami Beach, FL — Byron (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Milwaukee, WI — Northridge Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Milwaukee, WI — Skyway Twin
• 1977-02-04 … Monaca, PA — Movie World 4-plex (15)
• 1977-02-04 … Monroe, LA — Eastgate Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Monroeville, PA — Showcase 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Montgomery, AL — Capri
• 1977-02-04 … Niles, IL — Golf Mill Triplex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … North Miami Beach, FL — Sunny Isles Twin (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Northbrook, IL — Edens Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Oak Brook, IL — United Artists Twin (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Oak Park, IL — Lake (7)
• 1977-02-04 … Odessa, TX — Scott Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-04 … Omaha, NE — Cinema Center 4-plex (21)
• 1977-02-04 … Omaha, NE — Q Cinema 4-plex (20)
• 1977-02-04 … Palatine, IL — Willow Creek (13)
• 1977-02-04 … Pensacola, FL — University Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-04 … Pittsburgh, PA — Chatham (16)
• 1977-02-04 … Shreveport, LA — Shreve City (19)
• 1977-02-04 … South Miami, FL — Suniland Twin (17)
• 1977-02-04 … Tinley Park, IL — Bremen Triplex (13)
• 1977-02-04 … West Palm Beach, FL — Palm Beach Mall 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-04 … Wichita, KS — Twin Lakes Twin

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

• 1977-02-09 … Alexandria, VA — Mt. Vernon Twin (#1: 18)
• 1977-02-09 … Alexandria, VA — Mt. Vernon Twin (#2: 11)
• 1977-02-09 … Annandale, VA — Bradlick (8)
• 1977-02-09 … Arlington, VA — Arlington (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Bakersfield, CA — Stockdale 6-plex (#1: 19)
• 1977-02-09 … Bakersfield, CA — Stockdale 6-plex (#2: 4)
• 1977-02-09 … Bedford, NH — Bedford Mall Triplex (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Buena Park, CA — Lincoln Drive-In (7)
• 1976-02-09 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall 4-plex (#1: 7 [15]) [moveover from Mall Twin]
• 1976-02-09 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall 4-plex (#2: 7)
• 1977-02-09 … Columbia, MO — Uptown
• 1977-02-09 … Covina, CA — Fox Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Dayton, OH — Washington Square
• 1977-02-09 … Dubuque, IA — Cinema Center Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Erie, PA — Strand
• 1977-02-09 … Inglewood, CA — Century 2-Screen Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-09 … Johnstown, PA — Act Twin
• 1977-02-09 … La Mirada, CA — La Mirada 4-plex (13)
• 1977-02-09 … Landover, MD — Landover 6-plex (#1: 16)
• 1977-02-09 … Landover, MD — Landover 6-plex (#2: 6)
• 1977-02-09 … Laurel, MD — Laurel Twin (12)
• 1977-02-09 … Lawrence, KS — Varsity (5)
• 1977-02-09 … Long Beach, CA — Long Beach Drive-In (7)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Del Rey), CA — Marina Marketplace 4-plex (23)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Van Nuys), CA — Sepulveda Drive-In (7)
• 1977-02-09 … Los Angeles (Woodland Hills), CA — Topanga Twin (10)
• 1977-02-09 … Manhattan, KS — Campus (5)
• 1977-02-09 … Milan, IL — Showcase 6-plex (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Okemos, MI — Meridian Mall 4-plex (#1: 26)
• 1977-02-09 … Okemos, MI — Meridian Mall 4-plex (#2: 13)
• 1977-02-09 … Old Town, ME — University Twin (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Oxnard, CA — Sky View Drive-In (3)
• 1977-02-09 … Oxon Hill, MD — Oxon Hill (14)
• 1977-02-09 … Riverside, CA — Tyler Mall 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-09 … Rockville, MD — Randolph Twin (#1: 20)
• 1977-02-09 … Rockville, MD — Randolph Twin (#2: 20)
• 1977-02-09 … St. Joseph, MO — Hillcrest 4-plex (15)
• 1977-02-09 … Santa Fe Springs, CA — La Mirada Drive-In (4)
• 1977-02-09 … Seattle, WA — Town (36)
• 1977-02-09 … Spokane, WA — Garland (18)
• 1977-02-09 … Springfield, MO — Petite Triplex
• 1977-02-09 … Tacoma, WA — Tacoma Mall Twin
• 1977-02-09 … Trotwood, OH — Salem Mall 4-plex
• 1977-02-09 … Ventura, CA — Ventura (11)
• 1977-02-09 … Washington, DC — Lincoln Twin (6)

• 1977-02-10 … Carbondale, IL — Varsity Twin (13)
• 1977-02-10 … Champaign, IL — Co-Ed Twin
• 1977-02-10 … Springfield, IL — Esquire Triplex (20)

• 1977-02-11 … Altamonte Springs, FL — Altamonte Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Augusta, GA — Masters 4-plex (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Bradenton, FL — Cortez Plaza Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Calgary, AB — Chinook (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Clearwater, FL — Clearwater 4-plex (21)
• 1977-02-11 … Corpus Christi, TX — Cine 4-plex (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Daytona Beach, FL — Bellair Plaza Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Daytona Beach, FL — Sunshine Mall Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Decatur, IL — Northgate Mall Twin (11)
• 1977-02-11 … Edmonton, AB — Capitol Square 4-plex (19)
• 1977-02-11 … El Paso, TX — Morningside Mall Twin (19)
• 1977-02-11 … Fayetteville, NC — King Twin (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Fort Myers, FL — South Trail Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Gulfport, MS — Hardy Court Twin (3)
• 1977-02-11 … Hamilton, ON — Century
• 1977-02-11 … Huntsville, AL — Lyric
• 1977-02-11 … Lakeland, FL — Polk (3)
• 1977-02-11 … Lincoln, NE — Douglas Triplex (20)
• 1977-02-11 … London, ON — Century Twin (14)
• 1977-02-11 … Merritt Island, FL — Merritt Square 6-plex (17)
• 1977-02-11 … Mississauga, ON — Square One 4-plex
• 1977-02-11 … North Palm Beach, FL — Twin City Mall Twin (11)
• 1977-02-11 … North York, ON — Sheridan Mall Twin
• 1977-02-11 … North York, ON — Town & Countrye Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Ocala, FL — Ocala Twin (5)
• 1977-02-11 … Orlando, FL — Orange Blossom Twin (12)
• 1977-02-11 … Orlando, FL — Plaza Twin (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Raleigh, NC — Valley Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Regina, SK — Capitol Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Roanoke, VA — Tanglewood Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-11 … St. Petersburg, FL — Crossroads Twin (18)
• 1977-02-11 … Salina, KS — Sunset Plaza Twin (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Sarasota, FL — Gulf Gate Twin (14)
• 1977-02-11 … Satellite Beach, FL — Satellite (7)
• 1977-02-11 … Scarborough, ON — Cedarbrae 4-plex
• 1977-02-11 … Tampa, FL — Tampa Bay Mall Twin
• 1977-02-11 … Tampa, FL — Varsity 6-plex
• 1977-02-11 … Waukegan, IL — Belvidere Mall
• 1977-02-11 … Winnipeg, MB — Capitol (20)

• 1977-02-16 … Albany, NY — Hellman (6)
• 1977-02-16 … Altoona, PA — Logan Valley Mall 4-plex (13)
• 1977-02-16 … Annapolis, MD — Playhouse (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Austin, TX — Americana (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Baltimore, MD — Carlton (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Baltimore, MD — Charles (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Billings, MT — Rimrock 4-plex
• 1977-02-16 … Butte, MT — Plaza Twin (9)
• 1977-02-16 … Colorado Springs, CO — Cinema 70 Triplex (18)
• 1977-02-16 … Columbia, MD — Columbia City Twin (14)
• 1977-02-16 … Connellsville, PA — Laurel Mall (7)
• 1977-02-16 … Hagerstown, MD — Long Meadow Twin (12)
• 1977-02-16 … Lexington, KY — Chevy Chase (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Manchester, NH — Brandt Studio Twin (10)
• 1977-02-16 … Morgantown, WV — Met (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Oklahoma City, OK — Continental (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Pasadena, MD — Jumpers Mall Triplex (19)
• 1977-02-16 … Pittsfield, MA — Paris (12)
• 1977-02-16 … Pocatello, ID — Starlite Triplex (11)
• 1977-02-16 … Scranton, PA — Strand (14)
• 1977-02-16 … Stroudsburg, PA — Sherman Twin (5)
• 1977-02-16 … Tulsa, OK — Continental (17)
• 1977-02-16 … Twin Falls, ID — Twin Triplex (10)
• 1977-02-16 … Wichita Falls, TX — Parker Square Twin (3)
• 1977-02-16 … York, PA — Delco Plaza Triplex (12)

• 1977-02-17 … Iowa City, IA — Englert (9)

• 1977-02-18 … Abilene, TX — Westwood (5)
• 1977-02-18 … Amarillo, TX — Western Square Twin (14)
• 1977-02-18 … Bloomington, MN — Southtown (18)
• 1977-02-18 … Brooklyn Center, MN — Brookdale
• 1977-02-18 … Charlottesville, VA — University
• 1977-02-18 … Fayetteville, AR — Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-02-18 … Greeley, CO — Wilshire Twin (11)
• 1977-02-18 … Greensboro, NC — Janus 7-plex (30)
• 1977-02-18 … Kenosha, WI — Lake Twin (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Kitchener, ON — Lyric (11)
• 1977-02-18 … La Crosse, WI — Cinema Twin (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Lebanon, PA — Trans-Lux Twin (11)
• 1977-02-18 … Lubbock, TX — Winchester (21)
• 1977-02-18 … Memphis, TN — Malco 4-plex
• 1977-02-18 … Memphis, TN — Southbrook 4-plex
• 1977-02-18 … Oshkosh, WI — Time (10)
• 1977-02-18 … Racine, WI — Capitol Twin (12)
• 1977-02-18 … Roseville, MN — Har-Mar Twin
• 1977-02-18 … Waco, TX — 25th Street
• 1977-02-18 … Winston-Salem, NC — Parkway Plaza (10)

• 1977-02-23 … Akron, OH — Akron Square 6-plex (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Bennington, VT — Cinema Twin (9)
• 1977-02-23 … Canton, OH — McKinley Twin (18)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Embassy (3)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Richmond (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Riverside (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cleveland, OH — Show Place (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Cuyahoga Falls, OH — State Twin (14)
• 1977-02-23 … Elyria, OH — Midway Twin (10)
• 1977-02-23 … Indiana, PA — Manos (5)
• 1977-02-23 … Jefferson City, MO — Ramada 4-plex (10)
• 1977-02-23 … Lima, OH — Ohio (8)
• 1977-02-23 … Mansfield, OH — Cinema World 4-plex (17)
• 1977-02-23 … North Olmsted, OH — Great Northern (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Northfield, OH — Northfield Plaza Twin (16)
• 1977-02-23 … Parma, OH — Parmatown Triplex (20)
• 1977-02-23 … Queensbury, NY — Route 9 Triplex
• 1977-02-23 … State College, PA — Garden (5)
• 1977-02-23 … Steubenville, OH — Hollywood Plaza (13)
• 1977-02-23 … Washington, PA — Cinema 19 Twin (12)
• 1977-02-23 … Waterville, ME — Cinema Center 4-plex (9)

• 1977-02-25 … Arlington, TX — Forum 6-plex (18)
• 1977-02-25 … Benton Harbor, MI — Fairplain Twin (9)
• 1977-02-25 … Bloomington, IN — College Mall Triplex
• 1977-02-25 … College Station, TX — University Square Twin (5)
• 1977-02-25 … Evansville, IN — Carrols Twin (13)
• 1977-02-25 … Evansville, IN — Washington Square Twin (16)
• 1977-02-25 … Fargo, ND — Fargo
• 1977-02-25 … Fond du Lac, WI — Retlaw (10)
• 1977-02-25 … Fort Worth, TX — Wedgwood Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Great Falls, MT — Fox (5)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Lafayette Square 4-plex (22)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Norgate Twin (18)
• 1977-02-25 … Indianapolis, IN — Washington Square Twin (17)
• 1977-02-25 … Joliet, IL — Jefferson Square Triplex
• 1977-02-25 … Lafayette, IN — Market Square Twin (#1)
• 1977-02-25 … Lafayette, IN — Market Square Twin (#2)
• 1977-02-25 … Lethbridge, AB — Paramount Twin (9)
• 1977-02-25 … Mishawaka, IN — Town & Country Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Mobile, AL — Airport Twin (16)
• 1977-02-25 … Orem, UT — University Twin (14)
• 1977-02-25 … St. Catharines, ON — Pendale Mall Twin
• 1977-02-25 … San Antonio, TX — Laurel (22)
• 1977-02-25 … Sheboygan, WI — Stage Door (8)
• 1977-02-25 … Sioux Falls, SD — State (14)
• 1977-02-25 … Tallahassee, FL — Tallahassee Mall Twin
• 1977-02-25 … Vienna, WV — Grand Central Twin

• 1977-03-02 … Cape Girardeau, MO — Esquire (6)
• 1977-03-02 … Grand Rapids, MI — Alpine Twin
• 1977-03-02 … Groton, CT — Groton Plaza Twin (12)
• 1977-03-02 … Marysville, MI — Playhouse Twin (9)
• 1977-03-02 … Riverdale, UT — Cinedome 70 Twin (15)
• 1977-03-02 … Richmond Heights, MO — Esquire (19)
• 1977-03-02 … Tuscaloosa, AL — Capri (9)

• 1977-03-03 … Ames, IA — Ames
• 1977-03-03 … Terre Haute, IN — Indiana (7)

• 1977-03-04 … Alexandria, LA — Alexandria Mall Twin (9)
• 1977-03-04 … Asheville, NC — Biltmore Twin (15)
• 1977-03-04 … Chapel Hill, NC — Plaza Triplex (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Columbia, SC — Richland Mall Twin (17)
• 1977-03-04 … DeKalb, IL — Campus Triplex (13)
• 1977-03-04 … Durham, NC — Northgate Twin (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Fort Wayne, IN — Gateway Triplex
• 1977-03-04 … Fort Wayne, IN — Southtown Mall Twin
• 1977-03-04 … Greenville, SC — Camelot Twin (14)
• 1977-03-04 … Kokomo, IN— Kokomo Mall Triplex (9)
• 1977-03-04 … Missoula, MT — Fox
• 1977-03-04 … Niles, OH — Eastwood Twin (13)
• 1977-03-04 … Santa Fe, NM — Coronado Twin (10)
• 1977-03-04 … Sioux City, IA — Plaza Twin
• 1977-03-04 … Spartanburg, SC — WestGate Twin (11)
• 1977-03-04 … Youngstown, OH — Liberty Plaza (13)

• 1977-03-09 … Alamogordo, NM — Sands (2)
• 1977-03-09 … Eau Claire, WI — London Square Twin (13)
• 1977-03-09 … Midland, TX — Westwood (6)

• 1977-03-11 … Anderson, IN— Mounds (9)
• 1977-03-11 … Gadsden, AL— Cinema Twin (6)
• 1977-03-11 … St. Cloud, MN — Paramount (8)
• 1977-03-11 … Saskatoon, SK — Midtown Twin (11)

• 1977-03-16 … Augusta, ME — Turnpike Mall Triplex (6)
• 1977-03-16 … Fredericksburg, VA — Virginians Twin (8)
• 1977-03-16 … Joplin, MO — Eastgate Triplex (12)

• 1977-03-17 … Cedar Falls, IA — College Square Twin (13)

• 1977-03-18 … Boise, ID — FairVu
• 1977-03-18 … Charleston, WV — Plaza East Twin (13)
• 1977-03-18 … Halifax, NS — Paramount Twin (10)
• 1977-03-18 … Huntington, WV — Camelot
• 1977-03-18 … Lafayette, LA — Westwood (11)
• 1977-03-18 … Norman, OK — Cinema East
• 1977-03-18 … St. John’s, NL — Avalon Mall 4-plex (7)
• 1977-03-18 … Sikeston, MO — Mall (5)
• 1977-03-18 … Sudbury, ON — City Centre Triplex
• 1977-03-18 … Vancouver, BC — Capitol 6-plex (19)

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

• 1977-03-23 … Helena, MT — Circus Twin (4)

• 1977-03-24 … Victoria, BC — Capitol (10)

• 1977-03-25 … Brownsville, TX — North Park Plaza Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Harlingen, TX — Morgan Plaza Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … High Point, NC — Martin Twin (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Lawton, OK — Video Twin (8)
• 1977-03-25 … Naples, FL — Kon Tiki (4)
• 1977-03-25 … Port Arthur, TX — Park Plaza Twin (6)

• 1977-03-26 … Myrtle Beach, SC — Rivoli (9)

• 1977-03-30 … Beaverton, OR — Westgate Triplex (10)
• 1977-03-30 … Flagstaff, AZ — Flag East (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Gallup, NM — Aztec Twin (8)
• 1977-03-30 … Hazleton, PA — Hersker (6)
• 1977-03-30 … Highland, CA — Baseline Drive-In (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Kalispell, MT — Liberty (2)
• 1977-03-30 … Lancaster, CA — Antelope (4)
• 1977-03-30 … Leavenworth, KS — Landing 4-plex (4)
• 1977-03-30 … San Bernardino, CA — Central City Mall 4-plex (17)
• 1977-03-30 … Santa Maria, CA — United Artists Triplex (12)
• 1977-03-30 … Yuma, AZ — Plaza Twin (7)

• 1977-04-01 … Albany, GA — Mall Twin
• 1977-04-01 … Cerritos, CA — Los Cerritos Mall Twin (7 [22]) [moveover from Mall 4-plex]
• 1977-04-01 … Denton, TX — Fine Arts (4)
• 1977-04-01 … Latham, NY — Towne (10)
• 1977-04-01 … Melbourne, FL — NASA (5)
• 1977-04-01 … Panama City, FL — Florida Triplex (9)
• 1977-04-01 … Rochester, MN — Northbrook Twin
• 1977-04-01 … San Jose, CA — Century 22 Triplex (10 [25]) [moveover from Century 21]
• 1977-04-01 … Wilmington, NC — Oleander Twin (7)

• 1977-04-07 … Portland, OR — Rose Moyer 6-plex (17)

• 1977-04-08 … Charleston, SC — Pinehaven Twin (12)

• 1977-04-15 … Green Bay, WI — Bay (10)
• 1977-04-15 … South Lake Tahoe, CA — Stateline
• 1977-04-15 … Victoria, TX — Uptown (3)

• 1977-04-20 … Saugus, CA — Mustang Drive-In (2)

• 1977-04-22 … Danville, VA — Park (4)
• 1977-04-22 … Galveston, TX — Galvez Plaza Triplex (6)
• 1977-04-22 … Texas City, TX — Tradewinds Twin (1)

• 1977-04-27 … Lancaster, CA — Jet Drive-In (2)

• 1977-04-29 … Florence, SC — Crown (4)
• 1977-04-29 … Las Cruces, NM — Video Twin (3)
• 1977-04-29 … Loveland, CO — Orchards Twin (6)
• 1977-04-29 … Stevens Point, WI — Campus (4)

• 1977-05-04 … Milwaukie, OR — Southgate 4-plex (6)

• 1977-05-06 … Battle Creek, MI — Bijou (5)
• 1977-05-06 … Flint, MI — Flint

• 1977-05-11 … Barstow, CA — Barstow Twin (2)
• 1977-05-11 … Lancaster, CA — Lancaster 3-Screen Drive-In (2)
• 1977-05-11 … Victorville, CA — El Rancho Twin (2)

• 1977-05-13 … Anniston, AL — Cheaha Twin (2)

• 1977-05-18 … Eureka, CA — State Triplex (10)
• 1977-05-18 … Ocean City, NJ — Village

• 1977-05-20 … Waycross, GA — Cinema Twin

• 1977-05-25 … Barstow, CA — Skyline Drive-In (1)
• 1977-05-25 … Palmdale, CA — Palace (1)
• 1977-05-25 … Victorville, CA — Joshua Drive-In (1)

• 1977-05-27 … Dartmouth, NS — Penhorn Mall Triplex (5)
• 1977-05-27 … Galesburg, IL — Orpheum (5)

• 1977-06-01 … California City, CA — Showcase (1)

• 1977-06-03 … Columbus, IN — Crump (3)

• 1977-06-10 … San Jose, CA — Century 25 Twin (10 [35]) [moveover from Century 22]

• 1977-06-24 … Traverse City, MI — State (6)

• 1977-06-29 … Anchorage, AK — Totem Triplex

• 1977-08-14 … Fairbanks, AK — Goldstream Twin (2)

THE Q&A

Leger Grindon is the author of Knockout: The Boxer and Boxing in American Cinema (University of Mississippi Press, 2011). He is a professor of film studies at Middlebury College in Vermont. His other books include The Hollywood Romantic Comedy: Conventions, History, Controversies (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011) and Shadows on the Past: Studies in the Historical Fiction Film (Temple University Press, 1994). Leger is currently writing a book on contemporary documentary film.

Edward Gross is the author of Rocky: The Ultimate Guide (DK, 2006). He is a veteran entertainment journalist who has been on the editorial staff of a wide variety of magazines, among them CFQ, Cinescape, Geek, Life Story, Movie Magic, Sci Fi Now, SFX, and Starlog. His other books include (with Mark A. Altman) The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek (St. Martin’s, 2016), Above & Below: The Unofficial 25th Anniversary Beauty and the Beast Companion (BearManor Media, 2012) and (with Joe Russo and Larry Landsman) Planet of the Apes Revisited (St. Martin’s, 2001). Currently Edward serves as Executive Editor of Empire Magazine’s empireonline.com/us.

Eric Lichtenfeld is the author of I, of the Tiger, an in-depth study of the Rocky series published in The Ultimate Stallone Reader: Sylvester Stallone as Star, Icon, Auteur (edited by Chris Holmlund, Wallflower, 2014). He has taught or spoken about film at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Cinematheque, Loyola Marymount University, UCLA, Wesleyan University, and the Harvard School of Law. His other book is Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie (Wesleyan, 2007).

Cliff Stephenson is the producer of Sylvester Stallone: A Director in Action (which is featured on The Expendables: Extended Director’s Cut). He is the owner of Off the Cliff Productions and has produced Value Added Material for numerous DVD and Blu-ray releases, including The Hunger Games, Rambo (2008) and the Hannibal television series.

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

--- 

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Rocky worthy of celebration on its 40th anniversary?

Leger Grindon: Rocky has had a significant impact on contemporary Hollywood in 1976 and beyond. The success of Creed last year with a worldwide theatrical box office of over $170 million on a budget of $35 million is a testimony to its continuing drawing power. Rocky remains one of the most significant “sleeper” hits in modern Hollywood. On a budget of about a million dollars and a fairly simple plot the film won lavish critical praise and established a long series of big commercial hits. Low budget, independent filmmakers have been looking to Rocky as an example of a film that doesn’t need a big budget, glamorous stars or special effects to make an impact on an audience. The recent release, Bleed for This, is yet another low budget child of Rocky…. Rocky is a film that addresses the sensibility of the frustrated, embattled white working class man and woman who only a few weeks ago made Donald Trump President. Paulie is an important character in developing this vision of working class life. In that sense it still speaks vividly to the conflicts and tensions in today’s America.

Edward Gross: When you think of enduring franchises, usually it’s things like James Bond, Star Wars, Star Trek. But a low budget movie about a boxer looking for his shot in life? And which remains so relevant all these decades later, even being reborn in the form of Creed? How is something like that not worthy of celebration? The story of Rocky touched audiences four decades ago and continues to do so today. 

Eric Lichtenfeld: Rocky deserves to be celebrated first because of how it’s always made people feel: capable and empowered. Then there’s the fact that it’s also a cultural landmark. Rocky gave us the fanfare, the song, and the proper use of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s front steps — and for better or worse, the sequels. Rocky is a classic in its own right, but it’s also the cornerstone of a franchise that helped define an important period in American culture, a period that formed many of the film people I know.

Cliff Stephenson: Rocky, on so many levels, is iconic. It’s transcended being just a movie and has become part of the fabric of our culture. Whether it’s lines from the movie or the Bill Conti themes, even if people have never seen Rocky, they know Rocky. Not many films have left as deep a footprint or created so many ongoing ripples as Rocky has. The character has been a staple in our lives fairly consistently for 40 years. You don’t maintain that popularity consistently over 40 years unless you’ve created something very, very special. 

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Rocky for the first time?

Grindon: I thought the film was rather old fashioned in its style and emotions compared to the many more innovative films during the 1970s, such as The Godfather, Nashville or Chinatown. I didn’t see it immediately after it opened, but went after it was receiving a lot of critical attention, maybe even after the Academy Award nominations for the year were announced. I thought the film’s emotional impact was effective and the ending brought the movie to a rousing conclusion. However, I was offended by the harsh treatment of blacks, the latent racism, in the film, especially when Rocky loses his locker to an up and coming African-American fighter or when the black newswoman interviews Rocky. Of course, Apollo Creed is a thinly veiled treatment of Muhammad Ali. Obviously the later films in the series attempt to back off from this.

Gross: I was sixteen years old when I saw Rocky for the first time. Really just getting started in life, and that movie genuinely made me believe that anything was possible if — as corny as it sounds — you believed in yourself. Now granted it’s not the same thing as stepping into a boxing ring, but 40 years later and I’m at a point where I have spent the vast majority of my life working as a professional entertainment journalist, continuing to live the dream I had as a teen. And as a side note, when Rocky Balboa was released in 2006, I was 46 years old, at a very different stage in my life, and damn it if that film didn’t inspire me as well to believe in the road ahead. 

Lichtenfeld: I first saw Rocky so long ago, at such a young age, and have seen it so many times since, that I don’t remember what that first time was like. I’m sure I only really appreciated the outlines of it: the underdog, David-and-Goliath aspects of it. It was later that I saw how much more there is to the movie than just those mythic qualities — in depth, but also in breadth.

Stephenson: I remember seeing Rocky II in 1979 before seeing the original. The original I eventually saw on cable in the early 80s. Remember, Rocky was released at the dawn of both the home video and cable TV era, so unless it was in a release there wasn’t a way to see it easily. So, for me, seeing Rocky for the first time didn’t have that emotional impact that I’m sure it had on those who were able to see it in its original run. 

Coate: How is Rocky significant as a sports movie?

Grindon: Boxing films have a long history of being the most successful of sports films and Rocky is a vivid case in point. I think it is partly because of the focus on the single boxer and the limited, but intense drama in the boxing ring. The boxer’s agony and overcoming suffering is a central issue that exercises a strange attraction in boxing films. Furthermore, there is a distinguished history to draw upon from both literature and the cinema. There would be on Rocky without On the Waterfront (1954) and no On the Waterfront without Golden Boy or Hemingway’s Fifty Grand.

Gross: I am not a sports guy at all, but for me the significance of Rocky is that it didn’t matter. The boxing, albeit a highlight of the film, wasn’t its driving, emotional force. It was the love story between Rocky and Adrian, and the journey of this guy who just wanted to prove he wasn’t another bum from the neighborhood. Truth be told, and I’m not sure if this is common or not, that film did turn me into a boxing fan.

Lichtenfeld: It’s certainly thought of as one of the great sports movies — but I’m not sure that it even is a “sports movie” per se. It actually has less to do with boxing than a person might expect. There isn’t even that much boxing in the final fight! To me, Rocky is more like a drama and a portrait of a place and time that wears the clothes of a sports movie. Rocky doesn’t even get the challenge from Apollo’s promoter until an hour into the movie. I think that alone is a big tip-off that this movie isn’t really about what it might seem to be about…. In fact, most of the movie’s first half is taken up with Rocky wandering around a socially and economically depressed Philadelphia. To me, that makes it a lot like the neorealist movies that came out of post-World War II Italy — movies that used loose plots, lots of actual locations, and often times, an unpolished visual style to create slices of life against a battered socioeconomic backdrop. So I think Rocky can be categorized just as much in those terms as it can be in terms of the sports film genre, as strange as that may sound.

Stephenson: The interesting thing is that I don’t consider Rocky a sports movie. It’s a drama where the main character happens to be a boxer. Stallone’s genius, and why the series works so well as a whole, is that Rocky’s success or failure has really nothing specific to do with a specific sport. The drive to “go the distance” could be placed against a backdrop of just about anything and still resonate with audiences. Rocky could have been a race car driver or a business man or a politician and the underlying theme of endurance and pushing to get the most out of yourself would remain the same. It’s just that sports represents the cleanest through-line of going the distance. It could be about a spelling bee. That’s the power of Rocky’s storytelling.

Coate: Where do you think Rocky ranks among John Avildsen’s body of work?

Grindon: I think most people would agree that Rocky is his most successful film, but the author of this film is Sylvester Stallone.

Gross: Right below Rocky V. Kidding! It’s the top of the list for me. Many of Avildsen’s films have a Capra-esque quality to them — we’ve also seen it in things like The Karate Kid and Lean on Me — and when they work, they genuinely connect with the audience. But none of them have worked and remained as relevant as Rocky. 

Lichtenfeld: I haven’t seen all of Avildsen’s movies, but the ones I have seen don’t match Rocky — though the better-known ones followed Rocky’s template to one degree or another. The Karate Kid is the best example, doing everything it sets out to do very well. I haven’t seen it in about a decade, but as recently as ten years ago, it seemed to hold up. And it obviously inherited a lot from Rocky. It just didn’t inherit everything. In all fairness, though, I don’t know if any movie could. Rocky is just a nearly perfect convergence of story, style, character, performance, place, and moment in time — even if it wasn’t Avildsen who was solely or even primarily driving that. Rocky is just one of those lightning-in-a-bottle movies.

Stephenson: You know, Avildsen is an interesting director in that I don’t think he left much of a wake behind him. He was responsible for directing what are arguably the best (Rocky) and worst (Rocky V) films in the series. If you take out the Karate Kid and Rocky films, I don’t think most film fans could name five other movies he directed. I don’t mean that as a slight on him, but simply to point out that most of the films he chose to helm throughout his career never connected in the way that the original Rocky or The Karate Kid did. I watched Karate Kid Part II again recently, and I was struck by how uninspired it is. I always remembered it being good, but that was obviously a feeling clouded by nostalgia. But I think that speaks to Avildsen’s career as a whole... uninspired except for these two very specific lightning strikes. Again, this all sounds incendiary toward Avildsen; most directors could only dream of having two such hits on their resume, but I think this is a case where Rocky gave as much (or more) to Avildsen than Avildsen gave to Rocky. His early filmography showed promise, but he seemed to drift after Rocky into a career that never really found itself again. What Avildsen really brought to Rocky was this gritty underdog spirit that sort of permeated his early work. I think Avildsen’s real legacy will be the genius casting and creation of the original Karate Kid, but I think Rocky will always belong to Stallone.

[On to Page 5]

[Back to Page 4]

Coate: Of all the roles Sylvester Stallone has played in his career, where does Rocky Balboa rank (and in particular his performance in the original movie)?

Grindon: Clearly this was his performance of a lifetime in a film in which he is more genuinely the author, as screenwriter, lead actor, and inspirational source, rather than Avildsen. And, of course, he takes the role into a whole series of sequels. But maybe, as Creed and Rocky demonstrate, Stallone gives his best performances when directed by another.

Gross: He may have made an impression with Rambo, but he left his mark with Rocky. His performance as Rocky in that first film was so strong that it immediately convinced pretty much everyone that that’s who Stallone was. Obviously not the case — let’s not forget he wrote all six films in the series and directed four of them. Relatively speaking it was “easy” for him to slip back into the part for the first four sequels, but look at the nuance of his performance in Rocky Balboa and, then, in Creed. How do you not come away from all of that with great respect for the man and his skills? 

Lichtenfeld: Rocky Balboa is Stallone’s greatest role, partly because it is (or became) his most personal. And his portrayal of Rocky in the original film is the best performance he ever gave or ever will. That’s because the character more than just the righteous underdog of the sequels. Again, most of Rocky is not about that. The movie — and Stallone’s performance in it — is really about a guy who wants to connect with people more than he knows how to, about someone who just wants other people to really see him. There’s a sweetness and a biting loneliness that are mixed together inside Rocky, and Stallone brings it all out…. And then there’s Stallone’s sniffling! It’s a subtle device, but it’s really effective at getting you to sense the coldness of late-fall Philadelphia. Don’t discount that. It’s always special when movies make you feel their weather.

Stephenson: Rocky is Stallone. If he did nothing else in his career, he’ll be remembered forever as Rocky Balboa. The interesting thing about Stallone is that he’s the only actor in history to portray the same character in films spanning five consecutive decades. Stallone was also smart in that Rocky’s journey is a mirror for Stallone’s — Rocky: Young, hungry up and comer looking to escape his struggles and make his mark. Rocky II: Trying to deal with newfound fame and success. Rocky III: Getting a bit too absorbed and lost in your own hype. Rocky IV: Becoming a global icon. Rocky V: Trying to recover from that global explosion and strip it back to basics. Rocky Balboa: Finding relevance in a world that’s moved beyond you. Creed: Passing the baton and grooming the next generation. If you look at the films, they’re really metaphors for Stallone’s life and career at those points. I truly believe that what you see in Rocky is a pretty accurate representation of who Stallone was through those films. The original film had the benefit of Stallone being a relative unknown and therefore free of the baggage he brought into the later films. But, again, that baggage is what helped shape those other films.

Coate: The year 1976 was arguably a very strong one for the film industry. Did Rocky deserve to win the Oscar for Best Picture? If yes, why? If not, which film do you believe was the best from 1976?

Grindon: I think Rocky was a deserving picture with a well-organized plot and excellent performances. It also touched audiences intensely. From the perspective of 40 years later its commercial success and enormous influence is obvious. In my experience teaching the film contemporary audiences still enjoy the film immensely. Personally I prefer Taxi Driver among the nominees for “Best Picture” that year, but Rocky was an excellent film.

Gross: At another time, maybe not. The competition included Taxi Driver, Network and All the President’s Men. It was a pretty dark time in America, possibly best represented that year by All the President’s Men and its subject matter. America needed an escape from reality; it needed to believe again and Rocky provided them the opportunity to do so.

Lichtenfeld: If you’re asking about Network (since that was the movie that was really slugging it out with Rocky at the Oscars), then I think Rocky definitely deserved it. They’re different movies — Network is mainly a subversive, satirical look at a societal ill; Rocky is about people in their environments and in their lives as they live them. Personally, I think Network strays beyond satire and into parody; it’s a less consistent movie, and I’m always struck by how much more I’m invested I am in the first half than the second. But with Rocky, I’m engaged in everything equally…. Taxi Driver could also have been a contender (so to speak). And with its own use of locations, a wandering main character, and a plot that doesn’t fully announce itself until relatively late, it has a lot in common with Rocky. So between Rocky and Taxi Driver, which one deserved the Oscar for Best Picture? That’s easy — whichever one I’ve seen more recently!

Stephenson: On one hand I say no. I could make the argument that all four of the other nominees that year were as good or better movies in the broader sense, but with the exception of Taxi Driver, none of those other films have endured anywhere close to the same degree that Rocky has. So is the Best Picture the one that strikes the zeitgeist in the moment or the one that resonates and leaves ripples of influence far beyond the awards season? If you consider the best picture the one we’re still talking about and celebrating its title character now 40 years later... I don’t know if there is a better picture than Rocky for that or most any year. 

Coate: Compare and contrast the original “Rocky” with its sequels and spin-offs.

Grindon: Rocky is by far the best of the series. Creed from last year was a surprisingly strong film and probably the runner up to the original Rocky from among the series.

Gross: Rocky gets the credit for being the original, by packing such power on a low budget and by the conviction of everyone in front of and behind the camera…. Rocky II deserves kudos for feeling like a natural continuation and next chapter in the character’s life, though the schmaltz factor went up a bit there with Adrian’s coma…. Rocky III began to enter cartoon territory, but what a glorious “cartoon” it was. Pure entertainment with some heart, and a solid story for the Italian Stallion as he has to rediscover who he was while dealing with the death of Mickey…. Rocky IV is full-blown cartoon, cut like an MTV video, and for the most part lacks the heart of its predecessors. It’s also a ridiculous (especially in hindsight) tool of propaganda. The Russians wrap the American flag around Rocky’s shoulders? C’mon!.... Rocky V — the second you hear that Paulie was given power of attorney, it’s over. There is zero credibility…. Rocky Balboa is a return to the qualities of the original, Stallone pretty much making you believe that Rocky could successfully take this one last shot. Or so we thought…. Creed, while branching off from the main franchise, manages to maintain and modernize the elements that worked so well in the original, while introducing audiences to a new character to identify with.

Lichtenfeld: I never saw Creed in its finished form, so it wouldn’t be fair for me to judge. As for the others, Rocky II is a surprisingly credible sequel. Sure, it’s more melodramatic than the original and it has a much flatter visual style. (I attribute the latter to Stallone, as director and star, wanting to make sure there’s no ambiguity about where the viewer’s eye should be.) But Rocky II is moving and funny and feels like a natural extension of what came before. It satisfies the most basic criterion I have for a sequel: that it tells a believable story about what happened next to these people…. Rocky III is a grotesque freakshow of racism, narcissism, and redemption fantasies. Luckily, there is nothing — absolutely nothing, not a single solitary thing — going on in America’s current political life that should make that feel at all familiar. I mean, Rocky III is a movie where the villain is made to embody the most vile clichés of the stereotypical savage black man, and wear the iconography of the stereotypical savage Indian. And then the white hero vanquishes him while essentially wearing the American flag. This is a movie that should be on Steve Bannon’s Top Ten, right under Schindler’s List (selected scenes)…. Rocky IV is Rocky IV, and always will be. If you were to put a movie in a time capsule that captured the mainstream filmmaking and pop-culture vogues of the mid-1980s, Rocky IV would be a great choice based on its politics, depictions of conspicuous consumerism and excess, heightened style, and threadbare story. (It takes something special to kick off three music video sequences within ten minutes or so, the first set to a song called Burning Heart and the last set to a song called Heart’s on Fire.) It’s actually a little bizarre how Rocky and Rocky IV are so utterly different yet fundamentally connected. The fact that they belong to the same series could support the theory of a multiverse…. Thinking of Rocky V makes me feel a little wistful, but not because of anything in the movie. It’s because I remember how striking it was in 1990 to see a Rocky movie fail to connect with the public, and how strange it was to feel like the times had left this institution behind. It was the first time I felt that something from my youth had become irrelevant in the world and was now suddenly anachronistic…. Rocky Balboa was a great comeback. It captured the original’s heart and intimacy and sense of place much more than most of the other sequels had. To put Rocky Balboa in context, it belongs to a rash of real reboots: franchises that Hollywood dusted off and/or re-envisioned. After James Bond and Rocky in late 2006, there would be Die Hard, Rambo, Indiana Jones, Star Trek, and even The X-Files, all within a few years. But Rocky Balboa was one of the first into the pool, and had to prove that it had credibility. Which it does. I loved seeing how Rocky Balboa won people back from their assumptions about how ridiculous it was going to be, and how ridiculous it was to have made it.

Stephenson: Rocky II carries all the same DNA as the original and it’s understandable that so many consider it a worthy sequel. It continues Rocky’s story while giving audiences the completely uplifting ending they were denied in the original. Rocky III is really the Mason/Dixon (coincidentally also a Rocky “villain”) line in the series. Rocky and Rocky II both have a small, almost indie dramatic spirit. Rocky III begins to diverge into the popcorn spectacles that they were for a while. You would be hard-pressed to find the connective dramatic tissue between the original film and Rocky IV, with its robots delivering birthday cakes and MTV score and editing. Well, that connective tissue is Rocky III. I talked to Stallone about Rocky III one afternoon and he acknowledged that there’s just something about why Rocky III works so well that he can’t quite explain. I can’t say it’s the best one, but it’s my favorite and if I had to choose only one to watch, it’d be Rocky III, although Rocky Balboa is up there as well. Rocky IV moves away from the dramatic tension contained in the first three to become a full-blown, kinetic, crowd-pleasing experience. It’s a 90-minute music video that is all sensory overload... it’s Montage: The Movie. Some people think Rocky IV is a bad movie. Wrong! It’s a great movie that does exactly what it sets out to do extremely well; it’s just not a great Rocky movie. In many ways it exists in its own universe. Rocky V is an ambitious misfire. It took risks that were admirable, but really misunderstood what audiences wanted. Watching Rocky go from rags to riches only to lose it all was angering for many (myself included). Audiences had traveled too far and invested too much emotion in Rocky Balboa only to see everything stripped away from him. It doesn’t help that the late Tommy Morrison wasn’t a very good actor and that Rocky doesn’t actually box in the film. A street fight set to hip hop is possibly even a bigger departure from the series than anything seen in Rocky IV. But... without Rocky V we don’t get Rocky Balboa and Rocky Balboa is the best, most pure Rocky since the original. This is Stallone hungry and ready to prove himself all over again. There’s a million reasons why Rocky Balboa shouldn’t work and Stallone doesn’t allow any of those to infest his film. Creed is perhaps the most intriguing because it’s not a story created by Stallone (the only instance of that). It’s pretty insane that Creed director Ryan Coogler had the balls to take a character and universe that wasn’t his and, not only want to expand it, but get the creator to go along as a tourist. The thing to know about Sly is that he’s not a passive figure. If you’re a director working with Stallone, you better have a concrete vision with purpose because he’ll eat you up if you don’t. If you’re a director and you know exactly what you want in the film, Sly respects and responds to that. The fact that Coogler even had the courage to push the idea at all was probably one of the things Stallone responded to most. At its core, Creed is just a loose remake of the original, but it’s done with such heart and respect that I think it surprised almost everyone with how great it is, myself included.

Coate: What is the legacy of Rocky?

Grindon: Rocky has a rich legacy and certainly no boxing film can be made without looking over its shoulder to Rocky. Even Raging Bull (1980), in my view the greatest of all boxing films, is a reaction to Rocky, the antithesis to the Rocky thesis. There is also the legacy of the low budget, breakthrough “sleeper” hit that Rocky represents. It is a comeback movie, a comeback against the expensive film extravaganza that continues to dominate Hollywood. So that is an important part of its legacy as well. For more of my thoughts on Rocky, see pages 215 to 225 in my book, Knockout: The Boxer and Boxing in American Cinema.

Gross: Its inspirational quality. Whether you want to go the distance, gain the eye of the tiger, or prove that it ain’t about how hard you hit, it’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward, it’s a message that has spanned 40 years and will likely keep on going.

Lichtenfeld: One part of its legacy is all the people it’s inspired. Just think of the ritual of running up those art museum steps. Rocky came out during the centennial year of the Philadelphia Museum of Art’s original charter, but, arguably, what Rocky has made people feel made the steps into an even greater institution…. Another big part of its legacy is Sylvester Stallone, just as a big part of his legacy will always be Rocky. The movie may be the ultimate fusion of star, character, and persona — especially considering how Stallone wrote all of the movies and directed most of them…. The legacy of Rocky is also its status as the ultimate underdog story, which is a little ironic since it’s also much more than that. That’s why I think one more part of Rocky’s legacy is — or should be — how it marked a transition between the New Hollywood movies of the 1960s and ‘70s and Star Wars. Star Wars is often seen as “redeeming” the ambiguity, ambivalence, and genre-bending of the New Hollywood movement for mass audiences ready to simply escape and feel good. Rocky has the angst of the former and sends you out of the theater with a feeling of triumph and exultation like the latter. But even Rocky’s triumph is not uncomplicated or pure…. So in a way, I think the legacy of the original Rocky is a lot like the character himself: inherently great but still not often seen for all it really is.

Stephenson: We talk about legacy in terms of “what will this leave behind” but in the case of Rocky, it feels so present still that I don’t even know that legacy is the right word. It’s sort of like Star Wars in that it’s ultimately ascended above legacy to iconography. It isn’t this thing that “was”... it’s just this thing that “is.” Legacy feels like something we remember, but Rocky is still on-going. There’s only been a handful of films throughout the medium that have achieved that level of total icon status. Commercials use the theme to this day. “Yo Adrian” needs no explanation. It joins a short list of films including Psycho, Jaws, Star Wars, Wizard of Oz, The Exorcist, The Godfather, 2001, and a few others that are on a different plane. It sounds silly to position Rocky up against those other titles, until you really stop and think about how ingrained in our society Rocky really is. I don’t even think about it in terms of pop culture, but simply the culture at large…. But I think the real legacy of Rocky is Sylvester Stallone. If Rocky never hit or if Stallone had been tempted by the bigger paycheck he was offered to not star, I think the movies throughout the 80s, 90s, and 2000s would look very different. 

Coate: Thank you — Leger, Edward, Eric, and Cliff — for participating and sharing your thoughts on Rocky on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project included promotional material published in numerous daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus articles published in film industry trade publications Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and the books Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History by Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale (Wayne State University Press, 2010), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success edited by Alex Ben Block and Lucy Autrey Wilson (George Lucas Books/HarperCollins, 2010), and The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits by Susan Sackett (Billboard, 1996),

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Jerry Alexander, Al Alvarez, Jim Barg, Don Beelik, Deb Bier, Laura Blair, Timothy Bulger, Raymond Caple, John Cork, Bill Cronauer, Beth Curran, Kimberly Diebolt, Nick DiMaggio, Heather R. Edwards, Lunden England, Laura Fazekas, Leger Grindon, Edward Gross, Christine Hadlow, Wendy Hall, Kathy Harger, Khalilah Hayes, John Hazelton, Blaine Holloway, Thomas Hutchens, William Inge, Bill Kretzel, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Eric Lichtenfeld, Sam Lollar, Stan Malone, Andrew Miller, Alexis Neapolitan, Gabriel Neeb, Tim O’Neill, Edwina Parks, Kristi Robb, Desiree Sharland, Daniel Sheahan, Grant Smith, Tim Spindle, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, John Tegel, Mike Thomason, Shannon Tippit, Robert Tucker, Kat Stone Underwood, Troy Valos, Jessica Wakefield, Vince Young, Kellyn Younggren; and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the California State Library and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation. Home-video cover-art collage designed by Cliff Stephenson.

IN MEMORIAM

• Harry W. Tetrick (Sound), 1911-1977
• David Thayer (“Jergens”), 1927-1978
• Butkus Stallone (“Rocky’s Dog”), 1969-1981
• Bill Baldwin (“Fight Announcer”), 1913-1982
• James Crabe (Director of Photography), 1931-1989
• Joe Spinell (“Gazzo”), 1936-1989
• Burgess Meredith (“Mickey”), 1907-1997
• Stu Nahan (“Fight Commentator”), 1926-2007
• William L. McCaughey (Sound), 1929-2000
• Lyle J. Burbridge (Sound), 1922-2006
• Frank Stallone (“Timekeeper”), 1919-2011
• Joe Frazier (himself), 1944-2011
• Bert Schoenfeld (Post-Production Sound), 1920-2013
• B. Eugene Ashbrook (Sound Mixer), 19??-2014
• Robert Chartoff (Producer), 1933-2015
• Tony Burton (“Apollo’s Trainer”), 1937-2016
• Ray Alba (Post-Production Sound), 1926-2016

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012). 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. His website is www.jonburlingame.com.

John Cork is the author (with Collin Stutz) of James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003). 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 available on iTunes, Google Play and other streaming platforms.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012). 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.

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 Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 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 is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Diamonds Are Forever worthy of celebration on its 45th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: Oh, there are so many reasons. First, it marked the unexpected comeback of Sean Connery to the role of 007. He left on such unpleasant terms after You Only Live Twice that I think we were all surprised to see him again. Second, it was the first Bond film to be set largely in the United States. Third, it has one of the greatest Bond scores ever — and very possibly the greatest Bond song ever, sung by our Goldfinger diva Shirley Bassey, making her second appearance in a Bond film.

