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.

Cork: I never felt a threat from Whitaker or Koskov. Their plot was a twist on the Iran-Contra affair (illegal arms sales profits used to finance a secret operation), but it is more complex than Rube Goldberg’s self-buttering toaster. But here’s the thing, I love both actors. Baker is always fun to watch. I keep trying to get my son to re-watch Walking Tall with me.

Joe Don Baker story: When he was leaving Morocco, a female crew member (who shall remain unnamed) took him to the airport. This was back when you could walk someone to the gate. This is a liberal Islamic country, but it is an Islamic country. Joe Don Baker turned to her just before he got on the plane and said, I got you a present, and he hands her a brown paper bag. She thanks him and walks away. Then she looks in the bag. It’s filled with porn magazines and maybe a couple of other things that are not quite legal in Morocco! She quickly threw away the bag. But when you see how bigger than life Joe Don Baker can be on screen, well, he’s lived a life that is pretty big, too.

Jeroen Krabbe is a very different character entirely. He does a great job playing someone who does not seem villainous at all, then has a great turn at the end where that darkness comes out. He’s, of course, a very talented visual artist and a lovely man. I really enjoy his performance. I do wish that both characters had been given the chance to have a villainous moment that gave them the chance to really turn on what makes them so watchable. That was something missing in the script for me.

Helfenstein: In some ways Whitaker and Koskov are the Laurel and Hardy of Bond villains. Neither are terribly menacing. While he’s a scoundrel, Jeroen Krabbe’s Koskov is almost too likeable and charming to be a Bond villain. Joe Don Baker’s Whitaker was a bit too much like a cartoon. Playing with toy soldiers and ripping the claws off of lobsters isn’t threatening enough to make any impact. But Baker was a favorite of Barbara Broccoli’s, and so he was brought back as Wade for the Brosnan era.

Pfeiffer: One of the negative aspects of Daylights is that it lacks a good, strong central villain. Brad Whitaker is an uninspired, smaller-than-life character with none of the grandiose schemes we associate with the more memorable Bond baddies. He’s more like a villain from a “B” spy movie from the 1960s and Joe Don Baker is miscast in the role. Similarly, the character of General Koskov is also a bit of a dud. Not helping matters is that Jerome Krabbe sometimes goes “over-the-top” in his performance. The weak villains reflect perhaps the most unsatisfying aspect of the movie.

Scivally: Who’s the villain of this movie again? Is it Georgi Koskov, or Brad Whitaker? Whittaker doesn’t even show up until a third of the way in, but it’s he who has the final show-down with 007; by that point, Koskov has become a comic character sent away by Pushkin with a quip and a nod and a couple of manhandling bodyguards. Then there’s Necros, the Ivan Drago-like henchman portrayed by Andreas Wisniewski. Wisniewski was formerly a ballet dancer, and it shows; he moves with panther-like grace, and proves to be a lethal killer. It’s a pity that the best hand-to-hand fight scene in the film involves him with an agent other than 007, at the Blayden Safe House; when he and Bond finally square off at the climax, what we get is a terrific stunt scene, but one that lacks the punch, so to speak, of the Blayden fight.

Coate: In what way was Maryam d’Abo’s Kara Milovy an effective or memorable Bond Girl?

Christie: What made Maryam d’Abo stand out as Kara Milovy is her relatability. She is a sympathetic and likeable character who has been unwittingly drawn into a clandestine world of spies and double-dealing simply because she happened to fall in love with the wrong individual. Kara is a fish out of water in many respects, and just as it is a pleasure to witness her wide-eyed enthusiasm as she emerges into the West after having spent her life behind the Iron Curtain in the oppressively authoritarian Eastern Bloc, similarly we feel for her as she slowly begins to realize the full extent of her former lover Koskov’s betrayal. As a classical musician by profession, she lacks the highly-specialized skillset required to endure for long in the shadowy world of espionage, and yet time and again she proves herself to be highly intelligent, resourceful, and above all independent. For all these reasons, it is easy to warm to Kara, and d’Abo brings a guileless appeal to the character while also emphasizing her autonomy, practicality and individuality — qualities which not only aid in her survival, but also make her ideally matched to Dalton’s more thoughtful, meditative take on Bond.

Cork: Having written a book with Maryam, I’m completely biased. I thought she gave a fantastic performance in the film when I first saw it. I don’t mind the idea of ”the woman is Bond’s equal” but I strongly prefer that the woman be a complement to 007 with her own competing interests and goals, not a mirror. Kara is that. She’s talented, smart, and where Bond has to be emotionally unattached, her weakness is her desire to be in love. I really found myself rooting for her in the film, which is rare in a Bond film. But I cared what happened to her, and I give all the credit for that to Maryam for infusing Kara with humanity.

Helfenstein: Producer Michael G Wilson said they needed “an innocent pawn with a classical face” and Maryam d’Abo fit the bill perfectly. A poor Czech girl living in a crappy apartment is a far cry from the glamorous world of James Bond, and so when she gets whisked into to Bond’s orbit, her wide-eyed innocence helps reinforce the contrast and reminds us of how cool Bond is. Critics made light of the fact that the film features a woman who is more interested in getting a Stradivarius between her legs than she is with Bond, but it was fun to see a Bond girl with a world-class musical skill. Her romance with Bond is quite believable. She doesn’t just throw herself at him — Dalton’s Bond has to work for it, getting her to trust him, extracting information, and finally sealing the deal. Then she betrays him, and then switches sides again. Daylights certainly has a lot of double-crossing!

Pfeiffer: Maryam d’Abo gave a fine performance as Kara Milovy. She was more in line with the contemporary view of women, thus we don’t have a voluptuous actress cast in the role. Kara’s main appeal is her intelligence and her courage. It should be noted that the script also caters to a more contemporary attitude towards sex in the era of the AIDS horror. Bond has an adult, meaningful relationship with one woman, Kara (if you excuse his dalliance with the rich woman in the film’s amusing pre-credits sequence).

Scivally: Maryam d’Abo is a lovely actress, more waifish, perhaps, than the usual “Bond Woman,” and in the beginning of the film seems poised to be — like Barbara Bach’s Anya Amasova in The Spy Who Loved Me — an equal to Bond. But of course she’s not a real assassin, but rather a dupe in an elaborate scheme that takes a Venn diagram to figure out (like Octopussy, one of the failings of The Living Daylights is that it is confusingly over-plotted), and in the fight scene in the Afghan jail, all she does is stand there with her hands at her sides, totally useless... as she proves to be for the remainder of the film. In the end, she is the farthest thing possible from an equal to Bond; she’s naive, clueless, and mostly just a pretty decoration. But she does play a pretty mean cello.

Coate: Where do you think The Living Daylights ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Christie: There is no doubt that The Living Daylights is a divisive movie amongst fans. For everyone who admires its attempts to drag Bond into the political realities of the eighties with its complex plot dynamics and moodier tone, there are others who lament its comparative lack of humor and Dalton’s straight-faced determination to play the character as a more somber, introspective intelligence operative who is not immune from self-doubt. Considered in isolation, the film was well-received by many critics at the time on account of its tense, intricate storyline and the obvious effort that had been taken to keep the series relevant in the fast-changing geopolitical climate of the late 1980s. The movie represented a particular point in the franchise where the creative team were determined to energetically steer both the style and content of the Bond films in a striking new direction, and Dalton’s more agile, saturnine approach to the protagonist — which would be more fully developed in 1989’s Licence to Kill — arguably helped to lay the groundwork for Daniel Craig’s uncompromising portrayal of the character in the twenty-first century, in all his unflinching drive and grim determination.

Cork: To me, the script for Daylights is the weakest link. So much is so good, but the whole never quite comes together for me. I can watch it easily, but I never list it among my favorites. It is one where there are whole scenes where I am fine to go wandering around the house, where the story just seems to go nowhere. Great scenes get little moments that kill them for me. Are there really Soviet soldiers who are showering during a battle on their airbase? They couldn’t hear the explosions? The gunfire? So a great battle gets interrupted by a cheap joke, but a joke that doesn’t make sense in the context of the scene. This happens over and over. But there are moments where the film just soars: the extended Aston Martin chase that ends with the cello case sled scene, a moment that in the script I thought would be beyond idiotic, but that I love in the film (and that all goes to John Glen who dreamed it up and got the tone just right). But as an overall film, when ranked the Bonds with my son in 2012, it landed at #17. I feel like it should be higher, but that was my ranking then.

Helfenstein: It’s my second favorite Bond film, though I know I am in the extreme minority ranking it that high. The film has some big deficiencies: an overly complex plot, weak villains, some wooden acting from the lesser players, etc. But Daylights has a tremendous amount of positives going for it: a glorious return to the work of Ian Fleming, an incredible soundtrack (John Barry leaving the series on a high note), a playful and sweet romance, great stunts, an astonishing pre-title sequence, and a commanding, era-defining, note-perfect performance from Timothy Dalton.

Pfeiffer: I would rank Daylights in the middle of the pack. I think it’s more satisfying than The Man with the Golden Gun, Moonraker, A View to a Kill, Diamonds are Forever, Quantum of Solace and all of the Pierce Brosnan movies, though I thought Pierce made an excellent Bond. There are some dated aspects to it in terms of the political tone but it boasts some incredible stunt work, especially that fight scene with Bond and the baddie dangling out of a cargo plane. There’s also a fine score by John Barry and a good title theme song. I’m among the few who believe that Licence to Kill, Dalton’s second and final outing as Bond, was far superior to Daylights because the script was written expressly for him and had a very strong villain in Sanchez, played by Robert Davi.

Scivally: Of the two Dalton films, The Living Daylights is my favorite, because it seems more “Bond-ish” to me, with a more globe-trotting feel, a tricked-out Aston Martin, and a Bond who hasn’t “gone rogue.” Not to mention a superb John Barry score. (Sadly, his final one for the Bond series.) I’d put it somewhere in the top half of the bottom 10.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Living Daylights?

Christie: The Living Daylights brought the Bond franchise bang up to date at an interesting period in its history. Arguably the apex of John Glen and Albert “Cubby” Broccoli’s attempts to bring Bond back into the realms of dramatic credibility, the series felt as though it had re-entered the territory of the spy thriller with a vengeance. The movie marked an occasion where the Bond cinematic cycle was re-evaluated and rejuvenated — a phenomenon which would occur again, in different ways, with GoldenEye and Casino Royale some years later. With the Cold War influences which had shaped earlier entries in the series now starting to wane and an uncertain global political environment beginning to emerge, Eon Productions knew that the Bond movies had to change, and The Living Daylights was perhaps the most noteworthy example of the franchise beginning to come to terms with this shift in world affairs. Although Dalton’s short tenure in the role means that the movie is often considered in tandem with its immediate successor, Licence to Kill, there are many who felt that the latter feature’s revenge-themed storyline was to drift too far from the Bond structural formula that had made the series such an enduring success. But with The Living Daylights, we have what might well be considered the ultimate 1980s take on James Bond — political intrigue, erudite characters, changing geopolitical realities, cutting-edge gadgetry, and one of the most sophisticated and engrossing storylines in the series until that point.

Cork: I think this is John Glen’s best directing effort. But the legacy to me was that this is the film where Michael G. Wilson really became the leading force for the cinematic 007. Cubby Broccoli was still deeply involved, but Michael was much more involved in the daily production, the creative choices, the final film, and from those I’ve spoken to, while Cubby always had the last word, his trust in Michael, and Michael’s great energy, even temperament, and respect for Cubby allowed him to be making most of the decisions. Cubby did a brilliant job of positioning both his daughter Barbara and his step-son Michael to continue to lead the Bond franchise. While the complicated plot of the film gets in the way of some of the great acting and action in the movie, this film helped keep Bond relevant and brought him back to reality much more than For Your Eyes Only (which is given much more credit in that regard). One could see Daniel Craig in a remake of this film more so than any other Bond film. This film is also the legacy of a man only a few have ever heard of in relation to this movie: Baron Enrico di Portanova. Bond fans know the name because it is his house in Acapulco that is seen in the next Bond film, Licence to Kill. But this film would not exist without ”Ricky.” He was instrumental in making a film designed to support the Mujahideen’s fight against the Soviets. That film put Cubby and Michael on the track to have Bond get embroiled in the Soviet battle to maintain control of Afghanistan. Considering the sweeping geopolitical changes in the nation in the past three decades, the film seems strangely ironic. Where would Kamran Shah, the Mujahideen leader, be today? Would he have been a moderate who wanted peace with the West, or would he have celebrated 9/11? Would he be supporting ISIS? The idea that high-level Russians would be coming to the West to manipulate entire nations for their benefit seemed outdated not too long after the film came out, but today? I wouldn’t be surprised if The New York Times soon identified another General Koskov-like character as an attendee at a meeting with Donald Trump Jr. It is by far the most overtly political Bond film, and the one that with Octopussy delves most deeply into the Cold War politics of the moment. It’s a film that has a lot going for it, a great watch for a rainy afternoon, and even greater if you start dissecting the politics behind it.

Helfenstein: The Living Daylights is so much more than just a course correction from the Roger Moore era. It is so much more than just the 25th anniversary film. It is so much more than just Timothy Dalton’s debut as Bond. It is a throwback to Bond’s cold war thriller roots. It is John Barry’s final bow. It is pure, classic Bond: he’s fighting the Russians, romancing a blonde, driving a rocket-powered Aston Martin, parachuting in and out of danger, and doing everything with a panache that only 007 can achieve. Its legacy proved that a fourth man could succeed at playing Bond, and make an indelible mark on the series. Underappreciated by the general public, but celebrated by serious fans, it’s everything we love about James Bond.

Pfeiffer: The legacy of The Living Daylights is that its legacy should be stronger. The two Dalton films are often overlooked in critical discussions of the series. In a way, Dalton never really had his chance. The release of Licence to Kill had been botched by UA in the United States and the series then went on a six-year hiatus due to legal disputes with the studio. By the time Bond was ready to come back, it was time to reinvigorate the role again with Pierce Brosnan, who, as most Bond fans know, had originally been slated to play 007 in The Living Daylights. I think Timothy Dalton never quite got the praise he deserves for helping to revitalize the series.