John Cork: Diamonds Are Forever is the great creative collaboration of four wonderful men who will never give us another film to enjoy: Guy Hamilton, Tom Mankiewicz, John Barry and Ken Adam. Each of these absolutely brilliant creators made films that are completely worthy to see on their own, but Diamonds melded their wit, their artistry, their elegance and their skills into a uniquely joyous brew. From “C-C-C-Cairo” to “Mouton Rothschild is a claret,” the film makes viewers smile. It is exactly the kind of film that Cubby Broccoli loved to produce: handsome men, beautiful women, tension, laughs, lavish sets, exotic locations, wonderful music and an ending that had viewers leaving the cinemas with a bounce in their step. The remarkable part of that is, Cubby didn’t set the tone of Diamonds. That was the work of UA’s David Picker.

Bill Desowitz: Diamonds Are Forever is noteworthy for two reasons: It marked Sean Connery’s last official appearance as Bond and tipped the franchise in a lighter, kitschy direction in the‘70s, which anticipates the Roger Moore era. If you don’t compare it to the first three Connery films, it’s actually a fun ride. Connery enjoys camping it up but still has the presence to pull it off. At the same time, his Bond is actually more assertive. Guy Hamilton was back and newbie screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz added the sharp wit, which even extended to the action (the Moon buggy and Vegas chases are pretty over the top). Blofeld is campy fun and Wint and Kidd are a hoot as the franchise’s first gay couple. It wasn’t From Russia with Love, but it was Connery saying goodbye with tongue very much in cheek.

Lee Pfeiffer: The film is worthy of commemoration primarily because it marked Sean Connery’s return to the role after having quit the series four years earlier. It’s worth commemorating, for better or worse, the fact that it was with this film that overt humor would became a part of the series for decades to come. 

Bruce Scivally: Diamonds Are Forever, is a middling Bond — not the worst of the series, certainly not the best, but with enough enjoyable moments to make for pleasant viewing. As the first James Bond film of the 1970s, it set the course for the Bond films of the 1970s — lighter, breezier, driven more by “set piece” action stunts than tight plotting, and deliberately seeking to give audiences a good time. The‘70s was not a decade when James Bond films took chances. It was a decade that began with scaled-back cost-cutting of the Bond films, and ended with two of the most extravagant entries in the series. After the much more Fleming-esque On Her Majesty’s Secret Service capped off the 1960s as a box-office disappointment, the Bond producers reinvented Bond for the 1970s as more of a cartoon character, a live-action Road Runner cartoon, with only passing nods to the Ian Fleming source material. While other films of the early to mid-1970s took chances, providing some of the greatest films of all time, the Bond series played it safe, content to merely be entertaining. It was a strategy that kept Bond popular, if not relevant, through the Watergate era and beyond.

Coate: Describe what it was like seeing Diamonds Are Forever for the first time?

Burlingame: I was in college at the time, so undoubtedly it was with my dorm buddies (which inevitably meant a lot of lecherous comments about Jill St. John, Lana Wood and the “Bambi & Thumper” girls). We were all Bond fans and I was already a John Barry nut. My memory is that we were all glad to see Connery back but did not feel that it ranked among the stronger entries like Goldfinger, Thunderball and From Russia with Love. But any Bond film was great to us in those days. There was nothing else like it in theaters — the action, the suspense, the humor, the series remained unique in cinema entertainment. And, of course, I could not wait to get hold of the LP in order to savor not only that memorable title song but also some of John Barry’s powerful score.

Cork: I saw Diamonds Are Forever in Montgomery, Alabama, in either late-December 1971 or early 1972. I went with my grandparents. I enjoyed it, but I was not hooked as a James Bond fan. The plot (such that it is) still makes virtually no sense, and I think that I was lost early on. It was not a film that stayed in my mind, probably because few of my friends saw it so it was not a movie that we discussed. The next time I saw it was when it premiered on U.S. television on September 12th, 1975. By then I was a huge Bond fan. I was so enraptured that during a late commercial break, I ran and got my cassette recorder and taped the audio of the end of movie. I used to listen to the dialog over and over. The recording began, appropriately enough with Blofeld ejecting a cassette and uttering, “I do so hate martial music.”

Desowitz: The first viewing was actually my first Bond experience at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood. And it was very memorable. It was an early afternoon screening and the second of the day. As much as I liked On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, it was great seeing Connery return to battle Blofeld. It was packed and everyone had a good time, though, again, it was a far cry from Connery in his prime.

Pfeiffer: I saw it on opening day, the first show after I got out of high school class (I was a sophomore at the time). My friends and I were quite thrilled to see Connery returning as Bond. We had all been highly impressed with the previous film On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and with George Lazenby, as well. The disappointment we felt when it was announced he was leaving the series after only one film was offset when I heard a TV report by gossip columnist Rona Barrett that Connery was to come back to the role of 007. There was enormous interest in the film and quite a bit of coverage leading up to the final release date. 

Scivally: The first time I saw Diamonds Are Forever is when it was first broadcast on ABC television in the 1970s. Seeing the Bond films on TV, Diamonds Are Forever was one of my favorites, and From Russia with Love one of my least favorite. In the early 1980s, when I had to opportunity to see the Bond films at the “revival house” theaters in Los Angeles, my feelings reversed; I now regard From Russia with Love one of the best, and Diamonds Are Forever only so-so. Why the change? I think it’s because the earlier film is one that is much more intricately plotted and requires more of the viewer’s attention; cutting it up with commercials destroys the flow of the story. Diamonds Are Forever, on the other hand, is very episodic. It’s more like a series of mini-movies tied together with a mere suggestion of a plot; chopping it up with advertisements has little effect on it. Like John Cork, I tape-recorded the film when it was shown on TV. To this day, I can recite every line of the pre-credits. Skills. I have skills….

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

Burlingame: That’s hard to say. I think it’s certainly the least significant of the Connery Bonds. To me it begins the downhill slide of the series in the 1970s, with a script that’s a bit too jokey, a climax that seems rushed and inadequate, and a Connery who doesn’t seem very interested in what was going on. But I’d take Diamonds over many of the even sillier Roger Moore outings. And, as you know, I love the song and the score. It was the most musically diverse Bond yet, with a third of the score being the wonderful Las Vegas jazz; a theme for subsidiary villains Wint and Kidd; a grand outer-space number (007 and Counting) and a title song that was not only useful for the romantic scenes but also dramatic moments as well. The release of the expanded Diamonds soundtrack in 2003 demonstrated its range and power far better than the original 1971 LP.

Cork: My son made me rank the films a few years back when we marathoned them. I put it smack in the middle then. I just re-watched it on a trip to Amsterdam and I just had so much fun with it. It is such a different film from Casino Royale (2006) or Skyfall, and it seems unfair to judge it against those. It’s nothing like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, but I find it much more fun than You Only Live Twice. It is a great Bond film to revisit at one’s leisure. It is also a fine film to watch in small doses.

Desowitz: I would rank it last among the Connery films and maybe 16th overall. It’s more like a guilty pleasure today. Funny thing: I was at a reception a week ago and Bruce Glover was there. I went up to him and asked how Wint and Kidd were and he smiled and said, “I’m Wint.”

Pfeiffer: Diamonds was the first Bond film that left my friends and I feeling disappointed. The film wasn’t as sharp or exciting as the previous movies. The emphasis on humor seemed to be a misstep especially after the haunting final image of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. We all expected a continuation of that storyline. The movie starts off on that premise with Bond hunting down Blofeld presumably for murdering his wife. The first part of the film is engrossing and seems to be on track to be a winner but things go downhill once Bond gets involved with Tiffany Case. Initially she’s played by Jill St. John as a tough-talking, streetwise accomplice to a smuggling ring. Yet, a few scenes later she inexplicably morphs into a Lucille Ball clone — an inept, naive character who doesn’t provide much substance to the plot — or Bond — beyond sex appeal. The Case character’s seeming schizophrenia is representative of the film as a whole. It’s as though it was made by two competing teams of filmmakers and writers, each with a different vision of the story. Most of the trouble stems from the script, which was co-authored by long time Bond scribe Richard Maibaum and newcomer Tom Mankiewicz. Evidence would suggest that Mankiewicz’s vision prevailed since the movie is far more over-the-top in the gags department than anything Maibaum had previously written for the earlier films. Guy Hamilton’s direction is also all over the map, starting out strong and reaching its zenith with the elevator fight, which is the real action highlight of the film despite the elaborate chase sequences that come later in the film. Sometime later, Hamilton seems more interested in going for cheap laughs and wisecracks rather than presenting suspenseful scenarios. (He once told this writer that he tried to have a major action set piece staged in Disneyland with Bond fighting SPECTRE agents dressed like Disney characters!) The real disappointment comes with the Bond/Blofeld relationship, which doesn’t ring true at all. The casting of Charles Gray is also a major error. Gray is a fine actor and if they called his character anything but “Blofeld“, one could admire his witty performance. However, he doesn’t evoke the slightest traits that audiences had expected of Blofeld. First there is a complete lack of physical resemblance to the actors who preceded him (he’s not even bald!). Then there is his penchant for making quips — something that neither Telly Savalas nor Donald Pleasence had brought to their versions of the character. What is inexplicable is the cozy, humorous relationship Bond establishes with this Blofeld, which is all the more ludicrous given the fact that in the first frames of the film, Bond is on his mission of vengeance to see Blofeld dead. Yet when they finally do meet up, the two engage in some mutually witty banter and Bond seems to have forgotten the unpleasant fact that this man had murdered his wife, Tracy, in the previous film. The watering down of Blofeld goes into overdrive when he actually dresses in drag. The horror, the horror…. Not helping matters is that Gray appeared in another Bond film, You Only Live Twice, a scant four years before as Bond’s ally. So that image was still fresh in viewer’s minds when they were asked to accept him as Blofeld…. The film also suffers from casting errors that extend beyond Charles Gray. As mentioned previously, Jill St. John plays the same kind of “dumb broad” eye candy she had popularized in films such as Tony Rome or Come Blow Your Horn. The shtick was already kind of stale by 1971. It might have been more inventive for the producers to cast Lana Wood, who appears memorably but briefly, as Plenty O’Toole in the role of Tiffany Case. The role of Felix Leiter is played by Norman Burton, thus continuing an annoying pattern of casting a different actor in the role every time he appeared in a Bond film. Burton plays Leiter as a bit of a semi- doofus and there isn’t any way a viewer would believe that his Leiter and Bond are close colleagues. More successful is the casting of Bruce Glover and Putter Smith as gay assassins Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. They are a memorable team but watching the abundance of gay-bashing jokes today is a bit cringe inducing when some of us realize we thought this stuff was funny in 1971. I do like the casting of country singer (and frozen sausage magnate) Jimmy Dean as reclusive billionaire Willard Whyte. It’s an off-beat choice that works well. Similarly, some of the bit roles are well cast: Bruce Cabot (in his final screen appearance), Joe Robinson as the bad guy who goes mano-a-mano with Connery in the elevator fight and, of course, reliable regulars such as Desmond Llewelyn, Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell… along with a welcome appearance by Laurence Naismith…. The climax of the movie was most disappointing — a rather limp affair in which helicopters attack Blofeld’s oil rig in a scenario that seemed as improbable as his main scheme. He has gathered enough diamonds to launch them encrusted in satellite and threatens to destroy key cities around the world unless paid a ransom. Not for nothing’, but if you already have enough wealth to launch a diamond-encrusted satellite, exactly what is it that a ransom would buy you that you wouldn’t already have? The helicopter sequence is also rather blandly executed with some poor special effects (a problem with the film that is apparent earlier). Surely the major powers of the world could have taken down one little bitty oil rig with a well-aimed rocket or torpedo instead of a conventional WWII-era assault by helicopters…. Having denounced much of Diamonds Are Forever, there are plenty of things that make it watchable. Connery seems to be having a great deal of fun and that enthusiasm spills over into his performance. Ken Adam’s sets are up to par and John Barry’s score and the theme song are among the best in the Bond canon.

Scivally: As I stated before, it’s a middling film to me. I still enjoy watching it, despite its drawbacks. Sean Connery looked to have aged about 20 years, even though only 10 had passed since Dr. No, but he seems to be having fun in his return to the role. The quick production schedule seems to have infused the film with a certain energy, and the witty dialogue of Tom Mankiewicz lifts it considerably. Everything about the film is fun, including the villains. There’s absolutely nothing frightening or scary or remotely threatening about Blofeld (more on him below) or about Wint and Kidd, but what they lack in threat they more than make up for in personality. These are villains who could hold their own at the Algonquin Round Table, trading bon mots with Dorothy Parker and Robert Benchley, then casually murdering them on the way out. 

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Charles Gray’s Blofeld a memorable villain?

Burlingame: Gray was a fine actor, so memorable as Mycroft Holmes in both The Seven-Per-Cent Solution and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, not to mention his fairly minor role in You Only Live Twice. He seemed to me to be the most sophisticated Blofeld yet, which was frankly a bit confusing after the more evil Donald Pleasence and mostly nasty Telly Savalas; his appearance was a bit unsettling because of his looks and his demeanor. The fact that we’ve now gotten Blofeld twice more in the films (counting Max Von Sydow and Christoph Waltz) has made the whole Blofeld thing so tired and annoying that I hope we never see the character again.

Cork: Gray was a fun actor, but his Blofeld is a complete fool. Never for a moment do I feel a threat from him. He would much rather talk Bond to death than do anything. Clearly he has a phobia about actually seeing Bond bleed, as he passes up innumerable chances to dispatch 007. The show is completely stolen by Wint and Kidd. They should have had their own series. Yes, they play into the Leopold and Loeb stereotype of homicidal homosexuals, but, putting that aside, the dialog is just so fantastic. “Mrs. Whistler did want some pictures of the canals for the children.” That line is so warped, so perfectly written, played and presented. You just know that they are going to actually mail those photos back to the little school in Africa. It’s horrible, and horribly funny. I hear it and I imagine Alfred Hitchcock smiling, thinking to himself that he wishes one of his writers thought of that.

Desowitz: Again, I think Gray’s Blofeld is memorable for his camp. If he were more like Henderson from You Only Live Twice, he would have more gravitas. But he’s delicious in the way he confounds Bond with the doppelgangers and double entendres. For once, he’s enjoying himself as much as Bond.

Pfeiffer: As indicated [earlier in the interview], Charles Gray and Jill St. John were memorable — but for the wrong reasons. Both were essentially miscast, if not disastrously so, then certainly distractingly so. If Gray were playing a generic villain, his performance would have been appropriate. Similarly, if St. John were cast as an airheaded character, so, too, would her performance have been suitable — but not as a tough, street wise smuggler.

Scivally: I enjoy Charles Gray’s Blofeld. He doesn’t have the chilly, dispassionate demeanor of the business-like Blofeld of the early films, or the physical deformity of Donald Pleasence, or the uber-masculine physicality of Telly Savalas, but he does seem capable, confident, charismatic and utterly charming — a man who would smile in your face while his look-alike double deftly slits your throat from behind. And his encounter with 007 in Willard Whyte’s penthouse is one of the great Bond-villain confrontations, with a swaggeringly confident and calculating James Bond facing off intellectually with an equally conceited and confident — and condescending — Blofeld.

Coate: In what way was Jill St. John’s Tiffany Case a memorable Bond Girl? 

Burlingame: She’s so gorgeous and nonchalant that, in some ways, she was a breath of fresh air as an American Bond girl. After doing The Liquidator and Tony Rome, I think she understood the general territory pretty well. There’s nothing especially exotic about her, especially in the aftermath of Daniela Bianchi and Luciana Paluzzi; or especially sophisticated, as we had enjoyed with Honor Blackman and Diana Rigg. But she’s fine.

Cork: Tiffany Case wins the prize for the brassiest Bond girl. She always reminds me just a tad of Lucile Ball. When Bond finds her at her house after she ditched 007 for the diamonds, I keep expecting him to say, “Tiffany, you gotta lotta ‘splainin’ to do!” The thing I so love about her is that she cares about nothing but the diamonds. She is the spiritual mother of Jamie Lee Curtis in A Fish Called Wanda, completely amoral. If she had to sleep with Felix, Wint, Kidd and Blofeld’s cat to get those diamonds out of Earth orbit, she’d clearly have no compunction about doing so. “I’m cooperating, really.” Uh-huh. She is the first Bond woman whose character provides the “voice” of the Bond title song, its lyrics clearly coming from her world view.

Desowitz: She’s the first Bond bimbo — at least in the second-half — and literally becomes the butt of jokes. She’s as mercenary as they come, and the image of Bond and Tiffany in a fish-filled waterbed is the height of decadence.

Pfeiffer: [See response to the previous question.]

Scivally: And now we come to the weak link in the film. Jill St. John is an attractive woman, but her attempt to “play tough” in the beginning of the film is undone by overdubbed dialogue delivered so flatly that she seems to be reading off items on a lunch menu. And whereas Charles Gray, Bruce Glover and even Sean Connery play the comic moments with just the right insouciance, she tends to overdo it, coming off as a junior-league Lucille Ball, though one without Lucy’s comic timing or delivery. But then again, Lucy wouldn’t have looked nearly as fetching in a long-sleeved bikini.

Coate: What is the legacy of Diamonds Are Forever?

Burlingame: First off, the song. It is certainly one of the greatest Bond songs ever — as the author of the Bond music book, I am often asked which is my favorite and, while I change my mind just about every week, this one tops the list as often as not. John Barry’s sensuous melody, Don Black’s brilliant lyric and Shirley Bassey’s thrilling performance make it, let’s face it, one of the all-time great movie songs even beyond the Bond canon. The fact that the Academy Awards ignored it even for nomination was then, and is still, simply shameful. The film itself ranks somewhere in the middle — not great Connery but better than many Moores. Like many of the Bonds, it is of its time (1971): the films were becoming a bit lighter in tone; Connery’s interest was in a big payday that would benefit a favorite charity; the American setting was unusual for 007; and (just in case no one else mentions it) the poster art was phenomenal!

Cork: After the release of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, David Picker called Bond producer Cubby Broccoli to New York and told him the times they were a changing. He didn’t want more serious Bond films like Majesty’s. He wanted a Bond film like Goldfinger. He wanted it for a budget, and he wanted it to be fun, funny and shot the U.S. where the he could personally stay on top of the production. Cubby was eventually able to move the studio work back to Pinewood but only after Picker brought on Tom Mankiewicz to re-write Maibaum’s first draft, secured the return of Sean Connery and made it clear that if there were major overages on the budget, the studio would take over the film. It was a major rebuke to Broccoli and Saltzman who had made the previous three Bond films and independently two high-budget movies with virtually limitless budgets. So the legacy of Diamonds goes far beyond what appears on the screen. It marked the end of an era, and not just for Connery. It marked a growing interest at UA in controlling 007. Producer Harry Saltzman lasted two more films, and when he sold his share, United Artists purchased it. Gone were the days of the early-60s when UA would approve an independent production deal and then be invited to a screening of the producer’s delivery cut of the movie months later with scant creative involvement. David Picker became a major player in the Bond universe with Diamonds, and someone from UA, MGM or Sony has been deeply involved in each Bond film ever since. That’s the legacy. And, of course, to remember to keep wearing your radiation shields. G Section will be checking.

Desowitz: Again, the last Connery Bond with memorable farewells: dick-swinging with M, brow-beating Q, flirting with Moneypenny, and thrashing the baddies in grand style. He’s older, grayer, heavier, and slower — but still the best.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of Diamonds Are Forever is more important than its immediate qualities as a film are. If Connery had not returned to the role for this film, the series might well have faced an insurmountable crisis — especially since the producers had already cast American actor John Gavin in the role. The notion of an American ever playing Bond would seem unthinkable today but at the time it obviously seemed like a good idea. It wouldn’t have been. The unsung hero was United Artists production chief David V. Picker who agreed to sign Gavin but who couldn’t get comfortable with the idea. He flew to Spain to make a last ditch effort to convince Connery to return, despite his well-documented strained relationship with the producers. Over a game of golf, Picker agreed to pay Connery the highest salary in screen history — a now paltry $1.25 million, which Connery used to establish a charity in Scotland. Diamonds proved to be an enormous hit with even critics extolling its virtues even as hardcore purist fans expressed their disappointment. So the real value of the film is that it probably saved the franchise. For that we can forgive some casting errors, erratic writing and direction and a few cheesy special effects.

Scivally: I believe Diamonds Are Forever has a two-fold legacy. On the one hand, as mentioned before, it set a tone for the Bond films of the 1970s, giving rise to a period where the stunts were the stars, the more outrageous the better (and the ski jump opening of The Spy Who Loved Me being perhaps the best). In the case of Diamonds Are Forever, this meant a car chase on the streets of Las Vegas played for laughs as much as thrills and capped by a car going up on two wheels. It seems pretty tame today, but in 1971 this was exciting stuff, and so popular with audiences that car-chase movies became a 70s genre all their own, leading inevitably to Smokey and the Bandit and Cannonball Run, the latter featuring Roger Moore in an Aston Martin and proving Hal Needham to be a James Bond fan. Conclusion: without Diamonds Are Forever, we’d have been spared Stroker Ace.

Coate: Thank you — Jon, John, Bill, Lee, and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Diamonds Are Forever on the occasion of its 45th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “You Only Live Twice” on its 50th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, Eon Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation.

SPECIAL THANKS

Mike Heenan

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of box-office data and trivia for the movie which places its theatrical performance in context, a reference/historical listing of the movie’s Todd-AO roadshow presentations, and an interview segment with a group of film historians.

EIGHTY DAYS NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of opening-week bookings
• 2 = Rank among top-earning films of 1956 (legacy)
• 3 = Rank on all-time list of top-earning films at close of original run / peak chart position
• 5 = Number of Academy Awards
• 8 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 9 = Number of years United Artists’ most-successful film
• 48 = Number of 70mm prints
• 49 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)
• 127 = Number of days it took to shoot the movie
• 127 = Number of weeks longest-running engagement played
• 1,569 = Number of first-run roadshow bookings, 1956-58

• $6.0 million = Production cost
• $22.0 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1960)
• $23.0 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1969)
• $23.1 million = Box-office rental (as of January 1, 1985)
• $42.0 million = Box-office gross
• $53.1 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $556.3 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

THE TODD-AO ROADSHOW ENGAGEMENTS

Presented here is a chronological listing of the “hard ticket” roadshow engagements in the United States and Canada of Around the World in Eighty Days that were presented in 70-millimeter and six-track stereophonic sound at the original Todd-AO projector speed of 30 frames per second. These were special, long-running, showcase presentations in major cities prior to the film being exhibited as a general release, and they featured advanced admission pricing, reserved seating, an overture/intermission/entr’acte/exit music, and with an average of ten scheduled screenings per week. Souvenir program booklet were sold, as well. (Beginning in late-Spring 1957, 35mm prints — at 24 frames per second — began circulating for most of the film’s roadshow bookings.)

Out of hundreds of films released during 1956, Eighty Days was among only four that were given deluxe roadshow treatment.

The film’s anniversary offers an opportunity to namedrop some famous and once-glorious cinemas, to provide some nostalgia for those who saw the film during this phase of its original release, and to reflect on how the film industry has evolved the manner in which event and prestige films are exhibited.

The film’s 70mm prints were intended to be projected in a 2.21:1 aspect ratio and the soundtrack featured five discrete screen channels plus one discrete (and possibly Perspecta-encoded) surround channel.

The listing does not include the film’s roadshow engagements that were presented in 35mm, nor does it include any of the subsequent general release, second run, international, and re-release engagements. The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, has been included after each cinema name in parenthesis for most of the entries to provide some measure of the film’s success.

So, which North American theaters screened the Todd-AO 30fps version of Around the World in Eighty Days?

• 1956-10-17 … New York, NY — Rivoli (103 weeks)

• 1956-12-19 … Houston, TX — Tower (40)

• 1956-12-20 … Dallas, TX — Tower (46)

• 1956-12-21 … Baltimore, MD — Film Centre (54)                  
• 1956-12-21 … Miami (Miami Beach), FL — Sheridan (66)

• 1956-12-22 … Los Angeles, CA — Carthay Circle (127)

• 1956-12-26 … San Francisco, CA — Coronet (95)

• 1956-12-27 … Detroit, MI — United Artists (67)
• 1956-12-27 … Philadelphia, PA — Midtown (53)

• 1957-01-10 … San Antonio, TX — Broadway (34)

• 1957-01-23 … New Orleans, LA — Panorama (28)

• 1957-03-01 … Montreal, QC — Alouette (44)

• 1957-04-04 … Chicago, IL — Cinestage (90)

• 1957-04-05 … Buffalo, NY — Century (22)

• 1957-04-08 … Washington, DC — Uptown (51)

• 1957-04-11 … Pittsburgh, PA — Nixon (38)

• 1957-04-17 … Oklahoma City, OK — State (17)
• 1957-04-17 … Portland, OR — Broadway (36)
• 1957-04-17 … Seattle, WA — Blue Mouse (50)
• 1957-04-17 … Tulsa, OK — Rialto (17)

• 1957-04-20 … Boston, MA — Saxon (50)

• 1957-05-15 … Corpus Christi, TX — Tower (9)
• 1957-05-15 … Denver, CO — Tabor (36)
• 1957-05-15 … Little Rock, AR — Capitol (9)

• 1957-05-28 … Atlantic City, NJ — Virginia
• 1957-05-28 … Louisville, KY — Brown (18)

• 1957-05-29 … Kansas City, MO — Tower (27)
• 1957-05-29 … Syracuse (DeWitt), NY — Shoppingtown (35)

• 1957-06-12 … Milwaukee, WI — Strand (49)

• 1957-06-13 … Cincinnati, OH — Valley (35)

• 1957-06-14 … Cleveland, OH — Ohio (42)

• 1957-06-26 … Atlanta, GA — Roxy (30)

• 1957-07-12 … Minneapolis, MN — Academy (49)

• 1957-07-24 … Rochester, NY — Monroe (30)

• 1957-07-30 … Hartford, CT — Strand (15)

• 1957-08-01 … San Diego, CA — Capri (45)

• 1957-08-07 … Toronto, ON — Tivoli (48)

• 1957-08-08 … Fort Wayne, IN — Clyde (12)
• 1957-08-08 … Indianapolis, IN — Lyric (26)

• 1957-08-14 … Jacksonville, FL — 5 Points (12)

• 1957-08-22 … Beaumont, TX — Liberty (8)

• 1957-09-12 … Columbus, OH — Cinestage (37)

• 1957-10-03 … Buffalo, NY — Granada (20)

• 1957-10-10 … Providence, RI — Elmwood (29)

• 1957-10-16 … Youngstown, OH — State (12)

• 1957-10-17 … Shreveport, LA — Saenger (12)

• 1957-12-19 … Phoenix, AZ — Vista (11)

• 1958-07-16 … Oyster Bay (Syosset), NY — Syosset (15)

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE Q&A

Sheldon Hall is the author (with Steve Neale) of Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History (Wayne State University Press, 2010). He is a Senior Lecturer in film studies at Sheffield Hallam University, UK. Other books of his include Zulu: With Some Guts Behind It—The Making of the Epic Movie (Tomahawk Press, 2005; updated in 2014) and (with John Belton and Steve Neale) Widescreen Worldwide (Indiana University Press, 2010).

Martin Hart is the curator of the American Widescreen Museum.

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. He is the author of various film and performing arts books, including Starlet (McFarland, 1988), Richard Widmark: A Bio-Bibliography (Greenwood Press, 1990), Susan Hayward: Her Films and Life (McFarland, 2002), and (with Warren Hope) The Shakespeare Controversy (McFarland, 2nd ed., 2009), and recently Attila’s Sorceress (New Libri Press, 2014) and Naval Gazing: How Revealed Bellybuttons of the 1960s Signaled the End of Movie Cliches Involving Negligees, Men’s Hats and Freshwater Swim Scenes (BearManor Media, 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.

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

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): We’ve come upon the 60th anniversary of the release of Mike Todd’s production of Around the World in Eighty Days. In what way should the film be remembered?

Sheldon Hall: It’s one of those Oscar-winners that regularly appears on lists of films that don’t deserve to have been named Best Picture; that seems largely to be how it is remembered nowadays. But it’s a better movie than its current reputation suggests, with the simple bad luck to be unfashionable and lacking in a name director (though Michael Anderson was responsible for a number of other well-liked films and is of course happily still with us). It’s a well-crafted, entertaining film that tells us a lot about the popular taste of the time, as well as being a minor milestone technically and commercially.

Martin Hart: I think Around the World in Eighty Days should be viewed just as you would any other picture, but a knowledge of cinema history helps the viewer form an opinion. For some people it can be classified as a big boring movie filled with lots of actors we don’t know playing lots of bit parts; for others it can be seen as high adventure that works its way from London to New York with the aid of dozens of top stars of the forties and early fifties…. There are very few people still alive that were able to see it in a real Todd-AO equipped theater. Most people will have seen it only on television with its poorly panned and scanned crummy NTSC color and high fidelity mono sound. That was my first exposure to it and I was terribly disappointed. My parents had seen it in 1958 in a drive-in near St. Paul, Minnesota, and had told me that it was just dreadful. That’s why I was surprised at how awful it was when I saw it on TV; my folks didn’t know quality from day old popcorn so I was expecting it to be much better…. Fortunately Warner Home Video assembled a pretty decent looking and sounding DVD from the 35mm version negative. People have complained about the transfer not having been made from the 30fps Roadshow negative and knowing the folks at Warner Home Video I think we can take their word for it that the time and cost required to make it beautiful was way out of line with any possible return. For me, I found the complete picture to be far better than many roadshow films produced during the following decades.

Kim Holston: Along with that year’s The Ten Commandments and War and Peace, it heralded the golden age of roadshows that would ramp up dramatically by the end of the decade.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Eighty Days for the first time?

Hall: I saw it for the first time on Good Friday, 1975 — its first showing on BBC television (though it had previously been shown by the UK commercial network ITV). I was ten years old and enjoyed it enormously (note: in order to see Eighty Days I had to miss the UK TV premiere of The Robe on the rival channel). It was more than two decades later before I saw it for the first time in a cinema and I have now seen it several times in 70mm, on both a curved and a flat screen.

Hart: I first saw it on my cheesy 19” black-and-white set with typical TV sound. Not too impressed. I caught it a few years later and I had a color TV by then but there wasn’t much good that could be said about the color of that pan and scan transfer. I just knew the movie had to be better than what I’d seen thus far. Finally, many years later I had built a home theater with huge screen and about a dozen and a half speakers and that’s when I bought the DVD. In that environment and with the vastly improved picture and sound I finally felt like I had some understanding why audiences raved about the “show.” (That’s Mike Todd Speak for moom pitchers.)

Holston: I saw it during its major re-release in 1968 at the new Theatre 1812 in Philadelphia. I liked it but it didn’t knock my socks off. This might have been caused by anticipating seeing an Academy Award winner that was epic in scope and had a music score by one of the masters, Victor Young. I’d been playing the soundtrack for years.

Coate: How is Eighty Days significant among spectacles?

Hall: It was one of the first blockbuster comedies and one of the first films with a truly all-star cast: as other contributors may well point out, Mike Todd adopted the word “cameo” to describe the fleeting guest appearance of a well-known personality.

Holston: It covered the globe and was not Biblical, based on historical fact, or a flat-out travelogue.

Coate: In what way was it beneficial for Eighty Days to have been released as a roadshow?

Hall: Todd rightly understood that the film needed to be sold as a special attraction: not just a movie but a “show.” Roadshow presentation created the sense of occasion that he wanted and took the film out of the normal run of cinema. Given its high cost, large scale and three-hour length, any other form of presentation would have been counter-productive — though some other very long films released the same year were not presented as roadshows in the U.S. (Giant, War and Peace). Conversely, I don’t think Eighty Days was ever given a regular general release in the UK.

Hart: Around the World in Eighty Days, and more specifically, Mike Todd, defined the way to sell a hard ticket roadshow film. It was Todd that convinced Cinerama to go the hard ticket route and the company continued to do so for approximately 15 years. When you bought your ticket for seats 1-4 in row 15 you knew you had a reserved place to sit and you knew that dumbass that lived next door wasn’t going to be able to see it for a while. For Mike Todd it was important to present the show just like the legitimate stage on Broadway. Indeed, 70mm came to be the predominant roadshow method of presentation. There were exceptions but they were rare.

Holston: It had the scope. Theaters had to spend lots of money to upgrade their screens and sound to present it properly, but they usually did, and it paid off. Subconsciously at least, roadshows were viewed as something akin to the opera or ballet, a special event or night out.

Coate: Around the World in Eighty Days was among only a handful of films produced in Todd-AO. In what way was using that process beneficial?

Hall: It makes more extensive use of the wide-angle lens than did the first film in the process, Oklahoma!, and obviously has a much wider range of locales that could be exploited for their scenic and spatial possibilities. The “bug-eye” lens is most effectively used in the London sequences, such as in Passepartout’s cycle ride through the streets. 

Hart: Strictly speaking there were only two features produced in the original Todd-AO format with its wide wall-to-wall, ceiling-to-floor curved screen [and 30 frames-per-second frame rate]. Those were Oklahoma! and Around the World in Eighty Days. [Then] it was decided to drop the frame rate to 24fps like other films. Starting with South Pacific (1958) all other Todd-AO productions were made at 24fps and most theaters used flat screens. The original Todd-AO process kicked off the large negative roadshow but the deeply curved screen did not survive other than in the unsatisfying 70mm Cinerama process.

Holston: The publicity for this new process helped entice audiences away from the small screen.

 [On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: Todd’s Around the World in Eighty Days was shot twice. Why?

Hall: The film was shot twice to allow a print-down 35mm version to be shown at the regular speed of 24 frames per second (fps) rather than the 30 fps of Todd-AO. But a 30-fps 35mm version was also made available in an anamorphic process Todd named Cinestage, so there was considerable room for flexibility!

Coate: Should both versions of the film be made available for the various ancillary markets?

Hall: Although it would be useful for scholars to have both versions available for comparison, the differences between them would most likely be too minimal to justify releasing both on a special edition Blu-ray.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Todd’s Eighty Days with the original novel and numerous film and TV adaptations?

Hall: I’ve not read the novel and the only other adaptation I’ve seen (aside from the children’s animated series that used to appear on television in the 1970s) is the 2004 version starring Jackie Chan and Steve Coogan, which is simply dreadful.

Hart: Neither Mike Todd’s nor any other film or television producers have paid a lot of attention to the Verne novel. That doesn’t bother me in the least.

Holston: It remains the biggest and most star-studded cinematic version.

Coate: Where do you think Eighty Days ranks among producer Mike Todd’s body of work?

Hall: Todd’s body of work in the cinema is not very great. His involvement in Oklahoma! and before that Cinerama was somewhat peripheral, and I can’t comment on his non-film work. Eighty Days is really the only thing for which he’s remembered, aside from marrying Elizabeth Taylor and dying in a plane crash, neither of which was unique.

Hart: Since Mike Todd’s body of work includes just one film, which was an unbelievable money maker, and a bunch of Broadway musicals of varying quality it’s hard to say anything other than Eighty Days was at the top.

Holston: The apotheosis.

Coate: Michael Todd’s involvement as producer seems to have overshadowed Michael Anderson’s contribution as director. What do you think Anderson brought to the project, and where do you think the film ranks among director Michael Anderson’s body of work?

Hall: Michael Anderson was an unusual choice of director because, at the age of 36 and with only a half-dozen, mostly low-budget feature films under his belt, he was relatively young and inexperienced for such a large-scale, expensive project as Eighty Days. Anderson had also only worked in Britain, not America; but it was perhaps this very freshness that appealed to Todd as a Hollywood outsider himself. Or perhaps it might have seemed to make the director more malleable and susceptible to the producer’s influence? In any event, Anderson had demonstrated his ability to handle complex logistics with his immediately preceding film The Dam Busters, a huge box-office hit in the UK, so perhaps that also gave him the commercial pedigree for the Todd job…. For me, The Dam Busters, Operation Crossbow and Eighty Days are (in that order) Anderson’s best film work, though I must admit to not having seen some of his early features (including a second 1956 release, the film adaptation of the TV play of George Orwell’s 1984, which sounds particularly intriguing).

Coate: What is the legacy of Around the World in Eighty Days?

Hall: It gave rise to two cycles of films in the late 1950s and 1960s: costume comedy-fantasies with a Victorian or Edwardian setting, often adapted from the work of Verne and other contemporary writers; and large-scale epic comedies involving a race or chase across continents. In artistic terms these films are not very significant, but some achieved considerable popularity if not much critical acclaim. The notion of all-star casts was also given a boost, appearing in a number of other films over the next few decades.

Hart: The legacy is muddled between Around the World in Eighty Days and Oklahoma!. The financial benefits found in the 70mm runs proved the roadshow concept. Only when Hollywood went ape-shit and started releasing horrible movies at high hard ticket prices thinking that they had created machines to print money did the attraction of the roadshow lose its mystique.

Holston: Merchandising and tie-ins: program, album, sheet music, game, ties, cuff links, bathrobes, carpetbags, costume jewelry. Todd is also credited with introducing “cameos,” the bit parts played by various internationally famous performers.

Coate: Thank you — Sheldon, Marty and Kim — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Around the World in Eighty Days on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

Primary references for this project included promotional material published in numerous daily newspapers archived digitally and/or on microfilm plus articles published in film industry trade publications Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, and Variety, and the books Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters: A Hollywood History by Sheldon Hall and Steve Neale (Wayne State University Press, 2010), George Lucas’s Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success edited by Alex Ben Block and Lucy Autrey Wilson (George Lucas Books/HarperCollins, 2010), and The Hollywood Reporter Book of Box Office Hits by Susan Sackett (Billboard, 1996). The websites in70mm.com and boxofficemojo.com were referenced for some information.

SELECTED IMAGES

Copyright/courtesy American Widescreen Museum, Michael Todd Company, United Artists, Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

SPECIAL THANKS

Jim Barg, Rachel Bernstein, Raymond Caple, Sheldon Hall, Martin Hart, Mike Heenan, Kim Holston, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, NYer, Stephen Rice, Bob Throop, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

As with our other celebratory articles, The Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship offer this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of scholars and film historians who discuss the virtues, influence and legacy of Citizen Kane.

The participants (in alphabetical order)….

Joseph McBride is the author of three books on Orson Welles, most recently What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (University Press of Kentucky, 2006). 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 (Touchstone, 1993), Steven Spielberg: A Biography (Simon & Schuster, 1997), Searching for John Ford (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Hawks on Hawks (University of California, 1982), and Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless (Vintage, 2012). McBride acted for Welles in The Other Side of the Wind (1970-76) and appears in his 1981 documentary Filming “The Trial”. His latest book is The Broken Places: A Memoir (Hightower Press, 2015), and he is currently working on a critical study of Ernst Lubitsch, How Did Lubitsch Do It?: The Films of Ernst Lubitsch. He is a co-writer of the screenplay for Rock ‘n’ Roll High School (1979). He is a professor in the School of Cinema at San Francisco State University. His website is josephmcbridefilm.com.

Patrick McGilligan is the author of Young Orson: The Years of Luck and Genius on the Path to Citizen Kane (HarperCollins, 2015). His other books include Clint: The Life and Legend (St. Martin’s, 2002), Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light (It Books, 2004), Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast (University of Minnesota, 2013), and Jack Nicholson: The Joker is Wild (W.W. Norton & Company, 2015).

James O. Naremore is the author of The Magic World of Orson Welles (University of Illinois, 2015). He is Emeritus Chancellors’ Professor at Indiana University. His other books include More Than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts (University of California, 2008) and Charles Burnett: A Cinema of Symbolic Knowledge (due in 2017).

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

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Citizen Kane worthy of celebration on its 75th anniversary?

Joseph McBride: Citizen Kane will always be “the film of films,” as François Truffaut has called it. He noted that it has “consecrated a great many of us to the vocation of cinéaste.” Including me. Though Kane did not create the new devices some people claim for it — it’s unwise to ever make that claim about a film, because you can always find a precedent — it is a treasure house of cinematic styles and devices and magic tricks, flamboyant and breathtakingly virtuosic and eloquent. The visual style that Welles put together with cinematographer Gregg Toland and other masterful technicians remains exhilarating no matter how often you’ve seen it — and I lost count after seeing it more than a hundred times. I now have to ration it to an occasional screening, because I know it by heart. Staying away for a while makes it seem more fresh. In a sense, Kane is as fresh as when it was made, a constant series of astonishments. More than that, the screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles is one of the greatest ever written, a profound character study and a multilayered narrative with brilliant dialogue, as richly textured as a novel. I also appreciated it for its savvy inside look at newspapers (my parents were reporters, as was I), and for its critique of the power of the media, which was ahead of its time. The film’s political insights into a fascist media baron were daring in 1941 (so much so that the film blighted Welles’s career in Hollywood and led to the FBI following him for fifteen years, which led to his blacklisting and exile), and are ever more timely today. I think what excited me as a youth were the style, the script, Welles’s youth when he made it (he was twenty-five when it was shot), and its daring. All that was inspirational, and still is.

Patrick McGilligan: Its 75th anniversary is one year off the centenary of Welles’s birth. That gives us two big reasons to celebrate Kane, along with our continuing appreciation for its greatness.

James O. Naremore: Film styles, modes of production, and modes of viewing are different today than when Kane first appeared — in fact, celluloid is no longer the chief basis of the medium. Then, too, the huge literature and debate around Kane has changed the way we see it. Donald Trump says it’s his favorite movie (I guess because he identifies with Charles Foster Kane). James Agee, Manny Farber, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Noel Burch have thought it over rated. Despite all this, I’d say Kane retains its stylistic fascination, youthful energy, satiric wit, and dramatic complexity. To analyze and discuss it at all, no matter what your opinion of its artistic qualities, is to realize that it’s one of the key pictures in the history of world cinema.

Coate: Can you describe your first viewing of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I first saw Kane in Professor Richard Byrne’s introductory film class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on September 22, 1966. It was a coup de foudre. I was nineteen, and it changed my life. I was an English major and had planned to write novels and work as a journalist. I did work as a journalist, and have continued doing so since 1960, but I changed my goal from writing novels to writing screenplays and books about films and wanting to direct films. When I told Welles I wanted to direct a film by the time I was twenty-five, as he did, he said kindly, “You will.” I eventually turned down three chances to direct films and realized I was better suited to being a writer. I worked as a screenwriter for eighteen years but left that profession to write books fulltime, both on films and on other subjects…. I had started my first book (on baseball) in 1963, and wrote my first book on Welles (of three) from 1967 through 1971; Orson Welles was published in 1972 by the British Film Institute and the Viking Press. That project took over my life for four years, though I also worked on John Ford, a critical study I wrote with Michael Wilmington from 1969 through 1971. I obtained a 16mm print of Kane and watched it sixty times while writing the book on Welles. I found a copy of the screenplay at the Wisconsin Historical Society and lugged my portable typewriter there for a month to type an exact copy, since I couldn’t afford to Xerox it. I used the print and the script as my textbooks in my own curriculum of learning how to write films, direct films, and write about films. Our university had only three film courses, so after taking them I had to devise my own curriculum…. Orson Welles actually began as a book-length study of Kane, but after two years of work, I decided I needed to make it a full-length critical study of his entire body of work, since there wasn’t an adequate book on him in English. Shortly after I saw Kane, as it happened, the UW Memorial Union that fall had a series of six Welles films. I saw The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil, among others, for the first time, and realized there was much more to Welles than Kane. Some people still don’t realize that (fifty years later), which is why I’ve kept writing books on Welles. I am sure I will do another, called Orson Welles: The Last Word, when I am ninety. I’ve learned that once you start writing a book about someone, it never ends…. And Welles has been such an influence on my life. I also wrote Orson Welles: Actor and Director (1977), still the only book-length study of his acting career, which compelled me to see all the many (usually bad) films he acted in, and What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (2006). That book is partly a memoir of my work with Welles for six years as an actor on his still-unfinished roman à clef about Hollywood, The Other Side of the Wind, as a film critic and historian named Mister Pister, but What Ever Happened… is also an attempt to tell people all about what he was doing in the neglected last fifteen years of his life (1970-85), when he came back to Hollywood to live and work, the period when I knew him. In the process, I realized I had to tell the whole story of his career from new angles, showing people that (as film historian Douglas Gomery first proposed) he was always an independent filmmaker. He sometimes took advantage of the Hollywood studio system (as he did with RKO from 1939 until his firing in 1942) but was not a failed Hollywood director, as many in America think he was.

McGilligan: I saw Citizen Kane as a junior in high school. My older sister, by then a freshman in college, was taking a film class at the University of Wisconsin in Madison (which was only about a mile from where we lived), taught by Professor Russell Merritt. Kane was being screened. For some reason (it was unusual), I tagged along and was bowled over. For the first time I began to think seriously about film or, to put it differently, to take film seriously.

Naremore: I don’t remember the exact date, but I first saw it when it was re-released in the late 1950s. It played in a theater in Beaumont, Texas, about twenty miles from the Louisiana town where I lived. I was about fifteen years old and I travelled to Beaumont with an older friend who could drive. I had seen stills from Kane in Deems Taylor’s Pictorial History of the Movies (1950) and the idea of it filled me with high anticipation. I wasn’t disappointed, but I wasn’t overwhelmed. Certain images stuck with me: the dreamlike opening, the newsreel shot of Kane standing on a balcony with Hitler, the early newspaper scenes, and the “Raymond” episode. I don’t know if I could fully understand or appreciate such a film at that age, but I didn’t forget it.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way is Citizen Kane significant and/or influential?

McBride: Welles was a maverick who always bucked whatever establishment he was working in and against. That’s one reason true Welles aficionados admire him so much. From Kane onward, he challenged everything about filmmaking technically, thematically, and politically, and brought new approaches to his work, blazing trails for all the rest of us.

McGilligan: It is hardly original to say Citizen Kane is a compendium of cinematic technique up to that time. (Of course I hardly realized this when I first saw it.) Still today, Kane has the capacity to astonish, technically as well as artistically. It has the deep, rich, complex texture of a novel as well as all the cinematic qualities expected of a screen masterpiece. It remains “modern.” And it also remains vastly “entertaining.”

Naremore: Kane was a crucially important film for Andre Bazin, one of cinema’s most influential theorists. Partly via Bazin, it and Welles’s other films were a major influence on the French New Wave. (“All of us will always owe him everything,” Godard famously said.) It influenced the American avant-garde in the 1940s, especially Maya Deren, and Hollywood film style in the 1940s and 50s. In the 1960s, it was a touchstone, not only for Truffaut but also for the “New Hollywood” of Bogdanovich, Scorsese, and Coppola. Since then, it’s been alluded to more times than I can count, though nobody has made quite such a politically dangerous film. Even Rupert Murdoch doesn’t have as much power over movies as Hearst had in 1941. Somebody should do Trump.

Coate: Where do you think Citizen Kane ranks among Orson Welles’s body of work?

McBride: My favorite Welles film — my favorite of all films — is The Magnificent Ambersons. That’s partly for personal reasons — the story and its Midwestern setting resonate deeply with me — and partly because of its more emotional nature than Kane. As Truffaut observed, Ambersons is something of a rebuke to Kane, which is rather chilly and detached; in Kane, he noted, Welles was thinking more about the medium, and in Ambersons, he was thinking more about the characters. I also have a special love for films maudit — damned films, ones that have been hacked up and mistreated, as this one has. One of my goals is to go to Brazil to try to hunt for the uncut work print, which might still exist. I think Chimes at Midnight is Welles’s best film. It is like Ambersons in being profoundly moving. It has Welles’s best performance, as Shakespeare’s Sir John Falstaff. I’ve championed the film for fifty years and was proud to participate in this year’s Blu-ray restored release from Criterion, which has brought it the larger audience it deserves. For many years, when people would tell me Welles hadn’t done anything of importance since Kane, I would ask, “Have you seen Chimes at Midnight?” Invariably the answer was no. They no longer have that excuse…. Welles said Ambersons and Chimes represent more than anything else what he wanted to do in films. Where does Kane fit in? It’s always one of a kind. I don’t have a ranking of the seven best or ten best Welles films. It’s somewhere high among them, as are Touch of Evil and some others. But I think it’s idle to rank films — even if I and others have done that. I wrote the highly personal and self-indulgent The Book of Movie Lists (1999) and participated in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll of international film critics. I feel somewhat embarrassed I didn’t put Kane on my list in that poll, but Welles was the only filmmaker with two films on my list of ten films, Ambersons and Chimes. I have somewhat worn out Kane, unfortunately, by watching it too much, but it remains the film of films for me in the sense of a life-changing, unique experience that can never be surpassed for its influence. It is still astonishing.

McGilligan: This is a tricky question to answer, because Welles has such a tremendous body of work — in radio, theater, television, and journalism, as well as film. But Kane is his signature film and the one that seems to cover all of these other fields, with sound innovation (influenced by radio), newsreel-type immediacy that evokes TV, and deep political and thematic concerns drawn from history and real life. Kane ranks high on his list, probably at the top, although hard core Wellesians (including Welles himself) might have their own favorites. 

Naremore: Chiefly because there’s a popular myth that Kane was Welles’s only great movie, but also because it has topped so many all-time-best lists, I seldom nominate it as Welles’s number one. I tell people to check out The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai, Macbeth, Othello, Touch of Evil, and Chimes at Midnight. Andrew Sarris was right when he said that even if Welles had never made Kane, he would still be among the cinema’s Pantheon directors. I think Kane’s reputation has made its something of an albatross for Welles to carry. Having shown the film many times to students, I feel they always expect it to be earth shattering and aren’t that deeply impressed. It’s difficult for them to see it for the first time unburdened by its reputation.

Coate: What is the legacy of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I will turn over the podium to Truffaut, who wrote, “We loved this film because it was complete: psychological, social, poetic, dramatic, comic, baroque, strict, and demanding. It is a demonstration of the force of power and an attack on the force of power, it is a hymn to youth and a meditation on old age, an essay on the vanity of all material ambition and at the same time a poem on old age and the solitude of exceptional human beings, genius or monster or monstrous genius. It is at the same time a ‘first’ film by virtue of its quality of catch-all experimentation and a ‘last’ film by its comprehensive picture of the world.”

McGilligan: Kane towers over most other films. Few are in its league. It has a legacy for filmmakers as the film to beat, and for critics as one of the best of the best. For scholars, it provides bottomless theory and analysis. Kane has something for everyone, including a young high school student seeing it for the first time completely unaware of its mystique.

Naremore: Kane is central to the history of cinema; it shaped my own attitude toward films and that of many distinguished theorists and directors; but it has accrued such a reputation that new viewers seldom see it unburdened by the discourse around it.

Coate: Thank you — Joseph, Patrick and James — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Citizen Kane on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy The Criterion Collection, Mercury Productions, RKO Radio Pictures, Turner Pictures, Warner Home Video. Joseph McBride photo by Ann Weiser Cornell.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

As with our other celebratory articles, The Bits and History, Legacy & Showmanship offer this retrospective featuring a Q&A with an esteemed group of scholars and film historians who discuss the virtues, influence and legacy of Citizen Kane.

The participants (in alphabetical order)….

Joseph McBride is the author of three books on Orson Welles, most recently What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (University Press of Kentucky, 2006). 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 (Touchstone, 1993), Steven Spielberg: A Biography (Simon & Schuster, 1997), Searching for John Ford (University Press of Mississippi, 2011), Hawks on Hawks (University of California, 1982), and Writing in Pictures: Screenwriting Made (Mostly) Painless (Vintage, 2012). McBride acted for Welles in The Other Side of the Wind (1970-76) and appears in his 1981 documentary Filming “The Trial”. His latest book is The Broken Places: A Memoir (Hightower Press, 2015), and he is currently working on a critical study of Ernst Lubitsch, How Did Lubitsch Do It?: The Films of Ernst Lubitsch. He is a co-writer of the screenplay for Rock ‘n’ Roll High School (1979). He is a professor in the School of Cinema at San Francisco State University. His website is josephmcbridefilm.com.

Patrick McGilligan is the author of Young Orson: The Years of Luck and Genius on the Path to Citizen Kane (HarperCollins, 2015). His other books include Clint: The Life and Legend (St. Martin’s, 2002), Alfred Hitchcock: A Life in Darkness and Light (It Books, 2004), Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast (University of Minnesota, 2013), and Jack Nicholson: The Joker is Wild (W.W. Norton & Company, 2015).

James O. Naremore is the author of The Magic World of Orson Welles (University of Illinois, 2015). He is Emeritus Chancellors’ Professor at Indiana University. His other books include More Than Night: Film Noir in its Contexts (University of California, 2008) and Charles Burnett: A Cinema of Symbolic Knowledge (due in 2017).

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

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Citizen Kane worthy of celebration on its 75th anniversary?

Joseph McBride: Citizen Kane will always be “the film of films,” as François Truffaut has called it. He noted that it has “consecrated a great many of us to the vocation of cinéaste.” Including me. Though Kane did not create the new devices some people claim for it — it’s unwise to ever make that claim about a film, because you can always find a precedent — it is a treasure house of cinematic styles and devices and magic tricks, flamboyant and breathtakingly virtuosic and eloquent. The visual style that Welles put together with cinematographer Gregg Toland and other masterful technicians remains exhilarating no matter how often you’ve seen it — and I lost count after seeing it more than a hundred times. I now have to ration it to an occasional screening, because I know it by heart. Staying away for a while makes it seem more fresh. In a sense, Kane is as fresh as when it was made, a constant series of astonishments. More than that, the screenplay by Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles is one of the greatest ever written, a profound character study and a multilayered narrative with brilliant dialogue, as richly textured as a novel. I also appreciated it for its savvy inside look at newspapers (my parents were reporters, as was I), and for its critique of the power of the media, which was ahead of its time. The film’s political insights into a fascist media baron were daring in 1941 (so much so that the film blighted Welles’s career in Hollywood and led to the FBI following him for fifteen years, which led to his blacklisting and exile), and are ever more timely today. I think what excited me as a youth were the style, the script, Welles’s youth when he made it (he was twenty-five when it was shot), and its daring. All that was inspirational, and still is.

Patrick McGilligan: Its 75th anniversary is one year off the centenary of Welles’s birth. That gives us two big reasons to celebrate Kane, along with our continuing appreciation for its greatness.

James O. Naremore: Film styles, modes of production, and modes of viewing are different today than when Kane first appeared — in fact, celluloid is no longer the chief basis of the medium. Then, too, the huge literature and debate around Kane has changed the way we see it. Donald Trump says it’s his favorite movie (I guess because he identifies with Charles Foster Kane). James Agee, Manny Farber, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Noel Burch have thought it over rated. Despite all this, I’d say Kane retains its stylistic fascination, youthful energy, satiric wit, and dramatic complexity. To analyze and discuss it at all, no matter what your opinion of its artistic qualities, is to realize that it’s one of the key pictures in the history of world cinema.

Coate: Can you describe your first viewing of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I first saw Kane in Professor Richard Byrne’s introductory film class at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, on September 22, 1966. It was a coup de foudre. I was nineteen, and it changed my life. I was an English major and had planned to write novels and work as a journalist. I did work as a journalist, and have continued doing so since 1960, but I changed my goal from writing novels to writing screenplays and books about films and wanting to direct films. When I told Welles I wanted to direct a film by the time I was twenty-five, as he did, he said kindly, “You will.” I eventually turned down three chances to direct films and realized I was better suited to being a writer. I worked as a screenwriter for eighteen years but left that profession to write books fulltime, both on films and on other subjects…. I had started my first book (on baseball) in 1963, and wrote my first book on Welles (of three) from 1967 through 1971; Orson Welles was published in 1972 by the British Film Institute and the Viking Press. That project took over my life for four years, though I also worked on John Ford, a critical study I wrote with Michael Wilmington from 1969 through 1971. I obtained a 16mm print of Kane and watched it sixty times while writing the book on Welles. I found a copy of the screenplay at the Wisconsin Historical Society and lugged my portable typewriter there for a month to type an exact copy, since I couldn’t afford to Xerox it. I used the print and the script as my textbooks in my own curriculum of learning how to write films, direct films, and write about films. Our university had only three film courses, so after taking them I had to devise my own curriculum…. Orson Welles actually began as a book-length study of Kane, but after two years of work, I decided I needed to make it a full-length critical study of his entire body of work, since there wasn’t an adequate book on him in English. Shortly after I saw Kane, as it happened, the UW Memorial Union that fall had a series of six Welles films. I saw The Magnificent Ambersons and Touch of Evil, among others, for the first time, and realized there was much more to Welles than Kane. Some people still don’t realize that (fifty years later), which is why I’ve kept writing books on Welles. I am sure I will do another, called Orson Welles: The Last Word, when I am ninety. I’ve learned that once you start writing a book about someone, it never ends…. And Welles has been such an influence on my life. I also wrote Orson Welles: Actor and Director (1977), still the only book-length study of his acting career, which compelled me to see all the many (usually bad) films he acted in, and What Ever Happened to Orson Welles?: A Portrait of an Independent Career (2006). That book is partly a memoir of my work with Welles for six years as an actor on his still-unfinished roman à clef about Hollywood, The Other Side of the Wind, as a film critic and historian named Mister Pister, but What Ever Happened… is also an attempt to tell people all about what he was doing in the neglected last fifteen years of his life (1970-85), when he came back to Hollywood to live and work, the period when I knew him. In the process, I realized I had to tell the whole story of his career from new angles, showing people that (as film historian Douglas Gomery first proposed) he was always an independent filmmaker. He sometimes took advantage of the Hollywood studio system (as he did with RKO from 1939 until his firing in 1942) but was not a failed Hollywood director, as many in America think he was.

McGilligan: I saw Citizen Kane as a junior in high school. My older sister, by then a freshman in college, was taking a film class at the University of Wisconsin in Madison (which was only about a mile from where we lived), taught by Professor Russell Merritt. Kane was being screened. For some reason (it was unusual), I tagged along and was bowled over. For the first time I began to think seriously about film or, to put it differently, to take film seriously.

Naremore: I don’t remember the exact date, but I first saw it when it was re-released in the late 1950s. It played in a theater in Beaumont, Texas, about twenty miles from the Louisiana town where I lived. I was about fifteen years old and I travelled to Beaumont with an older friend who could drive. I had seen stills from Kane in Deems Taylor’s Pictorial History of the Movies (1950) and the idea of it filled me with high anticipation. I wasn’t disappointed, but I wasn’t overwhelmed. Certain images stuck with me: the dreamlike opening, the newsreel shot of Kane standing on a balcony with Hitler, the early newspaper scenes, and the “Raymond” episode. I don’t know if I could fully understand or appreciate such a film at that age, but I didn’t forget it.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way is Citizen Kane significant and/or influential?

McBride: Welles was a maverick who always bucked whatever establishment he was working in and against. That’s one reason true Welles aficionados admire him so much. From Kane onward, he challenged everything about filmmaking technically, thematically, and politically, and brought new approaches to his work, blazing trails for all the rest of us.

McGilligan: It is hardly original to say Citizen Kane is a compendium of cinematic technique up to that time. (Of course I hardly realized this when I first saw it.) Still today, Kane has the capacity to astonish, technically as well as artistically. It has the deep, rich, complex texture of a novel as well as all the cinematic qualities expected of a screen masterpiece. It remains “modern.” And it also remains vastly “entertaining.”

Naremore: Kane was a crucially important film for Andre Bazin, one of cinema’s most influential theorists. Partly via Bazin, it and Welles’s other films were a major influence on the French New Wave. (“All of us will always owe him everything,” Godard famously said.) It influenced the American avant-garde in the 1940s, especially Maya Deren, and Hollywood film style in the 1940s and 50s. In the 1960s, it was a touchstone, not only for Truffaut but also for the “New Hollywood” of Bogdanovich, Scorsese, and Coppola. Since then, it’s been alluded to more times than I can count, though nobody has made quite such a politically dangerous film. Even Rupert Murdoch doesn’t have as much power over movies as Hearst had in 1941. Somebody should do Trump.

Coate: Where do you think Citizen Kane ranks among Orson Welles’s body of work?

McBride: My favorite Welles film — my favorite of all films — is The Magnificent Ambersons. That’s partly for personal reasons — the story and its Midwestern setting resonate deeply with me — and partly because of its more emotional nature than Kane. As Truffaut observed, Ambersons is something of a rebuke to Kane, which is rather chilly and detached; in Kane, he noted, Welles was thinking more about the medium, and in Ambersons, he was thinking more about the characters. I also have a special love for films maudit — damned films, ones that have been hacked up and mistreated, as this one has. One of my goals is to go to Brazil to try to hunt for the uncut work print, which might still exist. I think Chimes at Midnight is Welles’s best film. It is like Ambersons in being profoundly moving. It has Welles’s best performance, as Shakespeare’s Sir John Falstaff. I’ve championed the film for fifty years and was proud to participate in this year’s Blu-ray restored release from Criterion, which has brought it the larger audience it deserves. For many years, when people would tell me Welles hadn’t done anything of importance since Kane, I would ask, “Have you seen Chimes at Midnight?” Invariably the answer was no. They no longer have that excuse…. Welles said Ambersons and Chimes represent more than anything else what he wanted to do in films. Where does Kane fit in? It’s always one of a kind. I don’t have a ranking of the seven best or ten best Welles films. It’s somewhere high among them, as are Touch of Evil and some others. But I think it’s idle to rank films — even if I and others have done that. I wrote the highly personal and self-indulgent The Book of Movie Lists (1999) and participated in the 2012 Sight & Sound poll of international film critics. I feel somewhat embarrassed I didn’t put Kane on my list in that poll, but Welles was the only filmmaker with two films on my list of ten films, Ambersons and Chimes. I have somewhat worn out Kane, unfortunately, by watching it too much, but it remains the film of films for me in the sense of a life-changing, unique experience that can never be surpassed for its influence. It is still astonishing.

McGilligan: This is a tricky question to answer, because Welles has such a tremendous body of work — in radio, theater, television, and journalism, as well as film. But Kane is his signature film and the one that seems to cover all of these other fields, with sound innovation (influenced by radio), newsreel-type immediacy that evokes TV, and deep political and thematic concerns drawn from history and real life. Kane ranks high on his list, probably at the top, although hard core Wellesians (including Welles himself) might have their own favorites. 

Naremore: Chiefly because there’s a popular myth that Kane was Welles’s only great movie, but also because it has topped so many all-time-best lists, I seldom nominate it as Welles’s number one. I tell people to check out The Magnificent Ambersons, The Lady from Shanghai, Macbeth, Othello, Touch of Evil, and Chimes at Midnight. Andrew Sarris was right when he said that even if Welles had never made Kane, he would still be among the cinema’s Pantheon directors. I think Kane’s reputation has made its something of an albatross for Welles to carry. Having shown the film many times to students, I feel they always expect it to be earth shattering and aren’t that deeply impressed. It’s difficult for them to see it for the first time unburdened by its reputation.

Coate: What is the legacy of Citizen Kane?

McBride: I will turn over the podium to Truffaut, who wrote, “We loved this film because it was complete: psychological, social, poetic, dramatic, comic, baroque, strict, and demanding. It is a demonstration of the force of power and an attack on the force of power, it is a hymn to youth and a meditation on old age, an essay on the vanity of all material ambition and at the same time a poem on old age and the solitude of exceptional human beings, genius or monster or monstrous genius. It is at the same time a ‘first’ film by virtue of its quality of catch-all experimentation and a ‘last’ film by its comprehensive picture of the world.”

McGilligan: Kane towers over most other films. Few are in its league. It has a legacy for filmmakers as the film to beat, and for critics as one of the best of the best. For scholars, it provides bottomless theory and analysis. Kane has something for everyone, including a young high school student seeing it for the first time completely unaware of its mystique.

Naremore: Kane is central to the history of cinema; it shaped my own attitude toward films and that of many distinguished theorists and directors; but it has accrued such a reputation that new viewers seldom see it unburdened by the discourse around it.

Coate: Thank you — Joseph, Patrick and James — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Citizen Kane on the occasion of its 75th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy The Criterion Collection, Mercury Productions, RKO Radio Pictures, Turner Pictures, Warner Home Video. Joseph McBride photo by Ann Weiser Cornell.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link.

For the occasion The Bits features a Q&A on the popular series, and who better to turn to than Three’s Company authority and author Chris Mann.

Chris Mann is the author of Come and Knock on Our Door: A Hers and Hers and His Guide to Three’s Company (St. Martin’s, 1998 – you can order a copy from Amazon by clicking here or on the book cover image below). The writer, consultant and digital media producer also served as consulting producer on NBC’s hit, franchise-launching 2003 movie-of-the-week, Behind the Camera: The Unauthorized Story of Three’s Company. As a magazine art director, he has produced and directed cover, editorial and video shoots with actors such as Eva Longoria, Gilles Marini, Cheryl Ladd and Joyce DeWitt and bestselling authors, including thought leader Marianne Williamson. During his 20-plus years as a freelance journalist, he has written for TV Guide, the Los Angeles Times, emmy magazine and other entertainment titles while interviewing actors, authors, doctors and Olympic and professional athletes for numerous health and fitness magazine cover stories focusing on body, mind and spirit. He is presently working on his next two books: a biography on Three’s Company star John Ritter and a behind-the-scenes tell-all about the iconic CBS game show The Price is Right.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Three’s Company worthy of celebration on its 40th anniversary?

Chris Mann: It’s worthy because it’s a timeless classic that changed the landscape of the television sitcom, even if critics still refuse to sing its praises as a contemporary French farce that helped redefine the domestic situation comedy. The show’s timelessness is due in no small part to the ongoing appeal of the late, great John Ritter — whose talents also live on in his children, two of whom, sons Jason and Tyler, have themselves starred in sitcoms.

Three’s Company continues to air on Antenna TV and Logo. I was present last month at the taping of a cast retrospective that aired during a recent Antenna TV 40th anniversary celebration. Richard Kline choked up when talking about John, and Jenilee Harrison lit up when lovingly recalling John as a kind coworker and a family man. Even though Jenilee was on the show only for two seasons, she remains part of the Three’s Company family. She came up to me with the sweetest words about my book — and how she brought her copy for the rest of the cast to sign. In that moment, I was reminded why this show touched people’s hearts: because it was about a group of people who genuinely cared for each other. That alone makes it a prime candidate for celebration.

Coate: Can you describe seeing Three’s Company for the first time?

Mann: I grew up in the Bible Belt in rural Oklahoma. Fortunately, my mom had a more liberal take on the difference between “family fare” and “adult” shows, so I was allowed to watch Three’s Company but not, for instance, Soap. Our television set always seemed to be tuned to ABC, as I recall watching everything from Laverne & Shirley and Welcome Back, Kotter to Charlie’s Angels and S.W.A.T. as early as late 1975, when I was 3. So I definitely remember watching Three’s Company during its first season in spring 1977. The sexual innuendo went over my head. Instead, I was fascinated by John Ritter’s physical comedy. The scene in which Jack Tripper, when startled, leaps like a frog into the bathroom in the sixth episode, It’s Only Money, made me howl with laughter.

That episode premiered on my fifth birthday (April 21, 1977). My mom and my sister were laughing, too, but my dad despised what he angrily called “The Idiot Box” — and at times he threatened to “throw it through the window.” I knew he wasn’t joking. Emulating John Ritter-as-Jack Tripper’s easygoing and anything-for-a-laugh qualities nonetheless seemed to kind of neutralize my dad at times, and employing quick quips and Tripper-esque pratfalls helped me tremendously at school, too. Needless to say, Three’s Company soon became the feel-good gift that — even during my years as an overwhelmed college newspaper reporter/editor and honors student at the University of Tulsa — kept on giving. In the age of the Internet, many fans of the show have shared with me that they also watched and loved the show, in many cases from a young age, to escape life’s dramas — if only a momentarily, to sort of release tension with laughter. It’s amazing how such a silly sitcom can help refuel the spirit by helping us appreciate life’s absurdities. Three’s Company constantly reminded that such a shift in perspective can help us tackle the not-so-funny stuff in life.

Coate: What was the objective with your Three’s Company book?

Mann: My intention with Come and Knock on Our Door always was to celebrate the show, give proper recognition to the farcical stylings and often underappreciated talents that made it a hit and — once and for all, and above all — uncover and tell the true human story behind a once-controversial if critically misunderstood sitcom and its stars’ successes, struggles, breakthroughs, setbacks, harmonies, conflicts, losses and eventual triumphs. In addition to being groundbreaking in large part due to its premise (A young, engaging male lead pretends to be gay so his suspicious landlords let him live with two young, engaging women?! In primetime?! In Middle-American living rooms?! How will we protect the children?!), Three’s Company became a blueprint of sorts for how a hit series survives “moral” outrage and other negative publicity, tumultuous backstage and public feuds, show-changing cast exits and the bitter, lingering breakups of its original stars — all while continuing to emanate the love and generate the laughter that attracted millions of viewers in the first place.

As a journalist, as an enthusiast and just as who I am as a human being, it was imperative for me to get to the heart of the matter with truth, integrity, love, empathy and, where appropriate, the quality I’ve always found the most disarming and healing: humor. I realized early on that achieving my objective meant going well beyond the sort of “extended episode guide” approach I’d seen in other TV books. Instead, it required essentially penning four biographies in one: The no-holds-barred life story of Three’s Company and, at least insofar as they are interconnected and pertain to this life-changing experience, the transformational stories of its three original stars. At its core and beyond its pratfalls, double entendres and misunderstandings, this sitcom was about chemistry, relationships and, ultimately, understanding — and so, too, was my book. (And folks use to say Three’s Company wasn’t deep! HA!) Did I do justice to my mission of saluting, illuminating and attempting to bring back together a former TV family? Readers’ heartfelt online reviews and my battle scars seem to suggest so!

The Three’s Company story continues, even 13 and a half years after the untimely passing of its creative and emotional center, the brilliant John Ritter. So I’m looking at an updated version of Come and Knock on Our Door for 2018 — the 15th anniversary of John’s passing, the 20th anniversary of St. Martin’s Press’s publication of my book and the 40th anniversary of the year the show first shot to number one in the ratings. John supported me and my book from the get-go — he even spoke kindly and generously about the book and its grateful author during various national television appearances — so I’d love to release a special edition that pays tribute to him and his legacy. This “reboot” might serve as a prologue of sorts to my long-in-the-works book on this most remarkable and surprisingly multi-layered man. He certainly inspired a generation… or three.

Coate: In what way was Three’s Company significant within the situation comedy genre?

Mann: Three’s Company redefined the domestic television comedy to embrace mixed-singles cohabitation. It brought the notion of “friends as family” into our living rooms long before Friends and Will & Grace did. Jack Tripper and company were family. Even the landlords and Larry and Lana were in and out of the roommates’ two-bedroom apartment more than any sex-starved building manager or wacky neighbor should be. But the trio’s cozy dwelling was a safe place, a home, for all. Intercourse was not required for male-female intimacy or, for that matter, the propagation of family.

Of course, Three’s Company did push the envelope with its permissiveness and suggestiveness, thus paving the way in the genre for more sexual openness. But more importantly perhaps, I think this sitcom helped open the door to portraying a wider spectrum of how men and women can and do relate to each other beyond sexuality and the once-strict definition of “gender roles.” (I would even argue that Jack Tripper, in his soft-spokenness and “big-brotherliness” with his female roommates, helped redefine what it means to be “masculine.” And even in outlandish ways — for instance, his hissing at the homophobic Mr. Roper and his comfort in dressing in drag, if just for a laugh — I think John showed audiences that Jack was comfortable with his masculinity enough that he was hip to being in touch with qualities that our society has defined as more “female” or “feminine.” This farcical handling of sensitive matters succeeded without being offensive — at least in the eyes of most Americans, I would argue — thanks to the character and talents of John Ritter. I think that for many people to understand or embrace that which is — and those who are — different, humor must be used to break down the walls of division. John definitely understood this.)

In these ways, Three’s Company helped liberate the TV sitcom. Within a decade of its premiere, mixed-singles domestic and workplace comedies were being pitched with loglines of “Three’s Company meets (insert qualifier here).” Ten years after Jack and company became part of the TV landscape, Married… with Children premiered — in essence, the Bundys are the Ropers with a couple of the Three’s Company tenants as their kids. And 20 years after Three’s Company hit the scene, the genre saw an openly gay lead character/actor in Ellen. I always viewed Ellen DeGeneres’ character, the klutzy and befuddled Ellen Morgan, as a sort of female Jack Tripper — who himself was kind of a male Lucy Ricardo. On this note, I cannot stress enough how John Ritter elevated physical comedy to sitcom art, just as Lucille Ball did with her iconic series. (Lucy agreed!) His skills as a farceur will forever make Three’s Company relevant as the sitcom that brought the classic French farce to American television — two decades before Frasier did (in a more “sophisticated” manner) with episodes such The Ski Lodge.

Coate: Is there an ideal episode (if not the pilot) to introduce to someone who has never seen the show?

Mann: Because Three’s Company evolved from basically a bedroom farce to what I call a “physical farce” — and at no time was anything “physical” ever happening in the bedroom on this show — I would recommend two introductory episodes, maybe in addition to the pilot: season 3’s The Bake-Off and season 6’s Urban Plowboy. The former features the original ensemble — including Norman Fell, Audra Lindley and, in what is among her best comedic work, a whole-pie-engulfing Suzanne Somers — in a double entendre-rife, slapstick-laden misunderstanding of dessert-throwing proportions. The latter showcases the final ensemble, including the ever-hilarious Don Knotts as Mr. Furley, in a piece that hilariously illustrates how Three’s Company was ultimately a showcase for John Ritter’s physical comedy, complemented masterfully by Joyce DeWitt as well as Priscilla Barnes, Jenilee Harrison and “crazy Larry” himself, Richard Kline.

Coate: Is it necessary to watch the episodes in their original production order?

Mann: Not at all. So long as you know the basic setup and who’s who in terms of the characters and their tenures (lest Ann Wedgeworth’s brief appearance as Lana confuse you), each episode pretty much stands on its own.

Coate: Which are the standout episodes?

Mann: Up in the Air (season 6) is arguably the best episode of the series. It is among the funniest episodes of any sitcom of all time. It’s my favorite, it’s generally a fan favorite and it was John Ritter’s favorite. It was the comedy performance of his lifetime, I think — all to the tune of a lengthy, quintessentially Ritter/Tripperesque dance. Insanely funny. Also: Jack’s Tattoo (season 8) and Eyewitness Blues (season 6) feature some of his best scenes with DeWitt and Knotts. (I actually fell off my bed laughing at Jack’s post-sedative, pre-tattoo-removal hospital scenes when Jack’s Tattoo first aired in 1984. Janet thinks Jack’s getting a vasectomy and Mr. Furley thinks he’s having a sex change — and then he thinks Jack had a baby. Oh, those zany misunderstandings!) Chrissy’s Hospitality (season 4) features some of the original trio’s most laugh-out-loud moments, Somers’ ultimate portrayal of Chrissy and Knotts’ most gut-busting facial contortions. Season 3’s The Love Diary showcases Lindley and Fell at their finest. Strangers in the Night (season 6) illustrates the comic chemistry between Ritter and Kline. The Case of the Missing Blonde (season 5) is a funny episode featuring the show’s “in-between” ensemble when Harrison was the accident-prone third roommate. And Two Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (season 6), Breaking Up Is Hard to Do (season 7) and The Charming Stranger (season 8) showcase some of Ritter, DeWitt and Barnes’ funniest ensemble work.

Coate: The third lead and the supporting characters came and went over the course of the series. As such, which era of the series do you think was the best?

Mann: A tough question, in part because the show was essentially a bedroom farce with physical comedy mixed in during its first four seasons and then became a full-on physical comedy of errors in its final four years. (And — I say this somewhat lightheartedly — I don’t want to get in the middle of yet another Three’s Company argument!) As such, the original cast, with Somers, Fell and Lindley (and then Kline, Knotts and Wedgeworth), shined in the first format, and the final cast, with Barnes, Kline and Knotts (and initially Harrison), worked beautifully together in what one might call the revised format. Aside from illustrating what episodes are among my favorites, I think it’s wise to leave it at that.

Coate: What are your thoughts on the DVD season sets of the series?

Mann: I participated in the production of bonus materials that appeared in the releases of seasons 1-5. As a creative consultant, I penned liner notes, recorded audio commentary, wrote featurette intro material, advised on clip usage/content and interviewed cast and crew for the John Ritter remembrances. I think the first five seasons were well packaged, and I was proud to be a part of them. I’m sure the final three seasons are nicely done, too. Funnily enough, I do not own seasons 5-8 on DVD. I’m still old school when it comes to classic television — I prefer to catch a half-hour or hour while channel surfing. But it’s great to know that others have all of the uncut episodes handy, and I hope the “extras” are equally meaningful to them.

Coate: Three’s Company, like many shows of its vintage, was originated on standard-definition video and, as such, is sort of trapped in a lower-resolution format (unlike the future-proofing that originating on film can provide). How will the show remain viable now that the high-definition age is upon us?

Mann: Despite having what we would now consider a dated, lower-resolution appearance, I believe Three’s Company will remain viable and enjoyable for generations to come simply on the strength of its scripts and performances.

Coate: What is the legacy of Three’s Company?

Mann: Its legacy as sitcom is that it made people laugh at the absurdities of life — or at least the absurdities of life in apartment 201. Three’s Company pushed the envelope initially but will be remembered and embraced as a fun-loving romp — a domestic farce, if you will — that showcases some of television’s best physical comedy and ensemble magic, led by the medium’s master farceur, John Ritter.

Coate: Thank you, Chris, for participating and sharing your thoughts about Three’s Company on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

---

- Michael Coate

Smokey and the Bandit, the directorial debut of former stuntman Hal Needham, opened 40 years ago this month, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s first-run theatrical engagements; and, finally, an interview segment with 1970s film authority Lee Pfeiffer.

BANDIT NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among films in the Bandit series
• 1 = Box-office rank among films directed by Hal Needham
• 1 = Box-office rank among films starring Burt Reynolds (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 1 = Number of opening-week engagements
• 1 = Number of weeks North America’s top-grossing movie (week #2)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during first weekend of “wide” release
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1977 (calendar year)
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1977 (summer season)
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1977 (legacy)
• 3 = Rank among Universal’s all-time top-earning movies at close of original run
• 6 = Number of sequels, remakes and spin-offs
• 8 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 12 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1970s
• 27 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 36 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 71 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)
• 386 = Number of opening-week engagements (Week #2; first week “wide”)

• $29.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (videodiscs)
• $79.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (Beta & VHS)
• $1.7 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (3-day; May 27-29)
• $2.3 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (4-day holiday; May 27-30)
• $4.3 million = Production cost
• $9.4 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $17.4 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $61.1 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $126.7 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $198.5 million = Box-office gross (domestic; entire Bandit series)
• $246.4 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $511.4 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $721.6 million = Box-office gross (domestic; entire Bandit series; adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Smokey and the Bandit is a good summer saturation comedy entry starring Burt Reynolds as a bootlegger-for-kicks who, with Jerry Reed and Sally Field, outwit zealous sheriff Jackie Gleason…. [S]tunt coordinator Hal Needham’s directorial debut is promising. The Universal release should perform well in fast playoff, and be a serviceable dual bill partner thereafter.” — A.D. Murphy, Variety

“Smokey and the Bandit tries hard to be a Good Ole Movie and sometimes succeeds. Burt Reynolds, with high-pitched laugh and constant good spirits, plays the trucking hero; and if his style is too practiced to be called casual, it at least fits the mood of the picture. [I]t’s basically a B movie, but with fancy wrappings. It’s also a reverse snob. It takes genuine pride in its lack of pretentions and wallows in its mediocrity.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“Smokey and the Bandit is for everybody who is crazy about Burt Reynolds, crazy about cars, crazy about car chases, crazy about CB radio.” — Gene Shalit, The Today Show

“[Smokey and the Bandit] is the kind [of movie] you enjoy when you don’t mind staying awake but are too tired to think. It is not unmitigated good fun even at its own level of internally combusted slapstick. Burt Reynolds and Jerry Reed are pleasant to be around, and Sally Field turns the extraordinary feat of being wistfully sweet, sympathetic and funny in a part you’d have said was left on the doorstep in a blizzard. Jackie Gleason, stuck as the story’s buffoon-villain, a sorghumland sheriff with the wit and charm of a stalled steamroller, gets lines that fall on the far side of whatever divides witty irascibility from loud nastiness.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“Jaunty fun.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Smokey and the Bandit is an hour and a half and maybe two dozen wrecked police cars long. Most of its dialogue consists of braying into CB microphones about ‘go-go juice’ and courses of action being ‘negatory.’ For those with no passion for mumbling cryptic southernisms at strangers, the film is sheer purgatory.” — Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Reynolds is tough because he can drive fast. Reynolds is sweet because he smiles. For my money, Reynolds and his cracker act are as phony as a three-dollar bill. The man reeks of Las Vegas, from his dapper moustache to his turquoise jewelry, and all his CB lingo (‘Hey there, good buddy’) can’t disguise the fact that he looks like he belongs behind a roulette wheel.” — David Rosenbaum, The Boston Herald American

“Smokey and the Bandit is the latest Good Ol’ Movie from Burt Reynolds, who does this sort of thing better than anyone else (even if he doesn’t always convince us that it should be done at all). It’s basically a chase movie, and chases have been the staple of the movies, almost since they were invented. Chases used to be mostly on foot or horseback; now they’re in cars. The American movie going public seems to be ready for at least one big one a year.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Gleason’s performance as Sheriff Justice is one of the corniest jobs of overacting I’ve sat through in years.” — Clyde Gilmour, Toronto Star

“Sally Field is kooky and appealing as the runaway bride. And there’s such a noticeable chemistry between her and Reynolds you wonder what went on between the two when the cameras weren’t rolling.” — Charles Brock, The (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union

“Smokey and the Bandit combines the public’s infatuation for car chases with the current Citizen Band radio fad. Practically the entire film, in fact, is one long car chase. It’s raucous, raunchy and infantile. But the fact that the movie is also contemporary, slapstick and jiving with current CB jargon will make it attractive to those in the mood for a fast-paced comedy adventure. For me, it was a crashing bore.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“With Mr. Reynolds playing it cool and Mr. Gleason doing his burns and investing the film with a certain raunchy humor, the rest is up to the vehicles. And they don’t do anything that hasn’t been seen before.” — Lawrence Van Gelder, The New York Times

“Pure idiocy.” — Gannett News Service

“It has considerably less charm than W.W. and the Dixie Dancekings, another Reynolds ‘Southern’ that made it big only in the South, and its comedy formula and techniques are so crude and slapdash that it’s less like a typical ‘Southern’ than a particularly obnoxious Disney chase comedy — this time with abusive anti-cop and toilet jokes…. Take out the outhouse humor and the CB radio gadgetry, replace Gleason with Don Knotts, Reynolds with Dean Jones and Field with Suzanne Pleshette, and you’ve got Herbie Rides Again.” — John Hart, The Seattle Times

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE ORIGINAL ENGAGEMENTS

Listed here for historical reference and nostalgia for those who saw Smokey and the Bandit early in its release are the theaters in which the movie opened during its first two weeks of release.

A distribution/exhibition overview: Smokey and the Bandit initially opened exclusively (in what might be described as an out-of-place, pre-release booking) at the fabled Radio City Music Hall in New York City, opening there on May 19th, 1977. A week later on the 27th, Universal opened the movie in a massive “regional saturation” release throughout the South and Southwest. This portion of the launch booked theaters in towns of all sizes but was restricted to thirteen states and was designed to capitalize on the Southern theme and setting of the movie and star Burt Reynolds’ popularity in that region. That, and the fact Universal believed the movie would have performed poorly nationwide if it didn’t generate positive word of mouth from the early playdates. (Additional Southern openings, primarily in small towns, continued throughout June and early July of ’77.)

In what was a fairly slow rollout nationally, the major markets in the rest of North America finally started to play the movie during July ’77. These aren’t included in the reference listing below, but to illustrate the slow rollout, some of the major market openings included: July 15th (Boston), July 22nd (Toronto, New York City expansion), July 29th (Baltimore, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Louisville, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, St. Louis, San Diego, San Francisco, Washington DC), August 12th (Detroit) and August 19th (Seattle).

And, here were the May 27th openings of Smokey and the Bandit….

ALABAMA

• Albertville — Mall Twin
• Anniston — Cheaha
• Auburn — Tiger
• Birmingham — Eastwood Mall Twin
• Birmingham — Five Points West Twin
• Cullman — Martin Twin
• Decatur — Gateway Twin
• Dothan — Northside 4-plex
• Enterprise — College
• Fort Payne — DeKalb
• Gadsden — Agricola
• Huntsville — Alabama
• Mobile — Village 4-plex
• Montgomery — Martin Twin
• Muscle Shoals — Cinema Twin
• Phenix City — Phenix Twin
• Scottsboro — Holiday
• Tuscaloosa — Capri

ARKANSAS

• Benton — Twin
• Blytheville — Malco Twin
• El Dorado — El Dorado Triplex
• Fayetteville — Malco Twin
• Fort Smith — Phoenix Village Twin
• Hot Springs — Malco Twin
• Jacksonville — Flick Twin
• Jonesboro — Plaza Twin
• Little Rock — Cinema City 4-plex
• Little Rock — Four 4-plex
• Marianna — Gene Boggs Twin
• Pine Bluff — Broadmoor Twin
• Russellville — Picwood Twin
• West Helena — Gene Boggs Twin

FLORIDA

• Altamonte Springs — Altamonte Mall Twin
• Arcadia — Arcadia Twin
• Bartow — Bartow Mall
• Boca Raton — Boca Mall 6-plex
• Bradenton — Bayshore Twin
• Bradenton — Skyway Drive-In
• Brooksville — Brooksville Twin
• Clearwater — Carib
• Coral Gables — Riviera Twin
• Dania Beach — Hi Way Drive-In
• Daytona Beach — Bellair Plaza Twin
• Daytona Beach — Sunshine Mall Twin
• Delray Beach — Delray Drive-In
• Englewood — Palm Plaza Twin
• Fort Lauderdale — Sunrise Twin
• Fort Myers — Edison Mall
• Fort Pierce — Village Twin
• Fort Walton Beach — Palm
• Gainesville — Royal Park 4-plex
• Hallandale Beach — Diplomat Mall Twin
• Hollywood — Plaza Twin
• Jacksonville — Cedar Hills
• Jacksonville — Expressway Mall Twin
• Jacksonville — Main Street Drive-In
• Jacksonville — Northside Twin
• Jacksonville — Southside Drive-In
• Jacksonville — Village Twin
• Key West — Cinema Twin
• Lake City — Cinema 90 Twin
• Lakeland — Polk
• Lauderdale Lakes — Lakes 6-plex
• Leesburg — Vista
• Margate — Margate Twin
• Melbourne — NASA
• Merritt Island — Merritt Twin
• Miami — Concord Twin
• Miami — Coral Way Drive-In
• Miami — Cutler Ridge Twin
• Miami — Miami Drive-In
• Miami — Omni 6-plex
• Miami — Thunderbird Twin
• Miami Beach — Surf
• Naples — Gulfgate
• Neptune Beach — Neptune
• New Port Richey — Southgate Twin
• North Miami Beach — 170th Street Twin
• North Miami Beach — Golden Glades Drive-In
• North Palm Beach — Twin City Twin
• Ocala — Springs Twin
• Okeechobee — Braham
• Orlando — Colonial Drive-In
• Orlando — Orange Ave. Drive-In
• Orlando — Parkwood Twin
• Ormond Beach — Nova Drive-In
• Palm Springs — Dolphin
• Panama City — Florida Triplex
• Pensacola — Westwood 4-plex
• Pinellas Park — Pinellas Square Triplex
• Plant City — Plant Mall Twin
• Port Charlotte — Promenades Twin
• St. Augustine — Plaza Twin
• St. Petersburg — Crossroads Twin
• St. Petersburg — Mustang Drive-In
• Sanford — Sanford Plaza Twin
• Sarasota — South Trail
• Stuart — Mayfair
• Tallahassee — Capitol Drive-In
• Tallahassee — Tallahassee Mall Twin
• Tampa — Hillsboro Drive-In
• Tampa — Horizon Park 4-plex
• Tampa — Twin Bays 4-plex
• Tampa — Varsity 6-plex
• Titusville — Miracle City Twin
• Venice — Jacaranda Plaza Twin
• Vero Beach — Plaza
• West Palm Beach — Palm Beach Mall 4-plex
• Winter Haven — Continental
• Winter Park — Park Twin

GEORGIA

• Albany — Martin
• Athens — Beechwood Twin
• Atlanta — Northlake Triplex
• Atlanta — Tara Twin
• Augusta — Daniel Village Twin
• Brunswick — Lanier Twin
• Carrollton — Village
• Chamblee — Northeast Expressway Drive-In
• Columbus — Columbus Square Twin
• Covington — Newton
• Dalton — Capri
• Decatur — Glenwood Drive-In
• Decatur — South Dekalb Twin
• Dublin — Martin
• Fayetteville — Fayette
• Fort Oglethorpe — Southgate Twin
• Gainesville — Sherwood
• Griffin — Parkwood Triplex
• Hinesville — Brice Twin
• Jonesboro — Arrowhead Triplex
• LaGrange — LaGrange
• Mableton — Mableton Twin
• Macon — Westgate Triplex
• Marietta — Town & Country
• Milledgeville — Martin
• Moultrie — Colquitt
• Newnan — Alamo
• Rome — Village
• Savannah — Cinema Centre Triplex
• Statesboro — Georgia
• Thomasville — Ritz
• Tifton — Tift
• Valdosta — Cinema Twin
• Vidalia — Brice
• Warner Robins — Rama
• Waycross — Mall Twin

KENTUCKY

• Bowling Green — Martin
• Franklin — Martin
• Hopkinsville — 31 West Drive-In
• Murray — Cheri Triplex

LOUISIANA

• Alexandria — Don
• Baton Rouge — Broadmoor Twin
• Baton Rouge — North Park Twin
• Bogalusa — Trackside Twin
• Hammond — Ritz
• Houma — Southland Twin
• Monroe — Plaza
• Morgan City — Lake Twin
• New Orleans — Joy
• New Orleans — Plaza 4-plex
• Opelousas — Vista Village Twin
• Ruston — Village
• Shreveport — St. Vincent 6-plex
• Shreveport — Southpark Twin
• Slidell — Tammany Mall Twin

MISSISSIPPI

• Biloxi — Edgewater Plaza 4-plex
• Clarksdale — Showcase
• Cleveland — Cinema Twin
• Columbus — Malco Twin
• Greenville — Plaza
• Greenwood — Highland Park Twin
• Gulfport — Hardy Court Twin
• Hattiesburg — Avanti
• Jackson — DeVille
• Laurel — Northside Twin
• McComb — Twin
• Meridian — 8th Street
• Natchez — Tracetown Twin
• Oxford — Ritz
• Pascagoula — Towne
• Starkville — Cinema 12 Twin
• Tupelo — Malco Twin
• Vicksburg — Battlefield Twin

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — Fox Winrock
• Clovis — Hilltop Twin
• Gallup — Aztec Twin
• Santa Fe — The Movies! Twin
• Silver City — Gila

NORTH CAROLINA

• Asheboro — Cinema Twin
• Asheville — Dreamland Drive-In
• Asheville — Merrimon Twin
• Boone — Chalet Twin
• Burlington — Park
• Chapel Hill — Carolina Twin
• Charlotte — Charlottetown Mall Triplex
• Charlotte — Eastland Mall Triplex
• Clinton — Cinema
• Concord — Carolina Mall Triplex
• Dunn — Plaza Twin
• Durham — Northgate Twin
• Elizabeth City — Carolina
• Fayetteville — Cross Creek Mall Triplex
• Gastonia — Diane Drive-In
• Goldsboro — Center
• Greensboro — Carolina Circle 6-plex
• Greensboro — Quaker Twin
• Greenville — Pitt
• Havelock — Cinema
• Henderson — Embassy
• Hendersonville — Carolina Twin
• Hickory — Thunderbird Drive-In
• High Point — Twin
• Jacksonville — Northwoods
• Kinston — Mall
• Laurinburg — Gibson
• Lenoir — Cinema Triplex
• Lincolnton — Century
• Lumberton — Cinema Triplex
• Morehead City — Cinema Twin
• Morganton — Studio Twin
• Mount Airy — Mayberry
• Nags Head — Colony House
• New Bern — Cinema
• Raleigh — Mission Valley Twin
• Roanoke Rapids — Cinema
• Rocky Mount — Cardinal Twin
• Salisbury — Center
• Sanford — Cinema Twin
• Shelby — Flick
• Southern Pines — Town & Country Twin
• Statesville — Newtowne
• Washington — Cinema Twin
• Wilmington — Oleander Twin
• Wilkesboro — College Park
• Wilson — Starlite Drive-In
• Winston-Salem — Haines Mall 4-plex

OKLAHOMA

• Ada — Gemini Twin
• Alva — Rialto
• Bartlesville — Eastland Twin
• Enid — Video Twin
• Guymon — Suburban
• Lawton — Vaska
• McAlester — Cinema 69 Twin
• Muskogee — Muskogee Twin
• Norman — Heisman 4-plex
• Oklahoma City — 14 Flags Drive-In
• Oklahoma City — French Market Twin
• Oklahoma City — Reding 4-plex
• Pryor — Allred
• Sapulpa — Creek Hills
• Shawnee — Hornbeck Twin
• Stillwater — Aggie
• Tulsa — Boman Twin
• Weatherford — Vesta
• Woodward — Lakeside

SOUTH CAROLINA

• Aiken — Mark I
• Anderson — Osteen Twin
• Charleston — Ashley Plaza Twin
• Chester — Cinema Twin
• Clemson — Clemson
• Columbia — Miracle
• Conway — Holiday
• Easley — Colony Twin
• Florence — Crown
• Greenville — Tower
• Greenwood — Auto Drive-In
• Greer — Cinema Triplex
• Hartsville — Cinema
• Lancaster — Crown
• Myrtle Beach — Rivoli
• North Charleston — Charles Towne Square Twin
• North Myrtle Beach — Cinema
• Orangeburg — Camelot Twin
• Rock Hill — Cinema
• Spartanburg — Pinewood Twin
• Sumter — Wesmark Plaza Twin
• Union — Duncan

TENNESSEE

• Bristol — Holiday
• Chattanooga — Northgate Triplex
• Clarksville — Martin Twin
• Cleveland — Cinema Twin
• Columbia — Polk
• Cookeville — Princess
• Dyersburg — Martin Twin
• Gatlinburg — Gatlinburg
• Goodletsville — Rivergate Mall Twin
• Jackson — Paramount
• Johnson City — Mall
• Kingsport — Martin
• Knoxville — Cedar Bluff Twin
• Knoxville — Studio One
• Madisonville — Martin
• Maryville — Druid Hill Drive-In
• McMinnville — Park
• Memphis — Plaza Twin
• Memphis — Raleigh Springs Mall Twin
• Memphis — Whitehaven Twin
• Morristown — Princess
• Murfreesboro — Martin Twin
• Nashville — Martin
• Oak Ridge — Grove

TEXAS

• Abilene — Westgate Twin
• Alice — Sage
• Alvin — Town Plaza Twin
• Amarillo — Western Square Twin
• Arlington — Six Flags Mall Twin
• Austin — Highland Mall Twin
• Baytown — Brunson Twin
• Beaumont — Gateway Twin
• Big Spring — R/70
• Brownfield — Regal Twin
• Brownwood — Commerce Square Twin
• Brownsville — North Park Plaza Twin
• Bryan — Manor East Triplex
• Conroe — North Hills
• Copperas Cove — Cinema 76
• Corpus Christi — Cine 4-plex
• Corsicana — Cinema Twin
• Dallas — Esquire
• Dallas — Valley View Twin
• Del Rio — Rita Twin
• Denton — Fine Arts
• Dumas — Evelyn
• El Paso — Cielo Vista Mall Triplex
• Fort Worth — Wedgwood Twin
• Galveston — Galvez Plaza Triplex
• Gatesville — Town & Country Drive-In
• Greenville — Rolling Hills Twin
• Harker Heights — Showplace Triplex
• Harlingen — Morgan Plaza Twin
• Houston — Alabama
• Houston — Almeda 9-plex
• Houston — Champions Village Twin
• Houston — Gaylynn Triplex
• Houston — Greenspoint 5-plex
• Houston — Northwest 4-plex
• Houston — Woodlake Triplex
• Huntsville — Cinema Triplex
• Hurst — Belaire Twin
• Irving — Irving Mall Twin
• Kerrville — Plaza
• Killeen — Plaza
• Kingsville — Texas
• Lake Jackson — Lake Twin
• Laredo — Cinema Twin
• Lewisville — Cinema Twin
• Longview — Cargill Triplex
• Lubbock — Showplace 4-plex
• Lufkin — Cinema Twin
• Marshall — Cinema Twin
• McAllen — Cinema Twin
• Mesquite — Town East Twin
• Midland — Cinema 1
• Nacogdoches — Stephen F. Austin Center
• New Braunfels — Cinema Twin
• Odessa — Grandview
• Orange — Brown Twin
• Paris — Cinema Twin
• Port Arthur — Village Triplex
• Richmond — Lamar
• San Angelo — Sherwood Twin
• San Antonio — North Star Mall Twin
• San Antonio — South Park Mall 4-plex
• San Marcos — Holiday
• Seguin — Palace Twin
• Sherman — Cinema Twin
• Snyder — Cinema Twin
• Sugar Land — Palms
• Temple — Arcadia
• Texarkana — Cinema City Triplex
• Texas City — Tradewinds Twin
• Tyler — Cinema Twin
• Victoria — Playhouse 4-plex
• Waco — Cinema Twin
• Wichita Falls — Wichita

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Lee Pfeiffer is the 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 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).