Scivally: At the time of its release, The Living Daylights was viewed — in its way — as a commentary on the AIDS epidemic; much was made of there being only one “Bond girl” in the film, though I never understood how everyone could overlook the obviously sex-starved woman on the boat in the pre-credits; what do they think Bond was doing with her for nearly two hours? It’s also significant for Timothy Dalton’s introduction as 007. Dalton is a fine actor who brought a much-welcomed harder edge to James Bond, but to me his 007 has always been lacking, and what he lacks most is charm. Dalton himself can be quite charming, and has been in other roles, but as James Bond, he seemed more apt to skewer you with a steak knife than with a sharp witty riposte. He is, to me, “the angry Bond,” the one who always seems just one mission away from intensive psychiatric therapy or a very, very long respite at Shrublands. There is a reason the teaser posters for The Living Daylights promised “The Most Dangerous Bond... Ever!” Audiences at the time were not ready for such a grim 007, and reaction to Dalton was unenthusiastic. As a result, it would be almost 20 years before a Dalton-style Bond would be seen again, this time to much acclaim, in Casino Royale.

Coate: Thank you — Tom, John, Charles, Lee and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about The Living Daylights on the occasion of its 30th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Dr. No” on its 55th 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)

For the occasion The Bits features a Q&A with Chuck Harter, author of the new book Mr. Novak: An Acclaimed Television Series, who offers some insight on the series, its forthcoming DVD release, and his book about the show.

Chuck Harter is the author of Mr. Novak: An Acclaimed Television Series (Bear Manor Media, 2017).

His other books include Superboy & Superpup: The Lost Videos (Cult Movie Press, 1993), Superman on Broadway (with Bob Holiday; Holiday Press, 2003), Johnnie Ray: 1952 The Year of the Atomic Ray (self-published), and Little Elf: A Celebration of Harry Langdon (with Michael J. Hayde; Bear Manor Media, 2012).

In addition to being an author, Harter is a musician and pop culture consultant. He wrote the documentary Hey! Hey! We’re the Monkees (Rhino/Disney Channel, 1997) and Gossip: Tabloid Tales (A&E, 2002) and has appeared as a commentator on numerous television programs including A&E Biography and Unsolved Mysteries.

Harter has produced several CDs of musical recordings and music videos under his performing name of Chuck Winston. He resides in Culver City.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): We’ve come upon the 55th anniversary of the debut of Mr. Novak. How do you think the series should be remembered?

Chuck Harter: The Mr. Novak television series should be remembered as a first class dramatic program that excelled in acting, scripting, direction and production. It was the first show to depict the high school experience in a realistic matter and had many cutting edge scripts that are still relevant today.

Coate: What was the objective with your book?

Harter: My first objective was to discover more information about this production that impressed me so much. As I uncovered the many facets of quality about the series, I found my next objective was to produce a superior book so that others could become aware of it. The third objective was the hope that my book would somehow prompt an official DVD release of the program.

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

Harter: I didn’t view the show when it first aired. Mr. Novak was broadcast opposite the popular Combat war series and my father, who was in the Air Force, wanted to watch the military program. When the Mr. Novak program was rerun for the only time in the late 1980s on Turner Network Television, I didn’t see it because I didn’t have cable TV. A little over three years ago, a friend sent me a stack of [underground] DVDs [sourced from recordings of the TNT broadcasts] of the Novak show. After viewing a few episodes, I was so impressed by the quality of the program that I decided to write Mr. Novak: An Acclaimed Television Series.

Coate: How would you describe the series to someone who has never seen it?

Harter: The Mr. Novak show was an hour-long dramatic series that featured life among the principal, teachers and students of Jefferson High School. It focused on first year teacher John Novak (James Franciscus) and his growth as an educator. The scripts portrayed the triumphs and tragedies of the students and administrators as the school years evolved. The role of the school principal, Albert Vane (Dean Jagger), was explored with the various responsibilities and guidance that the position required. It was a series that lasted for two years with an extremely high percentage of outstanding episodes. The Mr. Novak series is a genuine classic of television.

Coate: Is the series significant in any way?

Harter: As I stated before, it was the first television series to portray life in high school realistically. It won a total of forty-seven awards during its run with the majority coming from educational institutions including a prestigious Peabody Award for excellence. It was a program that revealed the commitment to integrity and quality by series creator E. Jack Neuman [A Man Called Shenandoah, Police Story]. Everyone who worked on the program brought a high level of professionalism and enthusiasm which is revealed when one can view the series. In the course of writing the book I interviewed over fifty people. Each and every one of them remarked at the superior aspects of the show fifty plus years later. The series is not dated and could easily be remade today.

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

Harter: The pilot was First Year, First Day and was also the first episode broadcast in September of 1963. It establishes the character of first year teacher John Novak and also features the orientation of teachers and students for the new semester. Most any episode would also be good for a first viewing as they are usually of such high quality. They would be found both entertaining and informative.

Coate: Is it beneficial to watch the episodes in their original production/broadcast order?

Harter: In the first season, I would say that it would be preferable. The episodes were broadcast somewhat close to the order they were filmed. Over this freshman year, the character of fledgling educator John Novak is developed. He gains confidence and experience. The principal and other members of the faculty are also shown to develop and grow as personalities. The program was extremely influential on the educational community of the time. The National Education Association awarded the show and appointed a panel of five teachers to oversee the scripts for accuracy. After the first season, producer E. Jack Neuman prepared a 16mm short film documenting Novak’s growth through clips from the show. There was a demand for many prints and the film was shown at high schools, Future Teachers of America meetings and other institutions.

Coate: Which are the standout episodes?

Harter: There are many. Here are some from the first season with the theme for each.

X is the Unknown Factor — A brilliant student is caught cheating and could lose a scholarship. Should his transgression be ignored for the status of the school?

A Single Isolated Incident — An African American student is the victim of racial prejudice. The press attempts to inflame the situation and Principal Vane must take command to avoid an explosive situation.

The Risk — A former alcoholic teacher, now sober, wishes to return to a position at Jefferson High School. Should he be allowed to return?

Hello Miss Phipps — A veteran teacher, Miss Phipps, teaches sex education in her biology class and faces disapproval from the parents of her students.

The Exile — A former dropout from Jefferson High, now jobless and depressed, wishes to reenroll. However, regulations will not permit him to do so. (This episode was so well received that 16mm prints were requested for schools and prisons.)

Sparrow on the Wire — An anti-Semitic member of the debate team insults a Jewish student who argues the way to react with an embittered Jewish teacher. (A film of this episode was requested to be shown at the Los Angeles chapter of the B’nai B’rith.)

The Death of a Teacher — A popular teacher succumbs to a heart attack in the halls of Jefferson High School. The cause was due to over work. Faculty and students react to this tragedy and the full extent of a teacher’s workload is revealed.

There are many more outstanding episodes in both seasons. While the themes are certainly provocative, it was always producer E. Jack Neuman’s desire to entertain as well as inform. The messages lay beneath the storylines.

Coate: Any thoughts on the forthcoming DVD release? Why has it taken so long for the series to make its way to the home video market?

Harter: Apparently the elements for season one of Mr. Novak were buried in storage and have only recently been found. I think it is great that Warner Archive will be releasing the first season (30 episodes) in a DVD set. There has not been an announcement of a release date but it is hoped that this will occur sometime later in the year. As the Mr. Novak series never reran, except for a few brief years in the late 1980s, this excellent show became forgotten. The only way to see this classic was through underground sources if one could find them. When consumers and reviewers are able to see this excellent and enduring program in uncut clear prints, they will become aware, as I am, of the tremendous qualities of the show.

Coate: What is the legacy of Mr. Novak?

Harter: The Mr. Novak series is among the finest programs to be produced in the 1960s. It ranks with The Twilight Zone, The Dick Van Dyke Show, The Defenders and others as an absolute pinnacle of television production. The series is one of the finest shows ever produced in the medium. When the DVD reissue happens, it will take its place among the greatest programs in the history of television.

Coate: Thank you, Chuck, for sharing your thoughts on Mr. Novak on the occasion of its 55th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy MGM Television, NBC-TV, Turner Network Television, Warner Home Entertainment.

- 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)

Finally, there is an interview segment with a quartet of film historians and Kubrick authorities who discuss the film’s impact and influence.

2001 NUMBER$

• 1= Box-office rank among films directed by Stanley Kubrick
• 1 = Number of Academy Awards
• 1 = Number of sequels
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1968 (lifetime earnings)
• 1 = Rank on AFI’s Top Sci-Fi Films
• 3 = Number of theaters showing 2001 during opening week
• 4 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 6 = Rank among MGM’s all-time top-earning movies at close of original run
• 10 = Rank among top-earning films of 1968 (calendar year)
• 13 = Rank of HAL 9000 on AFI’s 100 Greatest Villains
• 17 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
• 22 = Rank on AFI’s 100 Greatest American Movies of All Time
• 33 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1960s (earnings from 1/1/60 – 12/31/69)
• 103 = Number of 70mm prints for domestic first-run
• 127 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement
• 148 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)

• $8.5 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/68)
• $12.0 million = Production cost
• $14.5 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/69)
• $17.5 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/70)
• $21.5 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/71)
• $24.1 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/80)
• $25.5 million = Box-office rental (through 12/31/96)
• $56.9 million = Box-office gross (lifetime)
• $85.9 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $155.5 million = Box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $407.1 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is the picture which science-fiction enthusiasts of every age and in every corner of the world have prayed (sometimes forlornly) that the industry might one day give them.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“2001: A Space Odyssey is a thoroughly uninteresting failure, and the most damning demonstration yet of Stanley Kubrick’s inability to tell a story coherently and with a consistent point of view. His film is not a film at all, but merely a pretext for a pictorial spread in Life magazine.” — Andrew Sarris, Village Voice

“Kubrick’s special effects border on the miraculous — a quantum leap in quality over any other science fiction film ever made!” — Joseph Morgenstern, Newsweek

“The movie is so completely absorbed in its own problems, its use of color and space, its fanatical devotion to science-fiction detail, that it is somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring.” — Renata Adler, The New York Times

“A fantastic movie about man’s future! An unprecedented psychedelic roller coaster of an experience!” — Life

“A film that is so dull, it even dulls our interest in the technical ingenuity for the sake of which Kubrick has allowed it to become dull.” — Stanley Kauffmann, The New Republic

“2001: A Space Odyssey provides the screen with some of the most dazzling visual happenings and technical achievements in the history of the motion picture!” — Time

“Is a work of art possible if pseudo-science and the technology of moviemaking become more important to the ’artist’ than man? This is central to the failure of 2001. It’s a monumentally unimaginative movie: Kubrick, with his $750,000 centrifuge, and in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the Belasco of science fiction.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“2001: A Space Odyssey is a gorgeous, exhilarating and mind-stretching spectacle.” — Emerson Beauchamp, The Washington Star

“A regrettable failure, although not a total one. This film is fascinating when it concentrates on apes and machines…and dreadful when it deals with the in-betweens: humans.” — John Simon, New Leader

“A uniquely poetic piece of sci-fi…hypnotically entertaining!” — Penelope Gilliatt, The New Yorker

“2001: A Space Odyssey is not a cinematic landmark. It compares with, but does not best, previous efforts at science fiction; lacking the humanity of Forbidden Planet, the imagination of Things to Come and the simplicity of Of Stars and Men, it actually belongs to the technically-slick group previously dominated by George Pal and the Japanese.” — Robert B. Frederick, Variety

“2001: A Space Odyssey is without a doubt one of the most controversial, enigmatic and cinematically impressive films ever made. Kubrick spent four years and $10 million putting it together and the result is 140 minutes of technical achievement that is a milestone in movie history.” — John Hinterberger, The Seattle Times

“The sound track is a mish-mash of pseudo-church electronic music and, incredibly, Strauss waltzes. Imagine whirling through space to schmaltz in three-quarter time!” — Kathleen Carroll, New York Daily News

“Since 2001: A Space Odyssey has a somewhat grandiose title and a rather antiseptic start, there’s no hint of its eventual entertainment. It turns out to the ultimate in science-fiction.” — Alta Maloney, The Boston Herald

“Lacking a focus and conclusion that can be understood, the picture wanders and exhausts its audience. Since this the first time that director Stanley Kubrick has lost touch with any large part of the audience, one can only guess that the space journey theme hypnotized him. And while under this mighty influence he stubbed his toe.” — Archer Winsten, New York Post

“The fascinating thing about this film is that it fails on the human level but succeeds magnificently on a cosmic scale.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Kubrick’s futuristic film operates on three levels: The scientific, the philosophic and the dramatic. In my opinion, it is more successful on the first two levels than on the third, but two for three is good enough for the major leagues — and Kubrick definitely is a major leaguer.” — James Meade, The San Diego Union

[On to Page 2] 

[Back to Page 1] 

THE ORIGINAL 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Presented here is a chronological listing of 2001: A Space Odyssey’s North American first-run 70-millimeter six-track stereophonic sound presentations. These were “hard ticket” roadshow engagements (except where noted otherwise) and 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, an overture/intermission/entr’acte/exit music, and an average of just ten scheduled screenings per week. As well, souvenir program booklets were sold. (There were also roadshow engagements of 2001 that utilized standard 35mm prints but these have not been included in this work.)

Out of the hundreds of films released during 1968, 2001 was among only fourteen that were given deluxe roadshow treatment and among only eleven released with 70mm prints. The duration of these engagements (measured in weeks) has been included for most of the entries to give a sense of how successful the film was in its first phase of release.

The film’s anniversary offers an opportunity to namedrop some famous cinemas (nearly all of which are now closed), to offer 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 treated.