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Smokey and the Bandit be remembered on its 40th anniversary?

Lee Pfeiffer: The film spoke to a certain demographic — people who lived in rural America — in a way that Hollywood productions of the era rarely succeeded in doing. There was a time when studios courted this market specifically by churning out low-budget action movies, Westerns, comedies and exploitation films but as audiences became more demanding in their tastes, public sentiment switched to glossier productions. Indeed, as far back as 1935, Variety ran a famous headline “Hix Nix Stix Pix,” meaning that films that were specifically targeted for rural audiences were being ignored in favor of big movies with big stars. The success of Smokey reawakened studio interest in producing films targeted to people who didn’t live in major urban areas. It was a film that boasted big stars and good production values. Rural audiences felt the movie spoke to them in a way that wasn’t condescending or insulting in the manner that previous attempts to reach their wallets were. Burt Reynolds was riding high at the time. Along with Clint Eastwood, he was arguably the biggest star in the world so the movie’s success didn’t surprise anyone. What did surprise studios was the extent to which it was embraced by rural audiences. The movie played seemingly forever in some theaters in the south and the heartland. It proved to Hollywood that there was plenty of profit movies that spoke to folks who still saw first run movies in drive-in theaters.

Coate: What do you think of Smokey and the Bandit? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Pfeiffer: I think I saw it back in college when I went to a screening to review the film for the campus newspaper. I didn’t like it very much then and probably wouldn’t care for it very much now, though I’ll confess I haven’t seen it in many years. I always liked the work of Burt Reynolds and Sally Field and Jackie Gleason is one of my idols. But I just couldn’t relate to the humor the way some people did. I think it’s really a matter of demographics, specifically where you live. I’m a big city person who grew up with New York City just across the river, so Manhattan was my “playground,” if you will — and still is. Thus, I always related more to Woody Allen comedies than the kind of humor presented in Smokey and the Bandit. That’s not meant to be a knock on the film. I once wrote a book about classic movies and I think I included Smokey in it. My editor was aghast but left it in because I argued that, for the purposes of that specific book, I defined “classic” as any film that had a highly enduring legacy in regard to its intended audience. Smokey wasn’t made to please people who frequent cafes on the East Side of Manhattan. It was made for audiences who could relate to the kinds of eccentric characters you find in small town America in much the same way that Scorsese is able to do the same with characters you find in urban settings. I respect Smokey for its durability. People who loved it back in the day still love it today.

Coate: What did Smokey and the Bandit contribute to 1970s Cinema?

Pfeiffer: The film proved that not every major hit had to be a mega-budget blockbuster. Even by 1977, studios were becoming increasingly reliant on spectacle and special effects. That year alone saw the release of three major hits that relied heavily on technology: Star Wars, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Spy Who Loved Me — all fine movies but ones that continued to convince studios that bigger was always better. Smokey reminded them that a film on a fairly modest budget with popular stars could still draw big audiences. Don’t forget there was no cable TV in those days and home video was just in its infancy. The average person could only see a favorite movie again by going to a theater. Smokey played for many weeks, packing in audiences — and then would be revived by popular demand in small town theaters. That type of pattern doesn’t happen today. Even if a movie is a blockbuster, it generally clears out of theaters quickly so the studio can capitalize on the home video and cable sales.

Coate: Where do you think Smokey and the Bandit ranks among director Hal Needham’s body of work?

Pfeiffer: Well, Needham’s “body of work” is pretty thin as director. He was one of the very top stuntmen and stunt coordinators in the business and that is his real legacy. He gravitated to directing because he had worked on so many films he probably felt he could direct one in his sleep. He was also a personal friend of Burt Reynolds and had worked as a second unit director on some of his earlier films. Reynolds’ clout got him the directing gig on Smokey and Needham came through for the studio. However, his career as a director was largely linked to Reynolds’ popularity. They went on to make one good movie together — Hooper — and a couple of dogs that still made a lot of money: The Cannonball Run and Smokey and the Bandit II. He made a couple of other films without Reynolds but they are largely forgotten. He and Reynolds reunited in 1984 for Cannonball Run II but the bloom was already off the rose and the movie didn’t perform very well. Within a couple of years, Needham wasn’t directing any major films. However, it should be acknowledged that the man knew his limitations and stayed within his comfort zone. His films generally contained elaborate stunts and car chases, which were challenges he knew he could always rise to. The fact that we are still talking about Smokey and the Bandit forty years later is probably the greatest testament to his talents.

Coate: Where do you think Smokey and the Bandit ranks among Burt Reynolds’, Sally Field’s and Jackie Gleason’s bodies of work?

Pfeiffer: That’s a pretty subjective question because, in terms of popularity, it probably represents the pinnacle of Burt Reynolds’ career. However, it also laid the groundwork for his rather rapid demise in terms of his box office appeal. As Reynolds himself acknowledged, he began to rely too much on the low-hanging fruit of good ol’ boy country comedies. Clint Eastwood did two such films, co-starring with an orangutan and they were both hits — but he knew when to walk away from the genre. Reynolds didn’t. When he turned down the role that won Jack Nicholson an Oscar for Terms of Endearment in order to do Stroker Ace with Hal Needham, his career was irreparably damaged. In terms of Reynolds’ achievement as a personality, Smokey was a triumph for him because it epitomized how audiences wanted to see him — as the over-sexed, towel-snapping prankster and man of action. In terms of Reynolds’ “serious” efforts, however, I think his star-making dramatic performance in Deliverance is his most impressive work.

For Sally Field, who was romantically involved with Reynolds at the time, this was nothing more than a fun outing. She always had a talent for light comedy and had become a star on the sitcoms Gidget and The Flying Nun, so this was probably nothing more than a pleasant paid holiday for her.

For Jackie Gleason the film was more important. He was one of the most iconic of American comedy stars but his legacy was in danger of being overlooked by younger audiences who only knew him as Ralph Kramden from the eternal comedy series The Honeymooners. Gleason stole the show as Sheriff Buford T. Justice and found a whole new audience, proving he still had his mojo. It was the biggest hit of his career, even if the character was, shall we say “inspired” (aka “ripped off”) from the almost identical Sheriff J.W. Pepper played by Clifton James a few years earlier in the James Bond films Live and Let Die and The Man with the Golden Gun. Gleason was also an outstanding dramatic actor but he rarely got a chance to show off these talents. For the best dramatic work of his career, just watch him as pool hustler Minnesota Fats in the 1961 film The Hustler. He’s only on screen for a limited time yet he got an Oscar nomination. He was also outstanding as a corrupt boxing manager in the big screen version of Requiem for a Heavyweight. However, he will always be immortalized for The Honeymooners. Even kids today seem to be familiar with the show and sixty years later, it’s still being shown on Saturday nights on New York television.

Coate: What is the legacy of Smokey and the Bandit?

Pfeiffer: Smokey proved to studios that there was still “gold in them thar hills,” to coin the old phrase, when it came to appealing to rural audiences which had often been neglected especially in the era in which the Western movie genre went into a decline. It also boasted something that is lacking today: genuine star power. There are very few real movie stars left today. By that I don’t mean recognizable names or people who command big salaries. “Stars” were people whose movies would generate profits simply by their presence in them. Back in 1977, Reynolds, Field and Gleason were very popular screen presences and represented movie stars in the classic sense of the term. It’s hard to think of many stars today — people who draw in big audiences regardless of the genre of film and perhaps in spite of bad reviews. Smokey also represented a time in which families felt comfortable going to movies together and not having to cringe at the elements of sex and violence. Smokey never went beyond some naughty jokes and double-entendres and the violence was cartoon-like because no one ever got hurt. I still can’t say I’m a fan of the movie but for the reasons I’ve outlined in this [interview], I have a lot of respect for it.

Coate: Thank you, Lee, for participating and for sharing your thoughts on Smokey and the Bandit on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

--END--

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Rastar, Universal Pictures, Universal Pictures Home Entertainment

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and film reviews, and trade reports published in the periodicals Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

SPECIAL THANKS

Al Alvarez, Nancy Arn, Kim Averette, Laura Baas, Don Beelik, Kevin Blinn, Louis Bornwasser, Laura Calderone, Margaret Carter, Kevin Chatham, Tom Cole, Saundra R. Cropps, Robert Cruthirds, Laura Fazekas, Jesse Gibson, Khalilah Y. Hayes, Mike Heenan, Beatheia Jackson, Sarah Kenyon, Joanne Lammers, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Karin Lindemann, Stan Malone, Michael Mitchell, Sana Moulder, Vivian R. Osborne, Stuart Parks II, Lee Pfeiffer, Roxanne Puder, Dalton Royer, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, Sean Sutcliffe, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project, and to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences’ Margaret Herrick Library and Fairbanks Center for Motion Picture Study.

IN MEMORIAM

Bill Justis (Music), 1926-1982
Jackie Gleason (“Sheriff Buford T. Justice”), 1916-1987
Angelo Ross (Editor), 1911-1989
James Lee Barrett (Screenwriter), 1929-1989
Walter Hannemann (Editor), 1912-2001
Anthony Magro (Sound Editor), 1923-2004
Pat McCormick (“Big Enos”), 1927-2005
Macon McCalman (“Mr. B”), 1932-2005
Jerry Reed (“Cledus”; Music), 1937-2008
Hal Needham (Director), 1931-2013
Ray West (Sound), 1925-2016

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Poltergeist, one of the most popular horror films ever made, opened in theaters 35 years ago this week, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s premium-format presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with film music and Spielberg authority Mike Matessino.

POLTERGEIST NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 1 = Box-office rank among films in the Poltergeist series
• 1 = Rank among top-earning horror films of 1982
• 2 = Rank on list of top-earning films of MGM/UA’s 1982 slate
• 3 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 4 = Number of sequels, remakes and spin-offs
• 5 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (summer)
• 6 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 8 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (calendar year)
• 28 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 37 = Number of 70mm prints
• 62 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 890 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $34.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (videodiscs)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $7,749 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $6.9 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $10.7 million = Production cost
• $17.5 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $27.1 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $36.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic; as of 12/31/82)
• $37.7 million = Box-office rental (domestic; as of 12/31/83)
• $38.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic; legacy)
• $45.1 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $76.6 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $96.8 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $114.3 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $121.7 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $194.1 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $308.4 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“This is the movie The Amityville Horror dreamed of being.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“[I]t is a pleasure to see a horror movie that does not base its entertainment on obscene fantasies about killing defenseless women.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“There is no moviemaker anywhere who can wrest so much fun out of the commonplace — the toys, gimmicks, hardware and habits of contemporary America. Spielberg is simply a wizard at mirroring us and our manifold junk in brilliant satirical flourishes.” — Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle

“If ever a protest might be made of a PG rating, this would be the film.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Aside from a deliciously frightening locking of a door and a surprising tug on a mother’s dress, the new terror film Poltergeist is without terror, thrills or entertainment value. In fact, the last half of the picture is a bunch of silly mumbo jumbo that combines the worst elements of The Exorcist and the pseudoscientific laugh riot, Beyond and Back.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Poltergeist is like a thoroughly enjoyable nightmare, one that you know that you can always wake up from, and one in which, at the end, no one has permanently been damaged. It’s also witty in a fashion that Alfred Hitchcock might have appreciated. Offhand, I can’t think of many other directors who could raise goose bumps by playing The Star-Spangled Banner behind a film’s opening credits.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“A superior, spectacular ghost story.” — Charles Michener, Newsweek

“Poltergeist is a nice, civilized monster movie for anyone who giggled with terror at The Exorcist. It is true the film has something of an identity problem; often it seems unable to make up its mind whether it’s trying to scare the bejesus out of you or simply make you laugh. But then, perhaps this is due to the fact that the direction is shared by Tobe Hooper, who made the bloodspattered Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and Steven Spielberg (Close Encounters of the Third Kind), who thinks of outer space as populated by colonies of Peter Pans.” — Gina Mallet, Toronto Star

“Honest thrills and spine-snapping chills.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“Poltergeist provides a sharp and canny mixture of cerebral chills and raw, visceral thrills. Few other horror films have managed to merge the psychological and the literal with such harmonious results.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“[Poltergeist] is a dazzling, laser fun house of a film where the ride is too much fun to be anything scary.” — Jack Mathews, Detroit Free Press

“Poltergeist, the first salvo from what may be remembered as Steven Spielberg Summer, has arrived and the results are oddly uneven. In terms of simple, flat-out, roof-rattling fright, Poltergeist gives full value. In terms of story, however, simple is indeed the word, and dumb might be a better one.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Poltergeist is a walloping ghost story, as fun and entertaining to watch as it often is frightening. It has all the ingredients of a summer hit for Steven Spielberg who ran away with box office dollars last summer with Raiders of the Lost Ark and seems certain to do it again with this film as well as the upcoming E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.” — Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“[Poltergeist] is a much more exciting experience in stereo and 70mm.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“The slam-bang technical professionalism of Poltergeist is exhilarating. This is classically seamless Hollywood moviemaking evolved to its highest state.” — Scott Sublett, The Washington Times

“Poltergeist reawakens childhood fears. For a couple of hours, it is a roller-coaster ride of thrills, chills and shivers. Spielberg says Poltergeist is his revenge on television. It may be just a splendidly crafted thriller, and it certainly could never happen in real life. But I, for one, am turning off the TV tonight before I go to sleep. Maybe even when I first get home.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“It’s an absolutely irresistible good time. Poltergeist is intelligent, witty, and it will scare the bejeesus out of you. It even offers a moral to all unscrupulous real estate developers — but I can’t tell you anymore than that or I’ll spoil the story.” — Ellen Pfeifer, The Boston Herald

“Poltergeist could have been a more frightening movie, with more chilling after-effects, but that’s not what Spielberg and Hooper had in mind. They clearly wanted the kind of horror movie you could take your kids or your parents to see, and they’ve succeeded.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Poltergeist is the best ghost story I’ve ever seen. That’s the sort of sweeping statement I normally avoid, but there’s no need for quibbling this time. Steven Spielberg’s new production is unadultered good fun — as scary, happy and harmless as a roller coaster ride.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) on occasion are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Poltergeist in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to experience Poltergeist and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix.

Only about five percent of Poltergeist’s initial print run was in the 70mm format, which was significantly more expensive and more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints. And of the 100+ new movies released during 1982, Poltergeist was among only eighteen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements.

The film’s 70mm prints of Poltergeist were blown up from anamorphic 35mm photography and were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Format 42 (i.e. three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

A trailer for My Favorite Year circulated with the Poltergeist prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing includes the 70mm engagements of Poltergeist that commenced June 4th, 1982*. Not included in this work are the moveover, second run, revival and international engagements (or any of the movie’s countless standard 35mm engagements). And to provide a sense of the movie’s appeal, the duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, has been included in parenthesis for some of the entries.

*Prior to release there was a sneak preview screening on May 21st at the Century Plaza in Los Angeles and invitational previews on May 21st at the Samuel Goldwyn in Beverly Hills, May 26th at the MGM Studios in Culver City and June 3rd at the Cinerama in New York. The film’s official premiere was held June 3rd at the Egyptian in Seattle as a part of the Seattle Film Festival.

So, for historical reference and nostalgia, the first-run North American theaters that screened the 70mm version of Poltergeist were….

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Palliser Square Twin (15)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Westmount Twin (15)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver — Famous Players’ Stanley (17)

CALIFORNIA

• Costa Mesa — Edwards’ South Coast Plaza Triplex (7)
• Los Angeles (Century City) — Plitt’s Century Plaza Twin (10)
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — SRO’s Paramount (7)
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Capitol Twin
• San Diego — Mann’s Valley Circle (27)
• San Francisco — Plitt’s Northpoint (7)
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 24 Twin

DELAWARE

• Claymont — SamEric’s Eric Tri-State Mall 4-plex (12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s Embassy Circle (10)

ILLINOIS

• Chicago — Center’s McClurg Court (5)
• Chicago — Plitt’s State Lake (5)
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin (6)

KENTUCKY

• Louisville — Redstone’s Showcase 9-plex (28)

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Famous Players’ Northstar Twin (15)

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Cinema 57 Twin (11)

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus — RKO Century’s Route 17 Twin (10)
• Pennsauken — SamEric’s Eric Triplex (15)
• Totowa — UA’s Cinema 46 Triplex (6)

NEW YORK

• Greece — Jo-Mor’s Stoneridge Twin (13)
• New York — RKO Century’s Cinerama Twin (9)
• Valley Stream — RKO Century’s Green Acres (11)

ONTARIO

• Toronto — Famous Players’ Cumberland 4-plex (18) [La Reserve]
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Eglinton (24)

OREGON

• Portland — Luxury Theatres’ Fox (27)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Feasterville — SamEric’s Eric Twin (11)
• King of Prussia — SamEric’s Eric King Twin (11)
• Philadelphia — SamEric’s Eric’s Place (15)

QUEBEC

• Montreal — United’s York (10)

TEXAS

• Dallas — Loews’ Park Central 4-plex (9)
• Houston — Loews’ Southpoint 5-plex

WASHINGTON

• Seattle — SRO’s Town (10)

Note that some of the presentations included in this listing were presented in 35mm during the latter weeks of engagement due to print damage and the distributor’s unwillingness to supply a 70mm replacement print or because the booking was moved to a smaller, 35mm-only auditorium within a multiplex. As well, the reverse may have been true in some cases whereas a booking began with a 35mm print because the lab was unable to complete the 70mm print order in time for an opening-day delivery or the exhibitor negotiated a mid-run switch to 70mm. In these cases, the 35mm portion of the engagement has been included in the duration figure.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Mike Matessino is an accomplished music producer, mixer, editor, mastering engineer and film music historian and has been associated with dozens of CD soundtrack projects. His Jerry Goldsmith-scored CD projects include The Sand Pebbles, Alien and Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and Spielberg/Goldsmith projects include Poltergeist, Twilight Zone: The Movie, Gremlins and Innerspace. Other Spielberg/Amblin CD projects include Jaws, 1941, The Goonies, Back to the Future, Empire of the Sun, Jurassic Park and A.I.: Artificial Intelligence. Non-Spielberg, non-Goldsmith CD projects include Star Wars, Superman and Home Alone. As well, he was the Restoration Supervisor for The Director’s Edition of Star Trek: The Motion Picture and directed behind-the-scenes documentaries on The Sound of Music, Alien, The Last Starfighter, and John Carpenter’s The Thing, which have been included as added value material on some of those films’ LaserDisc, DVD and/or Blu-ray releases.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Poltergeist be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

Mike Matessino: Find a little suburban pub and order a white lady, of course! Poltergeist is a classic and sits alongside all of the other genre films that were released in the summer of 1982, which is widely recognized as an amazing year for movies. There have been sequels and remakes but in this case the original stands on its own and is still just a great, solid movie in every respect.

Coate: What did you think of Poltergeist? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it? Is your opinion of the movie the same today as it was upon first viewing?

Matessino: I loved it when I first saw and still do. But I have to discuss E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial to put it in proper context, because I had the interesting experience of seeing E.T. first, at a Memorial Day weekend preview.

That remains one of the most astounding experiences I ever had at a movie theater. I went in thinking it might be a sweet and low-key little family film that I would see once or twice, but as it played it became clear that there was a power and a resonance to it that was palpable. I was already a great admirer of Steven Spielberg, especially Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and so I could see how E.T. took some of the ideas from that film and focused them down to a very personal level, and it felt almost like a sequel to me. There were some very profound ideas about family, childhood and matters of the heart that come through probably more powerfully than the filmmakers realized they would. Everything seemed completely real, and by the time the movie reached its climax there was a feeling of transcending the cinema medium. You could feel it in the audience. They screamed when the bikes took off and applauded extensively at the start of and again at the end of the credits. But then we all went back into a world that had little collective awareness of this movie.

I went back to school on Tuesday and started talking about it, wearing the pin that had been handed out that said ”I saw E.T.” and I remember a girl I liked asking me what E.T. was. When I said it’s the new Spielberg film, she said, ”You mean Poltergeist?” So that illustrates how little advance hype there was back then. But being a reader of Starlog I knew about every movie coming that summer and the next Friday, the 4th, both Poltergeist and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan opened. Since you have an interest in movie theaters, Mike, I can add that the logistical problem here was that Poltergeist had opened at more off-the-beaten-path locations, one of which was bike-able but in the opposite direction of where Star Trek opened, so it was not going to work to see both in one day. I ended up seeing Star Trek II on Friday and Poltergeist Saturday. Star Trek II opened at my beloved Movieland in Yonkers, which had been like a second home since it opened in late 1977 and which recently became Alamo Drafthouse. Close Encounters was one of the movies that opened when the theater did and it was the only place in Westchester County to see it in Dolby Stereo. On that same screen I first saw Alien, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the E.T. preview (and it played at this theater until December), so I tend to think of the place as my ”mother church.” I think Star Trek II was in the second largest house that opening day (as Raiders had been, but then later moved to the big theater). I really loved Trek II and still do, but then as now I like Star Trek: The Motion Picture more for a variety of reasons. That’s a different topic, of course. Anyway, I saw Poltergeist the next day in Bronxville at the same theater where I’d first seen Jaws. Unfortunately, in 1980 this great neighborhood theater was split into a triplex. But the point of all of this is that Poltergeist immediately struck me as a companion piece to E.T. Here again was very realistic setting, one similar to E.T. (but not as exact as some people think) and I could see how Steven Spielberg had again taken some of the ideas and imagery of Close Encounters of the Third Kind and had re-focused them into a very tight and compelling ghost story. After E.T. opened the following week a lot of articles began appearing about the ”summer of Spielberg” and discussion about the two films as they related to each other. Both films grew out of early attempts at a Close Encounters sequel, so they have some common DNA. And I’m not the first one to group them with Close Encounters as Spielberg’s ”suburban trilogy.” In a way, Poltergeist is a nexus that connects Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders of the Lost Ark and E.T. together, so when I look at it today I find it’s still a powerful movie on its own but carries all those connections with it. In a way I’m sorry that Poltergeist didn’t open later in the summer than it did, because I was so blown away by E.T. that I kept going to that (and of course it was easier to get to). I would have seen Poltergeist more if it had appeared later.

I did get to see it in 70mm in New York City on a pretty spectacular day that started with a double feature retrospective of Jaws and Close Encounters, followed by E.T. (also in 70mm), followed by Poltergeist. It was one hell of a summer that also had re-issues of Raiders and Star Wars. Poltergeist eventually came to Movieland in October when it was recirculated for Halloween, and then there was a re-issue the following spring right before Return of the Jedi opened. So I was able to see it multiple times and it was always satisfying.

Coate: In what way is Poltergeist significant among the horror genre?

Matessino: Poltergeist, of course, dispensed with the creaky old mansion settings for ghost stories and was set in a 5-year old house in a modern suburban development. This carries with it a lot of subtext because old mansions are usually either inherited or they get so dilapidated that they only attract people who are misfits in some way. The vibe of Cuesta Verde in Poltergeist, on the other hand, is that average people have worked hard to afford to buy a home here, away from the city and crime in order to raise families in a safe environment. So there is a sense that you are in total control of something that you’ve worked hard to possess. To have that subverted by a ghostly presence therefore resonates on a different level than if it’s in an old mansion where you are more apt to feel powerless against the age and history of the place. There is nothing outwardly creepy about the Poltergeist house. Even in movies like The Exorcist, the townhouse in Georgetown is photographed to look ominous at times. The next thing Poltergeist does is bring science into it to investigate the manifestations rather than just having a séance or something. Interestingly I think one of the first times that was done was in The Legend of Hell House, written by Richard Matheson and based on his novel. He had also written the Twilight Zone episode Little Girl Lost, which was an inspiration for Poltergeist. Matheson had also written Duel and then went on to work again with Spielberg on the Twilight Zone movie, so there is a through-line there as well. Poltergeist then goes a step further. Where it could have just been all jump scares and visual effects from that point, it instead introduces discussion of the metaphysical and the spiritual. By the time the psychic medium character, Tangina, comes into it and delivers her monologue, you feel really invested and it goes beyond the story at hand. You find yourself contemplating the whole idea of the spirt realm and the existence of ghosts, which is extremely ambitious for a genre that has so often just given us 90 minutes of people doing stupid things sprinkled with ”boo!” moments and gore. Those things are there in Poltergeist, but they are restrained in order that the Grand Guignol finale actually feels like a climax. So to summarize, Poltergeist has a lot of social commentary and can spark discussion about other subjects. It sets a pretty high bar as a horror movie.

Coate: What is your take on the “Who directed Poltergeist?” issue?

Matessino: My take is that Spielberg, along with Kathy Kennedy and Frank Marshall, had just set up Amblin Entertainment and Poltergeist was going to be the production that established a template for what movies the company was going to make and how. The movie doesn’t say ”Amblin” on it but if you look at the novelization you’ll find it has a 1981 Amblin Enterprises copyright (the first official Amblin production was actually Continental Divide that same year). Amblin was located at MGM at the time, which is where Poltergeist interiors were filmed, so it was easy for Spielberg to oversee. He had come up with the story, and done a rewrite of the screenplay, worked with the storyboard artist to plot out the camera angles, and then, at the back end, supervised the post production including the editing (which was done by his own usual editor, Michael Kahn, who did not do E.T.), the visual effects and the scoring. So right there you have a variety of factors that would make it impossible for the film to not exude Spielberg’s creative influence. Tobe Hooper certainly directed principal photography, but his job was to make the movie Spielberg wanted. The problem was that Steven was very excited by the movie and his enthusiasm can reach a level where it just takes over a room or a set. Hooper also departed the project after he delivered his cut in October 1981, so there was a long way to go between then and the release of the picture. Some missteps certainly happened with the trailers and some of the press about it, but at the end of the day that was all smoothed over. I liken the situation to Gone With the Wind, which to this day we think of as David Selznick’s film and not Victor Fleming’s, and The Thing From Another World, which we think of as Howard Hawks’ movie and not Christian Nyby’s. There was clearly a creative partnership between Spielberg and Hooper, and if you look at Hooper’s other films you can recognize his imprint on Poltergeist, but the odds were stacked against him for the finished movie avoiding a tangible Spielberg vibe. The fact that it opened a week before E.T., along with the connections to Close Encounters I mentioned, only adds to that feeling.

Coate: Some viewers might find Jerry Goldsmith’s musical score out of place given Spielberg’s longtime collaboration with John Williams. Can you discuss Goldsmith’s contribution to the film and where you think his Poltergeist score ranks among his body of work?

Matessino: Poltergeist is a perfectly scored movie. There is not one single note that is out of place. For me it’s right up there with my other favorite, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which is a score that, in places, is a second cousin to Poltergeist. Jerry recorded some cues and sections for Poltergeist that were not used, and while they work great on the expanded soundtrack album, each decision made for the movie was the correct one. The early part of the film feels completely realistic, so that when the music comes back with the ”They’re here!” scene, you feel that the score is the voice of the spirits. There are a few sequences to particularly note Jerry’s genius. The first is in The Jewelry, which plays under the family’s attempt to contact the vanished Carol Anne for the parapsychologists. Visually we basically see people just standing around a room, but Jerry finds the ache in Diane’s heart and Carol Anne’s fear and takes you through an array of emotions. It’s pretty incredible. Then later we get the astonishing 15 minutes of music that covers Carol Anne’s rescue. The aforementioned monologue delivered by Tangina is remarkably scored, again allowing you to cast your mind beyond the story to a lot of bigger ideas. After that we get an unbroken four-minute shot that is little more than four people standing in a hallway. But Jerry seems to score the chaos of what’s going on where Carol Anne is, allowing us to imagine it without having it shown to us. It’s also incredible how there are moments of beauty in the score that accompany some terrifying situations. So then when the horrific cues for the finale come in, he’s able to cut loose and deliver some very scary music. There is a longing lullaby at the heart of this score, of course, which plays into the feeling of safety and security that one should feel as a child in the film’s suburban setting. This had been attempted before in scores like Sybil by Leonard Rosenman and The Amityville Horror by Lalo Schifrin, but it was the perfect approach for Poltergeist. Had E.T. not come out the same year, I think Poltergeist would have earned Jerry his second Oscar, which he richly deserved. The performance of the score is also great. It was mostly players from the Los Angeles Philharmonic. I should also point out that it’s entirely acoustic. There are no electronics at all, which Jerry began to use much more extensively right after this. There are a lot of electronics in Poltergeist II, which has a very different sound.

Coate: What are your thoughts on the Poltergeist sequels and recent remake? How do they compare to the original?

Matessino: I think the sequels and remake were approached with a genuine interest in doing something with the material, but because Spielberg was not involved with them they went in a different direction and the distinctive tone is absent. One thing I don’t particularly like is that the first sequel really completely changed the story and explained the spirits and the “beast” by introducing the fanatical preacher character. Not that this is an inherently bad story idea, but I don’t like it when I encounter casual viewers who apply this to the first film, because that’s simply not what’s happening in it. If you look at it, it’s clear that the spirits are those whose headstones were removed and are in a state of limbo because new homes have been built on that land and families are living there. The beast is a supernatural entity holding these lost souls at bay and snatching Carol Anne to do so. I appreciate some things in Poltergeist III technically because it was all done with practical effects and it didn’t try to capture the feel of the first film, but I find it hard to watch knowing that Heather O’Rourke was already not doing well when it was made. By that time we were also getting so many horror series with multiple sequels that it felt like an attempt was being made to capitalize on a recognized title. The remake attempted some interesting things, although adding in the Fright Night element didn’t quite work for me, and it’s an interesting experiment in the way the remake of The Omen was, but the original film is just much more than a horror film — it captures a moment in American culture of the early ‘80s that really gives you something to think about. I don’t know that it’s really possible to capture that again. As I said earlier, the original stands on its own as completely solid and totally satisfying experience.

Coate: What is the legacy of Poltergeist?

Matessino: Poltergeist broke ghost story tropes with its modern suburban setting and will always be known for doing so. It was an essential project in the creation of Steven Spielberg’s company, Amblin Entertainment, and it’s also indispensable when it comes to examining Spielberg’s body of work because it was a very personal project for him. It sets the bar very high for its genre, offering top production values, visual effects that still hold up and includes elements of social commentary and metaphysical contemplation that remain relevant and timeless. It’s a perfect example of a project that can never be duplicated and never be repeated, except by viewers going back for another trip into the light.

Coate: Thank you, Mike, for sharing your thoughts on Poltergeist on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its release.

--END--

All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy MGM/UA, MGM Home Entertainment, Warner Home Video.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Bobby Henderson, Bill Kretzel, Monty Marin, Mike Matessino, J. Thomas, Vince Young, and to all of the librarians who assisted with the research for this project.

IN MEMORIAM

Dominique Dunne (“Dana Freeling”), 1959-1982
Heather O’Rourke (“Carol Anne Freeling”), 1975-1988
Beatrice Straight (“Dr. Lesh”), 1914-2001
Jerry Goldsmith (Music), 1929-2004
Lou Perry (“Pugsley”), 1941-2009
Zelda Rubinstein (“Tangina Barrons”), 1933-2010
Robert Broyles (“Pool Worker #1”), 1933-2011
Bill Varney (Re-recording Mixer), 1934-2011
Clair Leucart (“Bulldozer Driver”), 1936-2011

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Predator, one of the most popular action movies of the 1980s, opened in theaters 30 years ago this week, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s premium-format 70mm presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with action movie and John McTiernan authority Eric Lichtenfeld.

PREDATOR NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among films in the Predator franchise (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 1 = Number of weeks North America’s top-grossing movie (week #1)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank on list of top-earning films of 20th Century Fox’s 1987 slate
• 3 = Number of 70mm prints
• 4 = Box-office rank among films directed by John McTiernan (adjusted for inflation)
• 5 = Number of sequels, spinoffs and reboots
• 5 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1987 (summer)
• 7 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 8 = Rank among top-earning R-rated films of 1987
• 9 = Box-office rank among films starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (adjusted for inflation)
• 12 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1987 (calendar year)
• 1,623 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $39.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $7,413 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $12.1 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $15.0 million = Production cost
• $25.9 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $32.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $38.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $38.5 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $59.7 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $82.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $82.9 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $98.3 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $128.6 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $211.5 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Powerful! A top action film.” — David Elliott, The San Diego Union

“A knock-your-socks-off thriller!” — Scott Cain, Atlanta Journal-Constitution

“Predator begins like Rambo and ends like Alien, and in today’s Hollywood, that’s creativity.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Predator is an ominous high-tech Stone-Age mixture — ominous because the production is high tech and the script, and its values and mentality, are Stone Age. It’s in the bare-bones action-adventure mode that producers Joel Silver and Lawrence Gordon used in The Warriors and The Driver, chic action-fables where nothing impedes the streamlined flow — neither logic, originality nor a single naturalistic moment. Sometimes the form works, but in Predator, they’ve hit nada. There’s a difference between Walter Hill’s minimalism and vacuity — which is what we get from Jim and John Thomas’ screenplay. It’s arguably one of the emptiest, feeblest, most derivative scripts ever made as a major studio movie. There’s no need to do a Mad magazine parody of this; it’s already on the screen.” — Michael Wilmington, Los Angeles Times

“As Mr. Schwarzenegger demonstrated in The Terminator, he is much better at playing such creatures than at wrangling with them, though in this film he does the latter. The last part of the film concentrates on man-to-monster battles through the jungle. Care to guess who wins?” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“There are some really obnoxious things about Predator, but the bottom line is that it is a fast-paced, skillfully structured, exciting, extremely violent and bloody piece of totally mindless entertainment.” — Harper Barnes, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“It’s what you’d expect from director John McTiernan, who made his debut last year with a quirky, imaginative horror film called Nomads, though it isn’t all you might hope for. McTiernan never seems in complete control of the wildly disparate elements he has assembled, and the movie doesn’t settle into one groove long enough to establish a firm hold on the audience. It’s a promise more than an accomplishment.” — Dave Kehr, Chicago Tribune

“When Schwarzenegger first established himself in Conan the Barbarian, he earned a secure place in the Bad Dialogue Hall of Fame by explaining that he liked to kill his enemies for the joy of listening to ‘ze lamentation of zeir vimen.’ He also proved himself able to ignore the lamentations of the critics, and his self-assurance has improved with his command of English. And his study of the screen personality of Clint Eastwood has obviously been assiduous.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“[Predator is a] movie for those who find it entertaining to watch virtually the entire cast of a movie eliminated, one by one. In this ineffective, bloody spoof of machismo, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the head of an elite military unit that finds itself scurrying for survival in hostile jungle terrain while being stalked by a super-efficient alien hunter. It’s Platoon and Aliens fused with a Miller beer commercial.” — Elvis Mitchell, Detroit Free Press

“John McTiernan’s pedestrian direction emphasizes pyrotechnics, blood, gore and a singular determination to avoid fleshing out his characters. Schwarzenegger’s men are allowed one distinguishing characteristic each: one guy chews tobacco; another is an Indian into mysticism; another wears glasses and tells bad jokes and another guy is as bald as a billiard ball. They all die, just like the movie.” — Roxanne T. Mueller, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Putting Arnold Schwarzenegger in the middle of a movie that combines Rambo and Aliens sounds like a great idea. But unfortunately, Predator, which combines horror film effects and war movie action, is not as good as the films it apes.” — James Verniere, The Boston Herald

“Rambo Meets Alien in the Jungle might have been a better title for this predictable and very silly action film. When the creature finally takes its uncamouflaged form, it’s just another hulking, slimy monster with, you guessed it, green blood. Thirteen-year-old boys might find him scary, but otherwise the predator is a totally unreal, unconvincing and unworthy opponent…. Even Schwarzenegger is below par in this barbequed turkey, Predator is for the birds.” — Marylynn Uricchio, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) on occasion are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Predator in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to experience Predator and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix and Golden Reel Award-winning Sound Editing.

Of the 200+ new movies released during 1987, Predator was among only seventeen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements. Less than one percent of Predator’s initial print run was in the 70mm format, which were significantly more expensive and more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints.

The film’s 70mm prints of Predator were blown up from spherical 35mm photography and printed in a pillarboxed 1.85:1 aspect ratio. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Format 42 (three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

Trailers for The Pick-up Artist and Revenge of the Nerds II circulated with the Predator prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

For the release of Predator, 20th Century Fox employed the services of Lucasfilm’s Theater Alignment Program (TAP) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print.

The listing below includes the 70mm engagements of Predator that commenced June 12th, 1987. Not included are the moveover, second run, revival and international engagements (or any of the movie’s countless standard 35mm engagements).

So, for historical reference and nostalgia, the first-run North American theaters that screened the 70mm version of Predator were….

CALIFORNIA

• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — UA’s Egyptian Triplex
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — General Cinema’s Avco Center Triplex [THX]

NEW YORK

• New York (Manhattan) — Trans-Lux’s Gotham

THE Q&A

Eric Lichtenfeld is an action movie and John McTiernan authority and writer of the book Action Speaks Louder: Violence, Spectacle, and the American Action Movie (Wesleyan, 2007). He has taught or spoken about film at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the American Cinematheque, 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, Die Hard and the subject of this interview, Predator.

---

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Predator be remembered on its 30th anniversary?

Eric Lichtenfeld: You could point to the fact that it’s so well-loved, even all these years later. You could also point how it introduced a movie icon and launched an intellectual property that has remained strong even though none of the creature’s later on-screen appearances have been very successful creatively or commercially.

To me, though, it’s mostly about the filmmaking. I often say that Predator is an oddly touching movie — and I don’t mean “touching” in terms of the character relationships, or how Mac mourns Blaine, or any of those things. Watching the film is a moving experience for me because the filmmakers took so much care — more than they needed to. The movie is brutal, but it’s elegantly made. And it’s not even the action (though that’s done perfectly well). It’s all the suspense, the atmosphere. It’s how patiently John McTiernan and his collaborators ratchet up the tension. It’s how thoughtful the sound design is — and even more, how quiet it is, especially for a major action movie. It’s the camera movements and compositions, the editing, the soundtrack — all in service of a premise that, let’s as face it, is as goofy as it is mythic. And that’s why I’m moved when I watch it. Because when I do, I see filmmakers using the language of moviemaking so well simply because they didn’t know how not to.

Given the star power and the concept, I believe that Predator would have been just as successful even if it had been only half as well-made. So that’s a big part of why it should be celebrated. (It’s also why the movie should be restored, since the DVD and Blu-ray don’t accurately reflect how the movie actually looked or do justice to it.)

Plus, without Predator, we wouldn’t have the iconic creature. We wouldn’t have had McTiernan’s Die Hard or The Hunt for Red October. And “If it bleeds, we can kill it” would never have been a thing.

Coate: What did you think of Predator? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Lichtenfeld: I first saw it on home video, after having heard so much about it. I was a young adolescent male and thought it was great in exactly the way you would expect a young adolescent male to think it was great. It wasn’t until later, when I came to know anything about film and filmmaking that I saw how truly good it is, too.

Coate: How is Predator significant as an action movie?

Lichtenfeld: Judging just from the concept, Predator should have been the quintessential 1980s action film, and nothing more: a B-movie on steroids. And yes, it’s violent, gory, and macho. But even taking that into account — and the fact that it features Arnold Schwarzenegger at the height of his ‘80s-ness — Predator is much more elegant than it has any business being. So to me, it always comes back to the craftsmanship. Predator proved that more could be done with an action movie than what people — whether critics or fans — expected of it.

Predator is also one of the movies that put action movie tropes in a fantastical context. It fused action, science fiction, and visual effects in a way that helped lay the foundation for what we saw during the CGI revolution of the ‘90s. And from that, action blockbusters evolved into the form we usually see today (without all the not-so-family-friendly gore and violence, of course).

Coate: Where do you think Predator ranks among director John McTiernan’s body of work?

Lichtenfeld: In the upper echelon, but not at the level of Die Hard and The Hunt for Red October. That’s not to take anything from Predator; it’s just that it’s much more linear and has fewer moving pieces. It’s less complex. Instead of cutting among multiple characters and character groupings in multiple places, most of Predator features our guys essentially moving in a straight line, stopping, and moving in a straight line again, deeper and deeper into the jungle. So in that sense, it’s probably the simplest of McTiernan’s movies. But it’s also where we see McTiernan playing with ideas and techniques that will be so important in many of his other, even better movies.

It’s an amazing accomplishment for a director’s first studio film — especially given the conditions under which it was made.

Coate: Where do you think Predator ranks among star Arnold Schwarzenegger’s body of work?

Lichtenfeld: It’s close to the top if not the very top. I’m sure lots of people would give the latter distinction to the Terminator movies he made with James Cameron (and they’d have a strong case), but what distinguishes Predator is that it’s the first movie where Schwarzenegger softens in front of the camera. Until then, his performances were stiff, angular, all persona. He’s more natural in Predator. Even afraid. Personally, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that McTiernan was the director of the movie where Schwarzenegger turned that corner. Just take the last shot of him, as the helicopter flies away and his eyes drift to the jungle canopy far below. It’s consistent with moments from Die Hard, Red October, and even The Thomas Crown Affair, where a leading character nears the end of the movie utterly exhausted or even smashed.

Coate: What are your thoughts on the Predator sequels and spin-offs? How do they compare to the original?

Lichtenfeld: I never saw the second Alien vs. Predator or Predators. (Though I did once watch a commercial for Predators with McTiernan in a bar, and that was pretty surreal.) But from what I’ve seen, there’s no comparing any of the sequels or spin-offs to the first. In fact, they’re so far apart, I wonder if there’s any point in trying to. This could be the lens I see it through — or I could just be out of touch — but are any of the sequels or spin-offs really loved? Are they quoted? Does anyone break into a smile when they’re channel surfing and see that one of the Alien vs. Predator movies are on? And it’s strange, because it’s not as if they simply made a string of sequels: Predator 2, 3, 4, and 5. They did try to do some different things. And yet, at least to me, they’ve never really felt like anything more than franchise maintenance. The original, on the other hand, took the most basic, stock elements available, and combined them into something memorable.

Coate: What is the legacy of Predator?

Lichtenfeld: A big part of the legacy of Predator is obviously the Predator. Stan Winston’s creation belongs in the pantheon of movie monsters. Another part is the franchise the movie spawned — and I don’t just mean the movies and spin-offs, but also the comic books and video games. They’re what really sustained and furthered the franchise for the fourteen years between Predator 2 and Alien vs. Predator. As I detailed in my book, that period saw at least eight original publications from Dark Horse Comics and six games on multiple platforms. So the franchise hasn’t had a significant hit at the box-office since 1987, and yet the property endures. In other words, it bleeds, but they can’t kill it. And that reflects the impact of original movie.

But even if there hadn’t been sequels and spin-offs (and licensed comics, graphic novels, video games and toys), I like to think that Predator would still have a legacy. It’s a well-loved film, even a ritualized one. Even if you set aside the iconic imagery, our pop-culture is studded with the movie’s one-liners and other bits of dialogue alone. Hell, Jesse Ventura used one for the title of a political treatise! In the end, though, Predator’s legacy may be as simple and straightforward as the movie is on the surface: very well-made and still very well-loved. That may not be a complex thought, but I think any filmmaker whose work could be described that way thirty years after it was released would have reason to be proud.

Coate: Thank you, Eric, for sharing your thoughts on Predator on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Amercent Films, American Entertainment Partners, 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Eric Lichtenfeld and Brian Walters.

IN MEMORIAM

Kevin Peter Hall (“The Predator”), 1955-1991
Don Bassman (Re-recording Mixer), 1927-1993
Richard Shorr (Sound Effects Editor), 1942-2001
John Vallone (Production Designer), 1953-2004
Stan Winston (Creature Creator), 1946-2008
R.G. Armstrong (“Gen. Phillips”), 1917-2012

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

John Cork is the author (with Collin Stutz) of James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003). 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 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). He has recently contributed articles on the literary history of James Bond for ianfleming.com and The Book Collector.

Bill Desowitz is the author of James Bond Unmasked (Spies, 2012) and crafts editor at IndieWire.

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 Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 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 is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

Matt Sherman is the author of James Bond’s Cuisine: 007’s Every Last Meal (CreateSpace, 2014). He is considered a top “Bondologist” and has led dozens of 007 fan and memorabilia events featuring appearances by over 120 actors, authors, film technicians and real world intelligence officers (spies!). He has contributed to Chicago Tribune, The Daily Mail, Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, Parade, Time and Time Europe. His website is bondfanevents.com.

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

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

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

John Cork: You Only Live Twice is simply an utterly insane movie, released in a year filled with insane movies. The film makes little sense, but then again neither did Charles Feldman’s Casino Royale, The President’s Analyst, The Ambushers, In Like Flint, The Happiest Millionaire, or Point Blank…. There is a delightfulness to insanity. I think of the Apple ad: “Here’s to the crazy ones.” It makes no sense that a secret agent would go tooling around in a bright yellow gyrocopter, certainly not buzzing fishing villages, but who cannot love Little Nellie? Possibly the least efficient way to deal with a car filled with assassins would be to lift them off the road with a giant electro-magnet dangled from a helicopter. Of the eight thousand ways to kill Bond, dribbling poison down a string must rank almost as low as staging the crash of an expensive private plane. But each attempt to kill anyone in the film has a Road Runner cartoon-like absurdity. And the film embraces that absurdity. Here’s to hollowed-out volcanoes, well-armed gyrocopters, abseiling ninjas, and operating rooms staffed with bikini-clad technicians.