Opening date YYYY-MM-DD … City — Cinema (duration in weeks)

m/o = a move-over engagement (i.e. a continuation of a booking from another cinema in same city/market)

*Advertised as a Cinerama presentation
**Advertised as a 70mm presentation
***Presentation format unadvertised
****Advertised as a Vistarama presentation
*****Advertised as a Dimension 150 presentation

• 1968-04-02 … Washington, DC — Uptown* (52)
• 1968-04-03 … New York, NY — Capitol* (24)
• 1968-04-04 … Los Angeles, CA — Warner Hollywood* (80)
• 1968-04-10 … Boston, MA — Boston* (36)
• 1968-04-10 … Denver, CO — Cooper* (47)
• 1968-04-10 … Detroit, MI — Summit* (47)
• 1968-04-10 … Houston, TX — Windsor* (31)
• 1968-04-11 … Chicago, IL — Cinestage* (36)

• 1968-05-22 … Philadelphia, PA — Randolph* (30)
• 1968-05-28 … San Diego, CA — Center* (44)
• 1968-05-28 … Seattle, WA — Cinerama* (77)
• 1968-05-29 … Atlanta, GA — Martin Cinerama* (22)
• 1968-05-29 … Baltimore, MD — Town* (20)
• 1968-05-29 … Cincinnati, OH — International 70* (19)
• 1968-05-29 … Dallas, TX — Capri* (24)
• 1968-05-29 … Miami Beach, FL — Sheridan* (23)
• 1968-05-29 … Montreal, QC — Imperial* (24)
• 1968-05-29 … New Orleans, LA — Cinerama* (29)
• 1968-05-29 … Providence, RI — Cinerama* (20)
• 1968-05-29 … St. Louis, MO — Cinerama* (29)
• 1968-05-29 … Scottsdale, AZ — Kachina* (25)
• 1968-05-30 … Toronto, ON — Glendale* (127)

• 1968-06-06 … Charlotte, NC — Carolina* (13)
• 1968-06-07 … Honolulu, HI — Cinerama* (29)
• 1968-06-12 … Birmingham, AL — Eastwood Mall* (8)
• 1968-06-12 … Columbus, OH — Grand* (27)
• 1968-06-12 … Dayton, OH — Dabel* (20)
• 1968-06-12 … Harrisburg, PA — Trans-Lux* (15)
• 1968-06-12 … Jacksonville, FL — 5 Points* (14)
• 1968-06-12 … Kansas City, MO — Empire 2* (27)
• 1968-06-12 … Pittsburgh, PA — Warner* (22)
• 1968-06-12 … Salt Lake City, UT — Villa* (22)
• 1968-06-12 … Tampa, FL — Palace* (15)
• 1968-06-12 … Toledo, OH — Showcase 1* (14)
• 1968-06-13 … Portland, OR — Hollywood* (42)
• 1968-06-19 … Buffalo, NY — Century* (13)
• 1968-06-19 … Cleveland, OH — State* (21)
• 1968-06-19 … Hartford, CT — Cinerama* (26)
• 1968-06-19 … Norfolk, VA — Rosna* (25)
• 1968-06-19 … Omaha, NE — Indian Hills* (17)
• 1968-06-19 … San Francisco, CA — Golden Gate* (73)
• 1968-06-19 … Wichita, KS — Uptown* (15)
• 1968-06-26 … Calgary, AB — North Hill* (14)
• 1968-06-26 … Des Moines, IA — River Hills* (20)
• 1968-06-26 … Fresno, CA — Warnor* (17)
• 1968-06-26 … Hicksville, NY — Twin South* (39)
• 1968-06-26 … London, ON — Park* (8)
• 1968-06-26 … Louisville, KY — Showcase 1* (14)
• 1968-06-26 … Milwaukee, WI — Wisconsin 1* (25)
• 1968-06-26 … Sacramento, CA — Esquire* (35)
• 1968-06-26 … St. Louis Park, MN — Cooper* (31)
• 1968-06-26 … Syracuse, NY — Eckel* (10)
• 1968-06-26 … Tulsa, OK — Fox* (15)
• 1968-06-26 … Vancouver, BC — Capitol* (15)
• 1968-06-27 … Indianapolis, IN — Indiana* (20)
• 1968-06-27 … Nashville, TN — Belle Meade* (13)
• 1968-06-28 … Huntsville, AL — Westbury* (9)

• 1968-07-02 … Las Vegas, NV — Cinerama* (15)
• 1968-07-10 … Chattanooga, TN — Brainerd* (11)
• 1968-07-11 … Shreveport, LA — Broadmoor** (8)
• 1968-07-16 … Oklahoma City, OK — Cooper* (33)
• 1968-07-17 … Montclair, NJ — Clairidge* (36)
• 1968-07-17 … San Antonio, TX — North Star II** (18)
• 1968-07-18 … Richmond, VA — Westhampton*** (10)
• 1968-07-23 … San Jose, CA — Century 21* (87)
• 1968-07-24 … Knoxville, TN — Capri-70* (9)
• 1968-07-24 … Raleigh, NC — Ambassador** (10)
• 1968-07-25 … Memphis, TN — Paramount**** (11)
• 1968-07-25 … Winnipeg, MB — Garrick** (8)
• 1968-07-31 … Evansville, IN — Ross*** (8)
• 1968-07-31 … West Springfield, MA — Showcase 1* (12)

• 1968-08-07 … Springfield, IL — Esquire** (8)
• 1968-08-09 … Grand Forks, ND — Cinema International**
• 1968-08-09 … Orlando, FL — Beacham* (11)
• 1968-08-14 … Austin, TX — Americana** (13)
• 1968-08-21 … Albany, NY — Hellman** (12)
• 1968-08-21 … Cuyahoga Falls, OH — Falls* (17)
• 1968-08-22 … Grand Rapids, MI — Eastbrook** (6)
• 1968-08-22 … Lubbock, TX — Winchester*** (11)
• 1968-08-28 … Lawrence, MA — Showcase 1* (12)

• 1968-09-04 … Reno, NV — Century 21* (9)
• 1968-09-16 … New York, NY — Cinerama* (m/o from Capitol, 13 [37])
• 1968-09-18 … Worcester, MA — Showcase 2* (13)
• 1968-09-25 … Edmonton, AB — Paramount** (8)
• 1968-09-25 … Hamden, CT — Cinemart** (13)
• 1968-09-25 … Ottawa, ON — Nelson** (12)
• 1968-09-25 … Youngstown, OH — Paramount** (8)
• 1968-09-27 … Reading, PA — Fox** (5)

• 1968-10-02 … Albuquerque, NM — Fox Winrock* (13)
• 1968-10-02 … Lexington, KY — Strand*** (7)
• 1968-10-02 … Scranton, PA — Strand** (5)
• 1968-10-09 … El Paso, TX — Fox Bassett Center*** (11) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-10-17 … Penfield, NY — Panorama* (17)
• 1968-10-25 … St. Petersburg, FL — Center** (9)
• 1968-10-30 … Eugene, OR — Oakway*** (4) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-10-30 … Fargo, ND — Cinema 70* (5)
• 1968-10-30 … Little Rock, AR — Cinema 150***** (7) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-10-30 … Milan, IL — Showcase 1* (7)

• 1968-11-06 … Corpus Christi, TX — Deux Cine II*** (7)
• 1968-11-06 … Monterey, CA — Cinema 70*** (13)
• 1968-11-07 … Greensboro, NC — Terrace** (3) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-11-08 … Cedar Rapids, IA — Times 70*** (9)
• 1968-11-08 … Columbia, SC — Richland Mall** (3) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-11-13 … Waco, TX — 25th Street*** (4) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-11-14 … Augusta, GA — National Hills** (6) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-11-20 … Tucson, AZ — El Dorado*** (9)

• 1968-12-18 … Nanuet, NY — Route 59** (9)
• 1968-12-20 … Kokomo, IN — Markland Mall II** (3) [unreserved seating]
• 1968-12-29 … Odessa, TX — Grandview*** (3)
• 1968-12-31 … Mason City, IA — Park 70** (2) [unreserved seating]

• 1969-01-08 … Wichita Falls, TX — State*** (3) [unreserved seating]
• 1969-01-09 … North Charleston, SC — Pinehaven*** (3) [unreserved seating]
• 1969-01-15 … Hamilton, ON — Centre Twin West** (8)

• 1969-02-19 … Modesto, CA — Briggsmore** (5) [unreserved seating]
• 1969-02-19 … St. Cloud, MN — Cinema 70** (2) [unreserved seating]

• 1969-03-14 … Colorado Springs, CO — Ute 70*** (4) [unreserved seating]

• 1969-09-30 … Oakland, CA — Century 21* (11)

• 1969-10-14 … Orange, CA — Cinedome 21* (27)
• 1969-10-29 … Beverly Hills, CA — Beverly Hills** (m/o from Warner Hollywood, 23 [103])

• 1969-11-11 … San Francisco, CA — Golden Gate Penthouse** (m/o from Golden Gate, 15 [88])

• 1969-12-17 … Pleasant Hill, CA — Century 21* (13) [unreserved seating]

Note that during the engagement the Warner Hollywood’s name was changed to Hollywood Pacific.

 [On to Page 3]

 [Back to Page 2]

The domestic general release of 2001: A Space Odyssey commenced in autumn 1968 and continued into 1969. Numerous re-releases and countless revival screenings followed.

While not a complete listing, what follows are details of some of the key international roadshow engagements of 2001.

• 1968-04-10 … Tokyo, Japan — Theatre Tokyo* (24)
• 1968-04-11 … Johannesburg, South Africa — Royal*
• 1968-05-01 … London, UK — Casino* (47)
• 1968-05-01 … Sydney, Australia — Plaza* (12)
• 1968-05-02 … Melbourne, Australia — Plaza* (11)
• 1968-07-03 … San Juan, Puerto Rico — Metro**
• 1968-07-04 … Sao Paulo, Brazil — Majestic*
• 1968-07-25 … Dublin, Ireland — Plaza*
• 1968-08-09 … Auckland, New Zealand — Cinerama*
• 1968-08-24 … Vienna, Austria — Gartenbau*
• 1968-08-27 … Stockholm, Sweden — Vinterpalatset*
• 1968-09-02 … Brussels, Belgium — Varietes* (10)
• 1968-09-11 … Munich, West Germany — Royal* (12)
• 1968-09-25 … Zuerich, Switzerland — Apollo*
• 1968-09-27 … Paris, France — Empire* (12) [Version Originale]
• 1968-09-27 … Paris, France — Gaumont Palace* [Version Francaise]
• 1968-10-17 … Barcelona, Spain — Florida*
• 1968-10-31 … Mexico City, Mexico — Cine Latino***** (15)
• 1968-11-07 … Buenos Aires, Argentina — Ideal*
• 1968-12-11 … Milan, Italy — Alcione*
• 1968-12-11 … Rome, Italy — Royal*
• 1968-12-12 … Frankfurt, West Germany — MGM* (10)

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.

Raymond Benson is a college-level film history instructor (who includes a screening of 2001: A Space Odyssey in his curriculum) and author of three-dozen books.

He is the third — and first American — continuation author of official James Bond novels.

His new original thriller In the Hush of the Night will be published in May by Skyhorse Publishing.

Peter Krämer is the author and editor of eight academic books, including the BFI Film Classics volume on 2001: A Space Odyssey (published in 2010).

He is a Senior Fellow in the School of Art, Media and American Studies at the University of East Anglia in Norwich (UK).

His other books include The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars (Wallflower, 2006) and American Graffiti: George Lucas, the New Hollywood and the Baby Boom Generation (forthcoming from Routledge).

Lee Pfeiffer is the co-founder and Editor-in-Chief of Cinema Retro magazine, which celebrates films of the 1960s and 1970s and is “the Essential Guide to Cult and Classic Movies.”

He is the author of several books including 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) and (with Philip Lisa) The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992).

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think 2001: A Space Odyssey should be remembered on its golden anniversary?

Chris Barsanti: As the first time that science fiction cinema was taken seriously. The genre had taken itself seriously before and was occasionally rewarded for it — all the talk about how Forbidden Planet was inspired by The Tempest, for instance. But it wasn’t until 2001 that the genre came to be seen as a body of work that could be based as much on the wonderment of ideas as on the whiz-bang of special effects and extraterrestrials.

Raymond Benson: 2001: A Space Odyssey is a landmark film that pushed many envelopes and is still today a divisive motion picture. Any work of art that can generate debate and passionate opinions about it after 50 years must be doing something right. I’ve always felt it was much more than just “a movie.” Stanley Kubrick got us to examine and appreciate the mystery of the universe and our place in it, and he got us to ask questions about the meaning of life, our past, and our future. Heady stuff, both profound and daring for a Hollywood “mainstream” big-budget motion picture. As one critic put it, Kubrick made the most expensive “art house movie” ever.

Peter Krämer: As one of the greatest movies of all time. As a key source for much of the science fiction cinema of recent decades, from Star Wars to Avatar and beyond. As a film that has dazzled and inspired people for many years.

At the same time, we should not forget that upon its initial release 50 years ago, the film reached out to, and found, a huge audience in the United States. Many people, including many film scholars, think that the film was initially rejected both by critics and by cinemagoers and only belatedly found an audience, largely composed of young people, many of which are said to have watched the film under the influence of mind-altering substances.

When I carefully examined reports in the film industry trade press, box office figures and the many letters that cinemagoers wrote to Stanley Kubrick after seeing his film, I had to conclude that in fact 2001 was a massive success from the outset, not only with countercultural youth, but also, for example, with young children and their parents.

We also have to remember that in the United States the film was first presented as a so-called roadshow, which meant that it was initially shown, at raised ticket prices, in only very few cinemas, most of them Cinerama theaters with their huge curved screens; the show began with an overture and included an intermission. This way of presenting a film was typical for Hollywood’s biggest productions, and it actually was a special occasion for all those people who had lost their cinema going habit to return to the big screen. This film was really meant for everyone!

Finally, going against all those critics who understand the film as being infused with Kubrick’s characteristic pessimism, we should really remember it as a statement of hope. Kubrick made 2001 in response to the utterly devastating conclusion of his previous film Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb from 1964; this film ends with the explosion of a nuclear “doomsday device” which will bring an end to all human life on the surface of the Earth.

My research in the Stanley Kubrick Archive at the University of the Arts London strongly suggests that Kubrick intended 2001 to offer an optimistic vision of the future to counter the deep pessimism of Dr. Strangelove. And that’s exactly how many people writing to Kubrick about their experiences with the film understood it. It gave them hope about their own future, their ability to change, to renew themselves, and about the future of humanity as a whole. We should remember 2001 as a hopeful vision of boundless human potential.

Lee Pfeiffer: 2001 is innovative, inspired filmmaking at its zenith. Kubrick wanted to make the most unique, intelligent take on the science fiction genre and he truly succeeded. It’s easy to see why the movie initially alienated audiences that were probably expecting another film about little green men with ray guns. What they got was something that made them think. For that reason, the movie wasn’t shaping up as a major hit until young people discovered it and relished the technical aspects of it. The film fit right in with the hippie drug culture of the late 1960s. I’d like to think many of the people who made the film a major success were actually looking beyond the apparent achievement in special effects and tried to diagnose what it was all about. The beauty of 2001 is that there are no easy answers. It parallels Patrick McGoohan’s classic TV series The Prisoner, which was telecast a year earlier, in that the answers lie in the mind of the individual viewer, thus it can mean completely different things to different people. I’m not sure what the hell it’s all about, either...but it’s a fascinating experience each time I see it. The effects were state-of-the-art in 1968 and are even more impressive today. We live in an era in which effects can be generated on computers, whereas Kubrick and his team achieved everything the old-fashioned way — and it’s never been equaled.

Coate: What did you think of 2001 when you (first) saw it?

Barsanti: I can’t [recall when I first saw it]. Like other big-screen classics of the 1950s and ’60s like Dr. Strangelove or Bridge on the River Kwai, to me, 2001 was just always part of my movie consciousness. I was definitely very young when I first saw it, which is not a bad thing. While the movie is devilishly complex in some of its thinking, it’s also incredibly simple: Aliens come to earth and help humans evolve. Later, humans go to space and get a little ahead of themselves. They meet an alien — or aliens. Cue lightshow. Even a five-year-old gets that. Also, the scene of the primate hurling the bone into the sky and having it return as a spacecraft was probably my first awareness of what editing could do.

Benson: I saw it on first release in Odessa, Texas, with my father, in 70mm. I was 13 years old. I already loved movies and was just beginning to have an appreciation for the many aspects that went into the making of a film — not just whether or not it entertained me. I believe that 2001 gave me a better understanding of what “Directed By” means. From that point on, I became interested in who Stanley Kubrick was. As I grew older, I sought out his earlier films and kept up with his career until the end. Curiously, when I first saw 2001, I had no problem “getting” it. As we were leaving the theater, my father asked me if I understood the movie — he hadn’t, although he found it amazing and was entranced by the picture all the way through. I explained my interpretation to him, and he was impressed. During that first release, all my friends my age “didn’t understand it,” but they all liked it. It was too much of a never-before-seen cinematic experience not to like.

Krämer: I first saw 2001 as a teenager at a small-town cinema in Germany in the late 1970s. I really did not know what to make of it, although I had already long been a science fiction fan, mostly of novels, though, not of films. I was strangely moved, and, I think for the first time in my life, I went back to the cinema to see the same film again. I also read Arthur C. Clarke’s novel, which explained everything that was going on in the film. But somehow these explanations weren’t very satisfactory. The mysteries of the film were more interesting and engaging when left unexplained.

The whole experience was so unusual for me that I started to think more seriously about films. Round about the same time I also watched Kubrick’s next film, A Clockwork Orange, which blew me away, but also unsettled me. Together, these two cinema experiences are probably the main reason why I eventually decided to study film and become a film scholar.

Coate: In what way is 2001 a significant motion picture?

Benson: As has often been said, Kubrick set out to make a non-verbal, visual experience that would fill an audience with awe. He experimented with the narrative structure and told the basic story in strictly visual terms — which people in 1968 were not really used to since silent films ended in the late 1920s. The dialogue in the movie barely informs on the story. It’s all visual clues that tell us what’s going on. Add to that the technical perfection that Kubrick brought to the production...nothing like it had been done before. With his obsession for scientific accuracy, the ground-breaking visual effects work, the use of classical music as a soundtrack that previously really hadn’t been utilized in this way, the courageous use of sound (or silence) in the space sequences, and the existential themes inherent in the story — 2001 is truly one of the most outstanding achievements in cinema history.

 [On to Page 4]

 [Back to Page 3]

Coate: In what way was Stanley Kubrick an ideal choice to direct 2001 and where does the film rank among his body of work?

Barsanti: Kubrick is probably the only director at that time who was comfortable with trimming away all the extraneous plotting that other filmmakers would have tagged on to this journey. He was after spectacle and discovery and expansion of consciousness: some subplot about the broken family Dave had left behind on Earth would have just cluttered things up. In terms of his body of work, 2001 is the last great thing Kubrick achieved. After this, his body of work became increasingly self-indulgent and dry, without the dark wit and sparkle of his earlier movies and little of 2001’s visual and philosophical grandeur.

Benson: I believe 2001 is Kubrick’s crowning achievement. It’s the movie that launched him into “superstar” status that placed him alongside the likes of Welles, Bergman, Fellini, Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Ford... I can’t imagine anyone else directing the film or even conceiving of it, for the picture is full of many of Kubrick’s thematic signatures — man’s inhumanity to man, the flaws of being human, how technology can be a danger — but I also think he uses these themes, at the end of the picture, in an optimistic way. There is hope for mankind in the final image of the Star-Child. Man will evolve into something greater. Someday. Maybe.

Krämer: I don’t think one can say that Kubrick was “chosen” to direct 2001. He developed the whole project from scratch. Soon after the release of Dr. Strangelove, he contacted Arthur C. Clarke, one of the world’s leading science fiction writers and also the author of many popular science books, and asked him whether he wanted to collaborate on developing a story for a science fiction film which would center on humanity’s encounter with an extraterrestrial civilization.

As is evidenced by many public and private statements, Kubrick was deeply convinced that humanity was very likely to destroy itself in an all-encompassing nuclear war in the not too distant future, and in Dr. Strangelove he had shown how this might happen. But he also felt that there was a slim chance that humanity might be transformed and avoid this terrible fate.

Well, if you are convinced that humanity will destroy itself on Earth, where do you look for an alternative? To heaven, of course. If you are religious, you might hope for God’s intervention. If not (and neither Kubrick nor Clarke were religious), you hope for an encounter with something transformative in space, or perhaps you hope that simply going into space might give humanity a new perspective and thus transform it. That was, I am convinced, the main driving force behind the making of 2001.

It is also the case that only Kubrick would have been able to make a film like this at this point in time. This was a big budget movie from the outset, and it nominally belonged to a genre — science fiction — which, with very few exceptions, had never done particularly well at the box office. But Kubrick had an excellent commercial track record; his last three films — Dr. Strangelove, Lolita and Spartacus — had all been hits, and he was also already widely regarded as one of the greatest American filmmakers. So he managed to get MGM to finance what was initially called Journey Beyond the Stars. And then he took much, much longer than expected and went massively over budget. But in the light of Kubrick’s reputation and track record, the studio did not interfere.

And then he did something so amazing that even today I completely baffled. For several years, 2001 was meant to have had a prologue showing interviews with scientists talking about topics important for understanding the film, a voiceover narration which explained and commented on what was happening in the story, long dialogue sequences which did the same, and a conventional score. But not long before the film’s release in April 1968, Kubrick, one after the other, removed all these elements. He thought that the film would work better if it was just as mysterious as the monoliths at the center of its story (and the pre-recorded music he used, especially Ligeti’s eerie compositions, really helped to create this mystery, already starting with the overture).

It is truly astonishing that even at this point MGM didn’t interfere to protect the huge investment the studio had made. But either the top executives trusted Kubrick’s judgment that this mysterious film would work with a mass audience, or they were simply too caught up in internal power struggles to have much time for 2001. As it turned out, Kubrick was right. 2001 became one of the highest grossing films of all time in the United States.

Pfeiffer: Some years ago, I was writing and co-producing a documentary for Sony about the making of Dr. Strangelove. Among the people we interviewed was Roger Caras, a former executive in publicity for Columbia Pictures. Kubrick had been impressed with the offbeat ad campaign Roger had overseen for Strangelove, a minimalist cartoon that depicted the U.S President and Soviet Premier both on the Hot Line. Shortly thereafter, Kubrick took Roger to lunch at Trader Vic’s in New York City, ostensibly for lunch. However, he had another purpose. He informed Roger that his next film would be his most ambitious and would involve space travel and have a very existential aspect to it. Roger very much respected Kubrick’s instincts and listened intently as Kubrick outlined the bare-bones scenario for what would become 2001: A Space Odyssey. Kubrick explained that he didn’t want this to be some kind of sci-fi thriller, but the most intelligent examination of the space age ever undertaken. Furthermore, his original concept (dropped from the finished film) would center on the first meeting between human beings and aliens. Roger said that Kubrick drew some rough “stick man”-like figures on the back of a Trader Vic’s napkin to illustrate the fact that the aliens would be much taller than a human being.

As the conversation continued, Kubrick shocked Roger by imploring him to quit his executive position at Columbia to work full time on the space film project, which was untitled at that time (this was 1964). Kubrick assured him that it would take years from concept to completion. He also said he wanted Roger to fly to different nations to interview prominent scientists for a prologue he intended to use in the finished film. It was important to Kubrick that the movie had gravitas and be grounded in realistic scientific concepts. Roger came home and informed his shocked wife that he was indeed going to quit his job and work with Kubrick. His rationale: Kubrick was the only true genius he had ever known. Not just a filmmaking genius, but a genuine genius who was conversant in virtually every subject. Roger had been friendly with the writer Arthur C. Clarke, who lived in Ceylon. He told Kubrick to read his works and Kubrick did just that. He was impressed by a story Clark had written, The Sentinel and contacted the author about the possibility of using it as an inspiration for his space film. Clarke was so enthused about the project that he agreed to co-author the screenplay with Kubrick. The rest, as they say, is history. The interviews with scientists that Roger had so painstakingly completed were also cut before the release print was finalized because a screening with MGM executives resulted in the feeling that it got the movie off to a slow and turgid start. An interesting side note: when our interview with Roger Caras was complete, he went into one of his files and said he would show us something priceless. He removed the original Trader Vic’s cocktail napkins that Kubrick had doodled his concepts on. When I asked him what possessed him to keep them at the time, he said that anything in writing from Kubrick had potential historical value. He was right.

Roger Caras disputed the popular legend that Stanley Kubrick was a recluse. He acknowledged he had eccentricities but was not insulated from the world. Kubrick filmed Dr. Strangelove in England and became enamored of the UK. He would only leave the UK one more time, when he had to show the original cut of 2001 to MGM executives in America. Kubrick, a former pilot, had experienced a near-death trauma when flying his private plane. He never flew again. Roger said that for reasons Kubrick never explained, he would not travel above 30 mph in any vehicle, which made accompanying him on the road an exasperating experience. Aside from these quirks, however, Roger said Kubrick enjoyed being in a group of intelligent, eclectic people and occasionally hosted parties at his estate. Roger said it was sheer bliss seeing legends from the worlds of politics, art, cinema and literature all meeting and engaging in conversation.

Coate: How would you describe 2001 to someone who has never seen it?

Benson: Since I screen it for young college-age film students, many have not seen it. I warn them that it is meticulously-paced, and that they will most likely find parts of it to be slow. I preface this with the fact that movies moved much slower prior to the 1980s and the advent of MTV. I explain that this has a hypnotic effect for audiences who accept the pace for what it is, settle into it, and let the movie envelop them. I then go on to say it is considered by many (including the AFI) to be the #1 science fiction film of all time, and how it leaves the audience to interpret it as they choose. Usually students are more receptive to it after a proper introduction that places the film within the context of when it was released.

Krämer: I think that today people are likely to have all kinds of preconceptions before they watch 2001, mainly to do with its status as a masterpiece and also perhaps as an expression of Kubrick’s pessimism. I wish that people could just drop these preconceptions, and approach the film as if they were going on a journey, a journey into the unknown. After all, the film has “odyssey” in its title.

One has to expect to get lost for a while on this odyssey, but one can also be certain to be returned home safely. It is best to experience each stage of the journey in its own right, because there are so many sounds and images, actions and motifs to contemplate. Perhaps one can use the intermission (which appears on most DVD and Blu-ray editions) to actually take a break and think about what one has seen and heard, and how the preceding stages of the journey relate to each other, and where the journey might go next.

At the end of the film, it is only fitting if one allows oneself to be haunted by the final image of the Star-Child looking directly at the camera and thus at the audience. One can explore how this image relates to the title shown right after the opening credit sequence: The Dawn of Man. What does all this tell us about what it means to be human? And about human history?

So my best advice would be to keep an open mind when watching 2001, to try to experience everything it has to offer, and to go away from it with many questions rather than with simple answers.

Coate: Any thoughts on the film’s sequel?

Krämer: I actually like 2010 quite a lot. The only problem is that it is pales in comparison with Kubrick’s film. It is difficult to watch it without constantly comparing it with 2001, and it is diminished by this comparison. Otherwise it is a perfectly engaging and stimulating film. I have read all the sequel novels that Clarke wrote and also the “time odyssey” novels he wrote together with Stephen Baxter. There are some wonderful ideas here, but, again, nothing quite lives up to the magical experience of watching Kubrick’s film.

Coate: Has 2001 been well-served on its numerous home-video releases? Is it worth watching in the home?

Benson: It’s made to be seen on the big screen — the bigger the better — and with a good sound system. Kubrick wanted the film to overwhelm an audience. Back in the 1980s, 2001 was the first VHS tape I bought, and I really hated the pan-and-scan version. A widescreen version came out a little later, and that helped, but it was no substitute for the big screen. DVD improved this, and then we got flat screen, widescreen televisions and Blu-ray. This helped immensely. I believe that if you have a really good home theater setup with a big TV screen, sound, and Blu-ray, in a darkened room with no distractions, you can recreate a decent experience watching the film (or any film, for that matter!).

Krämer: In my experience of watching 2001 dozens of times, it works on small screens as well as on big ones. Of course, it is a very special treat to see the film on a huge screen, perhaps even on an old Cinerama screen (as I once did in Bradford in the UK). But one can also immerse oneself when watching it on a television set, especially if it is large one with good sound. I think watching it while being alone may actually add something to the experience, especially when one is confronted with the Star-Child at the end. I have to admit that I never tried to watch it on a tablet or a smart phone. I wonder what that would be like.

Coate: What is the legacy of 2001?

Benson: As said above — it remains the #1 science fiction movie of all time. For me personally it’s the #1 movie of all time because it quite frankly changed my life. I had loved motion pictures prior to 2001, but after it I became seriously interested in the craft and history of cinema. I’ve seen it maybe a hundred times, and I continue to find new things to admire. It will always inspire and move me.

Krämer: The legacy of 2001 is difficult to map, because so many people were deeply affected by this film. Some, such as myself, became film scholars. More importantly, others, such as James Cameron, became film makers (in fact I am a great admirer of Cameron’s work, and I think that Avatar is the most powerful reworking of 2001 that we have seen in a long time). There are also no doubt many people who were inspired to get into space exploration and SETI (the search for extraterrestrial intelligence) or artificial intelligence research. Judging by the letters from cinemagoers Kubrick received, numerous people also simply felt that their lives did not have to go on as before, that change was possible, that everything was possible. Who knows what they eventually did with this feeling!?

Pfeiffer: The legacy of 2001 is apparent in the fact you are doing a major article about it 50 years later. Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke strove to challenge people’s imaginations and they succeeded. There are so many landmark visuals in the film, we can’t recount them here. It’s been criticized for being a cold, antiseptic film when it comes to exploring the human condition — and it is indeed that. However, Kubrick wasn’t interested in the viewers getting under the skins of the characters. If he was, he would have cast big box office names in the lead roles. Instead, he wanted to create a film that had a legacy that would last for many years and he certainly succeeded in that. The film inspired a new generation of filmmakers and continues to do so today. Doubtless, it will continue to do so even 50 years from now.