Bill Desowitz: There are two important aspects worthy of celebrating You Only Live Twice: It marked the first official appearance of nemesis Blofeld (Donald Pleasence), leader of SPECTRE, and the first farewell of Sean Connery as Bond. Also, the combination of exotic Tokyo and venturing into outer space were new to the franchise. In addition, Ken Adam’s lavish volcano lair was the crowning design achievement of the Connery era, Little Nellie was a clever variation on the Aston Martin, Freddie Young’s cinematography was stunning, and John Barry’s score was beautiful…. However, the final result (directed by franchise newcomer Lewis Gilbert) was a missed opportunity. Because they had to push back the making of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, they were not able to make the so-called “Blofeld Trilogy” in order. As a result, it robbed Bond of his emotionally dramatic arc. The Ian Fleming source material was abandoned for the first time and Roald Dahl’s script ended up being an action-driven, Dr. No-like reworking. However, the death-rebirth theme was an interesting one.

Lee Pfeiffer: You Only Live Twice remains one of the most popular and enduring Bond films. It is probably the most spectacular in terms of locations and production design, even though it must also be said it’s the first Bond movie that completely ignored Ian Fleming’s source novel in place of a modern, hi-tech plot. It’s also the first Bond script that went off totally into the realm of the fantastic. The central plots of Dr. No, Goldfinger and Thunderball were certainly far-fetched but they remained in the realm of the conceivably possible. With Twice, however, the idea of a villain who resides with a private army and a personal version of NASA inside a hollowed-out Japanese volcano required a suspension of any pretense of logic. I often wondered just how these SPECTRE employees report to work in the volcano. Do they punch time clocks? How do they get home from this tiny island after their shifts are over? What transportation do they use to get there? It always reminded me of a similar situation in The Man from U.N.C.L.E TV series wherein we were to presume that hundreds of agents report for work through the doorway of an innocuous neighborhood dry cleaners. With Twice, the whole premise is absurd but the film is so slickly made and moves so rapidly that the absurdities don’t interfere with the enjoyment of watching the movie — in fact, they probably enhance it.

Bruce Scivally: You Only Live Twice is a benchmark film in the 007 series, for two reasons: (1) it was the first not to be scripted by Richard Maibaum or shot by Ted Moore, and (2) it marked what appeared to be the end of Sean Connery’s five-movie run as Bond. But it’s the first point — the absence of Richard Maibaum — that makes this film unique…. You Only Live Twice was scripted by Roald Dahl, the Danish author of fantasy, macabre and children’s tales best known for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, The Fantastic Mr. Fox, and The Big Friendly Giant. Dahl had known Ian Fleming, and even used an idea of Fleming’s as the basis for a short story (with Fleming’s permission). But by the time he was approached to adapt You Only Live Twice, Fleming was dead, and the 007 producers, having decided to film Fleming’s “Blofeld trilogy” of Thunderball, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, and You Only Live Twice out of order, chose to eschew Fleming’s plotline and create a more fanciful and fantastic story. Dahl was just the man to deliver it…. In fact, Dahl’s script is so fantastic and fanciful that it seems totally out of step with the first two Bond films, which were more grounded in reality, and a great leap ahead from the 3rd and 4th, which were more tongue-in-cheek. In fact, I’m going to go out on a limb and posit a wacky fan theory: the film You Only Live Twice is 007’s drug-induced dream…. Remember: at the end of Thunderball, Bond had been yanked up out of the ocean by a Skyhook. What if, say, Domino panicked, and in his efforts to calm her, Bond slipped through the hoop and fell back into the ocean, where his super-fit spy body survived the plunge, but just barely, leaving him unconscious and in a coma? In hospital, Bond is given medications that cause him to have a mad dream, where he has become so well-known and targeted by his enemies that the only way to evade them is to fake his death. He resurrects in a submarine, where M’s office is inexplicably, but conveniently, located, and is told that this is “the big one” — the mission that will absolutely decide the fate of the free world, and he’s the only man who can accomplish it. He proceeds to Tokyo, where he falls down a chocolate factory-type chute into the abode of a Japanese man who is kind of a combination of both Bond and M, and is introduced to a society where all the women are young, pretty, bikini-clad and “sexiful,” and live only to please their men, the kind of place he’d like to retire to. He narrowly escapes death in a crashing plane, vanquishes big enemy helicopters with his nimble gyrocopter, adopts a ridiculously unconvincing Japanese disguise, and trudges up a mountain where — once he reaches the top — day suddenly becomes night, ninja clothing magically appears beneath his Ama fisherman’s garb, and suction cups strong enough to support his weight appear out of nowhere. He climbs down into a fantastic hole filled with fox-like tunnels, until he’s captured and finally comes face-to-face with his mortal enemy, Ernst Stavro Blofeld, a man that up to this point he has never met, but whom he imagines as a bald, scarred-face reptile of a man in a Mao suit, with a henchman who is a big unfriendly giant. Of course, Bond overcomes his enemy and gets the girl...and after the fade out of this dream, 007 awakens back in a more grounded reality, only to find that the fall into the ocean has altered his features and inexplicably changed his accent from Scottish to Australian. And this explains why he doesn’t recognize Blofeld in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Matt Sherman: You Only Live Twice is a spectacle worthy of a big screen. The monumental Ken Adam volcano set is…monumental. The theme tune and soundtrack are lushly orchestrated and cinematographer Freddie Young added some of the most attractive filmic technique of all the Bonds, making Twice a pretty film to watch. As a time capsule, 1967 is when audiences would pack houses to watch Sean Connery read a phone book aloud for two hours. But what they saw was a blockbuster grander in scale than even Thunderball, the previous lavish Bond film.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing You Only Live Twice for the first time?

Cork: I saw You Only Live Twice for the first time on November 2, 1975, its broadcast premiere on ABC. By that time, I had probably read the plot summary so many times in John Brosnan’s James Bond in the Cinema, I could all but storyboard the movie. I was just about to turn 14, had read all the Bond novels at least twice, and for me at that age, 007 could do no wrong. I was unfazed by bad matting of stock volcano footage, sub-par model work, ineptly switched footage of Soyuz and Gemini launches and plot holes the size of the Milky Way…. The first time I saw it on the big screen was at the NuArt in Los Angeles in September 1980. At that point, I found other things to love: Sean Connery’s deadpan delivery (“I like ships, and I used to be a sailor”), Blofeld’s cat completely freaking out when the explosions go off, and the amazing fight between Connery and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson’s grandfather (Peter Fanene Maivia) in Osato’s office. Everyone needs a sofa that can be used to batter one’s opponent!

Desowitz: I saw it in the fall of ’67 at one of the local West [San Fernando] Valley theaters. As a kid, I enjoyed it. We finally met Blofeld and it was fast-moving fun. I also liked the TV promo special, which also served as a wonderful tease for On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Pfeiffer: The release strategy for the early Bond movies tended to be the industry norm: big movies would play first exclusively in a few theaters in big cities for a number of weeks before they would sent to local neighborhood theaters. I grew up in Jersey City, which is a stone’s throw across the Hudson River from Times Square. I was nine years old when it opened. My dad was a big Bond fan and I wanted to see the film ASAP so he took me to the Astor, I believe, to see it on Times Square. For many weeks, every time we had gone through the area, I was being teased by that now famous gigantic billboard for the movie that hovered over Times Square. The artwork was stunning and exciting and I couldn’t wait to see it. The movie didn’t disappoint. I loved it then and love it now. Of course, when we got home, I was kind of a “big man on campus” because I had seen the film before anyone else. Naturally, when it opened at the Loew’s in our neighborhood some weeks later, I went with the whole gang to see it numerous times. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen it over the decades but I never tire of it. Curiously, it didn’t do as well as the preceding film, Thunderball, although it certainly achieved blockbuster status. I think the overwhelming number of spy films and TV series had whetted the public appetite by 1967. Not helping matters was the fact that that big budget spoof version of Casino Royale was still in theaters competing with Twice.

Scivally: I first saw You Only Live Twice on television, and because of its episodic construction, it’s one of the Bond films that seemed almost improved rather than damaged by ABC’s frequent commercial breaks. It wasn’t until about 1981, after I’d moved to Los Angeles, when I saw it on a theater screen and could get the full effect of its extravagance. And extravagant it is, with 1960s Japan spectacularly rendered by cinematographer Freddie Young, who had previously shot David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia and Doctor Zhivago.

Sherman: I first caught a showing at home on television. I found the Asian locations and the wild action hypnotic. When Bond slides beneath the Tokyo streets to board Japanese Secret Service head Tiger Tanaka’s private train, wow!

Coate: In what way was Donald Pleasence’s Blofeld a memorable villain?

Cork: Blofeld has so little to do in You Only Live Twice. He kills more underlings and business partners than good guys. Do you realize how much money he could have made by just selling tourist tickets to his rocket base? Yet, everyone remembers the scar, the Mao jacket, and the bald head. It is all about first impressions, and Blofeld’s introduction is brilliant…. Donald Pleasence was a wonderfully skilled actor. He worked with Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman before (Killers of Kilimanjaro for Broccoli and Look Back in Anger for Saltzman), and got the part when the first choice, the talented but completely miscast Jan Werich, was summarily fired from the role. His work as “The Dark Hermit” (Satan) in The Greatest Story Ever Told secured him the part. It’s iconic. You ask any Bond fan to describe Blofeld, they describe Pleasence from You Only Live Twice. Sure, part of that is the scar, but Pleasence made that scar come to life. He’s brilliant as Blofeld.

Desowitz: This was the first crack at Blofeld. He looked and acted more menacing and it’s interesting how his iconic look became so influential, both in Austin Powers and SPECTRE. I’ve since found it interesting that Charles Gray’s droll Henderson, the MI6 contact, would’ve been more spot-on as Blofeld than Gray’s over the top turn in Diamonds.

Pfeiffer: Donald Pleasence’s appearance in Twice as Blofeld is one of the most iconic introductions of a screen villain ever. Until then, the character’s face was unseen in the previous Bond movies. Originally a little-known actor named Jan Werich had been hired for the part. He actually shot some scenes before he was replaced by Pleasence, ostensibly because he became ill, though I always suspected that he didn’t have the right approach to the character. Pleasence is so good as Blofeld that you lose sight of the fact that he is on screen for a very limited amount of time. Peter Hunt, the long-time editor of the Bond films, once told me that he was brought back to help oversee the editing process on the movie, that he loathed working with the footage of Pleasence because that he didn’t walk in a menacing manner but, rather, “minced” about. Hunt tried to minimize any footage of Pleasence on his feet for that reason. Not having seen what was cut, I can only say that what emerges of the Pleasence footage is the stuff of Bondian legend. In fact, Mike Myers was so impressed that he based the character of Dr. Evil on him.

Scivally: Pleasance was a last-minute replacement for Jan Werich, who was originally cast as Blofeld but was considered not to be menacing enough. While Pleasance is very slight in stature (painfully obvious when he’s standing next to Sean Connery’s 007), he did convey cool, calculating menace. This was just two years after he’d played Satan in The Greatest Story Ever Told, and four years after starring as the notorious murderer Dr. Crippen, so he was well-versed in playing darker characters. To me, his Blofeld is the most reptilian and snake-like, perhaps because Pleasance seems to be almost hissing his lines.

Sherman: Pleasence had to live up to Ian Fleming’s painstaking, calculating Blofeld. Ice in his veins, Blofeld puts aside sex, relationships and the lives of anyone blocking his illicit empire. Which actor had the book Blofeld’s penetrating, deep black eyes surrounded by white irises, staring out from a muscular body weighing 240 pounds? Pleasence, the first fully realized screen Blofeld, is memorable for sneering as the world rages and his lair burns. And after three underfed glimpses of the villain in the earlier Bonds, Pleasence, wearing a horrific facial scar, also appears haunting, skin-crawling. People still think of Pleasence’s Blofeld when they think about Bond villains. There have been thousands of skits and cartoons in the past 50 years featuring his scarred megalomaniac stroking a cat. A virtuoso actor, Pleasence’s silken tones match Fleming’s description of Blofeld’s “soft, resonant, and very beautifully modulated voice.” But Pleasence remains seated for much of his appearance, as he stood 5’7’’ only. Connery stands seven-inches-plus taller and far broader.

 [On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Mie Hama’s Kissy Suzuki a memorable Bond Girl?

Cork: Which one is Kissy again? I’m sorry, that sounds mean. When Bruce Scivally and I were working on various projects together, figuring out which studio glamor shots showed Mie Hama and which showed Akiko Wakabayashi was always a challenge. Mie Hama is lovely and talented. Neither Roald Dahl nor Lewis Gilbert seemed to see the women in Bond films as little more than ornamentation, so it is no surprise that Hama’s role feels generic. Like any heterosexual male, I could look at her lovely face for days and be happy.

Desowitz: She’s memorable for her soft beauty and the way she disarms Bond. Also, the fake marriage anticipates the real thing in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.

Pfeiffer: Mie Hama’s experience on the film was a challenging one. She was originally going to play the role of the ill-fated Aki but due to complicating factors, it was decided that she should be cast as Kissy Suzuki, the young female agent who “marries” Bond when he goes undercover as a Japanese fisherman. (Perhaps the element of the script that represents an even more fantastic plot device than the villain capturing space craft.) The role of Aki went to Akiko Wakabayashi, who, in turn, had been expected to play Kissy. Like many of the early Bond actresses, their voices were dubbed. Mie has gone on to become an enduring celebrity in Japan. She acquitted herself well and looked great in that white bikini- although her character’s name is not mentioned once on screen.

Scivally: I actually think Akiko Wakabayashi’s Aki is more memorable than Mie Hama’s Kissy Suzuki. Both are terribly underdeveloped characters, but Aki at least has a semblance of an arc, ending with her tragic death (although, given Bond and Tanaka’s reactions, her demise seems to trouble them about as much as a hangnail). Kissy comes on the scene as Bond’s pretend bride (in a beautifully filmed reveal), brushes off his attempts at lovemaking until they’ve trudged halfway up a volcano, joins the fight inside the villain’s lair and ends up with in a raft kissing Bond (I guess she had to live up to her name). But while she does exhibit a certain degree of spunk, there’s just not a lot of personality there.

Sherman: Hama does great work, styling Kissy as delicate, feminine, almost angelic. Yet she shows us that Kissy is also a highly competent agent who is unafraid of battle. Her sweet chemistry with 007 begins as they hold a fake Japanese wedding to throw the bad guys off their trail. These scenes are richly appointed and capture Fleming’s technique of having us live vicariously through Bond, savoring exotic experiences.

Coate: Where do you think You Only Live Twice ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Cork: Okay, here is where things get messy. Over the years, my taste for You Only Live Twice has waned dramatically. The last two times I watched it, I was completely aware of how much I felt the film was a dreadful mess. All the things for which I made apologies when I was a teenager now seem painful. Worse, the script, despite having some moments of amusing dialog, fails to pull me into any kind of story, and I say that with great love for Roald Dahl as a writer (just don’t judge him by his children’s novel, the unworthy sequel, Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator). So, ranking them a few years back at my son’s insistence, I ranked it 16th. If you think that’s harsh, it came in 21st for him.

Desowitz: I would rank it fourth among the Connery films and maybe 13th overall.

Pfeiffer: I would rank Twice among the top half-dozen Bond movies. Roald Dahl’s script is wild and has a patchwork element to it but the production values are top-notch. No action sequence in modern screen history matches the battle inside the volcano and Ken Adam’s production design is a work of genius. Incredibly, he was not nominated for an Oscar, but the people who designed the living room set for Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner were. It was one of the great injustices in Academy history. For that matter the production design of the spoof version of Casino Royale should have also been nominated the same year. The movie also boasts a magnificent and timeless score by John Barry and a great theme song sung by Nancy Sinatra. A lot of people said that by this point Sean Connery looked bored on screen because he was chomping at the bit to get out of the Bond role. But looking at the film today, it’s possible that the character of Bond is less interesting simply because he is eclipsed by all the grandeur and gadgetry. In any event, I feel the film showcases Connery at his best and he gets good support from an inspired supporting cast including Karin Dor, Tetsuro Tanba and the usual supporting actors.

Scivally: For me, it’s in the lower half of the Top 10. It’s not the best of the series, but it has its moments. For instance, the slow pull-out helicopter shot of the rooftop fight at Kobe Docks is genius; it’s the total antithesis of how a fight scene is “supposed” to be shot, and yet it works beautifully. Plus the locations are gorgeous, John Barry’s music is perfection, and Ken Adam’s sets are a marvel.

Sherman: The old Bond guard ranks Twice fairly high, especially those who are avid Sean Connery fans. Twice is not one of Connery’s strongest 007 performances, but the audience savors Bond suspending disbelief as he saunters through a volcano’s giant rocket launch pad, a helicopter carrying a giant magnet to plunge cars into the ocean, and other inspired nonsense. Each Bond film grew in budget and scope before Twice was hugely indulgent. Twice looks great but some grit is lacking as prior villains had real menace but Twice’s henchmen are merely cool, distant. And in previous films, Bond is a dark, brooding hero facing death with less camp. But visiting Himeji castle for a good ninja fight and to shoot an exploding cigarette and a gyrojet rocket gun adds “thumbs up” to this Bond review.

Coate: What is the legacy of You Only Live Twice?

Cork: You Only Live Twice is the film that almost destroyed 007. Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were at each other’s throats. As is often the case with partners, Cubby felt Harry wasn’t pulling his weight (Saltzman, to be fair, was producing a full slate of non-Bond films). Saltzman felt that every time he tried to assert himself, Cubby would block him. This continued on You Only Live Twice with Cubby soon taking over the creative reigns from Harry, firing Harry’s choice for a screenwriter (Harold Jack Bloom, replaced by Dahl), hiring Lewis Gilbert, participating in the location recce for Japan and trying his best to limit Saltzman’s involvement. The two men were barely speaking at various points, and both took on ambitious solo projects immediately after…. Sean Connery, who woke up in 1966 to find that Dean Martin and James Coburn were both making more acting in James Bond spoofs than he was making playing James Bond, entered into tense negotiations before shooting began. He wanted to be a full-partner with Cubby and Harry. He wanted Terrence Young back directing. Instead, he was told that he was replaceable. It is no surprise that he sometimes seems as though he is sleepwalking through the scenes. Of course, Sean Connery sleepwalking as James Bond is still remarkably entertaining…. Further battles occurred with Peter Hunt, who felt that he had been promised the director’s chair after supervising the completion of Thunderball (Terrence Young walked off the picture after principal photography when confronted over his massive hotel bill for the Bahamas shoot). Hunt was eventually enticed to direct the second unit, and after some unsavory studio backstabbing of Lewis Gilbert’s editor, Thelma Connell, he took over editing the film as well…. When the smoke cleared, a lot of folks were unhappy with each other. Cubby felt he had made a big, audience-pleasing film. Harry didn’t like the parody aspects and missed the harder edge of the novels. As a result, Harry convinced Cubby and United Artists to take Bond back to his literary roots…. The film itself is lovely to look at, with lavish cinematography by Freddie Young, a score to die for by John Barry, a great title song (I always enjoy the single version produced by Lee Hazelwood), and one of the greatest sets in motion picture history: Ken Adam’s volcano rocket base…. The legacy of You Only Live Twice in many ways is that it was a film where the sum of the parts was far greater than the whole. Beautifully shot, beautifully scored, amazing sets, lovely women, great action, fantastic gadgets, yet one wonders where James Bond fits in to it all. Twice proved you could make a successful Bond film with very little Bond in the mix, and in that, it set a dangerous precedent.

Desowitz: Again, introduction of Blofeld, Connery’s first farewell, the first Bond set in the Far East, the first using outer space, and the first that explores the theme of death and rebirth. And Adam’s volcano lair remains an impressive set.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of Twice is that it remains one of the most popular Bond films, not with critics, but with the public. Whatever the flaws are with the script, it’s a magnificent production and it was all achieved in the era before CGI. The film retains a very contemporary look and doesn’t appear dated. It’s far more impressive than most of the action movies made today…. I’ll take the opportunity to make a cheap plug for our magazine, Cinema Retro, which is putting out an issue later this year that commemorates the film’s legacy and includes Mie Hama’s personal photos from the set.

Scivally: Everything in You Only Live Twice is bigger — the villain’s lair (Blofeld no longer operates from a mere yacht, but instead from inside an inactive volcano), the villain’s threat (not content with simply attaining a Lektor decoding device, SPECTRE is now appropriating entire rocket capsules), and James Bond’s waistline (though still trim, he’s a little paunchier than in the first four films). This is the film where Bond enters the realm of full on, dreamlike fantasy, where the rules of the real world just don’t apply. Also, You Only Live Twice had a lot of new blood in the creative ranks — scriptwriter Roald Dahl, cinematographer Freddie Young, editor Thelma O’Connell, and director Lewis Gilbert (who returned a decade later to direct The Spy Who Loved Me — a film whose plot seems to be wholly lifted from You Only Live Twice, except with a submarine-eating ship instead of a space capsule-eating rocket — and then returned to space with the even more loopily over-the-top Moonraker). As such, it showed that the franchise was robust enough to survive some turnover in the ranks — though the biggest test of that premise came with the departure of Sean Connery.

Sherman: The first four Bonds — namely, Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball — adhere to Ian Fleming’s plots. You Only Live Twice was cut from whole cloth by screenwriter Roald Dahl. Dahl, known worldwide for his Charlie, Matilda and Danny sophisticated children’s novels and his wonderful short stories featuring shocking endings, added humor and panache. Dahl’s Bond is cool and says few words, mostly snappy punchlines, while other characters give exposition. Dahl’s playful language (remember his “scrumdiddlyumptious”?) has Bond deduce a homograph clue that “LOX” could be a fish dish or else a rocket fuel component. And in the same scene, Bond says “very convenient . . . very competent” as his two punchlines, while Tiger Tanaka’s punchline is that Bond is “exceptionally [very] cultivated.” So Twice has the legacy of a playful, rhythmic script but with no relation to the vivid original novel with its castle of death and assisted suicide plot (not right for 1967’s audience but could be a fascinating movie now). You Only Live Twice reminds us of when Bond and his many imitators dominated the world’s movie and TV screens.

Coate: Thank you — John, Bill, Lee, Bruce and Matt — for participating and sharing your thoughts about You Only Live Twice on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “The Spy Who Loved Me” on its 40th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, EON Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Batman Returns, one of the most anticipated sequels ever made, opened in theaters twenty-five years ago this week.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s digital sound presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with a trio of comicbook/superhero movie authorities and film historians.

BATMAN RETURNS NUMBER$

• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1992 (calendar year)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1992 (summer)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of Warner Bros.’ 1992 slate
• 2 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 3 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (weeks 1-3)
• 3 = Box-office rank among movies directed by Tim Burton (adjusted for inflation)
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1992 (legacy)
• 4 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 5 = Box-office rank among movies in the Batman franchise (adjusted for inflation)
• 6 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1992 (worldwide; legacy)
• 11 = Number of days to gross $100 million
• 11 = Number of digital sound presentations
• 26 = Rank on all-time list of top box-office earners at close of original release
• 2,644 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $24.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS)
• $39.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $17,279 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $45.7 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross*
• $47.7 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross* (3-day weekend + 6/18 sneaks)
• $80.0 million = Production cost
• $83.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $100.1 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $104.0 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $139.4 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $162.8 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $174.5 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $181.2 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $266.8 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $283.8 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $465.1 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

*established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“This Batman soars! A funny, gorgeous improvement on the original.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“It is a common theory that when you have a hero, like James Bond, Superman or Batman, in a continuing series, it’s the villain that gives each movie its flavor. Batman had the Joker, played Jack Nicholson, to lend it energy, but the Penguin is a curiously meager and depressing creature; I pitied him, but did not fear him or find him funny. The genius of Danny DeVito is all but swallowed up in the paraphernalia of the role. Batman Returns is odd and sad, but not exhilarating.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Batman Returns has wonderful, scary music (by Elfman, no Prince this time) and a wonderful, scary look — courtesy of cinematographer Stefan Czapsky (Vampire’s Kiss, Edward Scissorhands) and production designer Bo Welch, carrying on in the style of the late Anton Furst, who designed the first Batman). The performances are generally good, not just Keaton’s but also that of Michelle Pfeiffer, who is shockingly feline in her skin-tight black-leather suit (with whip accessory) and who manages to find a measure of plausibility in the bizarre Catwoman.” — Jay Boyar, Orlando Sentinel

“No matter how Batman Returns performs at the box office, I doubt that Burton will make a third installment. He seems to have thrown all his ideas into this one, including touches from his other movies: the sympathetic, handicapped monster from Edward Scissorhands, the comic demons from Beetlejuice and the freak show comedy from Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure.” — Bob Fenster, (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“For Hollywood, summer is increasingly the season of the big-budget gamble. Batman Returns may be the surest box office bet of the year, but when you get past the saturation merchandising to the movie itself, it’s hard not to notice there’s no Joker in the deck this time.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“Burton loses a few points for including egotistical references to his other films, ranging from ice sculptures that are dead ringers for the surrealistic hedges in Edward Scissorhands to dialogue borrowed from Pee-wee’s Big Adventure. When Michelle Pfeiffer says, ‘That’s my name, don’t wear it out,’ it’s too much.” — Jeff Strickler, (Minneapolis) Star Tribune

“Faster and funnier than the first. Explosively entertaining.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“A visual marvel.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Darker, louder and more confusing than a cheap carnival fun house, Batman Returns is an assault on the eyes and ears, not to mention the intelligence.” — Joe Pollack, St. Louis Post-Dispatch

“On all counts, Batman Returns is a monster. Follow-up to the sixth-highest-grossing film of all time has the same dark allure that drew audiences in three years ago. But many non-fans of the initial outing will find this sequel superior in several respects, meaning that Tim Burton’s latest exercise in fabulist dementia should receive even stronger across-the-board acceptance than the original. Warner Bros.’ reported $80 million-plus investment will be an afterthought in the wake of the [box office] cascade, which should approach the $250 million neighborhood of the first pic domestically.” — Variety

“Batman Returns, the most eagerly awaited and aggressively hyped film of the summer, is, for better or worse, very much the product of director Tim Burton’s morose imagination. His dark, melancholy vision is undeniably something to see, but it is a claustrophobic conception, not an expansive one, oppressive rather than exhilarating, and it strangles almost all the enjoyment out of this movie without half trying. The result is a cheerless, brooding but always visually inventive film, more or less what you might expect if Ingmar Bergman had directed The Addams Family.” — Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

“This time the richness of the Batman movie is not in its production design — indeed, designer Bo Welch is a toy shop window decorator compared with the late, great Anton Furst — but rather in Burton’s and screenwriter Daniel Waters’ Freudian view of adult human behavior. If all this makes Batman Returns seem overly serious, well, that’s an overstatement. But it should be a pleasure for non-adolescents to encounter a comic-book action picture in which the characters are more important than their gadgets.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Tim Burton has wisely switched gears, reinventing the mood and manner of Batman so fearlessly that he steps out of his own film’s murky shadow. Mr. Burton’s new Batman Returns is as sprightly as its predecessor was sluggish, and it succeeds in banishing much of the dourness and tedium that made the first film such an ordeal. Indeed, allowing for a ceiling on viewers’ interest as to just what can transpire between cartoon characters like Batman and the Penguin, Batman Returns is often an unexpectedly droll creation. It stands as evidence that movie properties, like this story’s enchantingly mixed-up Catwoman, really can have multiple lives.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“Now comes the sequel with a trio of masked schizophrenics who each seem to be in a separate movie when they’re not at each other’s throats. It’s a film more cartoonish and less apocalyptic than the original, revving with spectacle, energy and chaos, but rarely very funny, startling or provocative. At best, Batman Returns manages to be fitfully offbeat and quirky but only in ways we’ve seen before in Tim Burton movies.” — Judy Gerstel, Detroit Free Press

“Hampered by weak pacing, nonexistent story structure and routine action sequences, Burton and screenwriter Daniel Waters have emphasized a surprising degree of dark, kinky humor that nicely counters the film’s box-office mayhem. Waters has an annoying tendency towards gutter-minded punchlines (he cowrote The Adventures of Ford Fairlane and Hudson Hawk), but his knack for quirky dialogue yields a few memorable gems that must be heard to be appreciated.” — Jeff Shannon, The Seattle Times

“Batman Returns is all icing and no cake. The picture won’t disappoint anyone looking for film making on a grand scale. Batman Returns is as big as movies get in 1992 and represents the efforts of hundreds of talented people working in set and costume design, special effects and inventive gadgetry. It also features four big stars and a number of famous faces, all of them turning in good performances. Yet for all the movie’s richness and dazzle, for all that money dripping off the screen, Batman Returns is a gorgeous failure — flashy, intermittently appealing but, in the end, a big mess. Batman Returns lacks a coherent story. It lacks a point of view and a focus. And so everything suffers, even the art direction.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

THE DIGITAL SOUND ENGAGEMENTS

Batman Returns was the first motion picture released in Dolby Stereo Digital* (aka Dolby SR-D, AC-3, Dolby Digital), and the first batch of theaters to install the system and present the movie in the format are identified below.

The theaters screening the Dolby Stereo Digital presentation of Batman Returns were arguably the best in which to experience the movie and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix and with incredible sonic clarity. The channel layout for Dolby’s digital audio format was: three discrete screen channels + two discrete surround channels + low-frequency enhancement. (The balance of the 2,000+ domestic prints of Batman Returns were a combination of Dolby SR and Dolby A four-channel matrix-encoded, limited bandwidth formats.)

*Prior to the release of Batman Returns in June 1992, there were un-promoted Dolby Stereo Digital test screenings of Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (released December 1991) and Newsies (April 1992).

So, for historical reference, the first-run North American theaters that screened the digital sound version of Batman Returns were….

CALIFORNIA

• Lakewood — Pacific’s Lakewood Center 4-plex
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Chinese Triplex [THX]
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Village [THX]
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Triplex
• Orange — Syufy’s Century Cinedome 11-plex
• San Francisco — UA’s Coronet

NEW YORK

• New York — Loews’ Village 7-plex [THX]
• New York — UA’s Criterion 7-plex
• New York — UA’s Gemini Twin

TEXAS

• Dallas — General Cinema’s Northpark West Twin [THX]

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue — Act III’s Crossroads 8-plex [THX]

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE Q&A

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). He also wrote The Music of Star Trek (Lone Eagle, 1999) and (with Joe Fordham) Planet of the Apes: The Evolution of the Legendary Franchise (Titan, 2014) and The Art of Star Trek: The Kelvin Timeline (forthcoming from Titan). 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.

Scott Mendelson is a box office analyst and film critic for Forbes magazine. He has also written for Film Threat, The Huffington Post and Salon.

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). His other books include Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 2015), Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006) and (with John Cork) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). 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 is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Batman Returns be remembered on its 25th anniversary?

Jeff Bond: Both Burton’s Batman films are pivotal both to lay the foundations for the serious, psychologically complex superhero movies we see today, and as the illustration of Tim Burton as an utterly unique artist who was given the reigns to Warner Bros.’ and DC’s priceless comic book superheroes. He was allowed to take these iconic characters, who for years had been marketed as toys and coloring books and comic books generating millions and millions of dollars, and potentially risk destroying all of that as a revenue stream and cultural artifact by reinterpreting them through his totally idiosyncratic vision — and it worked.

Scott Mendelson: It remains something of a pop-culture anomaly. It was a financially successful summer release nonetheless remembered for its poor audience reception and lightning-fast box office downfall. The film was the first modern quick-kill blockbuster, in that it was so anticipated and opened so well (a record $47 million opening weekend) that it ended up making a ton of money even though most folks didn’t care much for it…. It some ways, it is the best live-action Batman movie, offering insanely original imagery and deeply weird characters amid a Grimm fairy tale reimagining of the Batman mythos that nonetheless is relatively faithful to the late-1980s/early-1990s comic book era. It is a fine example of going against the source material in the service of a better movie, or at least in the service of the specific character drama that a filmmaker is trying to tell.

Bruce Scivally: In 1989, after a decade of false starts, Batman opened to become one of the hottest movie tickets of the summer. Unlike 1978’s Superman, which established the template for big-budget “A” list superhero movies — and was practically the only “A” list superhero franchise for the next decade — Batman showed that there was room in the superhero universe for a darker conception of what a hero could be. But the first film was such a phenomenon that it raised a crucial question — was its success just a fluke, a combination of good timing, savvy marketing and superstar casting (Jack Nicholson, who played the Joker, was at the height of his fame)? Or was it a sustainable franchise, whose success could be repeated? Warner Bros. gambled on the latter, and backed the production of a sequel, under the guidance of the same director (Tim Burton), the same producers (including Michael Uslan, the originator of the project who fought tremendous odds to bring a Batman to the screen that wasn’t Day-Glo campy like the 1960s TV series), and the same star (Michael Keaton, whose career shift from manic comedy roles to brooding loner parts was helped greatly by Batman’s success). It was a calculated gamble that paid off; Batman Returns, like its predecessor, became a bona-fide box-office blockbuster.

Coate: What did you think of Batman Returns? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Bond: My reaction was complicated — I really loved Burton’s original Batman, and I do remember being truly impressed by just what an auteur’s vision Batman Returns was. But for my taste it almost went all the way over into self-indulgence, where the action movie roots got swamped by almost a celebration of victimhood and outsiders — basically everyone from Batman to Catwoman to the Penguin is a wounded, brooding social outcast, which is what Burton understood best, and that all got kind of lugubrious for me and sucked the fun out of it. A lot of the action in Batman was driven by the second unit director Peter MacDonald, and I think I missed his touch on the second one. But I appreciate it more today, especially for Walken’s and Michelle Pfeiffer’s performances.

Mendelson: I loved it when I was 12 and I still love it. It’s kind of an art house blockbuster, where if it wasn’t based on known characters it probably would have been hailed as an indie arthouse masterpiece of sorts. It’s deeply weird, often painful in its character melodrama and absolutely rooted more in character than plot or long-form storytelling. And, sad to say, but Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman is every bit as “groundbreaking” a major female character in a mega-blockbuster as she was twenty-five years ago.

Scivally: I had felt that the first Batman film was a triumph of marketing over movie-making (for me, its plot rambles and often makes little sense). Batman Returns was more tightly scripted, but it began the formula of multiple villains in each film. If you count Max Shreck (named for the actor who starred in the 1922 horror film Nosferatu), there were three villains in Batman Returns, as opposed to one in the first film. The more villains you have, the less screen time you have to devote to each one and to their conflicts with Batman. More importantly, the more villains you have, the less time you have to devote to your hero. This contributed to Michael Keaton leaving the series; with Batman Returns, he felt that he was a guest star in his own film series (indeed, in the film’s first half hour, Keaton is on screen for only about five minutes). The reason for the glut of villains has more to do with the marketing team than with the creative team; Warner Bros. began to look at the Batman films as elaborate toy ads — the more villains there were in the film, the more different kinds of toys they could sell. At the same time, it firmly established the film series as a kind of counterpart to the TV series, in that both featured high-profile name actors as villains.

Coate: In what way is Batman Returns significant within the superhero/comicbook genre?

Bond: It’s the first auteur superhero movie. On Batman, I think Tim Burton was given an unusual freedom of expression, but he was still under the reigns of Warner Bros. and I think there were some important decisions that were not necessarily left to him. I think they brought Peter MacDonald in to make sure they were getting a slam-bang action movie. Then once they had an incredible hit with Batman and Burton made Edward Scissorhands, which was a totally personal film and still a huge hit, I think the execs at Warners realized that you just let Tim Burton alone and let him make a Tim Burton movie and people will see it in droves. So there is so much strangeness in Batman Returns — opening it with the journey of that little floating cradle holding the Penguin, and ending it with an attack on Gotham by an army of rocket-armed live penguins, and all sorts of other stuff — it’s an insane movie and probably one of the most insane blockbuster movies ever made.

Mendelson: The overall lesson of Batman Returns, in terms of its reception, was that these big movies, even the ones that were PG-13 and arguably aimed at older kids/adults, were going to be viewed by very young kids. After Batman Returns, we saw a slight neutering of genuinely adult content (sex and violence) in popcorn blockbuster movies of this nature. It led to the PG-13 slowly but surely being turned into a glorified PG, before Lord of the Rings sent everything in the other direction where any number of PG-13 movies are basically R-rated movies edited “just so” for that kid-friendly rating…. But even today, twenty-five years later, you’d never see anything as weird or kinky or outright sexual in a comic book superhero movie as you did with Batman Returns. Even something like Logan is basically a standard western with R-rated violence, and Deadpool is a bawdy action comedy that mostly plays nice with its audience and characters.

Scivally: Like its predecessor, Batman Returns is significant for its tone and the portrayal of its main character. National Periodical Publications/DC Comics had considered ceasing publication of the comic books due to low sales until the TV series premiered and made the character one of the “3 B’s” of the 1960s — the Beatles, Bond, and Batman. Although the TV series accurately captured the tone of the comic books of that era, many fans who came of age in the 1970s — when the comic books took a more serious, adult tone and approached the character more seriously — hated the campy depiction of their hero. Michael Uslan made it his mission to bring a vision of Batman to the big screen that would be more in keeping with the 1970s conception, and found it nearly impossible to overcome the deeply ingrained perception of Batman as a “silly” comic book. It helped that by the time Batman was released in 1989, comic books had become “graphic novels” with a readership of young adults rather than young kids, and writer Frank Miller had reinvented Batman with a critically-acclaimed 1986 graphic novel masterpiece, The Dark Knight Returns. After the disappointing box-office returns of two campy Superman movies and a Supergirl film, Batman and Batman Returns began the evolution of superhero movies into darker tales made, like the first two Superman films, primarily for adults, not children.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: In what way is Batman Returns significant as a sequel?

Bond: Again, it was the way Warner Bros. empowered Tim Burton just to make the movie he wanted and not worry about how this was serving the franchise or setting up other movies (in fact there was talk of moving forward with more Keaton/Burton Batman movies but eventually you had Joel Schumacher, who was like the opposite of Tim Burton, take over). It set the precedent for giving these franchise films to up and coming, creative directors to see what kind of energy they’d bring to it — but no one has ever brought the kind of personal vision to a comic book film that Burton did.

Mendelson: Batman Returns sticks out today as a sequel that is both a part of its franchise (it acknowledges the events of Batman) and utterly its own separate thing. It is not remotely concerned with the next sequel nor any kind of world-building beyond the story being told in its 126-minute running time. It was also notable in terms of a sequel being a full-on work of auteurism as opposed to a more “half studio/half filmmaker” original franchise starter. Think Transformers 2, Batman & Robin, The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2.

Scivally: The initial Superman film showed that a comic book movie could be made like an “A” list film and draw an adult audience; the first Batman film showed that the public would buy a version of Batman that was darker than the Adam West TV version. The second film proved that the success of the first Batman film was repeatable, establishing it as a viable franchise.

Coate: Where do you think Batman Returns ranks among director Tim Burton’s body of work?

Bond: It was confirmation that Burton could do blockbusters, make them his way, and have them be huge hits. He’s probably the strangest director that Hollywood has ever consistently given millions of dollars to make movies and given him almost absolute freedom to do so, and I think that’s wonderful. After years of Tim Burton movies you do get people making fun of their conventions but there is no one else who makes movies like him — he is a genre unto himself and that’s nothing to be ashamed of.

Mendelson: I think it’s Tim Burton’s second best movie behind Ed Wood. It’s a deeply personal work inside a comic book superhero sequel and I think its “controversy” broke him for a while. But it just took a while for the kids who grew up on Beetlejuice and Pee-wee to grow up to be adults and the new generation of film critics/media for him to get his due as more than just a great art director.

Scivally: I can’t answer this question in good faith, because I have not seen all of Tim Burton’s films. I wouldn’t rank it among his best works (that honor goes to Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Big Eyes), but it’s not among his worst, either. It’s middling. It definitely has the unique look of a Burton film, existing in a studio-bound universe all its own (it’s an odd world: a mostly black, decrepit Gotham, overrun with giant-sized Fascist statuary, angled rooftops with an abundance of smoke-belching exhaust pipes, and people running about dressed like it’s the 1940s instead of the 1990s; production designer Bo Welch conceived it as a city that was “huge, dehumanizing and falling in on itself”), it moves at a good pace and has fine performances, and is more tightly-plotted than the rather sloppy Batman film that preceded it, but for me it’s undone by having the Penguin be Shreck’s stooge rather than a criminal mastermind in his own right, and Batman not really having much to do.

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was Danny DeVito’s The Penguin?

Bond: To my thinking DeVito’s performance, and the way it was guided by Burton, is the biggest miscalculation in the movie, because he is so unpleasant, creepy and scary that his scenes kind of suck the fun out of the movie. Contrast that with Christopher Walken’s scenes, which are arguably the most fun parts of the movie. Walken manages to be an unpredictable, effective villain, but he’s also hilarious, and this is a movie with attacking penguins, so you’d think it would be a little more fun. But the other side of the coin is that it’s part of the journey toward the darker superhero movies of today like The Dark Knight or even Logan. People forget that the only previous comic book movies were the Superman films, which were bright and funny and charming, and no one had seen a blockbuster comic book movie that was dark and gothic before. So maybe you couldn’t have Heath Ledger’s Joker without Danny DeVito’s Penguin.

Mendelson: It’s a terrific piece of movie star acting, utterly fearless and yet oddly sympathetic. He relishes creating a three-dimensional baddie that actually acts like an adult (sexual kinks and all).

Scivally: DeVito’s Penguin is a truly horrible and disgusting creature, with his white face, beak nose, claw hands, black eyes, sharp grey teeth, and scraggly hair. And in almost every scene there’s something drooling over his chin — raw fish, blood, black bile. But he’s not the real villain of the piece. That honor goes to Max Shreck, played by Christopher Walken. Max (the second time Walken played a villain named Max in a major franchise, after being Max Zorin in 1985’s 007 film A View to a Kill) is a wealthy businessman with political influence whose public beneficence hides sinister intentions. The Penguin, meanwhile, is an attention-starved, lecherous walking id longing to be accepted and praised. The idea that anyone like Shreck, or the Penguin, could ever fool the public enough to attain high political office is absurd. Right?

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman?

Bond: You can make a pretty good argument that Pfeiffer’s Catwoman was the best ever done — her introduction is a bravura sequence and her chemistry with Michael Keaton is electrifying and outrageously ups the ante on the old Adam West/Julie Newmar interaction from the 1966 show, which was groundbreaking on its own. The Pfeiffer Catwoman I think was a pivotal piece of proto-feminism in showing her origin as really a reaction to the sexist, condescending treatment of Christopher Walken’s character, so she becomes less a villain than an antihero who’s out there kicking ass for women all over, and even taking her rage out on another woman who she sees as acting too much the victim during a wave of street crime. Between Burton’s staging, the cinematography and her costume design, she might be the first convincing female comic book superhero character in the movies.

Mendelson: I’m not going to say she should have won the Oscar that year, because I’m a big Marisa Tomei fan, but Pfeiffer should darn well have at least been nominated for her richly introspective bit of villainy. It’s not only a wonderful melodramatic performance but a sharp bit of ahead-of-its-time satire that pokes brutal fun at the now in-vogue “strong female character” trope.

Scivally: Michelle Pfeiffer was an outstanding Catwoman. Like Penguin, she was — at least while clad in black leather — a walking id, while her Selina Kyle persona developed from being mousy at the beginning to more bold by the end, as her Catwoman-self allowed her to claim and embrace her inner feminine power. She’s just as schizophrenic and mentally unbalanced as Bruce Wayne/Batman. And the actress (a last-minute replacement for Annette Bening, who became pregnant prior to the commencement of filming) certainly committed herself to her role — the bird that flies out of her mouth was done for real, not with special effects.

Coate: What is the legacy of Batman Returns?

Bond: Both Burton’s Batman films are pivotal both to lay the foundations for the serious, psychologically complex superhero movies we see today, and as the illustration of Tim Burton as an utterly unique artist who was given the reigns to Warner Bros.’ and DC’s priceless comic book superheroes.

Mendelson: As I wrote back in September: This gorgeous, haunting and unexpectedly moving comic book superhero sequel was an arthouse horror story using the protection of the most famous “branded” material in the world. It somewhat backfired on audiences and critics, who didn’t care for gore and sexuality in their kid-targeted superhero story. But the film stands tall today as an uncommonly personal and challenging blockbuster…. Part “faithful” adaptation of the late-80s/early-90s Batman comics, part “Batman as a fairy tale,” this deliciously macabre action comedy is still one of the all-time great comic book adaptations. It also operates as a metaphor for the main character, with each of the three villains (Danny De Vito’s bitter abandoned orphan, Michelle Pfeiffer’s righteously crazed murderous vigilante and Christopher Walken’s heartlessly evil corporate tycoon) represented a “what-if” worst case scenario path that our hero could have taken…. And yeah, I loved it in 1992, was befuddled by the reception (I always found Batman to be far more violent) and was saddened when it led to the de-fanging of the PG-13 for a while. But it’s still one of the great comic book superhero movies of all time and stands alongside Mission: Impossible and Terminator 2 as one of the big “really for adults” tentpole blockbusters of the mid-1990s.

Scivally: The film is more tightly scripted than its predecessor, with a theme of rejection and acceptance; it begins with the ultimate rejection, as the Cobblepots throw their deformed baby into a river, and continues with Penguin’s desire for acceptance leading him to run for Mayor. In addition, there’s Selena Kyle, a wallflower who appears to have been rejected by men all her life, culminating with her boss, Max Shreck, pushing her out of a high window (an extreme rejection), and being reborn as the overtly sexual Catwoman. And Batman faces rejection from the citizens of Gotham when the Penguin makes it look as though he’s killed the city’s Ice Princess and run down its citizens in a Penguin-controlled Batmobile — and ultimately, he’s rejected by Selina Kyle/Catwoman. Batman Returns isn’t so much a superhero film as it is a dreamlike vision — or nightmare vision — of a city where the sun never shines, and the superheroes and supervillains are deeply psychologically scarred outsiders looking for their place in a society that rejects them, a theme that Burton often revisits in his best films. It is chock-full of the kind of bizarrely outré imagery typical of Burton’s imagination, but that imagination tends to bend in a morbid direction, which is what ultimately spelled the end of Burton’s reign as Batman director — kids whose parents took them to the film because it was promoted with McDonald’s Happy Meals were frightened by its dark themes, so Warner Bros. quietly pushed Burton aside and brought in a director who would be more willing to play ball with the studio and make the films more kid-friendly, leading to the neon, hyper-kinetic Batman films of Joel Schumacher.

Coate: Thank you — Jeff, Scott and Bruce — for sharing your thoughts on Batman Returns on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and Widescreen Review. All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Kathryn Devine, Bobby Henderson, Brad Miller, and to the San Francisco Public Library and Washington State Library.

IN MEMORIAM

Bob Kane (Batman creator), 1915-1998
Stuart Lancaster (“Penguin’s Doctor”), 1920-2000
Rick Zumwalt (“Tattooed Strongman”), 1951-2003
Vincent Schiavelli (“Organ Grinder”), 1948-2005
Pat Hingle (“Commissioner Gordon”), 1924-2009
Michael Gough (“Alfred”), 1916-2011
Marion Dougherty (Casting), 1923-2011
Jan Hooks (“Jen”), 1957-2014

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Blade Runner, one of the most influential films ever made, opened in theaters 35 years ago this week.

For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s premium-format presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with a trio of film historians and documentarians who discuss the virtues, shortcomings and influence of Blade Runner.

BLADE RUNNER NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 1 = Number of sequels
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of The Ladd Company’s 1982 slate
• 2 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 4 = Rank among top-earning movies of Warner Bros.’ 1982 slate
• 4 = Rank among top-earning science-fiction films of 1982
• 9 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 11 = Number of 70mm prints
• 13 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (summer)
• 14 = Rank among top-earning R-rated films of 1982
• 16 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 25 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (rental; calendar year)
• 27 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (gross; legacy)
• 1,295 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $29.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (videodiscs)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $4,749 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $1.5 million = Box-office gross (2007 Final Cut re-release)
• $3.7 million = Box-office gross (1992 Director’s Cut re-release)
• $6.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $14.5 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $15.7 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $27.6 million = Box-office gross (1982 original release)
• $28.0 million = Production cost
• $32.9 million = Box-office gross (1982 + 1992 + 2007)
• $36.8 million = Box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $71.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $78.2 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“The most astonishing look at the future ever put on film.” — California Magazine

“Blade Runner may be the wrong picture at the wrong time. Steven Spielberg has convinced us that extra-terrestrial creatures can be a boy’s best friend, and Star Trek II has us feeling optimistic about the future again. Science-fiction, in short, has never appeared rosier. So here comes Blade Runner, the gloomiest glimpse of things to come since A Clockwork Orange, and with none of the scalding humor that helped make that Stanley Kubrick classic watchable.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“Director Ridley Scott and his entire creative cadre have made an extraordinary-looking film that combines film noir and science fiction to probe a world where you can no longer tell who’s human any more. Every detail of the film’s environment is so seductively, splendidly and distractingly designed that it feels emperor’s new clothes-ish to point out that there is embarrassingly little else to the film.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Blade Runner is like science fiction pornography — all sensation and no heart.” — Pat Berman, The State (Columbia, SC)

“In the rush to view the future, Scott forgot that movies are not, contrary to the industry’s fondest hopes, made of stainless steel special effects, but of screenplays. There is no screenplay in Blade Runner, merely an idea extracted from the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? that is buffered with a great deal of pretentious nonsense, and the sort of dialogue Mickey Spillane on a bad day would toss into the waste basket. “ — Ron Base, Toronto Star

“The scope and brilliance of Blade Runner’s vision is the good news. The bad news is that Blade Runner’s story is absolutely hopeless, a confusing tower of babble that has great gaps of logic, abysmal structure and cardboard characters… In an attempt to explain things, a voice-over narration by Deckard, a la Sam Spade, has been added, but Ford reads it as if he had just been handed the lines; he sounds flat, unconvincing. And while the explanation helps on a few items, it still cannot fill the many holes.” — Phil Kloer, The (Jacksonville) Florida Times-Union

“Hauer, who was a superb villain in the little-seen Nighthawks, again makes a charismatic menace, spewing hatred and bitterness that boil hotter with successive scenes. His final conflict with Ford is a test of human — and inhuman — endurance.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“Blade Runner is a handsome and imaginatively designed film. Indeed, so much care has been lavished on this bizarre and very convincing vision of urban America in 2019 that what the film looks like has taken precedence over what happens in it. This proves a great pity since Blade Runner is crammed with interesting and adult ideas and brims with the potential to be a truly memorable film.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“Scott is a master of production design, of imagining other worlds of the future (Alien) and the past (The Duellists). He seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that’s the trouble this time. Blade Runner is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Blade Runner is a triumphant blending of human drama and science fiction. It may not be a summer blockbuster — it won’t satisfy the young audience it needs for that — but it’s going to end up one of the summer’s, and maybe the year’s, best movies.” — Jack Mathews, Detroit Free Press

“Ridley Scott’s reported $30 million picture is a stylistically dazzling film noir set in November 2019 in a brilliantly imagined Los Angeles marked by both technological wonders and horrendous squalor.” — Variety

“Blade Runner, a grim sci-fi adventure set in the near future, looks terrific but is empty at its core. What’s missing? For starters, how about a story.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“If anybody comes around with a test to detect humanoids, maybe Ridley Scott and his associates should hide.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“[W]hat really irked me about Blade Runner was its seemingly tacked-on, totally superfluous, ‘Feel Good’ ending. After a depressing couple of hours at the movies, it’s even more depressing to see a director succumb to a last minute fear of being too depressing.” — Terry Kelleher, Miami Herald

“Science-fiction devotees may find Blade Runner a wonderfully meticulous movie and marvel at the comprehensiveness of its vision. Even those without a taste for gadgetry cannot fail to appreciate the degree of effort that has gone into constructing a film so ambitious and idiosyncratic. The special effects are by Douglas Trumbull, Richard Yuricich and David Dryer, and they are superb. So is Laurence G. Paull’s production design. But Blade Runner is a film that special effects could have easily run away with, and run away with it they have.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“Directed by Ridley Scott, the Britisher who scored with Alien, the movie is too choked up with baroque space fantasy and heavy metal sci-fi, and it clunks along like the Incredible Hulk.” — Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“For a movie so ingenious that movie fans really ought to see it, Blade Runner has a lot of problems. Alas, Harrison Ford is one. He’s a great Han Solo and an even better Indiana Jones. But he has a hard time pulling his weight in serious material like Force 10 from Navarone and Hanover Street. His narration is never quite right, and he sometimes seems ill at ease in his role. It could be that, like Cary Grant and Burt Reynolds, he needs to stick to material with some built-in lightness. Deckard is and should be a humorless character, but Ford seems not quite to know how to handle that.” — Ted Mahar, The (Portland) Oregonian

“In Blade Runner, director Ridley Scott stints on character development as though Harrison Ford were a star like Bogart, and the result is an underdeveloped hero. Screenwriters Hampton Fancher and David Peoples give Ford plenty of tough/sensitive film noir hero lines to speak, but they come off as camp rather than homage.” — Scott Sublett, The Washington Times

“Although Blade Runner is captivating from a visual and clinical standpoint, it left me cold emotionally. Who should I root for, the replicants or the calculating humans who created them? Still, Blade Runner is the sort of picture that grows more fascinating after the fact, upon reflection. It deserves points for ingenuity and painting a stark picture of a future world where science has spun out of control. But while it is intriguing, Blade Runner is so bizarre that you may just have to live in the year 2019 to be able to appreciate it fully.” — Donna Chernin, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Blade Runner misses a beat now and then, and it often fails to capitalize on its strongest points. But it’s the sort of offbeat, challenging science-fiction movie that develops cult followings.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) on occasion are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Blade Runner in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best cinemas in which to experience Blade Runner and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix.

Of the 100+ new movies released during 1982, Blade Runner was among eighteen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements. Only about a dozen of Blade Runner’s initial print run was in the deluxe 70mm format, which were significantly more expensive and more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints. Blade Runner was the second of four films by Ridley Scott to be released in the United States with 70mm prints.

The 70mm prints of Blade Runner were sourced from a mixture of blown up anamorphic 35mm principal photography and 65mm-originated visual effects and were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Dolby processor setting Format 42 (i.e. three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

Trailers for The World According to Garp and Night Shift circulated with the Blade Runner prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing includes the 70mm engagements of Blade Runner that commenced June 25th, 1982*. Not included in this work are the moveover, second run, revival and international engagements (or any of the movie’s countless standard 35mm engagements).

*Prior to release there was a sneak preview test screening of a work-in-progress cut of the film on March 5th at the Continental in Denver and on March 6th at the Northpark in Dallas. A revised cut was previewed on May 8th at the Cinema 21 in San Diego. Additionally, in college towns during late May there was a series of National College Preview screenings. An invitational preview of the finished film was held June 18th at the Samuel Goldwyn in Beverly Hills.

So, for historical reference and nostalgia, the first-run North American theaters that screened the 70mm version of Blade Runner were….

CALIFORNIA

• Corte Madera — Marin’s Cinema
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Bruin
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Hollywood
• Pasadena — SRO’s Hastings
• San Francisco — UA’s Coronet
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 22 Triplex

COLORADO

• Denver — Commonwealth’s Cooper Twin

ILLINOIS

• Chicago — Plitt’s Esquire

NEW YORK

• New York — Cinema 5’s Murray Hill
• New York — Moss’ Criterion Center 6-plex

WASHINGTON

• Seattle — SRO’s Cinerama

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE Q&A

Chris Barsanti is the author of The Sci-Fi Movie Guide: The Universe of Film from Alien to Zardoz (Visible Ink; 2014). His other books include Filmology: A Movie-a-Day Guide (Adams Media; 2010), Handy New York City Answer Book (Visible Ink; 2017), and (with Brian Cogan and Jeff Massey) Monty Python FAQ: All That’s Left to Know about Spam, Grails, Spam, Nudging, Bruces, and Spam (Applause; 2017). He is a member of the National Book Critics Circle, Online Film Critics Society and New York Film Critics Online, and has written for Film Journal International, Film Threat and The Hollywood Reporter.

Charles de Lauzirika produced the Blade Runner: The Final Cut restoration and is the producer-director of Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner, the exhaustive documentary feature included in the package of value added material on the Blade Runner: The Final Cut DVD and Blu-ray Disc releases. Charles is an acclaimed film documentarian and DVD/Blu-ray producer with over 100 credits, including, in addition to Blade Runner, such essential and award-winning home video box sets as Twin Peaks, Prometheus and the Alien Anthology, along with many other releases including Top Gun, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Martian. He also produced the Star Wars: Launch Bay featurette which debuted at the Disney Parks in 2015. His feature directorial debut, Crave, starring Ron Perlman, was released in 2013, and won multiple awards at festivals around the world.

Paul M. Sammon is the author of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (HarperPrism; 1996; and updated in 2007 and 2017). His other books include The Making of Starship Troopers (Berkley; 1997), Ridley Scott: The Making of His Movies (Close-Up Series; Da Capo; 1999), Alien: The Illustrated Screenplay (Orion; 2000), Aliens: The Illustrated Screenplay (Orion; 2001) and Conan the Phenomenon (Dark Horse; 2013). He has also written for American Cinematographer, Cinefex, Empire and the Los Angeles Times.

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Blade Runner be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

Chris Barsanti: The word “visionary” gets thrown around a lot but I think it can be fairly attached to Blade Runner. It’s hard to remember in this day and age of non-stop spectacle filmmaking, what an incredible achievement it was in terms of its special effects and mood, which was arguably as influential on filmmakers as Metropolis and Things to Come. So I would say that it deserves to be remembered as a visionary spectacle that foresaw first a way to make the future look not just bleak in the manner of 1970s science fiction (think Soylent Green) but seductively corrupted, and also how our current filmmakers would mix and match genres (in this case, film noir and science fiction).

Charles de Lauzirika: Even after decades of imitators, bigger budgets and more advanced technology, Blade Runner still stands high as a groundbreaking, unparalleled masterpiece.

Paul M. Sammon: Thirty-five years after its (failed) initial release, I’d like to think that Blade Runner will be remembered as one of the best and most influential science-fiction films of the 20th century — and the 21st.

Coate: What did you think of Blade Runner? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Barsanti: I was probably more impressed with Blade Runner as a teenager than today; it has the kind of overarching grandiloquence that appeals to the adolescent mind. But despite its plot deficiencies, it still exerts a strong pull. I’m always interested in watching it again, which is something I cannot say for nearly any other movie, particularly one directed by Ridley Scott.

Lauzirika: I saw it on opening day at the Mann Hollywood and like many people, I was probably expecting something more along the lines of escapist popcorn entertainment. But also like many people, I left the theater grappling with a far more challenging and deeper artistic experience. But that’s the great thing about Blade Runner after all these years is that it has never stopped luring me into that dark, complicated world. I always get something new out of it.

Sammon: I had been fortunate enough throughout 1981-82 to see various rough cuts and pre-release versions of Blade Runner; therefore, I was the least objective viewer in the theater when I finally witnessed the Theatrical Cut, complete with its uneven narration and tone deaf happy ending, on Blade Runner’s opening day of June 25, 1982. I’d also previously seen a slightly different version during the San Diego sneak preview in May 1982, and had disliked what I considered to be its superfluous, poorly written voiceovers and inappropriate Ride-Into-the-Sunset back then. So I was hoping that those two elements might at least be dropped from the theatrical cut. They were not, and I was. Disappointed, that is. Also, in a certain sense, I guess that by having seen so much of the film prior to its official release, you could say that I was a little burnt out. Especially by the time I ultimately sat down to watch Blade Runner with an opening day audience.

I much more enjoyed being allowed to witness the physical filming, which stimulated my tactile senses along with my visual and auditory ones. Anyone who was on that Ridleyville backlot will remember what an immersive experience it was. The smoke, the endless detailing, the neon, the never-ending swirling rain bars; you literally felt as if you were in Los Angeles circa 2019. It smelled that way too.

Having said all this, it was obvious, even while peering through my haze of Blade Runner exhaustion, that Ridley Scott and Hampton Fancher and Vangelis and everyone else in Blade Runner’s cast and crew had created something utterly unlike anything else in theaters during the summer of 1982. Frankly, Blade Runner was a visual wipeout. Watching Blade Runner during its initial run on a big screen was like being swept away by a pictorial tsunami. And my opinion of the film has actually improved over the decades. Because as I’ve said many, many times, there is more to Blade Runner than meets the eye. Much more.

Pauline Kael, in her dismissive New Yorker review, complained that Blade Runner was all subtext and no text. I can agree with half of that statement, since so many changes were going on during production on both the narrative and the visual level that certain plot strands were ultimately either muddled or lost. But I have to absolutely disagree with Kael on Blade Runner’s subtexts. In my little opinion, it’s exactly those subtexts — such as what it means to be human, how we lead our lives in the face of certain extinction, and whether we as a species will ever acknowledge and reverse the slow suffocation of our environment — which rewards the curious viewer. Blade Runner is also a uniquely hypnotic film. No matter how many times I watch it, by the time Pris walks up to the Bradbury Building and Vangelis’ Blade Runner Blues starts playing, I realize, once again, that I’ve been totally sucked in.

Coate: In what way is Blade Runner significant?

Barsanti: It was possibly the best movie up to that time in terms of creating a living, breathing future world. The way in which it mixed elements of contemporary culture with fragments of the past and predictions about where things were going is now the template for nearly all future-set movies.

Lauzirika: It’s fully, indelibly defined a dystopian vision of tomorrow that all futuristic films after it have been, and will be, compared against. For me, there are three distinct cinematic futures that simply haven’t been topped in terms of world building: Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, David Lynch’s Dune and Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner.

Sammon: It’s been influential on a number of levels. In terms of its hyper-detailing and teeming lived in look, a production design that mixes the old and the new with the familiar and the strange, a graphic sensibility that stands the sophisticated, slightly tongue-in-cheek comic book drawings of Mobius right alongside the realistically engineered extrapolations of visual futurist Syd Mead — well, what you’re left with is a film that’s influenced countless succeeding motion pictures. As well as rock videos, costume designs, even real-world objects like signage and architecture. Furthermore, Blade Runner pointedly touched on themes like overpopulation, mankind’s harm to the natural world, the ethical dimensions of cloning, homelessness, and a whole clutch of other concerns that weren’t exactly on the American radar at the beginning of the Reagan era. All of those themes are still relevant today. So Blade Runner has a pulsing, living life well beyond a movie theater or a home video entertainment center.

Coate: Where does Blade Runner rank among director Ridley Scott’s body of work?

Barsanti: Number one, with a bullet. Nothing else comes close.

Lauzirika: It should come as no surprise that in my opinion, it’s number one.

Sammon: Ranking Blade Runner in Ridley’s canon is a little difficult. Alien seems to have had a broader pop-cultural influence, More people have certainly seen Alien than Blade Runner. And the then-unusual manner in which Alien takes it’s not exactly novel admixture of horror and science-fiction seriously, and weds that to semi realistic characters with near documentary-like performances, and then cocoons its hybrid story line and its somewhat superficial but still believable fictional people within what at the time was a meticulously considered alternate universe, one that pulled in all these different graphic factors while still playing fair with the time-honored rules of cinematic horror and science-fiction and suspense… this was all pretty amazing stuff back in 1979.

On the other hand, I’ve always considered Alien kind of a dry run for Blade Runner. In the way that Blade Runner raises the imagining of Alien’s fictional universe by a whole order of magnitude, while simultaneously crafting a deeper, more challenging set of characters, story elements and emotions. I mean, Alien is essentially a thrill ride, punctuated by some pretty primal, nasty, body-horror elements like the chest burster and the face hugger. But Blade Runner has greater texture, resonance and depth. So I guess purely in terms of weight, Blade Runner tips the scales. I’d put it at number one. Then again, I’m completely prejudiced. That’s why I wrote a book like Future Noir!

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: How effective or memorable a hero was Harrison Ford’s Rick Deckard and where do you think that performance ranks among his body of work?

Barsanti: Hard to answer, because it’s difficult to compare Blade Runner with, say, Raiders of the Lost Ark or Frantic. In his top five, for sure.

Lauzirika: I actually don’t agree he’s the hero. He’s a killer, a sleaze, and kind of a coward, but he’s on a journey of self-discovery, no matter what you think about his origins. I will say that I think Ford’s performance is far better and nuanced than he gets credit for. Deckard isn’t the most traditionally likable character, but I am intrigued by him throughout the film. I think it’s certainly one of his very best performances.

Sammon: Part of Ridley Scott’s stated intent right at the beginning of pre-production was a to present a densely reasoned speculation on what a future metropolis might look 40 years ahead of 1982, then to tie that future to the stock elements of 1940s film noir. For example, film noir’s elements have always included a femme fatale, like Rachel, who usually brings down an antihero with serious character defects, like Deckard. Harrison’s not a classic hero in this film. At least not initially. He’s a classic antihero.

Ford once told me he considered Deckard to be damaged goods. That shows up in his performance and in the way the character is written. Deckard is isolated, cruel, possibly alcoholic, and emotionally closed off. Ever notice how much he drinks in the film? That’s another standard film noir trait. Deckard has no compunctions about shooting a woman in the back, either, and that ain’t very heroic. I think that’s one of the reasons Blade Runner failed upon its initial release. People went into theaters thinking there were going to see the cheerful insolence of another Han Solo or Indiana Jones, but instead were confronted with a dark, seedy, morose burnout. What’s always been fascinating to me is to watch how Ford manages to come up with the body language and little bits of business that suggests just how flawed Deckard is. He really does give a complex, intelligent, sensitive performance. I think it’s one of Ford’s best. Although Harrison and Ridley clashed so often while they were making the film, particularly over this whole argument of whether or not Deckard was a replicant, that I’m sure Harrison still really hasn’t gained the necessary objectivity to see what a career defining performance Deckard really is.

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty and where do you think that performance ranks among his body of work?

Lauzirika: I also don’t agree with you that Batty’s the villain. He’s simply trying to survive and protect his family against the cruel system that created them and now wants them dead. That’s heroic to me. But I think it’s fair to say that Hauer steals the movie, capped by his “tears in rain” speech. No small feat with such a tremendous cast. And it’s certainly a high point in his career.

Sammon: I’m not sure Roy Batty ever was the villain of Blade Runner — I think Eldon Tyrell, who plays God with what in effect are superior humans, is really the heavy of the piece. Having said that, Batty is a fascinating guy, and Rutger really rings an amazing number of notes on that character. Roy is childlike, amusing, intelligent, playful, and dangerous. Very dangerous. That’s what I think is finally so unsettling about Roy; he’s really still a kid. An immensely strong seriously intelligent kid who’s been thrust into a world he doesn’t understand. So he’s constantly trying to tweak his reactions to this complicated new reality. And sometimes Roy goes a little too far. By crushing skulls, and letting elderly Chinese scientist freeze to death, and so on and so forth. Yet he is also very charismatic and physically attractive. It’s his unpredictability that really creeps me out, though-you never know how Roy is going to react.

I think that Rutger would be the first person to agree that Roy Batty is his defining performance…at least in terms of worldwide recognition. Rutger’s a very good actor, you know. He’s done great work in a number of different motion pictures, like Olmi’s The Legend of the Holy Drinker. But most people haven’t seen that, and more people remember him from Blade Runner. But I’m pretty sure Rutger is good with that.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast the numerous cuts of Blade Runner? Which version is your favorite?

Barsanti: While the Director’s and Final cuts are probably overall the better movies, I will admit an occasional preference for the original release. No, Scott didn’t want to add in Ford’s narration and the lack of it in the later cuts brings a spooky, ghostly quality to the imagery that isn’t there in the original. But the narration’s hard-boiled tone is actually quite effective at setting the noir mood that Scott was going for, and so doesn’t deserve to be totally discounted. That being said, the tacked-on ending in the original where they escape into the mountains was a monumental misstep.

Lauzirika: Obviously, The Final Cut is my favorite version. For the most part, it represents the best of all the other versions and it finally gave Ridley Scott the chance to make the final polish he wasn’t able to before. There are about 100 picture and edit differences in The Final Cut as compared to the other ones, to say nothing about the new sound mix. But I do have a fondness for the other versions as well, especially the Workprint.

Sammon: Depending on how you approach it, there are anywhere between five to eight versions of Blade Runner floating around out there. Not to mention the numerous Blade Runner fan edits on the Internet, like the White Dragon Cut. I could write a book about Blade Runner’s different versions — and I have! So let me point anyone who’s interested in hearing a more detailed response to your question towards Future Noir.

But in terms of rank, starting from the bottom up, I’d say that the Theatrical Cut is my least favorite version. That’s the one with the voiceover and the bogus happy ending. Then moving up a notch I’d say, The International Cut, which retains the voiceover and happy ending but has a bit more violence and character moments than the theatrical cut. I’d follow that with the Directors Cut, which came out in the early 1990s and dropped the voiceover and the happy ending, but most critically put back in a crucial moment that had been edited out of the theatrical and international cuts.

The Director’s Cut includes a daydream Deckard has while he’s a little drunk and noodling at his piano. He imagines a unicorn galloping in slow-motion through a beautiful forest. Which of course is an image of purity and poetry and beauty, and completely at odds with the dirty, overcrowded, sordid world he lives in. It’s also an image that later ties into the tinfoil unicorn origami sculpture that Gaff leaves for Deckard at the end of the film. That tinfoil unicorn in the Director’s Cut indicates that Gaff knows Deckard’s secret daydreams; since replicants have been buffered with artificial memories, the fact that Gaff knows Deckard’s innermost thoughts strongly suggests that Deckard might be a replicant. However, the unicorn daydream isn’t in the Theatrical or International cuts. So the tinfoil unicorn in those versions that gaff leaves could be interpreted to simply mean that gaff is saying, Hey, man, I was here at your apartment, and I looked around and I realize you have feelings for this thing that looks like a woman called Rachel, so I’ve let her live.

In other words, in the theatrical and international cuts Deckard is probably human. But in the Director’s Cut and Final Cut he might be a replicant. Anyway, my second favorite version of Blade Runner is the Workprint. That’s the work in progress that was screened at the sneak previews in Denver and Dallas audiences in March 1982. The Workprint has bits and pieces of things that still haven’t shown up in any other version, and it also, since it’s not properly color timed or had a final sound mix, is a lot grittier than any other version. For many years the workprint was my favorite shade of Blade Runner. But now I have to say that number one slot has been taken over by the Final Cut.

The Final Cut really is the Blade Runner that Ridley Scott always wanted. It doesn’t have the narration, it doesn’t have the bogus happy ending, it does have the unicorn daydream, and it also incorporates a little cool extra footage that was previously only seen in the Workprint. The Final Cut really is a marvelous restoration of a classic motion picture. And it was overseen by true blue Blade Runner fan Charles de Lauzirika, who did a man’s job of cleaning up and re-editing the film. Lauzirika also produced and directed Dangerous Days, the definitive 3 ½ hour making of documentary on Blade Runner. Bravo, Charlie!

Coate: Do you have any thoughts on the upcoming sequel?

Barsanti: Eager to see it, of course, and glad that Denis Villeneuve, one of the greatest living directors, is handling it, since I don’t think Scott would be able to find that same magic again. But in the end, I almost wish it wasn’t happening. I would rather that studios were looking for ways to make more movies with the same daring and imagination as the original Blade Runner, not just producing more sequels and remakes.

Lauzirika: Lots. But for now, as I’d say with any film, I just hope it’s good. It has a lot to live up to.

Sammon: My biggest concern, which I’m sure I share with many, is that it’s hard to recapture lightning in a bottle. We’ve all been burned by so many bad sequels. Happily, from what I’ve been able to see so far, and given the level of talent and commitment and fidelity to the original involved, in addition to the fact that Ridley is one of the producers, that Hampton Fancher is one of the screenplay writers, that Harrison is back as Rick, that the excellent British cinematographer Roger Deakins has shot Blade Runner 2049, and that the truly talented French Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, who hops from genre to genre with butterfly feet yet retains a steely, sober gaze, is at the helm of this sequel. Well, given all that, the lights look green at this point. We’ll see. But I can tell you from an insider’s perspective that this was not a sequel done for purely avaricious reasons. There were a lot of hardcore Blade Runner fans involved with Blade Runner 2049, both in front of and behind the camera. I’m rootin’ for ‘em!

Coate: What is the legacy of Blade Runner?

Barsanti: It deserves to be remembered as a visionary spectacle that foresaw first a way to make the future look not just bleak in the manner of 1970s science-fiction but seductively corrupted, and also how our current filmmakers would mix and match genres.

Lauzirika: It’s a film that redefined how we see the future and its intoxicating level of detail and design will probably never be matched in that particular way. After all, when you’re trying to describe something you’ve seen in real life, like cities or weather or pretty much anything visual, and you say, “It was just like Blade Runner,” people know exactly what you mean.

Sammon: Blade Runner remains an intelligent, complex, moving science-fiction film married to real-world concerns, deep drama, complex personalities, and thoughtful subtexts. All of which still strolls hand-in-hand with one of the most astonishingly detailed cinematic worlds ever created for a motion picture. You can’t beat a legacy like that.

Coate: Thank you — Chris, Charles and Paul — for sharing your thoughts on Blade Runner on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy The Blade Runner Partnership, The Criterion Collection, Embassy Home Entertainment, The Ladd Company, Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety, and the book Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner (Paul M. Sammon; Harper Prism; 1996). All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Bobby Henderson, Bill Kretzel, Monty Marin, and Cliff Stephenson.

IN MEMORIAM

• Philip K. Dick (novel), 1928-1982
• Robert Okazaki (“Howie Lee”), 1902-1985
• Kimiko Hiroshige (“Cambodian Lady”), 1912-1989
• Jordan Cronenweth (Director of Photography), 1935-1996
• Brion James (“Leon Kowalski”), 1945-1999
• Hy Pyke (“Taffey Lewis”), 1935-2006
• Gerry Humphreys (Chief Dubbing Mixer), 1931-2006
• Paul Prischman (Final Cut Associate Producer), 1967-2009
• Morgan Paull (“Holden”), 1944-2012
• Bud Alper (Sound Mixer), 1930-2012
• Sir Run Run Shaw (Executive Producer), 1907-2014
• Bud Yorkin (Executive Producer), 1926-2015
• Jerry Perenchio (Executive Producer), 1930-2017

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Tron, which also featured Bruce Boxleitner, Cindy Morgan and Barnard Hughes, opened in theaters 35 years ago this week. For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s 70mm presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with The Making of Tron author William Kallay, who discuss the virtues, shortcomings and influence of Tron.

TRON NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 1 = Number of sequels
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies of Disney’s 1982 slate
• 2 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 3 = Rank among top-earning science-fiction films of 1982
• 5 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 10 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (summer)
• 22 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (gross; legacy)
• 23 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1982 (rental; calendar year)
• 23 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 43 = Number of 70mm prints
• 1,091 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $29.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (videodiscs)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $4,364 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $4.8 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $12.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $15.2 million = Box-office rental (as of 12/31/82)
• $17.0 million = Production cost
• $33.0 million = Box-office gross
• $38.5 million = Box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $43.1 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $83.7 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Tron is 90 minutes of eye-popping originality, a computer-age Alice in Wonderland, and a thing of wonder.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Tron is with it, meaning it is in step with the times. It’s as up to date as the latest video game, whereas recent Disney pictures seemed to believe that today’s youngsters were still playing marbles and lagging baseball cards.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“The lavish Walt Disney production[’s] technological wizardry isn’t accompanied by any of the old-fashioned virtues — plot, drama, clarity and emotion — for which other Disney movies, or other films of any kind, are best remembered. It is beautiful — spectacularly so, at times — but dumb. Computer fans may very well love it, because Tron is a nonstop parade of stunning computer graphics, accompanied by a barrage of scientific-sounding jargon. Though it’s certainly very impressive, it may not be the film for you if you haven’t played Atari today.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“Where was it written that to accommodate an outburst of new effects, no matter how revolutionary, we agreed to give up character, subtlety, a well-told story, clearly understood action and even — heaven help us — humor? Where?” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“When Tron concerns its little pointed head about anything, it fusses over the sacrifice of humanity to technology. Of course that is precisely what has happened to the movie. Tron does not, with a single exception, look as though it was touched by human hands. The exception is Jeff Bridges, who may be the most adventuresome and underrated actor in movies today, and who manages to imbue Tron with what small glimmer of humanity it possesses.” — Ron Base, Toronto Star

“Tron has changed my life. It blew my mind right into the digital decade. Tron is not only an eye-opener in every sense of the word, but a film that does that rare thing: opens up the imagination and mind to the future.” — Judy Stone, San Francisco Chronicle

“Dazzle aside, Tron doesn’t compute…. Walt Disney’s $18 million fantasy adventure about a war between computer programmers and the despot master control program they created is worth seeing. But only for that reason.” — Jack Mathews, Detroit Free Press

“Despite what some critics across the nation are saying, Tron is not a horrible film. It does suffer, however, from the same problem that Blade Runner, The Thing and Firefox have: weak story development, and even weaker character development. This is the first live-action feature film directed by Steven Lisberger, who has done a feature-length cartoon and some television, but he hasn’t a grasp on the human side of his film. As a result, Tron’s people take a back seat to its special effects.” — Christopher Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“This is an almost wholly technological movie. Although it’s populated by actors who are engaging (Bridges, Cindy Morgan) or sinister (Warner), it is not really a movie about human nature. Like Star Wars or The Empire Strikes Back, but much more so, this movie is a machine to dazzle and delight us. It is not a human-interest adventure in any generally accepted way. That’s all right, of course. It’s brilliant at what it does, and in a technical way maybe it’s breaking ground for a generation of movies in which computer-generated universes will be background for mind-generated stories about emotion-generated personalities. All things are possible.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Tron gets an ‘A’ for ingenuity. The summer’s most unconventional film, it is also a milestone for Walt Disney Productions. At long last, the giant has awakened to traverse the decades. Coonskin caps were yesterday’s heritage; the computer is today’s.” — Pat H. Broeske, The (Santa Ana) Register

“Dazzling disaster…. Gorgeous, pioneering special effects cannot overcome the script’s emotional vacuum and the slack acting by some of Bridges’ co-stars.” — Michael Maza, (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“Walt Disney Studios, the same factory that for years specialized in realizing the most whimsical and human expressions of man’s imagination, has joined the automaton parade with a film that glamorizes and endorses the video game craze that has overwhelmed America.” — Scott Sublett, The Washington Times

“Tron is loaded with visual delights but falls way short of the mark in story and viewer involvement. Screenwriter-director Steven Lisberger has adequately marshaled a huge force of technicians to deliver the dazzle, but even kids (and specifically computer game freaks) will have a difficult time getting hooked on the situations.” — Variety

“Tron is as innovative as the Disney breakthroughs in animation that produced the classics that still make money for the studio. Walt Disney never forgot the importance of plot and of making the audience care about the characters. Lisberger has a great deal of talent, but Tron would have profited from remembering such basics.” — Desmond Ryan, Philadelphia Inquirer

“Now I have seen a lot of boring, expensive wastes of time and talent in my life (especially in the last few years, as movies have begun to come apart at the seam and stop making sense), but Tron is the biggest waste of everything known to man that I have ever encountered.” — Rex Reed, syndicated columnist

“[I]t is hard to see how a film so original in conception and execution (and so firmly tied to the electronic preoccupations of its adolescent target audience) can fail.” — Richard Schickel, Time

“Tron succeeds in expanding the parameters of animation and in presenting something totally new on the screen. For that alone, the affable Tron can’t be faulted.” — Marylynn Uricchio, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[On to Page 2] 

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (and instances to appease a filmmaker’s ego) on occasion are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Tron in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best cinemas in which to have experienced Tron and the only way to have faithfully seen the movie’s large-format cinematography or heard the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix.

Of the 100+ new movies released during 1982, Tron was among eighteen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements and the only one to have been originated in 70mm (65mm). Only about five percent of Tron’s initial print run was in the deluxe 70mm format, which were significantly more expensive and more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints but offered superior image and audio quality.

The 70mm prints of Tron were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Dolby processor setting Format 42 (i.e. three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

An EPCOT promo and a trailer for Tex circulated with the Tron prints and which the distributor recommended be screened with the presentation.

The listing begins with the North American 70mm engagements of Tron that commenced July 9th, 1982, and then extends to include many of the film’s subsequent 70mm engagements (i.e. late openings, moveovers, re-release and revival) but does not include any pre-release screenings, international, or any of the movie’s countless standard 35mm engagements.

The duration of the engagements, measured in weeks, has been included for some entries in parenthesis following the cinema name.

Note that some of the presentations included in this listing were presented in 35mm during the latter weeks of engagement due to print damage and the distributor’s unwillingness to supply a 70mm replacement print or because the booking was moved to a smaller, 35mm-only auditorium within a multiplex. In these cases, the 35mm portion of the engagement has been included in the duration figure.

So, for historical reference and nostalgia, the first-run North American theaters that screened the 70mm version of Tron were…

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Chinook (10)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Londonderry Twin (10)

ARIZONA

• Tucson — TM’s El Con 6-plex (12)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver — Famous Players’ Denman Place (10)

CALIFORNIA

• El Cajon — UA’s Parkway Plaza Triplex (4)
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Chinese Triplex (3)
• Montclair — SRO’s Montclair Triplex (12)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (11)
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 6-plex
• San Diego — Pacific’s La Jolla Village 4-plex (6)
• San Diego — UA’s Glasshouse 6-plex (19)
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 24 Twin

ILLINOIS

• Bloomingdale — Plitt’s Stratford Square 4-plex (5)
• Chicago — Center’s McClurg Court (5)
• Chicago Ridge — Chicago Ridge Mall Triplex (6)
• Hillside — M&R’s Hillside Square 4-plex (2)
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin (5)

LOUISIANA

• Gretna — Cobb’s Westside Twin (7)

MARYLAND

• Catonsville — Einbinder & Brehm’s Westview 6-plex (6)

MICHIGAN

• Grosse Pointe Woods — Nicholas George’s Woods Twin (4)
• Livonia — Suburban Detroit’s Terrace Twin (4)
• Southfield — Suburban Detroit’s Northland Twin (3)

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex
• Reno — Syufy’s Century 6-plex (5)

NEW JERSEY

• Cedar Grove — Cinema 23 (5)
• Paramus — RKO Century’s Route Four 7-plex (5)

NEW YORK

• New York — Loews’ State Twin (5)
• White Plains — UA’s Cinema (5)
• Woodbury — UA’s Cinema 150 (6)

OHIO

• Springdale — Mid States’ Tri-County 5-plex (7)

ONTARIO

• Toronto — Famous Players’ Hollywood Twin (11)

OREGON

• Portland — Moyer’s Bagdad Triplex (9)
• Portland — Moyer’s Rose Moyer 6-plex (23) [w/“Star Trek II” from Week #6]

PENNSYLVANIA

• Pittsburgh — Cinemette’s Warner (3)

TEXAS

• Dallas — Inwood Twin (6)
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Northwest 10-plex

WISCONSIN

• Greenfield — Marcus’ Spring Mall Triplex

ADDITIONAL / SUBSEQUENT 70MM ENGAGEMENTS & SCREENINGS

• 1982-07-16 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s Village (4)
• 1982-07-22 … Sainte-Foy, QC — Cinemas Unis’ Canadien (8)
• 1982-07-23 … Montreal, QC — United’s Claremont (11)
• 1982-07-23 … Philadelphia, PA — Budco’s Regency Twin (5)
• 1982-07-30 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s Vogue (2)
• 1982-07-30 … Winnipeg, MB — Famous Players’ Metropolitan (9)
• 1982-08-13 … Detroit, MI — Madison (1)
• 1982-08-13 … Honolulu, HI — Royal’s Royal (4)
• 1982-08-13 … Los Angeles, CA — Plitt’s Century Plaza Twin (9)
• 1982-08-20 … Cleveland, OH — Colony (2)
• 1982-09-03 … Chicago, IL — Center’s McClurg Court (1)
• 1982-09-03 … Cleveland, OH — Variety (2)
• 1982-09-03 … Northbrook, IL — Center’s Edens Twin (1)
• 1982-09-17 … Burnaby, BC — Famous Players’ Lougheed Mall Triplex (2)
• 1982-09-17 … Edmonton, AB — Famous Players’ Garneau (1)
• 1982-10-08 … Boston, MA — Sack’s Charles Triplex (2)
• 1982-10-08 … Henrietta, NY — Loews’ Towne Twin (4)
• 1982-10-08 … Towson, MD — Rappaport’s Hillendale Twin (1)
• 1982-10-15 … Cincinnati, OH — Mid States’ Carousel Twin (3)
• 1982-10-15 … Portland, OR — Luxury Theatres’ Music Box (3)
• 1982-10-15 … Salt Lake City, UT — Plitt’s Regency (3)
• 1982-10-15 … San Francisco, CA — Plitt’s Northpoint (1)
• 1982-10-15 … Washington, DC — Circle’s Uptown (2)
• 1982-10-22 … Atlanta, GA — Plitt’s Phipps Plaza Triplex
• 1982-10-22 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s Hollywood (1)
• 1982-10-22 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s National (1)
• 1982-10-22 … Renton, WA — MCR’s Roxy (3) [w/“Capricorn One”]
• 1982-10-29 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s Hollywood (1) [w/“Superman II”]
• 1982-11-05 … Brooklyn Center, MN — Plitt’s Brookdale (2)
• 1982-11-05 … Montreal, QC — Odeon’s Place du Canada (1)
• 1982-11-19 … Tucson, AZ — Plitt’s El Dorado Twin (2)
• 1982-11-24 … Colorado Springs, CO — Commonwealth’s Ute 70 (2)
• 1982-11-24 … Seattle, WA — SRO’s Music Box (2)
• 1982-11-26 … Lynnwood, WA — SRO’s Grand Cinemas Alderwood 5-plex (3)
• 1982-12-17 … Los Angeles, CA — Mann’s Valley West 6-plex (1)

• 1983-01-28 … Orange, CA — Syufy’s City Center Twin (1) [w/“Star Trek II”]
• 1983-03-02 … Toronto, ON — Cinesphere (5 days) [70mm fest]
• 1983-04-15 … San Francisco, CA — Blumenfeld’s Regency II
• 1983-05-13 … Dearborn, MI — UA’s The Movies at Fairlane 10-plex (2)
• 1983-05-13 … Troy, MI — UA’s The Movies at Oakland 5-plex (2)
• 1983-05-20 … Livonia, MI — Nicholas George’s Mai Kai (1)
• 1983-05-20 … San Diego, CA — Pacific’s Cinerama (1)
• 1983-05-20 … Southfield, MI — Nicholas George’s Americana 4-plex (1)
• 1983-05-20 … Southgate, MI — Nicholas George’s Southgate Triplex (1)
• 1983-07-15 … Montreal, QC — Odeon’s Champlain Twin (5) [Version Francaise]
• 1983-09-23 … Montreal, QC — United’s Claremont (1)
• 1983-12-21 … Toronto, ON — Cinesphere (4 days) [70mm fest]

• 1984-03-04 … Cleveland, OH — Variety
• 1984-05-11 … Toronto, ON — Odeon’s Hyland Twin (1)
• 1984-05-11 … Vancouver, BC — Odeon’s Park (2)

• 1985-09-06 … Cleveland, OH — Colony [fest; midnight]

• 1999-05-14 … Los Angeles, CA — Pacific’s El Capitan (1) [THX]
• 1999-10-23 … Long Beach, CA — CSULB’s Carpenter Center [Wide Screen fest]

• 2004-05-06 … Los Angeles, CA — Pacific’s El Capitan (2) [THX]
• 2004-06-06 … Los Angeles, CA — Directors Guild

• 2006-06-07 … Beverly Hills, CA — AMPAS’ Samuel Goldwyn [Movie Magic series]
• 2006-08-19 … San Francisco, CA — Castro [midnight]

• 2007-06-17 … Santa Monica, CA — American Cinematheque’s Aero [w/“Star Trek II”]
• 2007-08-24 … Austin, TX — Paramount (2 days) [70mm fest]

• 2008-02-24 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]
• 2008-02-26 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]
• 2008-03-02 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]
• 2008-03-04 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]
• 2008-07-04 … San Francisco, CA — Castro [70mm fest]

• 2011-03-05 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Aero
• 2011-06-04 … San Francisco, CA — Castro [70mm fest]
• 2011-07-01 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Egyptian [Blu-ray substitution]
• 2011-07-01 … Silver Spring, MD — AFI Silver (4 days) [70mm fest]
• 2011-10-09 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]

• 2012-03-17 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Egyptian
• 2012-08-31 … Silver Spring, MD — AFI Silver (4 days) [70mm fest]
• 2012-12-29 … New York, NY — Film Society Lincoln Center (2 days)

• 2014-06-08 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Aero
• 2014-07-19 … Chicago, IL — Music Box [70mm fest]

• 2015-03-17 … Toronto, ON — TIFF Bell Lightbox
• 2015-03-18 … Toronto, ON — TIFF Bell Lightbox [replaced damaged “The Black Hole”]
• 2015-04-03 … Toronto, ON — TIFF Bell Lightbox (2 days)
• 2015-08-14 … New York, NY — MOMI’s Sumner M. Redstone (3 days) [70mm fest]
• 2015-08-28 … Columbus, OH — Wexner Center for the Arts (2 days)

• 2016-06-11 … Tucson, AZ — The Loft (2 days)
• 2016-09-09 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama [70mm fest]
• 2016-09-18 … Somerville, MA — Somerville [70mm fest]

• 2017-04-07 … Portland, OR — Hollywood [70mm series]
• 2017-06-16 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Egyptian [70mm series]
• 2017-06-24 … Los Angeles, CA — American Cinematheque’s Egyptian [70mm series]

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

William Kallay is the author of The Making of Tron: How Tron Changed Visual Effects and Disney Forever (2011). He is the co-founder of FromScriptToDVD.com, where he has written about film technology, interviewed filmmakers, and reviewed countless DVDs and Blu-ray Discs. Green Tea, Kallay’s 2004 short film, won the Outstanding Writing Commendation Award from the 48 Hour Film Festival in Los Angeles. He has also written for Go (the official magazine for AirTran Airways) and Widescreen Review.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Tron be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

William Kallay: Tron should be remembered as a very daring, risky adventure on the part of a few young visionaries and artists. They believed that by using computers for animation and visual effects, they could change moviemaking. There had not been a movie like it before. The characters, or “Programs,” actually lived inside of a computerized world. This film ultimately changed how we see and experience movies, television, and even music videos. Pixar, in my humble opinion, was heavily influenced by John Lasseter seeing the famous Light Cycle sequence in Tron. It is important to note that when Tron was made, the very idea of computers, let alone computerized animation and visual effects, was still extremely new.

Coate: What did you think of Tron? Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw it?

Kallay: My parents and I lived in Anaheim Hills, a suburb in Orange County, California. At the time, if you wanted to go see a movie, you had the choice of the really small and dingy AMC Orange Mall 6, or the very classy Cinedome in Orange. Cinedome was truly cool because it had dome theaters with giant curved screens, stadium seating and a lot of 70mm presentations, all for a very reasonable admission price.

Video games were totally my world in my late teens. I spent countless hours on my Atari 2600. The graphics were crude, and don’t even get me started on the home version of Pac-Man. Yet being a lonely teenage kid, video games were an escape for me. The arcade was the one place where I found my identity and could actually “be cool” because I was a good video game player.

When Tron opened, I was intrigued. A video game movie? I was also a Disney buff and I knew this movie was something completely revolutionary from them. Bear in mind that Disney of 1982 was much different from Disney today. Tron was a huge risk for the studio. They were not seen as a hip studio and most of the movies they made were cookie cutter Disney family films.

My parents drove with me down to Cinedome on a hot July day. My dad gave me my allowance of a princely $15.00. My parents went to another theater in the complex to see, no kidding, The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas, and I went to see Tron in 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo.

Sitting in the rocking theater seat inside the big dome, the curtains parted and Buena Vista Distribution in computerized-looking letters appeared. This was something different from Disney. Suddenly, and very loudly, Tron formed on the screen and the Tron logo flew onto the screen and I was immersed into that opening Light Cycle sequence. I was hooked!

Then the plot started to unfold. There was quite a bit of computer talk and words. There was talk between the old way of computers to the new way of computers. I wanted to see more Light Cycles. Where’s Jeff Bridges? What the heck is ROM and RAM memory? Why do I not understand this computer lingo? Why am I drawn to these spectacular visuals unfolding before my eyes?

Tron ended just as my parents came out of their movie. My dad asked, “How was Tron?” I stood there and said, “I’m not sure. It was cool, but I was confused.” The film made an impact on me, but I was not sure what to make of it. There was something extra special about this film to me and I was unable to articulate its impact on me.

A side note, later that year, my buddy and I rented Tron on VHS. I remember telling him about a hilarious joke with Sark (played by David Warner) on a giant map. Wait for it. Wait for it.... “Where’s Pac-Man!?” I yelled. That was probably my first lesson in aspect ratios and how the ingenious gag of Pac-Mac was cut out of the frame for home video.

Coate: In what way is Tron significant?

Kallay: Tron opened the doors for filmmakers to create films in a digital landscape. Animation and visual effects were largely done by human hands and very expensive tools like the Multiplane Camera (Disney), VistaVision cameras (used by ILM for years), plastic models, stop-motion characters (think of the original King Kong), and cel animation. The makers of Tron felt that using computers would offer more freedom from manually building models, painting fantastic landscapes or animating by hand. Working in the digital world could eventually create animation and visual effects that were never possible before.

It is also one of the most visually stunning films I have ever seen. The artistic brainpower behind Tron was incredible: Syd Mead, Jean “Moebius” Giraud, John Norton, Harrison Ellenshaw, Richard W. Taylor II, and many others.

Coate: Why do you think Tron was unsuccessful in its original release?

Kallay: Tron made around $33 million (roughly $84 million today) in its original release, which for the time was decent. It just did not make the kind of money that some of the higher profile releases like E.T. and Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan did. The summer of 1982 was an amazingly strong period for film, both critically and economically. There were scary films like Poltergeist and The Thing. Blade Runner, though in its original release, was a considered a box office disappointment. It was eventually seen as a classic. Rocky III made a ton of money and looked like it might be the year’s biggest hit until E.T. came to Earth. Tron had a lot of competition.

One would think that Tron would have cleaned up at the box office because it was a movie about video games. The film had a big star in Jeff Bridges. Bruce Boxleitner was well known as a television actor. Cindy Morgan was Lacey Underall in Caddyshack (1980) for heaven’s sake! David Warner was hot after starring in the cult hit, Time Bandits (1981). The film had groundbreaking computer animation and visual effects. There was an arcade video game tie-in in arcades across the country. Kids and teens lined up to play the game. The film had a stellar line up of visual effects geniuses and designers.