Coate: Thank you — Chris, Raymond, Peter, and Lee — for sharing your thoughts about Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, MGM/UA Home Entertainment, Stanley Kubrick Productions, Warner Home Video. 70mm frames scanned by Schauburg Archive. Home-video collage by Cliff Stephenson. Roadshow ticket stub from the collection of Robert Morrow. Raymond Benson photo by Katherine Tootelian.

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. This work is based upon articles by same author previously published at In70mm.com and CinemaTreasures.org.

SPECIAL THANKS

Al Alvarez, Jim Barg, Chris Barsanti, Don Beelik, Raymond Benson, Kirk Besse, Herbert Born, Serge Bosschaerts, Raymond Caple, Miguel Carrara, Evans A. Criswell, Nick DiMaggio, Carlos Fresnedo, Sheldon Hall, Thomas Hauerslev, William Hooper, Bill Huelbig, Mark Huffstetler, Peter Krämer, Bill Kretzel, David Larson, Ronald A. Lee, Mark Lensenmayer, Paul Linfesty, Stan Malone, Robert Morrow, Gabriel Neeb, Jim Perry, Lee Pfeiffer, Richard Ravalli, Jochen Rudschies, Sam Shapiro, Grant Smith, Cliff Stephenson, Bob Throop, Joel Weide, and Vince Young, and an extra special thank-you to all of the librarians who helped with this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• H.L. Bird (Sound Mixer), 1909-1968
• A.W. Watkins (Sound Supervisor), 1895-1970
• Geoffrey Unsworth (Director of Photography), 1914-1978
• James Liggat (Casting), 1920-1981
• Wally Veevers (Special Photographic Effects Supervisor), 1917-1983
• Leonard Rossiter (“Dr. Andrei Smyslov”), 1926-1984
• Sean Sullivan (“Dr. Bill Michaels”), 1921-1985
• Tom Howard (Special Photographic Effects Supervisor), 1910-1985
• John Alcott (Additional Photography), 1931-1986
• Alan Gifford (“Poole’s Father”), 1911-1989
• Tony Masters (Production Designer), 1919-1990
• Ernest Archer (Production Designer), 1910-1990
• Robert Beatty (“Dr. Ralph Halvorsen”), 1909-1992
• William Sylvester (“Dr. Haywood R. Floyd”), 1922-1995
• John Hoesli (Art Director), 1919-1997
• Frank Miller (“Mission Controller – Voice”), 1944-1998
• Stanley Kubrick (Writer-Producer-Director-Special Effects Designer/Director), 1928-1999
• Winston Ryder (Sound Editor), 1915-1999
• Ray Lovejoy (Editor), 1939-2001
• Edward Bishop (“Aries-1B Lunar Shuttle Captain”), 1932-2005
• Arthur C. Clarke (Writer), 1917-2008
• Harry Lange (Production Designer), 1930-2008
• Margaret Tyzack (“Elena”), 1931-2011
• Bill Weston (“Astronaut”), 1941-2012
• Stuart Freeborn (Makeup), 1914-2013
• Frederick I. Ordway III (Scientific and Technical Consultant), 1927-2014
• Ann Gillis (“Poole’s Mother”), 1927-2018

-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) 

Five years ago we featured a 30th anniversary Jedi retrospective. (As well, we’ve presented a 35th anniversary retrospective for The Empire Strikes Back and a 40th anniversary look at the original Star Wars.) For this most recent anniversary The Bits features a revised and updated compilation of statistics and box office data that places Return of the Jedi’s performance in context, plus passages from vintage film reviews, a reference/historical listing of the movie’s 70-millimeter showcase presentations, and, finally, an interview segment with a trio of Star Wars authorities and historians who discuss Jedi’s impact, virtues, shortcomings, and legacy.

JEDI NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of Academy Awards (Special Achievement in Visual Effects)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1983 (calendar year)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1983 (summer season)
• 2 = Rank among Fox’s all-time top-earning films at close of original run
• 2 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1980s (earnings from 1/1/80 – 12/31/89)
• 3 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
• 4 = Box-office rank among films produced by Lucasfilm (adjusted for inflation)
• 4 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 7 = Number of weeks top-grossing movie (weeks 1-3, 5-7 and 1 of 1997 re-release)
• 15 = Minimum number of weeks first-wave theaters were contractually required to play the movie
• 16 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)
• 23 = Number of days to gross $100 million*
• 29 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a single-screen theater)
• 33 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 51 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a multiplex)
• 68 = Number of days to gross $200 million
• 69 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies
• 164 = Number of 70mm prints during first-run*
• 1,002 = Number of theaters playing the movie during opening week (836 venues; 1,002 screens)
• 1,764 = Peak number of theaters simultaneously showing the movie (week of Aug 5-11)

• $29.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (CED)
• $34.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (LaserDisc)
• $79.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (Beta & VHS)
• $22,973 = Opening weekend per-screen-average
• $6.2 million = Opening-day box-office gross*
• $8.4 million = Highest single-day gross (May 29)*
• $11.3 million = Box-office gross of 1985 re-release
• $23.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (3-day)*
• $30.5 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (4-day holiday)*
• $32.5 million = Production cost
• $41.1 million = Opening week box-office gross (6-day)*
• $45.3 million = Opening week box-office gross (7-day)*
• $45.5 million = Box-office gross of 1997 re-release
• $84.4 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $169.2 million = Box-office rental (% of gross paid to distributor), 1983-85
• $232.3 million = Box-office gross during summer season (May 25 – Sep 5)
• $252.6 million = Box-office gross of original release
• $263.9 million = Cumulative box-office gross (1983 + 1985)
• $309.3 million = Cumulative box-office gross (1983 + 1985 + 1997)
• $732.8 million = Cumulative all-time box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF PASSAGES FROM REVIEWS

“Return of the Jedi doesn’t really end the trilogy as much as it brings it to a dead stop. The film is by far the dimmest adventure of the lot. Let’s face it, Luke, the magic’s gone.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“Two thumbs up!” — Siskel & Ebert At the Movies

“If a producer wants backing for a new project, there’d better be a video game in it. Producers are putting so much action and so little character or point into their movies that there’s nothing for a viewer to latch on to. The battle between good and evil, which is the theme of just about every big fantasy adventure film, has become a flabby excuse for a lot of dumb tricks and noise.” — Pauline Kael, The New Yorker

“An exciting, technically astounding wrap-up to the Star Wars trilogy. The probability of success is about as definite as death and taxes.” — Jimmy Summers, Boxoffice

“Strip away the hype and what have you got? A sloppy, cloying, overblown, under-directed disappointment. The acting is unspeakable, the dialogue is unsayable and the suffering of discriminating adults in the audience is ineffable. See it if you must, but expect nothing.” — Scott Sublett, The Washington Times

“With Jedi, George Lucas may have pulled off the first triple crown of motion pictures.” — Sheila Benson, Los Angeles Times

“Let’s not pretend we’re watching art!” — Rex Reed, New York Post

“If there ever was a critic-proof movie, Return of the Jedi is it.” — Candice Russell, (Fort Lauderdale) Sun-Sentinel

“The Star Wars films have a mystic allure. They are clearly designed to appeal to the best in all of us and to exemplify universally admirable virtues — courage, the strength to fight against evil, romance, belief. They are built around the notion of a magic force in the universe which might be God or might be gravity; this force, in turn, is serviced by a knights’ order that is almost a clergy. The entire cosmology is rent by a titanic conflict between good and evil.” — Stephen Hunter, The (Baltimore) Sun

“[Return of the Jedi] is not a movie, it’s a shopping mall” — David Denby, New York Magazine

“Third installment in the Star Wars saga is a sheer delight. Some routine performances are compensated for by ingenious new characters and special effects.” — Leonard Maltin, Entertainment Tonight

“From the moment that the familiar Star Wars introduction words begin to crawl up the screen, Return of the Jedi is a childlike delight. It’s the best video game around. And for the professional moviegoers, it is particularly enjoyable to watch every facet of filmmaking at its best.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“John Williams’ music consists almost entirely of themes and variations on themes he composed for the two earlier movies. This, unfortunately, will be a complaint that many people will make against Return of the Jedi. They will feel that they have seen and heard it all before.” — Scott Cain, The Atlanta Constitution

“May the force stay with George Lucas and company. They crank out some of the most exciting films America has ever seen.” — Kathy Thomas, The (Vacaville) Reporter

“A sense of déjà vu was inevitable. But Jedi is downright repetitive.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Return of the Jedi is a triumph of movie wizardry; a snappy, dazzling celluloid comic book, capturing our emotions between its magical pages and holding them within a prison of wonderment. It’s a virtual toy box of dreams and surprises for children and adults of all ages.” — Steve White, The Worcester Telegram

“[A]fter all the hype is forgotten, after all the magazine feature spreads yellow and fade, after the Luke Skywalker dolls and Han Solo posters hit the discount-store bargain tables, one simple fact will remain: Return of the Jedi is a terrific movie. And here is one critic who wants to shout that information from the rooftops.” — Joe Leydon, The Houston Post

“In the third episode of the Star Wars saga, the human characters are completely upstaged by a sort of intergalactic FAO Schwartz window display.” — Michael Sragow, Rolling Stone

“Return of the Jedi falls several frantic hairs short of being the greatest movie of all time, or at least since the empire struck back a couple years ago. But don’t get me wrong — while Return of the Jedi is no model or monument, it’s still a scrumptious jiggly Jello-mold of visual and optical effects and, when things get into gear, action at such a blistering pace it whiplashes the eyes out of their happy little sockets.” — Peter Stack, San Francisco Chronicle

“Everyone knows that George Lucas has the biggest, gaudiest magic factory in the entire movie-making world. In Return of the Jedi Lucas throws the entire eye-popping outfit, including the special effects sink, at us. It’s a marathon visual-effects extravaganza, a piece of skillful audience manipulation and a two-hour comic-book film of spectacular fun — perhaps too much fun. Watching this supercartoon of a movie is a little like sitting down to an old-fashioned Thanksgiving dinner and knowing your Mom won’t let you leave the table until you’re absolutely stuffed.” — Joan Bunke, The Des Moines Register

“Tying up the Star Wars stories to date, George Lucas introduces amazing new special effects and a zoo’s worth of exotic creatures, some of them cute. [But] Leia has lost her fire, some of Han Solo’s zingers fall flat and Luke looks uncomfortably trapped in adolescence.” — Michael Maza, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“There is good news, bad news, and no news about Return of the Jedi. The good news is that George Lucas and company have perfected the technical magic to a point where almost anything and everything — no matter how bizarre — is believable. The bad news is the human dramatic dimensions have been sorely sacrificed. The no news is the picture will take in millions regardless of the pluses and minuses.” — James Harwood, Variety

“Jedi, one of the most anticipated movies of all time, opens today and it’s everything it ought to be — glorious, exhilarating, exciting, absorbing, technically wondrous. But there also is something bittersweet in the knowledge that, with Jedi, we are bidding a fond farewell to all the characters we got to know so well.” — Rena Andrews, The Denver Post

“Unfortunately, [Jedi] conveys the sense that the machinery has already begun to wear down and the inventiveness to wear thin. The stuff of legend that inspired and elevated the earlier episodes has here been replaced largely by the stuff of comic books.” — Arthur Knight, The Hollywood Reporter

“From the point of view of simple movie-making logistics, there is an awesome amount of work on the screen in Jedi. The fact that the makers of Jedi are able to emerge intact from their task, having created a very special work of the imagination, is the sort of miracle that perhaps Obi-Wan would know something about.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Return of the Jedi is a brilliant, imaginative piece of moviemaking. But it does not diminish the accomplishment of Lucas and his youthful team to say that there are flaws nonetheless. The most obvious, ironically, is an overemphasis on effects and a too proud display of odd-looking creatures.” — Gerald Clarke, Time

“If you can let the child in you come to the surface and not be overly concerned with the believability of the human characters, Return of the Jedi will be plenty of fun and probably a movie to which you’ll want to return for repeat performances.” — Ed Smith, (Marin County) Independent Journal

“The miracle continues. Return of the Jedi is every bit as exciting and satisfying as its predecessors. George Lucas and his hi-tech team of movie-makers have completed the first Star Wars trilogy, incorporating the tried-and-true elements of the best films ever made with the unique Lucas vision and style, and created a winner.” — George Williams, The Sacramento Bee

“For a continuation of a legend that has touched and inspired millions of adults and children in every corner of the world, Jedi remains almost devoid of moments of truth. The rich mythology that seemed to drift through the cosmos of Star Wars and Empire alluding to anything from Christian ideologies to the mysteries of Zen fails to come to any climactic fruition in the new film. Since it does mark the end of a trilogy, one expects to come away with a few nuggets of wisdom from, say, Yoda or Obi-Wan. But Obi-Wan and Yoda scarcely have anything to say worth remembering.” — Carol Olten, The San Diego Union

“The special effects are not bad, but not so good as to look radically different from animated cartoons, and it goes against my grain to watch something this long, this repetitious, and this wastefully expensive that is, after all, only a cartoon with overtones of video games.” — John Simon, National Review

“Any movie capable of so thoroughly delighting a child can’t be as bad as its adult detractors think.” — Andrew Sarris, Village Voice

“It’s getting rarer and rarer to go to a movie that so enwraps the viewers, so viscerally enchants and enthralls them that they cheer, hiss and applaud with regular, excited fury.” — Rick Lyman, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“[T]he extravagant George Lucas production is in the peculiar position of being a first-rate piece of entertainment — and at the same time a mild disappointment. It’s a case of great expectations being 85 percent fulfilled. You find yourself begrudging the other 15 percent.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“George Lucas, the creator of the series and still its guiding force, had the chance to astonish and stir the largest audience for any sequel in film history. Instead, he chose a conventional resolution that pleases in the manner of a finale to a long-running TV series. The ending recalls the sentimental finish of M*A*S*H, and Return of the Jedi is likely to be just as popular. — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“Return of the Jedi is the best one yet. The script, performances and special effects are clearly superior to both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back and the implications of Lucas’ space-age fairy tale should dismiss any thoughts he’s just a manipulative technocrat.” — Michael Blowen, The Boston Globe

“Faults? How can anyone believe Mark Hamill? Along with Ali McGraw, Hamill is an honors graduate of the Open-Mouthed School of Acting. The poor boy has those empty Little Orphan Annie eyes, and neither he nor Harrison Ford look as if they have a brain between them. They even talk dumb. And, sure, Princess Leia’s smart — and this time ’round, they made sure we all got to see she has a great body as well, just in case there were any doubts — but character development is clearly not Lucas’ heavy suit.” — Catharine Rambeau, Detroit Free Press

“Nothing — as far as these films is concerned — can ever again be as good as our first viewing of Star Wars when we met all these people and experienced Lucas’ marvelous concept for the first time. On the other hand, we have the compensation of knowing them all now as old friends, and that is reassuring in a way that first experiences can never be.” — George Anderson, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (what we might refer today as a tent-pole or high-profile release) have on occasion been given a deluxe release in addition to a conventional release. This section of the article includes a reference / historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Return of the Jedi in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to have experienced Jedi and the only way to have faithfully heard the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix. This is the sort of listing (sans the duration figures) that might’ve trended on the Internet to assist moviegoers in finding a 70mm presentation near them had such a resource existed in 1983.