The film fell short at the box office for a few reasons, in my opinion. Not everyone back in 1982 was versed in, or even used, computers. Disney had to fight for theaters to show the film. It was a huge summer for 70mm prints and many of the early summer movies with those prints were still playing in big auditoriums. Audiences that summer were into emotional movies like E.T., Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan and Rocky III, whereas Tron initially comes off cold. As a teenage video game guru back then, I wanted to see more video game action, though I now love the story concepts that Tron presents.

The crazy thing is that Tron eventually made money on the original arcade game, the home video release, the home video game, DVDs and Blu-rays, and nostalgia. In 1999, Disney struck a new 70mm print and it has been in circulation ever since in revival theaters (though I am not sure if Disney has re-struck a new print since then). New audiences discovered Tron on the big movie screen where it is meant to be seen. Disney approved a sequel, a cartoon series, and the Tron Light Cycle Power Run roller coaster in Shanghai has been a hugely popular attraction. I am no math wizard, but the Tron property has feasibly made nearly $1 billion for Disney by now. Not bad for a box office “flop.”

Coate: In what way was it beneficial for Tron to have been photographed and, in some theaters, presented in the 70mm format?

Kallay: Technology of merging live actors like Jeff Bridges, Bruce Boxleitner, Cindy Morgan, David Warner and Dan Shor into a computerized environment did not exist in 1981 when Tron was filmed. The great visual effects artists and animation gurus needed to “fake” the actors in the Electronic World. It has been awhile since I have gone over my book and notes, but I believe that director Steven Lisberger and cinematographer Bruce Logan, ASC ultimately decided to shoot Tron in 65mm due to the need to blow up each Electronic World frame to Kodaliths (large film cels). They could maintain high picture quality that way.

If they had shot the film in 35mm, the Kodaliths would have had tons of large film grain throughout the picture. Disney balked at the slightly extra expense of shooting in 65mm, but they finally realized going this route was the smart decision. Using Kodaliths was the only way in which to make the live action “computerized.”

When Tron was released in theaters, 70mm had been undergoing a revival. That summer of 1982, which is regarded by film fans as one of the greatest ever, had a huge number of 70mm blow-up prints struck for theatrical exhibition. Tron just so happened to be filmed in 65mm and some VistaVision.

Coate: Do you think the Academy was justified in not nominating Tron in the category of Best Visual Effects?

Kallay: Absolutely not. The Academy voters were in love with E.T. That year there was Poltergeist and Blade Runner in the mix for an Oscar nomination for Best Visual Effects. Tron should have been included in that very honorable group of films. Not that I am against E.T., but Tron was truly a groundbreaker. To this day, my good friend Richard W. Taylor II (co-visual effects supervisor of Tron) still thinks he and his amazing crew were robbed. I agree.

The mindset of visual effects artists, especially back then, was not into using computers. Computers were very rarely used for film work. Computers were the devil’s work. Effects should not be automated! The idea that a computer would do “almost all of the work” in visual effects was scary, though we now know that computers need people. It took several years, but computer animation and visual effects are used by hundreds of artists on one film today. Tron only had a few computer animators and they were divided by four different outside companies.

Coate: In what way was Steven Lisberger an ideal choice to direct Tron and where does the film rank among his body of work?

Kallay: Tron was Steven’s creation when he opened a studio in Venice Beach, California. He was the ideal choice to bring his vision to the big screen. His studio was a showcase for some of the most amazingly brilliant artists to come from the early 80s. There are some disagreements among some of the artists I interviewed on the creation of Tron, but Steven’s influence and vision is truly spread across this film. This was not an easy sell to the major studios back then. Steven is very persuasive and knows his vision.

Steven did an exceptional job on Tron. He did not have any feature film experience except for Animalympics (1980). Tron was a huge undertaking with new computer technology, a big movie star like Jeff Bridges, and an eclectic crew of super artists like Bill Kroyer, Jerry Rees and Darrell Rooney. Did I, as a fan and viewer, have some issues with the storyline? Sure. Yet in hindsight, there are some very intriguing ideas that I delve into in my book.

I have always wanted to see more films from Steven because I truly believe he is incredibly talented and a great guy. In my opinion, Tron is Steven’s best work. It has stood the test of time and he should be proud of his work. He did a couple of features soon after Tron. There was Hot Pursuit (1987) and then Slipstream (1989). I watched Hot Pursuit and felt it did not have the same vision and “guts” that Tron had, but John Cusack helped make the film enjoyable. I once found a DVD of Slipstream at a store and regrettably did not buy it. So I cannot judge Steven’s work on that film.

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

Coate: How effective or memorable a hero was Jeff Bridges’ Kevin Flynn and where do you think that performance ranks among his body of work?

Kallay: How can you go wrong with Jeff Bridges? He can read the ingredients off of a can of bargain chili and I would listen to him. Kevin Flynn is Jeff Bridges. I had the golden opportunity to talk to Jeff and he was the most gracious person. What you see in Flynn is Jeff’s own fun and genuine personality. The character of “The Dude” in The Big Lebowski (1998) is like Flynn but off the charts. I always loved the character of Flynn because he was a cool video game guy who happened to own an arcade. To a teenager back in 1982, this was a guy who I wanted to be. And by the way, the scene in Flynn’s Arcade when Flynn loses his temper is totally based on Steven Lisberger’s occasional rants on the Tron set.

Coate: How effective or memorable a villain was David Warner’s Ed Dillinger/Sark and where do you think that performance ranks among his body of work?

Kallay: Let me put it this way. One of the earliest VHS rentals I ever got was Time Bandits (1981). The movie freaked me out because David Warner could look at you and you would imagine he would destroy you! As Dillinger/Sark, Warner owned that role as the cold corporate executive bent on taking over the world with computer technology, while he ate up the scenery in the Electronic World as Sark. I think it is his most memorable performance. My regret with the book is that I could not get in touch with Mr. Warner for an interview.

Coate: What was the objective with your Tron book?

Kallay: Years ago, I was a freelance writer who simply loved movies and the craft of making movies. I was a film school graduate, but honestly, never was able to break into the Hollywood filmmaking industry. When I was writing for a home theater magazine, it gave me a great opportunity to somewhat get into the “biz.” Because I was a member of the press, I gained access to most of the major movie studios, red carpet premieres, and award shows. Having that access allowed me to meet some of my heroes from the film business.

One of my heroes was Harrison Ellenshaw. Since I was such a Disney fanatic, his name and his father’s name were very familiar to me as a young film buff. I knew that Peter Ellenshaw had been one of Walt Disney’s go-to guys and just having 20,000 Leagues under the Sea (1954) and Mary Poppins (1964) on his resume alone simply did not give Peter enough praise for his work as a matte painter and visual effects icon.

With Harrison, I knew of his name on the credits for The Black Hole (1979), Tron (1982), and for heaven’s sake, Star Wars (1977) and The Empire Strikes Back (1980). The dude had some street cred! One evening I was attending a panel discussion at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. I honestly do not recall the theme, but after the discussion, I sheepishly approached Harrison and asked him if he would be willing to talk about his work in large format and 65mm cinematography. He said sure and asked me for my card or email address.

A few weeks passed and I had not heard from him. Of course, even as a young adult, I was bummed. Then suddenly he emailed me! Harrison Ellenshaw? I have to say that the fan factor, that “geek” factor, does not subside even in adulthood. He graciously answered my technical film questions.

Harrison was totally kind to me and answered tons of questions about his work in visual effects, the people he worked with, and his own experience on Tron. Going back to my first viewings of Tron, I cannot say that the film won me over. But by the time I met and befriended Harrison, I had a newfound respect for the how the film was made.

This got me thinking. Why not write a book about the making of Tron? Granted, Disney released a stunning LaserDisc which went into the making of the film. I, being completely naive, thought I would tackle this massive subject in book form.

When it came down to the objective of writing about Tron, I was more intrigued by the people who made it, their ideas, their artistry, and their feelings about making the film. Audiences, not to their fault, sometimes forget that filmmaking is an intensive process. It involves imagination, creativity, clashing egos, studio budgets, and sometimes not knowing how a film will turn out. Tron had all of this and more. Little did I know, it would take me six years to track down as many people as I could, and tons of rejection from publishers.

Coate: What are your thoughts on Tron: Legacy? How does it compare to the original?

Kallay: I had huge hopes for Tron: Legacy. The announcement came as a total surprise to me and many of the artists I interviewed for my book. I was happy to see Steven Lisberger as a producer on the film. Knowing and being friends with many people who worked on the original film, I had hoped they would somehow be involved, but they were not.

I went to a special screening at the Academy. As I sat there, I was amongst some of the original Tron artists like Syd Mead. I hoped that the new director, Joseph Kosinski, would expand on the original ideas of Tron and fill in gaps in the original storyline. I hoped that there would be more action with newer CGI effects.

As the film unfolded, there were some pretty cool action scenes, especially in the arena Light Cycle race. I thought the lifeblood of Legacy was Jeff Bridges as Flynn dealing with his son, Sam (Garrett Hedlund) and Olivia Wilde was great as Quorra. As a whole, I felt that the film could have been so much more. I was moved by the scenes of Flynn trying to reconcile with his son Sam, but that to me was not the character and motivation of Flynn. He was an independent dude! Even in his middle aged years, I thought that Flynn would be a responsible father but also fun. It would have been cool to see Flynn and Sam racing Light Cycles across the Grid, for example.

Comparing Legacy to the original is difficult for me. Tron, was a brilliant attempt to immerse audiences into a world they had never seen before. It was a uniquely brave film.

Legacy to me falls into that trap that so many movies and TV shows do today: focusing on the parent/child relationship or a missing or dead parent. I understood why this was done, but I do not go see a Tron movie to see father/son bonding. I go to a Tron film to see Flynn being a smart ass, Tron being Mr. Hero, and Programs fighting in Deadly Disc battles.

Tron: Legacy is not a bad or poorly made film. I just felt it could have filled in the missing pieces of Tron and made itself unique. Kosinski shows his ability to direct and I think he really showed his directorial chops later with Oblivion (2013).

Coate: What is the legacy of Tron?

Kallay: Tron has made a huge impact on visual effects, animated kid flicks, or short homemade films on YouTube. Without the amazing cast and crew of Tron, we would not see digital characters like Anna & Elsa, Woody & Buzz Lightyear or Shrek. We would not see CGI effects in Jurassic Park (1993) or hundreds of visual effects in every Marvel or DC film. A teenager can now do spectacular visual effects on their laptop with inexpensive software that was unheard of in 1982. Tron created, just by using computer effects and human ingenuity, a multi-billion visual effects industry. Even the concept of a video game tie-in was largely due to Tron.

Disney also changed. The studio is now a powerhouse not only as a studio, but as a gigantic corporation. If Tron was such a big flop, why did Disney make a sequel in 2010 and open a roller coaster in Shanghai Disneyland? Tron continues to make money for Disney.

Thanks to the inventive makers of Tron, they created their own legacy that remains 35 years later.

Coate: Thank you, Bill, for sharing your thoughts on Tron on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Buena Vista Distribution, Buena Vista Home Video, Celluloid Chicago, Lisberger/Kushner Productions, Walt Disney Home Video, Walt Disney Productions.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety; and the book The Making of Tron: How Tron Changed Visual Effects and Disney Forever (William Kallay; 2011). All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Celluloid Chicago, Diane Donham, Bobby Henderson, William Kallay, Sarah Kenyon, Steve Kraus, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Stan Malone, Monty Marin, John Stewart, Sean Weitzel, Chicago’s Music Box Theatre, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• Al Roelofs (Art Director), 1906-1990
• Robert Abel (Systems Supervisor), 1937-2001
• Elois Jensson (Costume Designer), 1922-2004
• Robert J. Schiffer (Make-up Supervisor), 1916-2005
• Richard ‘Dr.’ Baily (Systems Programmer), 1953-2006
• Bill Kovacs (Systems Programmer), 1948-2006
• Barnard Hughes (“Dr. Walter Gibbs”/“Dumont”), 1915-2006
• Bob Minkler (Re-recording Mixer), 1937-2015
• John B. Mansbridge (Art Director), 1917-2016

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

Jon Burlingame is the author of The Music of James Bond (Oxford University Press, 2012). 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. His website is www.jonburlingame.com.

John Cork is the author (with Collin Stutz) of James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002) and (with Maryam d’Abo) Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003). 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 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). He has recently contributed articles on the literary history of James Bond for ianfleming.com and The Book Collector.

Mark O’Connell is a punditeer, the grandson of Bond producer Cubby Broccoli’s chauffeur, and the author of Catching Bullets: Memoirs of a Bond Fan (Splendid Books, 2012). His next book will be published this autumn.

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Dave Worrall) of The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999) and (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992). He also wrote The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001) and (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002). 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). His other books include 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), Booze, Bullets & Broads: The Story of Matt Helm, Superspy of the Mad Men Era (Henry Gray, 2013) and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 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 is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is The Spy Who Loved Me worthy of celebration on its 40th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: This was the third of the Roger Moore Bonds, and in my view the best-realized of the three. Much at the time was made of the “equal status” of Moore’s 007 and Barbara Bach’s Anya, his Soviet counterpart. And while they inevitably ended up in bed together, they were very much spy-versus-spy on an equivalent footing for much of the film. Even Bob Peak’s brilliant key art placed Anya and Bond back-to-back, with Anya on the left, strongly implying that this was not just a “Bond girl” but a woman who could be 007’s match.

The plot was an improvement — a supertanker swallowing nuclear submarines, not a voodoo blaxploitation story or a paid assassin trying to kill Bond — and demanded a gigantic new stage, conceived by production designer Ken Adam to contain his larger-than-life ideas. Pinewood’s new 007 Stage was the result, and it was showcased in dynamite fashion in the film. And, for me as Bond’s resident music historian, it’s hugely important for the song Nobody Does It Better, which reached Number Two on the charts, won an Oscar nomination and became one of the most iconic songs in the history of the Bond franchise.

This was the first of the Bond films to be produced solely by Albert R. Broccoli, following the departure of his longtime partner Harry Saltzman. And it was the first Bond movie to use the title but no characters or storyline from the original novel (although the films had been getting farther and farther away from Ian Fleming’s plotlines anyway).

John Cork: The Spy Who Loved Me was a celebration the moment it premiered. It’s not so much a movie or a story as it is a wondrous tour through the exotic, sexy, dangerous, and beautiful world of Roger Moore’s 007. Just as Goldfinger, the third Connery film, was a celebration of what made Sean Connery’s Bond so appealing, The Spy Who Loved Me, the third Moore film, is a celebration of everything that makes Roger Moore a great James Bond. From the snowy peaks to the ocean depths, from the ancient pyramids to the modern nuclear submarines, the mix is just right. Amazingly, it was a film born out of complete and utter chaos. This is a film that works because of the key ingredient that makes the James Bond films so fantastic: collaboration. There are the obvious names that contributed so much. Let’s start with Ken Adam. Of all his sets, the Liparus interior is the greatest. I remember the sounds of audience members gasping when the lights blasted on. But all the sets are just so perfect. The title song is iconic, Carly Simon’s voice sends chills down my spine every time I hear it. Marvin Hamlish’s score is perfect for the film. John Glenn and his crew, working with Rick Sylvester captured the greatest stunt in film history in a shot that has every viewer holding their breath. Second Unit Director Ernie Day did masterful work. The helicopter/Lotus chase was his. Derek Meddings did his best model work for Spy. How good? They originally had permission to shoot a real Shell tanker for free, but the insurance was still too expensive. They still invited the folks from Shell to the premiere, and they wanted to know what company loaned them a supertanker for filming. They didn’t know it was a model! Willy Bogner was back shooting the skiing. That great shot going under the ice bridge still works. Lamar Boren was back with the underwater unit in the Bahamas. But there were other names few are likely to know. Robin Browne, an amazing cameraman with a brilliant eye shot so much of the effects work. Gordon MacCallum did the mix, and no Bond film has ever sounded better.

Mark O’Connell: Bond ‘77 totally warrants celebration. Of course, the sad and recent passing of Roger Moore and the rapid fire tribute screenings of this film which were held across the land have put it under a timely spotlight again. Fate celebrated this film before film fans could, but either way — when most Bond fans of any standing have to pick a Roger Moore Bond film this is the one. It doesn’t have to be everyone’s favorite but the audiences know this was the one that re-ignited the onscreen Bond juggernaut and it is often the Roger Moore Bond film.

Lee Pfeiffer: The Spy Who Loved Me was a very significant film in the Bond canon. After The Man with the Golden Gun was released in 1974, producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman saw their partnership break up when Saltzman had to divest his shares of the Bond series in order to pay off mounting personal debt. There was bad will because he never offered Cubby an opportunity to buy his shares and own the franchise outright. Instead, he sold his half of the Bond series directly to United Artists, thus tying Cubby to the studio as his new partner. This made the acrimonious relationship between Cubby and Harry even worse. Not helping matters was the fact that The Man with the Golden Gun — Roger Moore’s second screen outing as 007 — did not perform as well as expected at the box office. The film’s emphasis on slapstick humor combined with the worst script of the series led some to wonder if the Bond films were in danger of going out of style. Cubby realized he had to make a bold move to bring Bond back in dramatic fashion. Instead of rushing into production, he painstakingly made plans to adapt The Spy Who Loved Me for the screen. It would be two-and-a-half years before the film would hit theaters — a rather lengthy gap in those days. Fleming had detested his own source novel, which was a bizarre, stagnant tale set mostly in enclosed rooms and lacking the larger-than-life villains and locations his books were known for. Thus, Fleming insisted in his contract with the producers that only the title could be used for a future film, not any of the novel’s elements. Cubby seemed to realize he had one more shot to make the Bond franchise reinvigorated — and to prove he could do so without Harry Saltzman. United Artists pulled out all the stops and granted the film the biggest budget of the series to date. The film enjoyed unusually strong reviews and became a box office sensation, allowing Roger Moore to prove that he was indeed a successful Bond in his own right.

Bruce Scivally: The Spy Who Loved Me is the film in which Roger Moore really came into his own as James Bond. Moore’s previous 007 director, Guy Hamilton, tried to balance his natural gift for witty bon mots with an edge of Connery-esque toughness (like slapping Andrea Anders and threatening to break her arm in The Man with the Golden Gun). Lewis Gilbert, on the other hand, simply let Moore be Moore, a kind of Cary Grant-lite who looked great in a tux, and didn’t seem to be taking any of the proceedings very seriously, letting us all in on the joke and giving us permission to simply enjoy it and go along for the ride. As a result, Moore recast 007 in his image — a Bond more suave and debonair than Sean Connery’s, less feral and threatening than Connery’s, but still able to make audiences believe that a tricked-out car could do incredible things at the push of a button. Two films later, Moore would again reinvent the character, returning to a slightly tougher portrayal, but after The Spy Who Loved Me his Bond would always have a twinkle in his eye that seemed to say, “Yes, it’s outlandish, but go with it. Have fun. I am.” And yes, even on first viewing, I recognized that the plot of The Spy Who Loved Me was basically a retread of Lewis Gilbert’s earlier Bond opus, You Only Live Twice, except Spy had more action and less travelogue — and a 007 who actually seemed to be enjoying himself.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing The Spy Who Loved Me for the first time?

Burlingame: I vividly remember thrilling to the pre-credit sequence, with composer Marvin Hamlisch’s ultra-modern, synth-laden, Bond Theme adaptation for the spectacular stunt, as Bond skis off the side of the mountain. The music stops (for a full 20 seconds!) and then bursts into the screaming-brass Bond Theme midsection as 007’s Union Jack-adorned parachute opens. Then, of course, we cut to the opening titles and our first exposure to Carly Simon singing Nobody Does It Better — again, one of the great all-time Bond themes.

I rarely use the word “awesome” (I’m way out of that demographic) but I remember thinking Ken Adam’s production designs on this film were awesome. From Stromberg’s giant sea fortress Atlantis to the car/submarine Lotus Esprit, everything was eye-popping. The locations — from Egypt to Sardinia — were stunning in Claude Renoir’s cinematography, and while Hamlisch’s score isn’t to everyone’s taste, it was certainly a fresh take on Bond music at the time; and Paul Buckmaster’s Mujaba Club music was pretty hip in 1977.

Cork: I was 15. My grandfather had set me up with a summer trip to Europe in 1977. I knew The Spy Who Loved Me was coming out, and I even found Eon Productions’ address and mailed them asking how to get premiere tickets. They sent me the brochure and would have sold me tickets, but the tour wasn’t going to be in London on 7/7/77, the premiere date. About 10 days later I arrived, and that night, I went to the Odeon Leicester Square, bought tickets to both the evening show and the late show. I had never been in a movie theater like the Odeon. I had never heard surround sound before. I remember jumping when I heard explosions behind me in the cinema! It was one of the greatest film-going experiences of my life. Little can describe the way that audience reacted. I remember walking down Piccadilly toward Hyde Park in the middle of the night after having seen the film twice, the banners for the Queen’s Silver Jubilee handing from light posts, the streets all but empty, replaying the film in my mind.

O’Connell: I caught it on an ailing VHS copy found by chance in the bottom of a bargain basement bin being suffocated by a Pink Panther or two and what Emmanuelle film had come out to rent that month. It was a bit like finally getting that landmark Beatles album where you already loved a lot of the tracks but hadn’t experienced them in their context. The parachute jump, the Lotus dive, the Studio 54 wet-bike arrival, Gogol and his phone-call day-wear, Stromberg, the risqué blue titles not hiding everything of a flesh-based nature and some of the killer lines were already part of the Greatest Hits of Bond movies. I knew what a lot of the heralded ingredients were. But now I could see them in the way the Eon chefs wanted.

Pfeiffer: I was in college and had just come back from a whirlwind tour around Europe and Africa for a month. I was happy that my return to America coincided with the opening of the film. I saw it in a New Jersey theater where they had a Lotus Esprit on display, though I’m still not sure if it was the one seen in the film. Like most Bond fans, I breathed a sigh of relief. After Golden Gun, Bond finally had his mojo back.

Scivally: I earned my driver’s license in the spring of 1977, so this was the first James Bond film that I saw in a theater. By then, I’d been introduced to 007 through the telecasts of the films on ABC-TV, and loved them. It’s hard to appreciate the impact those movies had in the 1960s and 70s, when they were the apotheosis of action films, with eye-popping stunts and exotic locations, and featuring some of the most fetching beauties in cinema. The Spy Who Loved Me had all that, and something different — the humor that had always been an undertone of the films became an overtone with The Spy Who Loved Me, a change that befit Roger Moore. From the eye-popping pre-credits ski stunt to Bond “keeping the British end up,” this 007 fired on all cylinders from start to finish. As a 16-year-old, I absolutely loved it; as a 56-year-old, the 16-year-old in me still revels in it.

Coate: In what way was Curt Jurgens’ Karl Stromberg a memorable villain?

Burlingame: Jurgens was a formidable screen presence, in the aftermath of his performances as German officers in The Enemy Below, The Longest Day and Battle of Britain, so he brought a gravitas to Stromberg that was different than the distinguished, elitist tone of Christopher Lee (in The Man With the Golden Gun) and the ruthless, mostly disgusted attitude of Yaphet Kotto (in Live and Let Die).

Cork: Jurgens is a great actor, and I love that Stromberg is a “brain” villain, elegant, evil, far from the physical threat to Bond, yet, somehow more dangerous for it. A good “brain” villain will have you on what you think is the President’s jet, or sitting down at his dinner table because he’s clearly defenseless. Jurgens knows how to appear larger-than-life in every shot, and that made him perfect for those amazing Ken Adam sets.

Of course, we have to mention Richard Kiel. Second best henchman of the series behind Oddjob. Lewis Gilbert’s cameraman, Claude Renoir, knew how to photograph Kiel and really work shots to have fun with his height and size. That was missing in Moonraker. Renoir gets grief because his eyes were slowly failing during shooting, but he was very important to the visuals of Spy. Watch his films and he knows where to place the camera to help tell the story.

Okay, time for absurd Curt Jurgens trivia! He holds the distinction (as best as I can tell) of appearing in more films with other Bond villain actors than any other Bond villain actor! He’s in movies with Robert Shaw, Walter Gotell (a villain in From Russia with Love), Gert Frobe, Luciana Paluzzi, Telly Savalas, Steven Berkoff, Orson Welles (yes, I count the 1967 Casino Royale), and, wait for it, Christoph Waltz. He’s also in movies with the top names in 60s spy culture: Sean Connery, Richard Burton (The Spy Who Came in from the Cold), James Coburn, Robert Culp, Peter Graves, and even almost-Bond, John Gavin!

O’Connell: He certainly works two of the mainstays of Bond villainy — being sat at a table or standing menacingly with both hands behind your back. Curt Jurgens is a fascinating European actor who doesn’t struggle at conveying duplicitous charm. Yet for me Stromberg is one of the more passive, less beguiling Bond adversaries. The villainy of the character is achieved via other means — particularly Ken Adam’s pointed production design suggesting the wealth and vision, but also the loneliness of the man as well as the spider web of villainy is summed up by that black, hulking arachnid of a base, Atlantis. The real villainy of The Spy Who Loved Me is achieved by the trail of sub-villains. The might and dangerous intentions of Stromberg are not conveyed through Jurgens, but rather Jaws, Naomi and the gang passing on that story baton of a microfilm. I always suggest that a good Bond foe is merely Bond himself gone wrong. Michael Lonsdale’s Drax in the following Moonraker does that societal one-upmanship and powerplay with more of a delicious, ruthless streak. It is also not clear why a life under the sea is so endearing to Stromberg. And Bond gets no real confrontation with the villain here. Shooting under a table over a light lunch of salad leaves is not the same as being inflated by air, set on fire or sucked out into space.

Pfeiffer: Curt Jurgens was an exceptionally good actor, internationally respected. He had known Cubby, who respected his talents. The knock against Jurgens at the time was that he was a bit old and too sedate to pose a significant menace to Bond, but I always defended his presence in the film. Even if the role of Stromberg was somewhat under-written, his scenes opposite Roger Moore are very enjoyable. Stromberg isn’t one of the more memorable, world-class villains, but Jurgens’ presence in a Bond movie is quite satisfying.

Scivally: Best known for playing military commanders and barons, Curt Jurgens had an imperial presence, but he played Stromberg with a dignified, regal reserve that seemed out of step with the rest of the film’s performances, making him seem dull by comparison. Rather than an out-sized megalomaniac taking great glee in his villainy, Jurgens seemed more like a corporate bureaucrat who, if he weren’t going to kill Bond, would sell him shares in Atlantis. In previous 007 films, the henchman was often colorful, but never more so than the villain; in Spy, Jurgens’ Stromberg is totally upstaged by Jaws, a steel-toothed killer who is initially terrifying but becomes increasingly comedic as the film progresses, somehow managing to be both menacing and endearing at the same time. When Jaws plops into the shark tank, we want him to bite that shark and live to terrorize 007 again; by contrast, when Oddjob was electrocuted, we were relieved that the seemingly indestructible strongman was finally stone cold dead.

Coate: In what way was Barbara Bach’s Anya Amasova a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: And that’s the point: She was a Bond Girl but not a Bond Girl. Anya was a highly trained, highly capable and thoroughly untrustworthy (shades of Putin!) KGB agent. She and 007 must join forces but remain wary of one another. As an actress, Barbara Bach was no Diana Rigg or Eva Green, but in that era the look and the style was pretty important. I daresay this is her best-remembered film (she made Caveman and married Ringo Starr in 1981).

Cork: There is a strange silkiness to Bach’s Anya that really fits the film. I love her in the movie, but, and this is going to sound so, so wrong, if late in the movie her face got hit and a faceplate fell off revealing Stepford Wife robot workings inside, I would have thought, “Oh, of course she was a robot! It all makes sense now!” That sing-song voice, those weird little delays before she reacts to dialogue, think about it the next time you watch the film. There is an undeniable fembot quality. That moment when she bumps into Bond wandering around the columns of Luxor and spins around in karate mode, sees it’s Bond, then drop out of that program and into the next, watch that. That is not an actress playing a Russian spy. That’s an actress brilliantly playing a robot playing a Russian spy. Whatever you want to think, that performance works like gangbusters. It is perfect for the film.

O’Connell: The role of Amasova is key as it heralds a new era of more equal-minded Bond women. All intents and purposes clearly were to really challenge 007 and his professional world and for the most part, Bach’s icy cold and very still performance works. She certainly made an impact on a lot of male Bond fans at the time, and it wasn’t just the Lotus Esprit’s buttons she knew how to press. Anya also affords Moore one of his starkest, least expected beats of Bond and that is when he is faced with the murder of Amasova’s lover. His line about being a spy and on a job is brilliantly and pointedly delivered and reminds that Moore’s Bond always had a serious core in the role.

Pfeiffer: Barbara Bach was one of the most stunning beauties to ever grace a Bond movie. Her acting skills were somewhat limited, to put it charitably, but she represented the key ingredients of a Bond heroine: courageous, resourceful and intelligent. There is a myth in some quarters that Bond women were all gorgeous airheads, but for the most part, this was not the case. They were very independent, quick thinking characters who were able to contribute mightily to thwarting the villains’ capers. It’s safe to say that Bond needed them as much as they needed Bond. Bach made such an eye-popping appearance, especially in the provocative outfits she wore in the film, that I recall John Simon, the ordinarily grumpy film critic for New York Magazine, salivating over her in his review as though he was a teenage boy ogling his teacher.

Scivally: While Barbara Bach would never give Meryl Streep a run for her money as a dramatic actress, her acting chops were adequate enough for The Spy Who Loved Me, and with her doe eyes and pouty lips, she was quite a looker, with a smashing figure, which is about all Bond movies of the period required of their leading ladies. The character was memorable for the series making its first nod to 70s feminism by attempting to portray a female equivalent to Bond — though Anya still needs 007 to rescue her from Stromberg in the end. She’s a character I’d like to have seen return; it should have been her and not General Gogol coming to collect the ATAC at the end of For Your Eyes Only, or sharing a hot tub with Bond in A View to a Kill.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Where do you think The Spy Who Loved Me ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: I would rank it fairly high among the Moore Bonds — not as great as For Your Eyes Only but more watchable than A View to a Kill and Moonraker. I am not the biggest fan of the more jokey Moore installments but I know that, for fans who didn’t grow up with the Connery films, these are seminal Bond experiences. As the films changed with the times, and action became more intense, it’s easy to rank some of the Dalton, Brosnan and Craig films more highly than the Moores. But they were products of the 1970s and ‘80s, and in their time, pretty darned impressive action-adventure films. It’s always important to remember that.

Cork: Recently a pack of big James Bond fans gathered and did an hours-long assessment of all the Bond movies, recorded the audio and put it up on YouTube. I’m just sick enough to listen to the whole thing. These are all really smart folks whose opinions I respect. They ranked all the films individually, then averaged out the results. The Spy Who Loved Me topped their list. Better than Goldfinger, Majesty’s, Casino Royale, Skyfall, From Russia with Love in their assessment. That’s how great this film is. I don’t rank it at the top. When I ranked them with my son in 2012, we both ranked Spy 8th, which sounds low, but it’s not. There are nine Bond films on that list that I think are just magnificent, and Spy is one that I love without apologies.

O’Connell: It is one of the Bond entries which the non-fan enjoys and remembers. And for that alone it holds great merit as the wider, less Bond savvy spectators are key to the box office, global fondness and ultimate momentum for the series. Having recently seen the film again on the big screen, it still holds up well. For a film that has such a large cast of locations, countries, hotel lobbies, receptionists, barbed visitations and methods of transport, the success of the project is found in how gorgeously effortless all these factors are stitched together. Lewis Gilbert was already the master of Big Bond, but here the skill is how the whole piece doesn’t ski off that Austrian mountain without a parachute. It has massive ambitions but still zips along. For that alone it is a vital Bond film.

Pfeiffer: Most people consider the film to be the high water mark of the Moore era and it’s understandable why people feel that way. The movie has sweep and spectacle and some wonderful exotic locations. I would rank it in the middle of the pack in terms of the overall series. I’ll admit that I’ve always rather favored Octopussy, but that’s a minority opinion to be sure. The biggest gripe about The Spy Who Loved Me is the rather unimaginative screenplay. The dialogue is good, but the film is basically a remake of You Only Live Twice, with the action set in the ocean instead of in space.

Scivally: For me, The Spy Who Loved Me is my favorite of the Roger Moore 007 films, and I’d put it at the bottom of the top 5. And a great deal of the enjoyment for me — besides the fact that it is perhaps the most tightly-plotted of the Moore films — is Moore himself. He looked his best in this film, and no other 007 actor is as facile with a quip as Moore, with the possible exception of Sean Connery who, after all, began the practice (though I’d argue that a tough guy spouting witty quips goes back at least as far as Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca; his Rick Blaine is almost a template for Bond, albeit a burned-out one, and one comfortable enough in his masculinity to actually be vulnerable and shed tears for a lost love).

Coate: In light of the recent passing of Sir Roger Moore, what do you believe was Moore’s greatest contribution to film/TV in general and to the James Bond series in particular?

Burlingame: I’d have to say his portrayal of Simon Templar in The Saint. Lots of actors have played the character, from George Sanders to Val Kilmer, but no one ever inhabited Templar quite so well, or frankly made him more popular. I’m very partial to Moore’s role as Lord Brett Sinclair in The Persuaders, but it’s really The Saint that will be his most lasting accomplishment as an actor. Had he been initially cast as 007 instead of Sean Connery we might be looking at this from an entirely different perspective, but coming after Connery and providing a lighter and very different take on James Bond, I really don’t see that as bigger or better than his work as Templar over six impressive seasons in the 1960s.

Cork: I firmly believe that Roger Moore’s greatest contribution to entertainment is his performance in The Spy Who Loved Me. He was born to act with Marvin Hamlish’s flirtatious score. Someday he had to walk among Egyptian ruins in a tuxedo in a film. I really don’t know that another actor could pull off the “give me the keys” scene. Only Roger Moore could make you believe that his character would be unperturbed by Jaws ripping off the roof of the van. He had a special talent for carrying off that kind of absurdity without winking to the audience. But he could also carrying off the popping of his tie loose, sending Sandor to his death. There is a gracefulness to the way Moore moves in this film that matches the elegance of the tone of the movie. Nothing is more boring than watching a character descend a staircase, but watching Moore do it in Cairo is like watching a ballet dancer. There are other moments in other films that define Roger Moore — The Fiction-Makers, for example, is his best work as The Saint. His introduction in The Wild Geese shows he knows how to hold a mediocre scene together with solid, restrained acting. But I so love him as the world’s greatest detective in Sherlock Holmes in New York. I was fortunate enough to spend some time with Roger to record his audio commentaries for his Bonds, and I count that as four days where he brought a lot of joy to some grueling work. Nobody did it better. Goodbye, Mr. Moore. Well, let’s say, “au revoir.” I have a hopeful feeling we’ll be meeting again sometime.

O’Connell: The reason we have Bond films today is because of Roger Moore. He took on the role at a time in cinematic history where a tailored chap with a gun from England was not where the audiences for The Godfather, Chinatown and The Last Picture Show were. When Moore took the role in 1972 he was the third change of 007 in as many films. Yet, he endeared audiences to his Bond. He didn’t mock the role, he didn’t take it for granted. He knew less was more and that rather than the absurdities of Bond’s world at that time he pricked the criticisms of it with a warmth, charm and care for the role. He didn’t wholly take his Bond from the current movie zeitgeist and in doing so made it more appealing. He then steered the series from the parting of the waves of Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli, via the box office might and dominance of Jaws, Star Wars, the rise of Reaganite American cinema, Raiders of the Lost Ark and Beverly Hills Cop. That wasn’t just because of the character of James Bond. That was because of Roger Moore himself.

Pfeiffer: Roger was that rarity in today’s film industry: an old world, genuine gentleman. He knew that he represented a dying breed of British actor, namely the type that could play sophisticated roles and extol and cherish the English language. They rarely write roles for those kinds of actors anymore. It’s doubtful even Cary Grant would find employment in today’s film industry. Roger had the most wonderful self-deprecating sense of humor. He once told me that if a person can laugh at themselves it kind of takes the wind out of the sails of others who want to criticize you. He truly believed no one should take themselves so seriously that they couldn’t laugh at their own flaws. It’s a good life lesson for everyone, including certain prominent political figures who have no ability to admit flaws. He felt that although he never got rave reviews for any of his performances, he was never completely crucified, either, because even critics found it hard not to like his persona.

Roger said that the personality traits he established in playing in The Saint seemed to work for him and that he essentially channeled those same qualities into most of his other characters, including Bond. When I once asked him what his best screen performance was, he replied “None!” After pressuring him a bit, he conceded that the little-seen 1970 movie The Man Who Haunted Himself was the performance he was most proud of because it allowed him to play a rather off-beat character. He was actually a good dramatic actor, as evidenced by his work in films like Shout at the Devil, Gold, The Wild Geese and The Sea Wolves, all of which show him in top form. Roger achieved what many people thought was impossible: being as successful as Sean Connery was in the role of Bond. He made the character his own and never imitated his predecessor. I last saw Roger a couple of years ago in Bath. He and his assistant Gareth Owen had developed a stage production in which Roger would simply chat about his career and take questions from the audience. It gave him a whole new aspect of his life and he was grateful for all the sold out theaters, which proved he still was very popular. His legacy, however, is his tireless work for UNICEF, for which he was Goodwill Ambassador for a number of years. There are countless people alive today thanks to his efforts and I know that was the career achievement he was most proud of.

Scivally: To me, Roger Moore is the Cary Grant of the latter half of the 20th century. The Bristol-born Archie Leach reinvented himself as suave, debonair Cary Grant in 1930s screwball comedies and Hitchcock suspense films much the same way Cockney Londoner Roger Moore adopted a more refined British accent to become the embodiment of British sophistication first on TV as the Saint and later in film as 007. Both were capable actors given limited opportunities because their good looks and the mores of the time typed them as leading men. But both were also humble and self-deprecating; you had a sense they would be enjoyable and entertaining companions to hang out with. Having established himself as a kind of James Bond-like character on TV’s The Saint, Moore was probably the only actor who could so effortlessly take over the role of 007 from Sean Connery. And as the Bond films veered away from the Fleming source material and became more comedic in the 1970s — a move that likely kept the series alive in the changing counter-culture climate — Moore fit the tenor of the times beautifully. It has been my experience that while men generally prefer Sean Connery as Bond, women have great affection for Moore’s 007, a Bond with a lighter touch and a twinkle in his eye that signaled he didn’t really take it all very seriously, but he was having a hell of a good time doing it.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Spy Who Loved Me?

Burlingame: First, it successfully upgraded the previously subordinate Bond Girl to co-starring status, no small feat in a world that (as originally conceived by Ian Fleming) largely viewed women as sex objects. Second, it kept the outlandish plots going, this time with Stromberg’s nonsensical notion that an undersea civilization would succeed a devastating nuclear war; we love all those insane criminal plots. Third, it introduced Walter Gotell as Soviet General Gogol and Geoffrey Keen as the Minister of Defense while retaining Bond regulars M, Q and Moneypenny, thus adding new supporting characters while keeping the old standby favorites. Fourth, it added a hip soundtrack with a top-selling song, demonstrating that, in terms of music, Bond could still be fresh in its musical approach. It certainly convinced me that the Roger Moore Bonds, while very different from the Connery Bonds, had value all their own and could propel 007 well into the future.

Cork: The first is the Legacy of Albert R. “Cubby” Broccoli. This is the film where he became not just a producer of the Bond films, but the producer. The battle for the future of James Bond had really gotten ugly after Harry Saltzman needed to withdraw from Danjaq, the holding company that held the rights to make James Bond films. Cubby was very angry, feeling that Harry had endangered the future of Danjaq through other business dealings. Cubby and Harry also both had the right to sell out, but only to someone of whom the other partner approved. Harry kept finding potential buyers, and Cubby wouldn’t approve of them, which was his right. Some have said that Cubby wanted to force Harry to sell to him for a very low price. Whether that was the case or not, Harry went to United Artists and struck a deal with them. This was a very savvy move on Harry’s part because Cubby could not say he couldn’t work with UA because he was already working with UA. Initially, this worked out very well for Cubby. He was able to get UA to basically double the budget of The Man with the Golden Gun, and he even struck a deal where UA paid for the building of the 007 Stage for the Liparus set, but Cubby ended up owning the physical soundstage building. He’s the one who had to guide the script through a skillion drafts, deal with an attempt to derail the film by Kevin McClory because early drafts had a new iteration of SPECTRE in it. At one point, he had Tom Mankiewicz come to his house, and they took many of the drafts and finally built a story. But there is another great legacy with Spy, and that’s Michael G. Wilson. He became very involved with working with the writers on Spy. He’s the one who pitched the skiing/base jump opening. But he did something more. He pushed for there to be a real emotional storyline in the Bond films. He understood the need for real tension between Bond and Anya, and that little thread works incredibly well in the film. The creative team that makes The Spy Who Loved Me, that family in some form or another is deeply involved in the Bond films until the end of the 1980s, and for some, well beyond. There is also a legacy of Lewis Gilbert, a man who started as a child actor in England, who has done some just wonderful smaller films. But Gilbert knew how to mount a massive production. He knew how to get shots that told the story. He understood visual filmmaking. I remember seeing The Adventurers when I was a kid, and Seventh Dawn when I was a teenager. These are big movies. They would be a series on HBO now, but he’s a very under-rated director. Some folks knock Spy for copying so many story elements from Gilbert’s previous Bond film, You Only Live Twice, but this film corrects so many weaknesses of that film for me. The legacy of The Spy Who Loved Me is that it said to the world that James Bond knew how to adapt, to thrill audiences and entertain on a grand scale even 15 years and ten films on from Dr. No. It was true then, and it is true today, nobody does it better.

O’Connell: That the Bond films continue to this very day. The film represented a possible make-or-break moment for Cubby Broccoli. With his director Lewis Gilbert, writer Christopher Wood, new scoring from Marvin Hamlisch, a new car that finally enabled Moore to have his own DB5 icon in the guise of the Lotus and the production intent as masterminded by Oscar nominated Ken Adam — The Spy Who Loved Me could be seen as the greatest illustration of that Eon Productions commitment to the project, audience, local film production and entertainment. The resulting 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios alone resulted in renewed production opportunities and bookings for British filmmaking at a time when such business was beginning to dip. This was a film that held its own in a year that included Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The 1977 context also helped inadvertently seal James Bond’s role in British culture. It was a Jubilee year, politicians and Prime Ministers visited the set, the BBC ran an epic Open University (public home education access and programming) series dissecting the whole production and of course that Union Jack moment struck a global cord that was echoed in the opening of the 2012 Olympic Games. In an era of the rise of the American blockbuster, Roger Moore and Eon Productions proved a story about a chap from England could hold its own and buoy up the future fortunes of all Bond films that followed.

Pfeiffer: The film, more so than the other Moore movies, is probably the most evergreen in terms of the opinion of fans. Not hurting matters was the durability of the title song, Nobody Does It Better, which has become a romantic standard. It still irks me that when the song was nominated for an Oscar, it lost to the saccharine You Light Up My Life. Like most Bond movies, it has aged well. The sets are still spectacularly impressive, thanks to the late, great Sir Ken Adam, and the action sequences hold up very well indeed. The introduction of Richard Kiel as Jaws was also an inspiration and helped elevate his career so substantially that he returned in Moonraker. The film was a mess in his its pre-production stages with seemingly half of the film industry contributing ideas (John Landis and Stanley Kubrick among them). Thus, the patchy screenplay is somewhat understandable, but it holds up well as a first-rate Bond entry.

Scivally: Having first been introduced to Bond through the films of Sean Connery, my initial reaction to Spy was that it was a “Batman Bond,” which is to say, it approaches the hero with the same lightness and sense of camp as the 1966-68 Batman TV series. Unlike From Russia with Love, which exists in a universe of heightened reality, The Spy Who Loved Me is utter fantasy, like Goldfinger on steroids. But it works. After the rather scaled-down Live and Let Die and the hastily-produced The Man with the Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me returned James Bond to big-budget, wide-screen elegance and opulence. None of Moore’s subsequent Bond films would ever again get the mix quite so right. For the Roger Moore era of 007, The Spy Who Loved Me truly was the biggest, the best, Bond — and beyond. From first frame to last, it is consistently entertaining, living up to the memorable line from its theme song: “Nobody does it better.”

Coate: Thank you — Jon, John, Mark, Lee and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about The Spy Who Loved Me on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “The Living Daylights” on its 30th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, Eon Productions Limited, Danjaq LLC, MGM Home Entertainment, United Artists Corporation.

SPECIAL THANKS

John Hazelton.

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

RoboCop, which also featured Ronny Cox, Kurtwood Smith and Miguel Ferrer, opened in theaters 30 years ago this week. For the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s Dolby SR presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with RoboCop: The Definitive History author Calum Waddell, who discuss the virtues and influence of RoboCop.

ROBOCOP NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among movies in the RoboCop franchise (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Number of Academy Awards (special achievement)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 2 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie (weeks 1-2)
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies of Orion’s 1987 slate
• 2 = Rank among top-earning science-fiction movies of 1987
• 2 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 3 = Number of theatrical sequels & remakes
• 7 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 8 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1987 (summer)
• 9 = Rank among top-earning R-rated films of 1987
• 12 = Number of Dolby SR presentations
• 16 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1987
• 1,580 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $39.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc & S-VHS)
• $49.95 = Suggested retail price of Criterion CLV LaserDisc
• $89.95 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $124.95 = Suggested retail price of Criterion CAV LaserDisc
• $5,068 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $8.0 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross
• $13.0 million = Production cost
• $17.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $24.1 million = Box-office rental
• $28.0 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $51.9 million = Box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $53.4 million = Box-office gross
• $115.1 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $168.4 million = Box-office gross (RoboCop franchise)
• $279.9 million = Box-office gross (RoboCop franchise; adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“This is sort of an urban Rambo by way of Dr. Strangelove.” — Christopher Hicks, (Salt Lake City) Deseret News

“Although the film recalls Blade Runner, Verhoeven doesn’t have Ridley Scott’s painterly eye. But he does have a wicked sense of humor. And the screenplay by Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner, which owes a debt to both The Terminator and Isaac Asimov’s novel I, Robot, is a perfect example of an American movie that Americans don’t make very often.” — James Verniere, The Boston Herald

“Try as they will, the moviemakers just can’t seem to come up with another Terminator, which more and more looks like the milestone movie in the genre of flicks about cyborg types — part human, part machine fellows who really like to kill people any which way they can. Robocop is (to put it optimistically) a halfway no-good example of the form.” — Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle

“RoboCop is a Superman for the ’80’s. The best action film since The Terminator.” — Jack Mathews, Detroit Free Press

“The fine Dutch director Paul Verhoeven presents what could have been another high-tech assault picture with fresh visuals and a refreshing sense of humor, especially about big business.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“RoboCop is an excellent example of how lousy a movie can be if its makers can’t quite figure out what they want to accomplish.” — Eric E. Harrison, (Little Rock) Arkansas Democrat

“If it’s violence you’re after, Robocop gives full value. In his first American movie, Paul Verhoeven, a Dutch director (Soldier of Orange), doesn’t let the furiously futuristic plot get in the way of the flaming explosions, shattering glass and hurtling bodies.” — Walter Goodman, The New York Times

“Big-budget action movies have seemed so bone-headed recently that the cleverness of Paul Verhoeven’s RoboCop may startle you. Despite a level of lurid violence that may offend many, this movie has a motor humming inside. It’s been assembled with ferocious, gleeful expertise, crammed with humor, cynicism and jolts of energy. In many ways, it’s the best action movie of the year.” — Michael Wilmington, Los Angeles Times

“[T]he laughs never play properly within RoboCop’s unrepentently grim context. Verhoeven never lets you forget that making a violent, commercial film is nasty business. RoboCop is very nasty business, indeed.” — Ron Base, Toronto Star

“[I]t’s difficult to watch a Verhoeven movie without feeling that the man was born to direct. He handles action sequences brilliantly, he brings wit to the most unpromising dialogue scenes, and he tends to push actors into territory they haven’t explored before (Peter Weller and Ronny Cox are both cast against type in RoboCop, and they’ve never been better). Most obviously, he has a personal vision that can accommodate itself to commercial genres without compromising. It’s a mystery why it’s taken Hollywood so long to discover him.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Most thriller and special-effects movies come right off the assembly line. You can call out every development in advance, and usually be right. RoboCop is a thriller with a difference.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“[E]ven as it slams you against the wall, it’s tickling your ribs.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Move over, Superman: Make way for RoboCop, the man of steel who’s really a man of steel. It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a… humandroid!” — Carrie Rickey, Philadelphia Inquirer

“[RoboCop] is a finely crafted movie adorned by splendid special effects — the blood looks fresh when the bullets fly, and the workings of RoboCop, created and designed by Rob Bottin with robotic movement by Moni Yakim, are a marvel. But this story of robotic revenge and corporate corruption is a cold tale, which, aside from gripping and shaking the viewer with its scenes of violent action — or are they scenes of active violence? — leaves the viewer strangely detached.” — Diana West, The Washington Times

“RoboCop is a comic book movie that’s definitely not for kids. The welding of extreme violence with four-letter words is tempered with gut-level humor and technical wizardry.” — Variety

“RoboCop is like a nasty comic book you take guilty pleasure in, but can’t put down. It is violent, preposterous and ugly, but it’s impossible to be bored by it.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

THE SPECTRAL RECORDING ENGAGEMENTS

Orion’s RoboCop was the first title announced to be released in Dolby’s 35mm Spectral Recording (SR) format, though it was actually the second title released. (Amblin/Warner Bros.’ Innerspace beat it to market by two weeks. And a year earlier the SR technology was tested on a couple of 70mm-magnetic prints of Paramount’s Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home.)

The SR format was identical to the standard A-type optical Dolby Stereo format in terms of spatial characteristics, number of channels, print type, and the manner in which the matrix encode/decode process worked. It was superior, however, in terms of sonic characteristics and overall fidelity.

Dolby SR was intended to be a lower-cost alternative to the expensive (but spectacular sounding) 70mm six-track magnetic format and, long term, a replacement for the A-type format. But then digital sound was developed. (But that’s another story.)

The known Dolby SR presentations of RoboCop were…

CALIFORNIA

• Los Angeles — Mann’s Chinese Triplex [THX]
• Los Angeles — Mann’s Village [THX]
• San Francisco — UA’s Galaxy 4-plex [THX]
• Universal City — Cineplex Odeon’s Universal City 18-plex [THX]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s Embassy Circle

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City — Cineplex Odeon’s River Oaks 8-plex
• Hillside — M&R’s Hillside Square 6-plex

MICHIGAN

• Dearborn — UA’s The Movies at Fairlane 10-plex

NEW YORK

• New York — Cineplex Odeon’s National Twin
• New York — Loews’ 34th Street Showplace Triplex
• New York — Loews’ Orpheum Twin

OREGON

• Portland — Luxury Theatres’ Lloyd 10-plex [THX]

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE Q&A

Calum Waddell is the author of RoboCop: The Definitive History (Titan, 2014). He runs High Rising Productions and has produced and directed numerous documentaries and Value Added Material for DVD and Blu-ray releases. He was a producer on American Grindhouse (2010) and the director of Slice and Dice: The Slasher Film Forever (2012). His other books include Minds of Fear: A Dialogue with 30 Modern Masters of Horror! (Luminary, 2005), Tattoo Breakers: 18 Films That Courted Controversy and Created a Legend (Telos, 2008), Jack Hill: The Exploitation and Blaxploitation Master, Film by Film (McFarland, 2008), and Cannibal Holocaust (Devil’s Advocates series, Columbia, 2016). He has also written numerous articles that have appeared in Dreamwatch, Fangoria, Impact and Neo.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should RoboCop be remembered on its 30th anniversary?

Calum Waddell: I think it should be remembered as a classic piece of sci-fi cinema and a very astute critique of neo-liberalism during the era of Reagan and Thatcher. It is also a wonderful and amusing look at America’s place in the world during a time when it was clear, I think, that the hard power of the White House had lost its ability to influence world politics — and, prophetically, the Berlin Wall fell less just two and a half years later without any input from the United States — but domestic politics were obviously becoming strained between the very rich and the very poor. Of all the sci-fi films made during the 1980s, RoboCop is undoubtedly the smartest, most satiric and most socio-political of all of the big blockbusters to come from the Hollywood studio system. It remains a masterpiece — it is Frankenstein for a new generation and really powerful, hilarious and quite gut-wrenching stuff.

Coate: When did you first see RoboCop and what did you think of it?

Waddell: I saw it as a kid, far too young to understand what it was even speaking about. The techno-phobic aspect of it sort of registered with me but, really, it was just a movie with lots of violence and cool stuff. It’s a film that caught on with the wrong market — as a child I invested in the comic books too, and then the rubbish 1990 sequel, but that’s the way it goes, isn’t it? It was a film that was actually quite adult but it just took off with the young ’uns!

Coate: Where do you think RoboCop ranks among Paul Verhoeven’s body of work?

Waddell: It’s my favorite of his films by a country mile. Verhoeven is a very singular and intelligent filmmaker, obviously not without some fuck-ups — such as Showgirls — but when he is on form he is really quite excellent. I think RoboCop has been his best attempt at bringing his original art house style, which is quite cold and clinical, to the American mainstream.

Coate: How effective or memorable a hero was Peter Weller’s Murphy/RoboCop and where do you think that performance ranks among Weller’s body of work?

Waddell: He is a hero in the narrative but, of course, he is programmed to be a fascist. The influence of Judge Dredd is there. RoboCop is, and try not to forget this, a literal puppet for the state — he is programmed to brutally arrest and violate the physical rights of suspects. I don’t think he is a hero — he is portrayed as one but it is our job to remind ourselves “this is really fucked up.” In terms of performance, Weller has never been better.

Coate: How memorable a villain was Ronny Cox’s Dick Jones (and/or Kurtwood Smith’s Clarence J. Boddicker)?

Waddell: The entire cast is brilliant and you left out Nancy Allen, who is a really underrated actress. She makes the film work because she offers a ray of light and normalcy.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast the original RoboCop with its sequels, spin-offs and remake?

Waddell: The first sequel begins well and then half way through loses its sense of satire, politics and direction. It’s a moral clusterfuck of a film but with an arch right winger like Frank Miller on screenwriting duties, it was probably never going to end well. The less said about the third film the better — although I do think Fred Dekker is an excellent director, witness Night of the Creeps and The Monster Squad, and he was on to a bum deal from the start. The lower production values and kid friendly ideology really sinks the film. The remake was about as good as anyone could have hoped for but, yes, of course, that still does not mean it was any good — I never felt the desire to watch it again. I thought the original TV series was fun for what it was. Prime Directives is actually fairly interesting — it is not a great effort by any means but it gets a few things right that the sequels and remake did not and it at least honors the original politics of the first film.

Coate: What is the legacy of RoboCop?

Waddell: RoboCop will never die and probably continue to inspire remakes and sequels to remakes and spin-off ideas for a long time to come!

Coate: Thank you, Calum, for sharing your thoughts on RoboCop on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of its release.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy The Criterion Collection, MGM Home Entertainment, Orion Pictures.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, John Hazelton, Bobby Henderson, Doug Keesey, Mary Schaff and Calum Waddell, and to the San Francisco Public Library and Washington State Library.

IN MEMORIAM

• Daniel O’Herlihy (“The Old Man”), 1919-2005
• Basil Poledouris (Music), 1945-2006
• Robert DoQui (“Sergeant Warren Reed”), 1934-2008
• Spencer Prokop (“Gas Station Attendant”), 1957-2009
• Jerry Haynes (“Dr. McNamara”), 1927-2011
• Mario Machado (“Casey Wong”), 1935-2013
• Miguel Ferrer (“Bob Morton”), 1955-2017

- Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

Far and Away was released twenty-five years ago this summer, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics, trivia and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context; a collection of passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the film’s Panavision Super 70 presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with Ron Howard biographer Beverly Gray.

FAR AND AWAY NUMBER$

• 0 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 0 = Number of sequels, remakes and spin-offs
• 0 = Number of weeks nation’s top-grossing movie
• 1 = Number of Golden Raspberry (“Razzie”) nominations
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies during opening weekend
• 6 = Number of months between theatrical release and home-video release
• 21 = Rank among top-earning movies of 1992
• 163 = Number of 70mm prints
• 1,583 = Number of opening-week engagements

• $39.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS and Beta)
• $8,180 = Opening-weekend per-screen average
• $10.2 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (3-day)
• $12.9 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (4-day holiday)
• $22.5 million = Opening-weekend box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $28.9 million = Box-office rental (domestic)
• $50.2 million = Box-office rental (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $58.9 million = Box-office gross (domestic)
• $60.0 million = Production cost
• $78.9 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $102.3 million = Box-office gross (domestic, adjusted for inflation)
• $104.3 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $137.1 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $137.8 million = Box-office gross (worldwide)
• $239.4 million = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Handsomely mounted and amiably performed but leisurely and without much dramatic urgency…. Cruise’s name and Howard’s commercial rep point to a healthy but probably not boffo [box office] life.” — Todd McCarthy, Variety

“Far and Away is a monumental effort but the flimsy story and heavy-handed direction don’t mesh. Don’t be afraid to like it, but try not to feel guilty if you don’t.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“In Far and Away and last year’s turgid Backdraft, Howard has stopped trying to understand the human condition and relied on big stars, special effects and expensive sets to interest us in an arduously predictable and clichéd story. This is hack work.” — Steven Rosen, The Denver Post

“Tom Cruise, as the impoverished Irish farmer Joseph Donnelly, is so good it’s almost possible to forgive him for such dreck as Cocktail and Days of Thunder.” — Michael Mills, The Palm Beach Post

“Too often Howard lays on the picturesque poverty and “this land is mine by destiny” rhetoric with the thundering bombast of John Williams’s score. But even at its hokiest, Far and Away is never less than heartfelt. Three of Howard’s Irish ancestors took part in the Oklahoma land race. In a summer of impersonal product, this at least is a movie with dreams of more than box office.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“This is an empty movie, a beautiful, big empty movie, a fantasy, a fable, as cute as a bedbug, laff track-ready — when it could have made history.” — Catherine Dunphy, Toronto Star

“With pounding excitement and scope, Far and Away is a winner!” — Jeannie Williams, USA Today

“Far and Away is such a doddering, bloated bit of corn, and its characters and situations so obviously hackneyed, that we can’t give in to the story and allow ourselves to be swept away.” — Hal Hinson, The Washington Post

“[T]he 70mm print performs as advertised, giving Far and Away a visual intensity in unusual richness of detail. In fact, when it comes to scenes where dialogue is not a factor, like Joseph’s bare-knuckle brawls and his and Shannon’s arrival at the teeming port of Boston, Far and Away very much keeps its end of the bargain.” — Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

“Far and Away is a corker of an adventure! Always entertaining and exhilarating, it’s a magic celebration of life.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

“[Despite] the boast that the film is the first to be shot with the new Panavision Super 70 equipment, cinematographer Mikael Salomon’s panoramic shots of the western Ireland Sea and western American sunsets are not enough to save it. That’s because the storyline is tedious and ridiculous, the drama sentimental and ludicrous, the humor cornball and clumsy.” — Clifford Terry, Chicago Tribune

“In previous films like Parenthood and Backdraft, Mr. Howard has created commercial hit by following a similar formula: give the audience something as comfortable and unsurprising as its own living room. This time the concept of TV-for-a-very-big-screen comes out silly.” — Caryn James, The New York Times

“Howard has long wanted to make his contribution to the many movies about the immigrant experience, but he has not found anything new to say. He has, however, found a resplendent way of saying it. The finale in Oklahoma is done on a scale the bottom-liners in Hollywood don’t often permit. It provides a fitting end to an epic journey, but it’s a pity the film moves at the pace of a covered wagon before it reaches the climactic rush.” — Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Far and Away has the looks and length of the epic immigrant film director Ron Howard imagined. And star couple Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman do solid acting jobs. But a too-predictable story in a wobbly structure pulls the movie back to the realm of the ordinary, leaving it finally enjoyable but unspectacular.” — L. Kent Wolgamott, Lincoln Journal Star

“It’s depressing that such a lavish and expensive production, starring an important actor like Tom Cruise, could be devoted to such a shallow story…. If the late David Lean had not died before he could shoot it, his own planned 70mm epic, Nostromo, might have been arriving in theaters about now. It would have been a reminder of the literate, thoughtful tradition of such Lean films as Doctor Zhivago and Lawrence of Arabia. Remembering them and looking at this credulous boy’s story, I am depressed. Are audiences thought not capable of seeing great pictures and listening to great dialogue at the same time? Are they so impatient they have to be thrown boxing scenes instead of character scenes? Is there any purpose to this movie other than visual spectacle?” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“John Ford’s The Quiet Man meets How the West Was Won in this rousing, enjoyably cornball epic…. This is the kind of movie in which snow starts to fall at the moment when the hero and heroine are turned out into the streets to join the homeless. It’s also the kind of movie in which the hero makes fateful decisions by listening to his father’s ghost in a dream. It is shameless. It has no depth. It is also the kind of epic moviegoing experience that no one else is offering right now.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Far and Away was likely intended to be a grand and epic romance adventure about the Irish immigration. But Howard and his gang not only missed the boat, they’re light years away from the dock. What they got is Ken and Barbie Come to America, with accessories.” — Judy Gerstel, Detroit Free Press

“Far and Away is a star picture. Cruise and Kidman are impressive apart and wonderful together. They have an equally smooth touch with the movie’s humor, romance and historic credibility.” — Bob Fenster, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“Most of us who grew up with TV care at least a little about Ron Howard, who played Opie on The Andy Griffith Show and later was Richie on Happy Days. And as a film director, Howard has demonstrated a natural gift for unpretentious comedy in Splash, Parenthood and much of Cocoon. But lately — in movies such as Backdraft, Willow and this new one — he seems to be striving toward something deeper. One would like to see people advance, of course, but Howard is reaching his level of incompetence much faster than he seems to realize. A few more films like Far and Away, and the Peter Principle may come to be known as the Opie Effect.” — Jay Boyar, Orlando Sentinel

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies on occasion are given a deluxe release in addition to a standard release. This section of the article includes a reference/historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Far and Away in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to have experienced Far and Away and the only way to have faithfully seen the movie’s large-format cinematography or heard the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix.

Of the 200+ new movies released during 1992, Far and Away was among ten to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements and the only one to have been originated in 70mm (65mm). Only about ten percent of Far and Away’s initial print run was in the deluxe 70mm format, which were significantly more expensive and more time- and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints but offered superior image and audio quality.

With a reported 163 large-format prints for North America (and more for international release), this was Universal’s biggest 70mm release in the company’s history and was among the industry’s ten largest 70mm releases.

The 70mm prints of Far and Away were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio and were derived from 65mm photography, the first English-language production to do so since (portions of) Brainstorm a decade earlier.

The noise-reduction and signal-processing format for the prints was Dolby “A,” and the soundtrack was Dolby processor setting Format 42 (i.e. three discrete screen channels + one discrete surround channel + “baby boom” low-frequency enhancement).

For the release of Far and Away, Universal employed the services of Lucasfilm’s TAP (Theater Alignment Program) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print. As well, the movie was booked into as many HPS-4000 and THX-certified venues as possible.

The trailers the distributor circulated with prints of Far and Away included Housesitter and Death Becomes Her.

The listing includes those 70mm engagements that commenced May 22nd, 1992. Not listed are the sneak previews that ran May 9th and/or 16th, pre-release screenings (i.e. premieres, invitational previews, media screenings, etc.) or any of the move-over, second run and international engagements, nor does the listing include any of the movie’s standard 35mm engagements that played most theaters.

So, which North American theaters screened the Panavision Super 70 version of Far and Away?

ALABAMA

• Birmingham — Cobb’s Galleria 10

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Cineplex Odeon’s North Hill
• Edmonton — Cineplex Odeon’s Eaton Centre 9
• Edmonton — Cineplex Odeon’s West Mall 8

ARIZONA

• Phoenix — Harkins’ Cine Capri
• Tucson — Syufy’s Century Gateway 12 [THX]
• Tucson — Syufy’s Century Park 12 [THX]

ARKANSAS

• Little Rock — UA’s Cinema City 7 [THX]

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Burnaby — Cineplex Odeon’s Station Square 5
• Vancouver — Cineplex Odeon’s Granville 7 [THX]
• Vancouver — Cineplex Odeon’s Oakridge Centre Triplex [THX]

CALIFORNIA

• Anaheim — SoCal’s Cinemapolis 10
• Berkeley — Pacific’s California Triplex
• Burbank — AMC’s Burbank 14
• Corte Madera — Pacific’s Cinema
• Huntington Beach — Edwards’ Charter Centre 5
• La Mesa — Pacific’s Grossmont Mall Triplex
• Lakewood — Pacific’s Lakewood Center 4
• Los Angeles (Century City) — Cineplex Odeon’s Century Plaza 4 [THX]
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — Pacific’s Cinerama Dome
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) — Syufy’s Century 7 [THX]
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — Mann’s Bruin [THX]
• Mission Viejo — Edwards’ Crown Valley 5
• Mountain View — Syufy’s Century 10
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Triplex
• Newark — Syufy’s Cinedome West 7
• Oakland — Renaissance Rialto’s Grand Lake 4
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 11
• Pasadena — Pacific’s Hastings 5
• Pleasant Hill — Syufy’s Century 5
• Redwood City — Syufy’s Century Park 12
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 6 (#1)
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Century 6 (#2)
• Sacramento — Syufy’s Cinedome 8
• San Francisco — AMC’s Kabuki 8 [THX]
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 22 Triplex (#1)
• San Jose — Syufy’s Century 22 Triplex (#2)
• San Rafael — Pacific’s Regency 6
• San Ramon — Festival’s Crow Canyon 6
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Arlington
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Granada (May 16th sneak preview only)
• Universal City — Cineplex Odeon’s Universal City 18 [THX]

COLORADO

• Denver — Mann’s Century 21 [THX]
• Englewood — UA’s Greenwood Plaza 12

CONNECTICUT

• Berlin — National Amusements’ Showcase 12
• East Hartford — National Amusements’ Showcase 12
• Orange — National Amusements’ Showcase 8

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Cineplex Odeon’s Uptown

FLORIDA

• Altamonte Springs — General Cinema’s Altamonte 8
• Fort Lauderdale — AMC’s Coral Ridge 10 [THX]
• Kendall — Wometco’s Kendall 9
• Miami — General Cinema’s Miracle Center 10
• Orlando — AMC’s Fashion Village 8
• Plantation — General Cinema’s Fountains 8 [THX]
• St. Petersburg — AMC’s Crossroads 8
• Tampa — Cineplex Odeon’s Hillsboro 8
• Tampa — Cobb’s Northdale Court 6

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — General Cinema’s Sandy Springs at Parkside 8 [THX]
• Atlanta — Hoyts’ Tara 4
• Duluth — UA’s The Movies at Gwinnett 12
• Kennesaw — Storey’s Town 12
• Tucker — AMC’s Northlake Festival 8

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Consolidated’s Cinerama [HPS-4000]

IDAHO

• Boise — Cineplex Odeon’s 8th St. Market Place Twin

ILLINOIS

• Calumet City — Cineplex Odeon’s River Oaks 12
• Chicago — Cineplex Odeon’s 900 N. Michigan Twin (#1)
• Chicago — Cineplex Odeon’s 900 N. Michigan Twin (#2)
• Fairview Heights — Wehrenberg’s St. Clair 10
• Niles — Cineplex Odeon’s Golf Mill Triplex
• Norridge — Loews’ Norridge 10
• Northbrook — Cineplex Odeon’s Edens Twin
• Oak Brook — Cineplex Odeon’s Oakbrook 7
• Schaumburg — Cineplex Odeon’s One Schaumburg Place 9 (May 9th sneak preview only)
• Schaumburg — Cineplex Odeon’s Woodfield 9

IOWA

• Des Moines — Carmike’s River Hills

KANSAS

• Overland Park — AMC’s Oak Park Mall 6
• Wichita — Dickinson’s Northrock 6

KENTUCKY

• Louisville — National Amusements’ Showcase 13

LOUISIANA

• Metairie — General Cinema’s Lakeside 5

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Cineplex Odeon’s Garrick 4

MARYLAND

• Baltimore — Durkee’s Senator

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Loews’ Charles Triplex
• Brookline — National Amusements’ Showcase Circle 7
• West Springfield — National Amusements’ Showcase 14
• Worcester — National Amusements’ Showcase 4

MICHIGAN

• Bloomfield Hills — National Amusements’ Showcase 12
• Cascade — National Amusements’ Showcase 9
• Sterling Heights — National Amusements’ Showcase 15
• Ypsilanti — National Amusements’ Showcase 14

MINNESOTA

• Edina — Cineplex Odeon’s Edina 4 [THX]
• Roseville — General Cinema’s Har-Mar 11 [THX]

MISSOURI

• Chesterfield — Wehrenberg’s Clarkson 6 [THX]
• Kansas City — AMC’s Metro North Plaza 6
• Kansas City — AMC’s Ward Parkway 12
• Richmond Heights — AMC’s Esquire 7
• Shrewsbury — Wehrenberg’s Kenrick 8 [THX]
• Springfield — Dickinson’s Dickinson 8

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Cinedome 6
• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Parkway Triplex

NEW JERSEY

• Paramus — Cineplex Odeon’s Route Four 10
• Ridgefield Park — Loews’ Ridgefield Park 10
• Secaucus — Loews’ Meadow Plaza 8
• Wayne — Loews’ Wayne 8

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — General Cinema’s Park Square Triplex

NEW YORK

• Cheektowaga — General Cinema’s Thruway Mall 8 [THX]
• Commack — National Amusements’ Commack 15
• Guilderland — Hoyts’ Crossgates Mall 12
• Hawthorne — National Amusements’ All Westchester Saw Mill 10 [THX]
• Middletown — UA’s The Movies at Middletown 7
• New York (Manhattan) — Cineplex Odeon’s Chelsea 9 [THX]
• New York (Manhattan) — Cineplex Odeon’s Coronet
• New York (Manhattan) — Cineplex Odeon’s Ziegfeld
• New York (Queens) — Cineplex Odeon’s Fresh Meadows 7
• Pittsford — Loews’ Pittsford Triplex
• Rockville Centre — Cineplex Odeon’s Fantasy 5
• Syracuse — Hoyts’ Carousel Center 12

OHIO

• Cincinnati — Loews’ Kenwood Twin
• Cleveland Heights — NTC’s Severance 8 [THX]
• Columbus — Loews’ Continent 9
• North Olmsted — NTC’s Great Northern 7 [THX]
• Toledo — National Amusements’ Showcase 5

OKLAHOMA

• Oklahoma City — General Cinema’s Penn Square Mall 8 [THX]
• Oklahoma City — General Cinema’s Quail Springs Mall 6

ONTARIO

• Hamilton — Cineplex Odeon’s Centre Mall 8
• London — Cineplex Odeon’s Galleria 6
• North York — Cineplex Odeon’s Fairview 6 [THX]
• Ottawa — Cineplex Odeon’s Somerset
• Toronto — Cineplex Odeon’s York Twin

OREGON

• Portland — Act III’s Eastgate Triplex
• Portland — Act III’s Lloyd 10 [THX]
• Tigard — Act III’s Tigard 11 [THX]

PENNSYLVANIA

• Philadelphia — UA’s Riverview Plaza 11
• Pittsburgh — National Amusements’ Showcase East 10
• Pittsburgh — National Amusements’ Showcase West 12

QUEBEC

• Montreal — Cineplex Odeon’s Place Alexis-Nihon Triplex
• Pointe-Claire — Cineplex Odeon’s Pointe-Claire 6 [THX]

RHODE ISLAND

• Warwick — National Amusements’ Showcase 12

TENNESSEE

• Memphis — Malco’s Winchester Court 8 [THX]

TEXAS

• Austin — General Cinema’s Highland 10 [THX]
• Austin — Presidio’s Arbor 7 [THX]
• Dallas — General Cinema’s Northpark West Twin [THX]
• Fort Worth — AMC’s Hulen 10
• Houston — Cineplex Odeon’s River Oaks Plaza 12
• Mesquite — General Cinema’s Town East 5 [THX]
• Plano — Loews’ Chisholm 5
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Embassy 14 [THX]
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Galaxy 14 [THX]
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Northwest 14 [THX]

UTAH

• Riverdale — Cineplex Odeon’s Cinedome Twin
• Salt Lake City — Cineplex Odeon’s Trolley Corners Triplex
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 9

VIRGINIA

• Arlington — Loews’ Pentagon City 6
• Merrifield — National Amusements’ Arlington Blvd/Lee Highway 14 [THX]
• Norfolk — R/C’s Main Gate 10
• Reston — National Amusements’ Reston Town Center 11
• Richmond — NTI’s Ridge 7

WASHINGTON

• Bellevue — Cineplex Odeon’s John Danz
• Lynnwood — Cineplex Odeon’s Grand Cinemas Alderwood 8
• Renton — General Cinema’s Renton Village 8 [THX]
• Seattle — Cineplex Odeon’s Cinerama
• Vancouver — Act III’s Vancouver Plaza 10 [THX]

WISCONSIN

• Madison — Marcus’ Eastgate 10
• Milwaukee — Marcus’ Northtown 8
• West Allis — Marcus’ Southtown 6

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Beverly Gray is the author of Ron Howard: From Mayberry to the Moon…and Beyond (Thomas Nelson, 2003).

After years of working for filmmaker Roger Corman, she wrote Roger Corman: An Unauthorized Biography of the Godfather of Indie Filmmaking (Renaissance, 2000), which was re-published in 2013 under the alternate title Roger Corman: Blood-Sucking Vampires, Flesh-Eating Cockroaches, and Driller Killers — An Updated Authorized Life.

Her writings have appeared in numerous periodicals and newspapers including The Hollywood Reporter, Los Angeles Times and MovieMaker.

Her next book is Seduced by Mrs. Robinson: How The Graduate Became the Touchstone of a Generation and is due to be published this autumn by Algonquin Books.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way should Far and Away be remembered on its 25th anniversary?

Beverly Gray: Far and Away should be remembered as a brave attempt to revive the idea of a romantic epic, combining historical accuracy with an intimate personal story.

Coate: What did you think of Far and Away when you (first) saw it?

Gray: I have never seen Far and Away on the big screen. I watched it while researching Ron Howard’s career, and was deeply disappointed by its far-fetched personal story. I did, however, appreciate the film’s two big action set-pieces, the boxing match and the climactic Oklahoma land run.

Coate: Where do you think Far and Away ranks among epics?

Gray: The land run sequence is a magnificent piece of epic filmmaking. I think the film is much less successful in its personal story. James Cameron’s Titanic, which tries for a similar blend of historical epic and intimate romance, works this vein more successfully, though Titanic is far from my favorite film.

Coate: In what way was it beneficial for Howard & Co. to have made Far and Away in 70mm?

Gray: The huge scale allowed by 70mm cinematography certainly benefitted the land-rush footage, reflecting the wide open spaces of the American west.

Coate: In what way was Ron Howard ideally suited to direct this film?

Gray: Ron Howard has always had great personal fondness for Far and Away because it reflects both his Irish roots and his family history: his two great-grandfathers both rode in the 1893 Oklahoma Land Race. Though when he shot Far and Away he had no experience directing a movie on such a grand scale, his ingrained sense of organization and discipline were essential to the success of the filming process.

Coate: Where do you think Far and Away ranks among director Ron Howard’s body of work?

Gray: Frankly I don’t rank Far and Away very high on Ron Howard’s long list of achievements. He has proved himself to be a gifted director of light comedy (Splash, Ed-TV) and intimate personal stories (Cocoon, A Beautiful Mind, Frost/Nixon), but the interpersonal elements of Far and Away have always struck me as highly unconvincing. Howard would go on to blend historical and intimately human subject matter far more successfully in the great Apollo 13.

Coate: Where do you think Far and Away ranks among stars Tom Cruise’s and Nicole Kidman’s careers?

Gray: Tom Cruise has always had wonderful physicality and personal charm, but in Far and Away he’s simply unconvincing as a poor Irish lad. Nicole Kidman, a skilled actress, fares better. But the movie can’t shake the sense that here are two Hollywood hot-shots playing at being Irish immigrants who must battle class distinctions to advance their storybook romance.

Coate: The failure of Far and Away has been blamed for so few 70mm films since its release. Do you believe there’s any validity to this charge?

Gray: I don’t think Far and Away failed at the box office because it was in 70mm: the sweep of the land-run scenes validates that choice. However, it did make the film much more expensive, which raised expectations sky-high. And the weak personal story could in no way sustain filmgoers’ interest.

Coate: What is the legacy of Far and Away?

Gray: I suspect it taught Ron Howard that even in a star-driven vehicle, the story must be strong, and that action and character elements must be well integrated in order to achieve a successful outcome.

Coate: Thank you, Beverly, for sharing your thoughts on Far and Away on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of its release.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Imagine Films Entertainment, Universal Pictures, Universal Studios Home Video.

SOURCES/REFERENCES

The primary references for this project were regional newspaper coverage and trade reports published in Billboard, Boxoffice, The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. All figures and data included in this article pertain to the United States and Canada except where stated otherwise.

SPECIAL THANKS

Laura Baas, Jim Barg, Seth Bartoo, Don Beelik, Deb Bier, Shelia Bumgarner, Jason Burks, Raymond Caple, Scott Clark, Andrew Crews, Saundra Cropps, Kathryn Devine, Kimberly Diebolt, Heather R. Edwards, Christine Filippelli, Debbie Gallagher, Anna Gooding-Call, Beverly Gray, Nicholas Grieco, Katie Grzech, Sheldon Hall, Wendy Hall, Thomas Hauerslev, Bobby Henderson, Matthew Vasquez Jaquith, Matt Kendall, Sarah Kenyon, David Kilmon, Anna Kimball, J. Klamm, Bill Kretzel, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Sarah Lubelski, Stan Malone, Linda McFarland, Gabriel August Neeb, Hannah Q. Parris, Charlotte Pendleton, Sophia Petrakis, Joe Redifer, Stephen Rice, Nina Sappington, Bob Sawatzki, Melissa Scroggins, Desirée Sharland, James F. Shearhouse, John Siegel, Tim Spindle, Cliff Stephenson, John Stewart, J. Michael Stubbs, J. Thomas, Robert Tucker, Enrique Valdivia, Troy Valos, Brian Walters, and to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• J.G. Devlin (“Villager #1”), 1907-1991
• Cyril Cusack (“Danty Duff”), 1910-1993
• Hoke Howell (“Crew Boss”), 1929-1997
• William Preston (“Blacksmith”), 1921-1998
• Harry Webster (“Derelict”), 1915-1999
• Jimmy Keogh (“Priest”), 19??-2003
• Joan O’Hara (“Lady #3”), 1930-2007
• Mark Mulholland (“Peasant #1”), 1937-2007
• Robert Prosky (“Daniel Christie”), 1930-2008
• Frank Coughlan (“Doctor”), 19??-2010
• Eileen Colgan (“Lady #1”), 1934-2014

-Michael Coate

Michael Coate can be reached via e-mail through this link. (You can also follow Michael on social media at these links: Twitter and Facebook)

The participants (in alphabetical order)…

Thomas A. Christie is the author of The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013). His other books include The Spectrum of Adventure: A Brief History of Interactive Fiction on the Sinclair ZX Spectrum (Extremis, 2016), Mel Brooks: Genius and Loving It! (Crescent Moon, 2015), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Pocket Movie Guide (Crescent Moon, 2010), John Hughes and Eighties Cinema: Teenage Hopes and American Dreams (Crescent Moon, 2009), and The Cinema of Richard Linklater (Crescent Moon, 2008). He is a member of The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors and The Federation of Writers Scotland.

John Cork is the author (with Maryam d’Abo) of Bond Girls Are Forever: The Women of James Bond (Abrams, 2003) and (with Collin Stutz) James Bond Encyclopedia (DK, 2007) and (with Bruce Scivally) James Bond: The Legacy (Abrams, 2002). 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 numerous James Bond and Pink Panther titles. Cork also wrote the screenplay to The Long Walk Home (1990), starring Whoopi Goldberg and Sissy Spacek. He 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). He has recently contributed articles on the literary history of James Bond for ianfleming.com and The Book Collector.

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

Lee Pfeiffer is the author (with Dave Worrall) of The Essential Bond: The Authorized Guide to the World of 007 (Boxtree, 1998/Harper Collins, 1999) and (with Philip Lisa) of The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992). He also wrote The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001) and (with Michael Lewis) The Films of Harrison Ford (Citadel, 2002). 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). His other books include 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), Booze, Bullets & Broads: The Story of Matt Helm, Superspy of the Mad Men Era (Henry Gray, 2013) and Dracula FAQ: All That’s Left to Know About the Count from Transylvania (Backbeat, 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 is Vice President of New Dimension Media in Chicago, Illinois.

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

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

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

Thomas A. Christie: When The Living Daylights first appeared in 1987 it marked the 25th anniversary of the James Bond movie series, and it was to symbolize an effort by Eon Productions to highlight the series’ continued relevance to global audiences. The world was presented with a new Bond, and a new take on the character which was to set a very different tone for the years ahead. Looking back at the film thirty years later, The Living Daylights was an admirable attempt to inject the series with renewed purpose and to ensure that it remained germane to moviegoers of the time. There is a perceptible sense that the creative team was determined to update Bond for the demands of an increasingly uncertain world, taking into account political shifts as well as socio-cultural changes, and the extravagant flamboyance of the previous decade’s entries in the series suddenly felt impossibly far-removed from the comparatively stark, back-to-basics approach that was being offered to audiences of the late eighties. The movie was not only to prove very entertaining, but also laid considerable groundwork for the franchise’s subsequent evolution throughout the coming decades.

John Cork: The Living Daylights was the beginning of the modern era of Bond films. It is the movie where the filmmakers and fans began to take 007 seriously again, where the spirit of Ian Fleming again became vital to the cinematic 007. It is a film that has an excellent mix of all the ingredients that make James Bond so popular. It features a great cast and some spectacular action and effects. It is also John Barry’s last Bond score, and it is a score that I absolutely love — elegant, romantic, sexy, and filled with spy-movie vibe. The movie is pure 1980s, but in the best way.

Charles Helfenstein: There is so much to celebrate — the locations are the right blend of British and exotic, the music is classic John Barry amplified by 80s synth-pop, the story rewards you for paying attention, there are beautiful damsels in distress, there are heart-stopping jump scares, thrilling stunts, and in the center of it all is Timothy Dalton: an intense, wolf-eyed, lithe, chain-smoking, ridiculously handsome James Bond who looks like he just stepped off the page of an Ian Fleming novel. Daylights (and Dalton) swung the pendulum back to seriousness and back to Bond’s literary source. The film brought also mystery back to the series, both with a complex plot and with an actor who was not a household name.

Lee Pfeiffer: The Living Daylights is often overlooked by fans in terms of its importance in revitalizing the Bond film franchise. While Roger Moore was extremely popular and successful, even he admitted that A View to a Kill was a pretty anemic finish to his tenure as Bond. That movie had reverted to many of the overtly slapstick elements that most hardcore Bond fans abhorred. The script was uninspiring and the film underperformed compared to expectations. There was real concern that Bond’s audience was starting to become indifferent. The casting of Timothy Dalton revitalized the series when it needed it most. The Living Daylights is not a classic Bond movie. The script was written generically so it wasn’t fine-tuned for Dalton’s persona. It also has two weak villains and a plot that meanders somewhat. However, Dalton brought back a sense of seriousness to the role of Bond that was welcomed by the fans. The ads played this up with up with tag lines like “Dalton…Dangerous.” He looked like he meant business and managed to infuse the character with some Fleming-esque characteristics that had largely disappeared over the years.

Bruce Scivally: The Living Daylights is worthy of celebration if for no other reason than being the first 007 film to star Timothy Dalton, whose brooding performance was a sharp departure from the lighter touch of his predecessor, Roger Moore. With a new star, the filmmakers took a newer approach, making a James Bond film that felt tougher and more Fleming-esque; for fans of the Connery Bonds, it was like a throwback to the days of From Russia With Love, when James Bond films were humorous without trying to be over-the-top funny, as, say, Octopussy had been. A trained theatrical actor, Dalton researched the role by reading Ian Fleming’s original novels and trying to embody Fleming’s 007 as best he could. The result was a 007 film closer than ever to the Bond of the novels — a chain-smoking, hard drinking assassin on the verge of burnout who did not suffer fools gladly.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing The Living Daylights for the first time?

Christie: The Living Daylights felt like a breath of fresh air after a period of stylistic uncertainty in the Bond franchise. Following the larger-than-life world domination scenarios of the late seventies Bond movies, the production team — and director John Glen, in particular — seemed determined to pull the series back towards the Cold War thriller scenarios of its glory days. With films such as For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy, there was a noticeable effort to tone down elements of the fantastic that had permeated big-budget efforts such as The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker, reintroducing some much-needed realism (or as close as a Bond movie ever really gets to realism) into the mix. But the late Sir Roger Moore had never seemed entirely comfortable with this attempt to return Bond to his literary roots as a battle-hardened and sometimes cynical figure who has been profoundly, and adversely, affected by his experiences in the intelligence community. Suddenly, with the arrival of Timothy Dalton, the mission to divert the course of the Bond series along a darker, slightly grittier trajectory seemed to have been kicked into top gear. Moore’s increasingly avuncular, seemingly-indestructible Bond was now gone, and in his place was a leaner, younger, more dangerous figure who reintroduced a much-needed element of unpredictability to the franchise. Everyone seemed to be upping their game, from Glen in the director’s chair to veteran screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson, and the comparison to the movie’s immediate predecessor — the lackluster, oft-maligned A View to a Kill — could not have been more striking.

Cork: One may not understand the pent-up anticipation for Daylights. A View to a Kill and Never Say Never Again had tested the resolve of many adult Bond fans. I forget the machinations, but Bruce Scivally and I went to see The Living Daylights at a press screening in Los Angeles. My initial reaction was disappointment. I wanted the film to sweep me away, deliver everything I had been missing from the later Moore films. I recalled to Bruce the old joke about the very religious but racist sexist man who has a heart attack and flat lines. He’s resuscitated by paramedics and has this shocked look on his face. His family asks what happened. “I went to heaven. I, I, I saw God, and she’s black!” I felt like him. I had gotten everything I wanted, a more serious Bond film with lots of Fleming elements, but somehow I didn’t connect to it on that first viewing. That said, I saw it probably ten times in the movie theater and listened to the score for hour after hour that summer.

Helfenstein: Daylights benefited from two publicity hooks: the debut of a new actor and the 25th anniversary of James Bond in the cinema. So there was a great deal of interest, a great deal of coverage. I remember repeatedly watching the trailer and the brief preview included in Happy Anniversary 007. The Gibraltar stunts had my jaw on the floor. My brother and I went to the first day, first showing. We loved the film but were a bit confused by the complex plot, and went back for a second showing and everything made more sense. Seeing it in the theater was a treat. It’s the film that turned me from a casual Bond fan into a super fan. That summer I also saw the film in Maine, Scotland, and Greece — it was a Daylights world tour of sorts.

Pfeiffer: I saw the film at advance critics’ screening in New York City. I was extremely happy with the end result and relieved that a more serious approach to the Bond character had been taken. The overall reaction was very positive. I think everyone realized that the series was in danger of running out of steam and becoming too predictable. Daylights put Bond back into more realistic situations that reflected the changing tastes of modern action movie audiences. It must be said, however, that the movie went against Cubby Broccoli’s philosophy of embroiling Bond in contemporary political situations. When you look at the movie today, it’s a bit cringe-inducing to realize that the Afghan “freedom fighters” who Bond sides with against the Soviets would eventually morph into the Taliban and other terrorist groups that adamantly opposed the West.

Scivally: I first saw The Living Daylights, if memory serves, at a pre-release BAFTA screening in Los Angeles. The pre-credits sequence, I felt, was adequate, but not up to the standard set by the amazing stunts in the pre-credits of The Spy Who Loved Me or Moonraker (back when stuntmen actually risked their lives to create those amazing scenes). The Bratislava sequence, I thought, had a more authentically Fleming feel than perhaps any other 007 film... and by the time the film was over, I wasn’t sure that was a good thing. Books and movies are different animals, and changes are often made to book characters to make them more palatable for a film audience. Like the Bond of the books, Dalton’s 007 is relatively humorless, and the film is, in some ways, a less entertaining Bond film because of it. While, at the time, I did appreciate that Dalton was pushing Bond in a more serious direction, with the passage of time — and repeated viewings — I see that more as a liability than a plus.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Timothy Dalton’s inaugural performance as Agent 007 with that of the other actors who have portrayed the character?

Christie: Dalton was famously an admirer of Ian Fleming’s fiction, and he is known to have studied the original Bond novels and short fiction closely when preparing to take on the part. Thus Dalton’s Bond was much more of a reluctant hero in comparison to Roger Moore’s incarnation, and there was an undeniable influence of the Fleming Bond in the way that the veteran agent was not always comfortable with carrying out his orders. Though he hits the ground running, thanks in no small part to a pre-credits sequence that hurls him straight into the thick of the action, it is interesting to see how Dalton’s take on the character quickly establishes itself as no-nonsense, slightly jaded, and considerably more contemplative than many of his predecessors. Whereas Sean Connery’s Bond appeared as more or less a fully-formed character from the earliest scenes of Dr. No, and George Lazenby faced the challenge of establishing himself as a successor while putting his own stamp on 007 in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Moore had a much more stately introduction to the Bond role in Live and Let Die, easing himself into the character rather more gradually. But Dalton appeared determined to waste no time in establishing his troubled, world-weary take on Bond and — though he often seemed less than comfortable with the film’s sparing moments of light-heartedness and occasional punning witticisms — he performs with great confidence and lends this brooding, discontented figure a laudable depth of character throughout.

Cork: Dalton is a great actor. I’ve met him very briefly on a couple of occasions and he fills up the room with his charm. He was in a very tough position following Moore, who made the role his own. Like Moore, he had the same director as the previous Bond’s last film. (Guy Hamilton directed Connery in Diamonds Are Forever, then Moore’s first Bond, just as John Glen directed Moore’s last Bond film then Dalton.) I’m not sure this was the best circumstance for either actor because in both cases I think the director was quite naturally making a comparison. Also, Dalton had absolutely no prep time, no ability to rehearse and live in the part. Considering this, he gives an amazing performance. It just doesn’t quite feel like Bond to me. He laughs too easily and is too quick to play the line rather than play against the line. Connery, for example, would take an angry line and give it a very light touch. Note how Connery never breaks a sweat in the dinner with Dr. No, never talks through gritted teeth. Dalton to me runs a little too hot and cold, but rarely finds that perfectly cool center. And the thing is, meet him in person, he’s got that in spades. One of the finest scenes in any Bond film is when Dalton’s Bond goes to murder General Puskin. That’s where you can see Dalton’s amazing skill. He’s working with another actor (the brilliant John Rhys-Davies) and the tone is just perfect. There isn’t a flaw in that scene. But then Bond’s soon lumbering through the rooftop chase which was originally scripted as a comic action set-piece, and there was no way Dalton could hold that perfect tone in a script that didn’t embrace it.

Helfenstein: Dalton had the shortest preparation time of any of the Bond actors between when he was signed and when he started filming. But he was a fan of the novels and wanted to return the character to Fleming’s literary roots. Looks wise, Dalton was perfect. Rolling Stone magazine said he looked like he was genetically engineered for the role. He conveyed anger perfectly, did a great job with the love scenes and stunts, and his voice was like steel wrapped in silk. His theatrical-influenced delivery could have been toned down a bit in some scenes (“To drop a BOMB!”). Unfortunately his humor fell a bit flat, though I doubt even Roger Moore could have made a line like “Salt corrosion” uproariously hilarious. Dalton had been on Eon’s radar for a long time and his fantastic debut proved that those instincts were right.

Pfeiffer: I was always very admiring of Roger Moore’s interpretation of Bond, which was incomparable. But even he knew the producers had to bring some new energy and variations to the character. Dalton was the antithesis of Moore’s characterization of 007. He wasn’t comfortable tossing out bon mots and in some cases the insistence that he do so looked rather strained. Instead, he played the part as a deadly, sober and serious character and the result brought plenty of new energy to the franchise. Dalton reverted the character back to the earliest days of the films in which Sean Connery played the part essentially in a serious manner, with a few quips tossed out periodically. That’s the style in which George Lazenby portrayed Bond in his one and only outing as 007. Roger Moore realized he could not emulate Connery and successfully brought his own unique interpretation to the role. Since Moore was a very funny man in real life, he brought those attributes to his performances as Bond and it worked well. However, just as Moore couldn’t imitate Connery, Dalton wisely sought not to imitate Moore. He created the role anew by bringing in his own, more serious interpretation of the role.

Scivally: The great tragedy to me is that Dalton did not get a third chance to play 007. If one looks at Connery’s films, he seems a bit insecure, rushing his dialogue in Dr. No, and is getting the hang of the role with From Russia With Love, but it’s not really until Goldfinger — his third film — that he truly owns the role, bringing a swaggering confidence to every minute of his screen time. Similarly, after a couple of films where Roger Moore was rather awkwardly trying to fit his 007 into a Sean Connery mold, he was finally allowed to be more of himself with his third outing, The Spy Who Loved Me, creating a lighter Bond persona that kept the series alive into the 1980s. Especially given that the series was more or less re-booted with GoldenEye — a film that had a much larger budget than Licence to Kill, and benefited from a new director and fresh writers — it would have been interesting to see how a third Timothy Dalton film would have turned out. I like to think that under the guidance of a director like Martin Campbell, his rough edges would have been smoothed and he would have delivered one of the best Bond performances.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Joe Don Baker’s Brad Whitaker (or Jeroen Krabbe’s General Koskov) an effective or memorable villain?

Christie: There was a degree of novelty in the way that The Living Daylights established dual antagonists in the form of unstable arms dealer Whitaker and the scheming, underhand Russian defector Koskov. It is rather interesting to contrast Koskov with Steven Berkoff’s General Orlov in Octopussy. Whereas Orlov had been the very acme of hardline Soviet zealotry, obsessed with gaining an upper hand in the Cold War at any cost, Koskov proved to be a refreshing change — his motivation was monetary greed, pure and simple. By the late 1980s, the temperature of the Cold War had changed a great deal as a result of Mikhail Gorbachev’s policies of Glasnost and Perestroika, and Koskov was a product of this newly-emerging world; content to play both superpowers against each other for his own personal gain, he was charismatic and callous in equal measure. While seeming the epitome of charm on the surface, his elaborate plotting puts his girlfriend at direct risk of lethal harm and almost leads to the execution of his KGB superior, John Rhys-Davies’s Leonid Pushkin. Thus in his calculating treachery, Koskov was far removed from the grandiose, ranting supervillains of years past, and his urbane duplicity was surprisingly well balanced by the pugnacious Whitaker. Obsessed with military history and glorifying warfare while singularly lacking any real experience of armed combat, Whitaker could have seemed like a buffoonish fantasist in lesser hands. But Joe Don Baker brings a low-key bloodlust to this deluded sociopath, laying bare his twisted view of the world and the wanton savagery which bubbles under his veneer of forced geniality.