Of the 150+ movies released during 1983, Return of the Jedi was among only thirteen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements. Only about fifteen percent of Jedi’s initial print run was in the deluxe 70mm format, which offered superior audio and image quality but were significantly more expensive and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints.

With a reported 164 large-format prints for North America (plus more for international release), Jedi was at the time the industry’s largest 70mm release and remains to this day among the industry’s ten largest such releases.

The 70mm prints of Jedi were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio and were blown up from 35mm anamorphic. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format of 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 Jedi, Lucasfilm introduced the THX Sound System (in two markets) and (unofficially) introduced their Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print.

Seventy-millimeter trailers for The Star Chamber, To Be or Not to Be and Brainstorm circulated during the Jedi release and which were recommended to be screened with the 70mm presentations.

The listing includes the 70mm engagements that commenced May 25th, 1983 (except where noted otherwise). The listing does not include the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements (though if any readers are interested many of these bookings were cited in our previous Jedi retrospective).

The duration of the engagements (measured in weeks) has been included 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 the engagement because the booking was moved to a smaller, 35mm-only auditorium within a multiplex or due to print damage and the distributor’s unwillingness to supply a 70mm replacement print. As well, the reverse was 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.

Some liberties have been taken in regard to generically named theaters (i.e. “Cinema,” “Cinema Twin,” “Cinema 6,” etc.). Typically such venues were located in shopping centers and as such they have been identified in this work whenever possible by the name of the shopping center 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 during the Jedi engagement even if in some situations a “complex” consisted of screens spread out among separate buildings. 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 it is known Jedi was screened simultaneously in 70mm in more than one auditorium in a complex, both engagements have been cited but the numbers provided represent the prints and do not necessarily reflect the auditorium number in which the film was playing.

In a couple of cases, a city name has changed since 1983 (due to annexation or incorporation) and effort has been made to list these cases according to the city or recognized name at the time of the Jedi engagement.

Prior to release, in lieu of a formal premiere for Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm and Fox chose to hold regional charity previews between May 22nd and 24th. The cities in which these screenings were held included Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Flint, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, San Francisco, Toronto, and Tucson. As well, the movie was screened as a part of the Seattle International Film Festival.

So, which theaters in North America screened the 70mm version of Return of the Jedi?

ALABAMA

• Birmingham — Cobb’s Village East Twin (19)

ALASKA

• Anchorage — Wometco-Lathrop’s Polar Triplex (24) [opened June 3rd]

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Palace (18)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Londonderry Twin (19)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Westmount Twin (21)

ARIZONA

• Phoenix — UA’s Chris-Town Mall 6-plex (29)
• Scottsdale — Nace’s Kachina (17)
• Tucson — Plitt’s Foothills 4-plex (25)
• Tucson — TM’s El Con 6-plex (41)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver — Odeon’s Vogue (21)
• Victoria — Odeon’s Haida (18)

CALIFORNIA

• Campbell — UA’s Pruneyard Triplex (38)
• Cerritos — UA’s Cerritos Mall Twin (24)
• Corte Madera — Marin’s Cinema (18)
• Costa Mesa — Edwards’ Town Center 4-plex (25)
• El Cajon — UA’s Parkway Plaza Triplex (23)
• Hayward — UA’s Hayward 5-plex (40)
• La Mirada — Pacific’s La Mirada Mall 6-plex (29)
• Long Beach — UA’s Marketplace 6-plex (21)
• Los Angeles (Del Rey) — UA’s Marina Marketplace 6-plex (23)
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — UA’s Egyptian Triplex (21)
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) — UA’s Valley Plaza 6-plex (22)
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — GCC’s Avco Center Triplex (20) [THX]
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) — UA’s Warner Center 6-plex (22)
• Montclair — UA’s Towne Center Plaza 6-plex (28)
• Monterey — UA’s Cinema 70 (18)
• National City — Pacific’s Sweetwater 6-plex (#1: 41)
• National City — Pacific’s Sweetwater 6-plex (#2: 6)
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Twin (17)
• Oakland — Foster’s Piedmont (18)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (#1: 22)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (#2: 11)
• Palm Springs — Metropolitan’s Camelot Triplex (17)
• Pleasant Hill — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (28)
• Redwood City — UA’s Redwood 6-plex (41)
• Riverside — UA’s Tyler Mall 4-plex (41)
• Sacramento — UA’s Arden Fair 6-plex (51)
• San Diego — Pacific’s La Jolla Village 4-plex (21)
• San Diego — UA’s Glasshouse 6-plex (22)
• San Francisco — UA’s Coronet (28)
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Arlington (16)
• Santa Clara — UA’s Cinema 150 (29)
• Thousand Oaks — UA’s Oaks 5-plex (21)
• Westminster — UA’s Westminster Mall Twin (29)

COLORADO

• Colorado Springs — Commonwealth’s Cooper Triplex (19)
• Denver — Commonwealth’s Continental (7) [early termination due to theater fire]
• Denver — Commonwealth’s Cooper Twin (20+)

CONNECTICUT

• Orange — Redstone’s Showcase 7-plex (18)
• Stamford — Trans-Lux’s Ridgeway Twin (12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s MacArthur Triplex (15)
• Washington — GCC’s Jenifer Twin (18)

FLORIDA

• Fort Lauderdale — GCC’s Galleria 4-plex (16)
• Kendall — Wometco’s Dadeland Triplex (18)
• Miami Beach — Wometco’s Byron Carlyle Triplex (10)
• North Miami Beach — Wometco’s 163rd Street Triplex (21)
• Orlando — GCC’s Fashion Square 6-plex (24)
• Winter Park — Wometco’s Winter Park Triplex (18)

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — Plitt’s Phipps Plaza Triplex (23)

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Consolidated’s Cinerama (24) [opened June 24th]

ILLINOIS

• Belleville — BAC’s Cinema (18)
• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks 6-plex (16)
• Chicago — GCC’s Ford City Triplex (19)
• Chicago — Plitt’s Esquire (16)
• Chicago — Plitt’s State Lake (8)
• Forest Park — Essaness’ Forest Park Mall Triplex (22)
• Lombard — GCC’s Yorktown Triplex (19)
• Moline — Redstone’s Parkway (21)
• Niles — Essaness’ Golf Mill Triplex (15)
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin (16)
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield 4-plex (18)
• Tinley Park — Essaness’ Bremen 4-plex (19)

INDIANA

• Evansville — Stieler’s North Park 7-plex (19)
• Fort Wayne — MSM’s Holiday Twin (21)
• Indianapolis — Y&W’s Eastwood (18)

IOWA

• Des Moines — Dubinsky’s River Hills (26)
• Dubuque — Dubuque’s Cinema Center 5-plex (17)

KANSAS

• Overland Park — Dickinson’s Glenwood Twin (21)
• Wichita — Commonwealth’s Twin Lakes Twin (21)
• Wichita — Dickinson’s Mall (18)

KENTUCKY

• Florence — Mid States’ Florence 6-plex (41)
• Louisville — Redstone’s Showcase 9-plex (29)

LOUISIANA

• Metairie — GCC’s Lakeside 5-plex (18)

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Odeon’s Grant Park (19)

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Charles Triplex (17)
• Chestnut Hill — GCC’s Chestnut Hill 5-plex (18)
• Seekonk — Redstone’s Showcase 7-plex (18)
• West Springfield — Redstone’s Showcase 9-plex (18)

MICHIGAN

• Dearborn — UA’s The Movies at Fairlane 10-plex (29)
• Flint — Butterfield’s Flint (25)
• Livonia — NGT’s Mai Kai (18)
• Southfield — NGT’s Americana 4-plex (27)
• Southgate — NGT’s Southgate Triplex (19)
• Troy — UA’s The Movies at Oakland 5-plex (23)

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington — GCC’s Southtown Twin (21)
• Minneapolis — Plitt’s Skyway 4-plex (17)
• Minnetonka — Plitt’s Ridge Square Triplex (19)
• Roseville — GCC’s Har-Mar 11-plex (21)
• West St. Paul — Engler’s Signal Hills 4-plex (18)

MISSOURI

• Hazelwood — Mid-America’s Village Triplex (29)
• Independence — Mid-America’s Blue Ridge East 5-plex (18)
• Kansas City — Commonwealth’s Bannister Mall 5-plex (18)
• Richmond Heights — Mid-America’s Esquire 4-plex (17)

NEBRASKA

• Omaha — Commonwealth’s Indian Hills Twin (29)
• Omaha — Douglas’ Q Cinema 6-plex (22)

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (15+)

NEW JERSEY

• Edison — GCC’s Menlo Park Twin (18)
• Lawrenceville — Sameric’s Eric Lawrenceville Twin (21)
• Moorestown — Sameric’s Eric Plaza Moorestown Twin (29)
• Paramus — RKO Century’s Route Four 7-plex (21)
• Sayreville — Redstone’s Amboy 10-plex (13)

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — GCC’s Louisiana Blvd. Triplex (18)

NEW YORK

• Colonie — RKO Century’s Fox Colonie Twin (21)
• East Meadow — UA’s Meadowbrook 4-plex (16)
• Garden City — RKO Century’s Roosevelt Field Triplex (17)
• Hicksville — RKO Century’s Mid-Island Plaza Twin (18)
• New York (Brooklyn) — RKO Century’s Kingsway 4-plex (21)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ 34th Street Showplace Triplex (16)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ Astor Plaza (21)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ Orpheum Twin (16)
• Pittsford — Loews’ Pittsford Triplex (23)
• Valley Stream — Redstone’s Sunrise 11-plex (17)
• Yonkers — GCC’s Central Plaza Twin (18)

NORTH CAROLINA

• Charlotte — Plitt’s Park Terrace Triplex (19)
• Winston-Salem — Plitt’s Thruway Twin (23)

NOVA SCOTIA

• Halifax — Famous Players’ Scotia Square (18)

OHIO

• Beavercreek — Mid States’ Beaver Valley 6-plex (18)
• Dayton — Chakeres’ Dayton Mall 8-plex (18)
• Springdale — Mid States’ Tri-County Cassinelli Square 5-plex (41)
• Toledo — Redstone’s Showcase Triplex (28)

ONTARIO

• Hamilton — Famous Players’ Tivoli (18)
• London — Famous Players’ Park (18)
• North York — Famous Players’ Towne & Countrye Twin (19)
• Ottawa — Odeon’s Somerset (18)
• Scarborough — Famous Players’ Cedarbrae 6-plex (19)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Cumberland 4-plex (10) [La Reserve]
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Runnymede Twin (19)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ University (21) [includes TIFF interruption Sept 9-17]

OREGON

• Beaverton — LT’s Westgate Triplex (29)
• Portland — Moyer’s Rose Moyer 6-plex (41)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Allentown — Sameric’s Eric Allentown 5-plex (28)
• Easton — Sameric’s Eric Easton 4-plex (13)
• Harrisburg — Sameric’s Eric East Park Center Twin (18)
• Montgomeryville — Sameric’s Eric Montgomeryville Triplex (#1: 28)
• Montgomeryville — Sameric’s Eric Montgomeryville Triplex (#2: 2)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#1: 28)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#2: 2)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#3: 2)

QUEBEC

• Montreal — United’s Claremont (13) [opened May 27th]
• Montreal — United’s Imperial (18)
• Montreal — United’s Le Parisien 5-plex (25) [opened June 22nd, Version Francaise]
• Ste-Foy — United’s Canadien (7)

RHODE ISLAND

• Warwick — Redstone’s Showcase 8-plex (18)

TENNESSEE

• Nashville — Martin’s Belle Meade (18)

TEXAS

• Addison — UA’s Prestonwood Creek 5-plex (29) [THX]
• Austin — GCC’s Highland Mall Twin (25)
• Dallas — GCC’s Northpark West Twin (21) [THX]
• Fort Worth — UA’s Hulen 6-plex (18)
• Houston — GCC’s Meyerland Plaza Triplex (21)
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Northwest 10-plex (29)

UTAH

• Riverdale — Tullis-Hansen’s Cinedome 70 Twin (15+)
• Salt Lake City — Plitt’s Centre (21) [includes temporary m/o to Regency, June 3-16]
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (#1: 43)
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (#2: 8)

VIRGINIA

• Springfield — GCC’s Springfield Mall 6-plex (18)

WASHINGTON

• Seattle — UA’s Cinema 150 (29)

WISCONSIN

• Milwaukee — UA’s Southgate (19)
• Wauwatosa — UA’s Mayfair (17)
• West Allis — Marcus’ Southtown Triplex (19)

ADDITIONAL / SUBSEQUENT 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

• 1983-07-22 … Thornton, CO — Commonwealth’s North Star Drive-In (4+) [m/o from Continental]
• 1983-07-29 … Toronto, ON — Famous Players’ Palace Triplex (9)
• 1983-09-30 … Montreal, QC — United’s York (4) [m/o from Imperial]
• 1983-10-21 … San Rafael, CA — Marin’s Regency 6-plex (7)
• 1983-10-21 … Toronto, ON — Famous Players’ Uptown 5-plex (8) [m/o from University]
• 1983-12-16 … Montreal, QC — United’s Imperial (3) [Version Francaise; m/o from Le Parisien]
• 1983-12-21 … Carmel, IN — Heaston’s Woodland Twin (4) [second run/discounted admission]
• 1983-12-23 … Cleveland, OH — Variety (3) [second run/discounted admission]
• 1983-12-23 … New York, NY — RKO Century’s Warner Twin (3)
• 1983-12-26 … Atlanta, GA — Fox (5 days) [Holiday Film Festival]
• 1984-03-28 … Toronto, ON — Cinesphere (5 days) [70mm Film Festival]

Though its 70mm prints have not been cited in this work, it should be pointed out that Return of the Jedi was re-released on March 29th, 1985, and in Special Edition form in 35mm with digital sound on March 14th, 1997. And over the years there have been numerous additional 70mm screenings, often for charity (including Star Wars triple features, ILM tributes, THX Sound System demonstrations, 70mm festivals, and 20th Century Fox retrospectives).

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Michael Kaminski is the author of The Secret History of Star Wars: The Art of Storytelling and the Making of a Modern Epic (2008, Legacy).

Mark O’Connell is the author of Watching Skies: Star Wars, Spielberg and Us (2018, The History Press).

Craig Stevens is the author of The Star Wars Phenomenon in Britain: The Blockbuster Impact and the Galaxy of Merchandise, 1977-1983 (2018, McFarland).

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Return of the Jedi should be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

Michael Kaminski: The 35th anniversary of Return of the Jedi comes just as Marvel Studios celebrates its 10th anniversary and the release of Infinity War, and I think there are a lot of parallels to be drawn in terms of bringing an ambitious, multi-film saga to a close. I struggle to think of a film series before the Star Wars trilogy which had a multi-movie storyline with the scale and scope that we ended up with in Return of the Jedi. Star Wars broke every box office record in history so of course sequels were going to be made, and we could have had another 10 years of 20th Century Fox cranking out a string of sequels to varying degree of success, and if you look at some of the early Expanded Universe like Splinter of the Mind’s Eye you get a window into this alternate world, but George Lucas took a different approach of making a three-film arc that told a larger tale. This is nothing special today, but before there was Marvel Studios or Harry Potter — which, it should also be noted, were simply adapting pre-existing literary works — Return of the Jedi did something truly unique by offering a satisfying capper to the story that began in 1977. Lucas also was ahead of his game in building in-roads to further the franchise, despite the finale of the third film — offering three more “prequels” set before the trilogy, and leaving the door open to continue the further adventures of the heroes or explore other areas of the world he had created in a cross-hatching “cinematic universe” before that term existed. It’s hard to see Return of the Jedi with fresh eyes and be truly staggered at the level of ambition and risk this approach had when the films were among the most popular and expensive ever made. Marvel Studios is getting massive accolades now as re-writing the book on franchise-building and world-building, but they are really just elaborating upon the example of the Star Wars series that only became apparent with the release of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi — really, a two-part expansion of Star Wars from a fairy tale into a saga, that didn’t just make more sequels but turned towards personal melodrama and a three-part epic, in something that wasn’t adapting pre-existing sources but being made in real-time as a wholly original tale exclusive to the cinema. Even though each entry has an “episode” number, what makes the two sequels unique is that they are decidedly not episodic, but instead the second and final acts of a classic three-act narrative structure. To do this with a fantasy epic set in space on such a large budget would still be impressive today, decades later. Given the landscape of Hollywood in the early 21st Century, Return of the Jedi is prophetic.

Yes, a huge part of the movie drags due to Ewoks, yes, the writing isn’t as clever as before, but Return of the Jedi, for all its flaws, was attempting something not done before. It was this film that we finally got “the trilogy,” still intoned with sacredness all these decades later.

I also think that Return of the Jedi stands as the crowning achievement of visual and special effects from the pre-digital era. Hand-painted mattes, models, puppets, and optical compositing reached a level of complexity and ingenuity that had never been seen before, and I would also say since. If anyone knows anything about optical compositing, the space battle over Endor is a masterclass of optical effects so mind-bogglingly complex, with its hundreds of layers and dizzying motion-tracked camera moves, that it can still compete with the best and most state-of-the-art action scenes of films made over 30 years later like Rogue One. It’s reasons like this that the history of cinema is being shortchanged with the original theatrical versions of these films not being released in new remasters.

Mark O’Connell: Instead of closing the lid on the Star Wars saga and despite its story finality, Return of the Jedi is one of the reasons the franchise continued cinematically. Admiral Ackbar, Mon Mothma, Emperor Palpatine, Nien Nunb, Wicket W. Warwick, Bib Fortuna, Jabba the Hutt, the Biker Scouts, the Ewoks and the Speeder Bikes are all last act ingredients which — instead of celebrating the final hurrah — create story worlds, audience enthusiasm, cool sidebar industries, and an adoration which fed into the momentum of post-1983 Star Wars. The diplomacy and political gravitas of Mon Mothma is all over the prequels, the Ackbar sense of commanding during battle is a major last act device of 2016’s Rogue One via Admiral Raddus, the alien gangster enclave of Jabba’s Palace reverberates in The Force Awakens, and the adventure and speed of the Speeder Bike chase has been furthered in every Podrace, Coruscant night chase, Geonosis pursuit and escape from Canto Bight since.

And aside from being the first Star Wars movie that is finally an all-out war in the stars, Return of the Jedi is also responsible for the first Episode VII and Episode VIII — in the guise of the sometimes-overlooked Ewok TV movies, Caravan of Courage (aka The Ewok Adventure, 1984) and The Battle for Endor (1985).

Craig Stevens: I think that it should be remembered as a fantastic addition to the Star Wars film saga that brought the original Star Wars trilogy to an exciting and satisfying conclusion. It introduced a host of fantastic characters and environments. People can think back to so many wonderful moments in the film, even if they haven’t seen it in years.

Coate: Can you recall the first time you saw Jedi?

Kaminski: I was too young to see the films in theaters, so the first time I saw it was from family friends taping it off of HBO for me in the mid-late 1980s, knowing that I liked the first two films so much. Return of the Jedi always bored me the most out of all the films when I was a child, and it still does. Star Wars was a lot of fun, and Empire Strikes Back just looked and felt so interesting, but even as a five-year-old Return of the Jedi never left the same impression on me. In fact, I taped over the first 25-minutes of my Return of the Jedi recording with an episode of Super Dave Osbourne around 1990 — nothing of note happened until Han comes out of the carbonite around the 25-minute mark anyway, right?

The main thing I watched it for as a kid were the scenes between Luke, Vader and the Emperor, and the space battle, and those continue to be the highlights for me as an adult. Over time, I have found the behind-the-scenes history and context that the film was made in to be as interesting as the film itself, which is the sort of stuff you tend to be oblivious to as a kid. I think I also became aware of the unevenness of the film, having both the best and worst scenes in the trilogy — something I couldn’t articulate as a child, I just knew it didn’t quite grab me like the other two except for certain parts. Still, there wasn’t a Star Wars trilogy without Return of the Jedi, so every film in the trilogy was essential and considered a classic, you couldn’t just omit one from your personal pantheon, you took the whole trilogy or you took nothing. I do recall a few of my friends telling me around the age of 8 or 9 that Jedi was their favorite.

O’Connell: I was seven years old when I saw Return of the Jedi at the Regal Cinema in Cranleigh, Surrey. It was a glorious 1936 monoplex with one screen, one confectionary kiosk and one film playing at any time. Seeing the illuminated yellow marquee with those big black letters spelling out the name of a film that was finally on my doorstep was nothing short of wondrous. One of my vivid memories involves speeding to the restroom for a pee break (I waited until Yoda had passed to show some respect — but the Dr. Pepper intake was killing me). Whilst I stood in the freezing cold and vintage tiled urinal I could hear Alec Guinness booming around me with his Jedi master advice. I can still see the beams of Obi-Wan’s close-ups emanating from the projection room as I raced back to my seat and the film cut through the smoke-filled theater like a massive R2 unit hologram.

Both then and now, I greatly cherish this film, its rich production, its heroic swagger, its sense of optimistic finality, the kinetic and physical set-pieces and the amount of artillery and vessels that Marquand, Lucas and their teams blessed the film with. That is all heady stuff to a seven-year-old with his own artillery of plastic toys from the film waiting at home to be even more relevant after seeing Return of the Jedi.

Stevens: I saw Return of the Jedi at the Romford Odeon a week after it opened. Before the Internet there was less of a culture of counting down the days to the release of a film. I emerged from the cinema believing the film to be the best of the trilogy. I had actually been disappointed as a ten-year old with The Empire Strikes Back and my thirteen-year-old self thought that Return of the Jedi had undone the damage. It had been so action packed, funny and incredibly dramatic. It answered all of my questions in a satisfying way and left me on a total high. I watched the film on DVD shortly before answering these questions and quite honestly I can’t really see what some people have against it. The Ewoks are cited by many but they should perhaps accept the furry creatures for what they are and concentrate on the film’s other themes. I am courting controversy but for me The Empire Strikes Back is slower and more somber than Return of the Jedi but it is not a great deal deeper. The vision in the cave is carried to its conclusion with Luke staring at his own mechanical hand when he is tempted to kill his father. The deepest concept in Return of the Jedi is that Luke finds that Princess Leia, a woman that he loved romantically is actually his sister. There are ramifications for Leia too considering her treatment at the hands of her own father. Few cinematic moments can compare to Luke burning Darth Vader’s armor.

Coate: In what way is Jedi significant?

Kaminski: Again, it did things that no movie had done before, such as an ambitious and expensive three-film arc that had a beginning, middle and end. After Empire Strikes Back came out, the storyline could have been stretched out over an infinite number of sequels that kept introducing new plots and characters like an ongoing soap opera, and that was the plan at the time of writing Empire, but from a narrative point of view it is Return of the Jedi that solidified the Star Wars series as a deliberate and finite storyline with a defined and logical arc. As much as the writing of the film gets criticism, it is also remarkable for its larger narrative achievement, which also built roots for sequels, prequels and spinoffs with such a good balance between subtlety and obviousness that modern studio executives should still be studying it.

I think, also, from a narrative point of view, it doesn’t get enough credit for the maturity and emotional depth it brought to the final confrontation between Luke and Vader. Their scenes are the best scenes in the entire franchise, and bring a realistic nuance and poignancy to the relationship between a comic-book villain in a cape and mechanical mask and his space-wizard son. Rather than having a more simplistic and action-packed revenge-style final battle, it is hard to think of another series where the hero and villain finally face each other and just talk. The drama going on beneath the surface there is more interesting than the swordfights. I don’t remember anyone making as big a deal out of this fact at the time as it deserves, but perhaps that is why this trilogy was upheld so highly, and why the flaws in this film become underlined, as the film has such high highs.

O’Connell: It re-ignited the box office might of the trilogy. If The Empire Strikes Back confirmed the commerce of the sequel, then Jedi ’83 proved the dollars and interest a good trilogy could generate. Like a great many 1980s sci-fi blockbusters — and even those that got less noticed — they are instrumental stepping stones in the evolution of visual FX and franchise productions. A lot of films pushed the envelope for those key effects houses throughout California and San Francisco. Return of the Jedi saw a scaling up of those tricks and inventions. One massive Imperial ship slicing across the screen six years before was no longer enough. Now audiences were witnessing multiple ships cascading in all directions, varying scales of battle, even newer camera motion controls and a wholly balletic battle. That beat when the Millennium Falcon soars inside the new Death Star would not have been possible in 1977. Return of the Jedi led to the CGI nursery slopes of Young Sherlock Holmes (1985), which in turn led to Willow (1988), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and then Jurassic Park (1993) — the latter of which then gave George Lucas the technical confidence he needed to fully realize the Star Wars prequels. ILM were of course responsible for it all and pushing the FX envelope on Return of the Jedi — that took its key turn in that Darwinian progression of 21st Century visual effects.

Jedi ’83 also has great significance in the history of franchise cinema. What the film represented for the history of pop cultural merchandise alone is highly significant — with an all-out plastic attack on kids toyboxes and home-video rental markets. It was also the last era of keeping a rumor lid on a big movie’s production. Blue Harvest was the film’s location alias (a tic that continues on Star Wars movies to this day) and it now symbolizes a pre-Internet time when spoilers on a franchise movie could be kept quiet. Add to that a cracking, pounding and fiercely paced score by John Williams who was Oscar nominated again for his composing — and you have a grand summer blockbuster whose popularity continues thirty-five years later.

More crucially, Return of the Jedi is also a masterpiece of franchise editing. Its pace and sense of story purpose comes into its own throughout that last, frenetic epic act. The final, split-action battles in space, the Falcon and on Endor are there in many a franchise sequel since (The Return of the King, Avengers: Infinity War). But the difference is that Episode VI didn’t drop the story ball. Every beat, incident and look matters and propels the narrative on. In trying to better Jedi ’83, many a film since has fallen victim to its own digital devastation and carnage.

Stevens: It was difficult for Return of the Jedi to secure a legacy as a “significant” motion picture and that was not the intention of George Lucas and company when they embarked on its making. The film could not have had the freshness of A New Hope or the maturity of The Empire Strikes Back. It did however set a high bar in the realm of action, excitement and comedy; all of the elements that it was intended to deliver. The film was also instrumental in its advancement in special effects. It is challenging even today to spot the joins between the live-action Endor sequences and the animated walkers. The space battle scenes are still a wonder.

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

Coate: Was Richard Marquand a good choice to direct?

Kaminski: I think he was an appropriate choice given what George Lucas wanted, and that is an important distinction to remember. I don’t feel that he directed the film with the style and visual flair that Kershner brought, but I think Marquand did the best job anyone could. Lucas wanted the film done quickly and without great on-set cost, so the mandate was to film in quick set-ups, which is why the film has a rather flat and dull look to it, without much camera movement and intermixing between scene blocking and camera position, instead using simple, locked off angles without elaborate lighting so the film could be shot fast and then driven by editing. To be fair to Lucas, this is the exact same manner Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were made in, so there was fantastic precedent; Empire Strikes Back looks great because the film went so far over budget and schedule, and Jedi had a budget of about $30 million as it was, making it one of the most expensive films of its time even if everything went according to plan.

You also have to consider the script Marquand was working with, and if Jedi invites some criticism in story, character or dialogue, these are outside of his influence. His main area of influence — the performances — are as good as they can be with the script he had, and when the script is really good Marquand really delivers, as in the case of the scenes with Luke and Vader. The live-action scenes are directed competently, and if the cinematography looks like a made-for-television movie the visuals are made up for by ILM’s magic.

I think Marquand gets a bit short-changed because his life was tragically cut short and so his presence in the history of the series is often overlooked.

O’Connell: George Lucas hankered after Steven Spielberg to direct Return of the Jedi. Could you imagine a Spielberg Star Wars movie?! Sadly, Directors Guild stipulations and politics stopped that from ever happening and the Welsh Richard Marquand ended up taking on the baton from Irvin Kershner. Marquand was a British TV director whose 1981 thriller Eye of the Needle got the attentions of Lucasfilm and its producers.

Sadly, his canon of movie work was short-lived as Marquand prematurely passed away in 1987. It is safe to say what he gave the film was a sense of control. It was probably no easy task to take on the mantle after A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Alongside the challenges of fan expectation, Marquand not only came into a unit made up of a cast and crew who were suddenly getting a new teacher in year three, he had to no doubt contend with the demands of a sci-fi opera of this nature. Yet — even with those conditions and the understandable twitching of franchise flame holder George Lucas — Marquand created a movie that holds together admirably. After the wilfully enclosed and sparse environs and emotions of Empire, Marquand opens out Return of the Jedi with a big scale intent. As soon as we start we are on an expansive and renovated Death Star, the droids are lone figures again in a sea of sand and the full might of the Empire and Rebellion are finally laid bare. Yes, Han Solo’s role could be more influential, and Leia loses that sense of fight from before. Yet, Marquand successfully spins all the requisite plates — and ends up with a fully-fledged intergalactic war movie those yellow crawls had been promising since May 1977. It keeps its soul, humor, and warmth in its sights at all times — despite multiple narratives all vying for attention and their big conclusions. Marquand is responsible for that. The fact that Lucas never allowed another director to take on an episode on his watch may speak certain volumes, but that may not be solely down to Richard Marquand himself.

Stevens: A lot has been written about George Lucas steering clear of using directors from the Directors Guild of America, so he had to choose from a fairly short list of capable candidates. In any case a Star Wars movie is so tightly scripted and storyboarded that it hardly requires any direction, unless in the mode of Irvin Kershner, the person at the helm decides to improve the material they’ve been provided with. Richard Marquand stuck to the script (which was perhaps unavoidable with Lucas over his shoulder) but he put his stamp on the film nonetheless. In the pre-production planning Marquand fine-tuned the script with George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan. Marquand was also attentive to the acting. There was an incident where Carrie Fisher was standing in her Boushh costume like a soldier on parade but Marquand told her to be stealthier. It could be argued that Marquand could have drawn out better performances, especially from Harrison Ford but if an actor is uncommitted there must be only so much a director can do. Lucas himself was present at much of the filming and is not known for his communication with the cast. Overall I think that Richard Marquand did an excellent job and perhaps elevated the film by some degree from the pulp that was in the script.

Coate: Where do you think Jedi ranks among the original trilogy of films? Among the entire saga?

Kaminski: On a personal level, I consider it easily the most flawed of the original three, but it continues the story of Empire Strikes Back and has characters I already love — because of this, it rides on the coattails of Empire and overcomes flaws that would otherwise seriously harm the film. I always have a hard time placing those good-but-not-quite-great Star Wars films like Revenge of the Sith, Return of the Jedi, Force Awakens or Rogue One and Last Jedi. To me, there are only two great Star Wars films — the original and Empire Strikes Back — and then everything sort of falls in the middle, with Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones way down at the bottom. I think Return of the Jedi is armed with a secret weapon that none of the other films have though, in that despite having flaws like most of the other films, it gets lumped into the pantheon of Star Wars and Empire by virtue of being the conclusion to the characters and narrative of those films, whereas something like Revenge of the Sith has the opposite problem and has to fight against its ties to two films that failed to develop compelling plot and characters. If J.J. Abrams doesn’t drop the ball with Episode IX I think the new trilogy could stand up fairly well, but nothing will ever come close to that first trilogy, because, well, it’s the first. It did everything for the first time. And as I mentioned — for all its flaws, there is no Star Wars trilogy without Return of the Jedi.

O’Connell: It is a hard trilogy to emerge as victor when you have A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back in your group too. The original trilogy especially are all very different movies with unique parameters and story needs. Return of the Jedi is a masterclass in movie production, effects, modeling, editing and design. Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One and no doubt Episode IX all echo the adventure and genre achievements of Star Wars ’83. And in a movie era of comic book franchises that don’t know how to conclude as separate, standalone movies or even sagas, Return of the Jedi is an ever valuable blueprint in how to conclude with a swagger, confidence and narrative urgency. One observation about the film is how confident it is with its scope, story requirements and audience expectations. One could observe that no Star Wars film since has been so successful with its three act intent and ability to juggle its disparate story elements.

Stevens: To my mind Return of the Jedi is on balance, on a par with its forbears in the trilogy. Each film delivers its own unique package. It’s a common view that the third chapter of the original trilogy is the weakest but now that everyone knows the outcome of the film, only the first time viewer of Return of the Jedi can be kept in suspense. Even then, it is unlikely for people not to know that Darth Vader is Luke’s father, that the Death Star was destroyed and the rebels won (sorry if that’s a plot spoiler for anyone).

Coate: Do you have a preference for the Original or Special Edition? In what way was the Special Edition special?

Kaminski: The Special Edition of the film as it currently stands (2011 Blu-ray) is unwatchable to me because of the ending of the film, more so than Han shooting second which I have an easier time overlooking. I don’t complain much about my favorite franchise being “ruined” like you see so many fans these days, who either are new to their fandoms themselves or have very short memories, but the ending of the film — the ending of the trilogy, when the full meaning of the saga comes to crystallization — has been muddled with changes that completely take one out of the experience, as Darth Vader shouting “Noooo” in a reprisal of a dramatic deflation from Episode III notorious for being unintentionally comedic, and the appearance of Hayden Christensen in place of the redeemed Sebastian Shaw that we saw unmasked a few minutes prior, which makes no sense at all and undermines the arc of Anakin’s character. But I could take the 1997 version, which has some okay additions, especially in the expanded ending which makes better sense in the context of the larger series of today (the 1997 version also lacks the Jar Jar inclusion of 2004’s revision). The new Jedi Rocks dance musical is distractingly bad, but I always thought Lapti Nek was pretty embarrassing too. I honestly do believe Lucas was intentionally trolling the fans with his late addition of Darth Vader shouting “Noooo” in 2011, knowing that it had already become a meme making fun of his writing and directing in Revenge of the Sith. Lucas sometimes holds grudges with a mischievous sense of humor, as when he was photographed on the set of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a couple years earlier wearing a “Han Shot First” t-shirt.

O’Connell: I am not someone who automatically neck-chokes the Special Editions to the floor. It is sometimes overlooked how George Lucas’s insistence on updating and improving the original trilogy is why we have Star Wars movies today. Some fans may not have liked the new additions and quirks, but they spurred on new audiences to engage with the movies at home and at the movies. The 1997 Special Editions particularly proved the box office love for these films. Imagine if Lucas and Lucasfilm hadn’t renovated the original trilogy at all (which was something he was doing from the first week of release of A New Hope — for reasons of getting it right, not tampering). I am not so sure younger audiences today would fall in love with the original trilogy in its original form had Lucas not upgraded the visuals, sounds and effects to progress and evolve with the times and to feel and operate like non-Eighties movies.

But yes — the originals are the best! The new flourishes of Return of the Jedi — the Palace aliens breaking the fourth wall, the new Max Rebo Band number, the tulip-tentacled Sarlaac Pit, the new Ewok celebration tune and even the non-Star Wars-y explosive ripples of the Death Star’s destruction — do not add anything that was not there to begin with. But they justified new cinema releases which in turn led to new cinema audiences, new fans, new product, and new trilogies.

Stevens: Personally speaking I don’t consider the Special Edition to be all that special. There wasn’t anything in the film that needed fixing. Two of the changes are simply abysmal; the song and dance routine in Jabba’s Palace and the addition of Hayden Christensen’s ghost at the finale (not to mention changing the closing theme and scenes of celebration around the galaxy). I never watch the Special Edition at home.

Coate: What is the legacy of Return of the Jedi?

Kaminski: I think you have to put Return of the Jedi in the context of when it was made and what it was intended to do. It wasn’t the crowing epic of the six-chapter saga of Anakin Skywalker, it was meant to be the closing sequel to Star Wars that wrapped up the story and character arcs begun in that film in a story that was befitting the spirit of Star Wars. The first act at Jabba’s Palace and the corny original closing of “Yub Nub” strike younger viewers as out of place, but I think those two elements are the best examples that illustrate the original context of Return of the Jedi. The Jabba’s Palace sequence lets us see all our heroes together again making wisecracks with each other in a fun and exciting sequence after they were split up for most of Empire Strikes Back, while also celebrating the return of fan-favorite Han Solo, and Yub Nub is a fun and funny send off to our friends as the series ends with a chorus literally singing “celebrate the love” as our heroes clap around a camp fire. As the conclusion to the lighthearted and funny original Star Wars, it balanced the serious melodrama of Empire against that helluvvatime-at-the-movies sense of glee the original film had. George Lucas has said that he wanted audiences leaving the theater in 1983 to feel totally uplifted and in high spirits and in the mood to celebrate, just as the state we leave the characters, and I think that aspect has been lost now that the scale and scope of the Star Wars saga has outgrown that trio of films. You have Chewie and Han dancing with Ewoks and playing the drums on the helmets of stormtroopers, and then the film takes a quiet moment as the spirit of Anakin, Yoda and Obi-Wan appear to give Luke a thumbs up before he rejoins his friends and the music crescendos with “celebrate the love.” I think the original theatrical ending perfectly encapsulates how to appreciate the purpose and expectation in which the film was made, because it doesn’t exist in that context any more. It also has to be seen as a reaction against the departure of style and content that Empire brought, which is partly why it recycles so much.

O’Connell: The last act of Rogue One, the underworld gangsters of Solo, the production golds and reds of The Last Jedi, that the prequels were as much a Palpatine backstory as an Anakin Skywalker one, and that franchise mainstay of good people improvising as best they can with what they can to defeat evil. Add to that — the warm memories of Star Wars younglings who endlessly recreated those Jabba’s Palace scenes, the Speeder Bike chases around the school yard and the Sarlaac Pit which saw many a bedsheet rolled into a deadly tentacle and thrown down the stairs. It was a glorious entry point for those sky kids who missed the theatrical runs of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. In a year of threes — Jaws 3-D, Amityville 3-D, Superman III, Smokey and the Bandit 3 — for one generation Return of the Jedi represents their beginning of Star Wars fandom, not the end of it.

Stevens: With its dramatic and satisfying conclusion of the overall plot and its upbeat finale, Return of the Jedi set the future of the Star Wars brand on an extremely sure footing and ensured that the trilogy would be regarded as one of the greatest of all time. That would not have transpired if the third chapter had been lackluster and had left audiences unmoved. The law of diminishing returns usually applies to film series but this is not the case with Return of the Jedi, judging by the audience reaction and box office takings in comparison to Empire. In the formative years of “blockbuster” films Return of the Jedi proved the viability of film series and the success of the Star Wars trilogy is something that film makers have strived to emulate ever since.

Coate: Thank you — Michael, Mark, and Craig — for sharing your thoughts about Return of the Jedi on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Lucasfilm Ltd., 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company.

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. This work is based upon articles by same author previously published at TheDigitalBits.com, FromScriptToDVD.com, In70mm.com and CinemaTreasures.org.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Raymond Caple, Andrew Crews, Sheldon Hall, John Hazelton, Bobby Henderson, Michael Kaminski, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Monty Marin, W.R. Miller, Mark O’Connell, Jim Perry, Cliff Stephenson, Craig Stevens, and an extra special thank-you to all of the librarians who helped with this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• Graham Freeborn (Chief Make-up Artist), 1943-1986
• Richard Marquand (Director), 1937-1987
• Douglas Twiddy (Production Supervisor), 1919-1990
• Sebastian Shaw (Anakin Skywalker), 1905-1994
• Jack Purvis (“Teebo”), 1937-1997
• Alec Guinness (“Ben ‘Obi-Wan’ Kenobi”), 1914-2000
• Claire Davenport (“Fat Dancer”), 1933-2002
• Peter Diamond (Stunt Arranger), 1929-2004
• Mary Selway (Casting), 1936-2004
• David Tomblin (First Assistant Director/2nd Unit Director), 1930-2005
• James Glennon (Location Director of Photography), 1942-2006
• Alan Hume (Director of Photography), 1924-2010
• Fred Hole (Art Director), 1935-2011
• Ralph McQuarrie (Production Illustrator), 1929-2012
• Kay Freeborn (Make-up Artist), 19??-2012
• Stuart Freeborn (Make-up Designer), 1914-2013
• Kenny Baker (“R2-D2” and “Paploo”), 1934-2016
• Kit West (Mechanical Effects Supervisor), 1936-2016
• Carrie Fisher (“Princess Leia”), 1956-2016

-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 for this segment are (in alphabetical order)…

Ajay Chowdhury is the author (with Matthew Field) of Some Kind of Hero: The Remarkable Story of the James Bond Films (The History Press, 2015; updated paperback edition to be released in July 2018). Born in London and read Law at university there and in The Netherlands, Ajay has consulted on various motion picture, music, publishing, television and theatrical projects and has been involved with British and European feature film production in various capacities including developing screenplays and raising finance. He was the associate producer on Lost Dogs (2005) and Flirting with Flamenco (2006) and has been an Advisory Board member on Tongues On Fire who present the London Asian Film Festival.

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 produced the special features for the home entertainment release of Octopussy. He 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. 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 contributed new introductions for the original Bond novels Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and Goldfinger for new editions published in the U.K. by Vintage Classics in 2017.

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) The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the co-founder 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.”

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 Octopussy, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

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

Ajay Chowdhury: To help understand why the film is worthy of celebration now, one must first understand the context in which Eon’s 13th Bond film was unleashed. Upon its release in 1983, Octopussy celebrated James Bond’s 21st cinematic birthday. With the likes of then-President Ronald Reagan toasting a fictional 007 on a promotional TV show, James Bond came of age. Implicitly, faced with Sean Connery’s return as Ian Fleming’s agent in Never Say Never Again, Octopussy pulled out all the Eon stops: a repositioned Whitehall brigade of M (now played by Robert Brown), Moneypenny (assisted by Penelope Smallbone) and Q (in his largest role yet), overt use of Monty Norman’s James Bond Theme (“Such a charming tune”) and innovative action on air and on land, helmed by now confident Bond veteran, John Glen. All this anchored by the late, great Roger Moore in an age-defying, sixth and confident turn as the character which, by now, he had made his own.

Thomas A. Christie: Strangely, given that Octopussy is generally regarded as one of the more slow-moving and character-driven entries in the Bond cycle, it is easy to forget just what a gift it was for the media at the time. With Sean Connery reprising the role for the first time in over a decade in the independently-produced Never Say Never Again in the same year, and the very real question of whether Roger Moore would be moving on from the role, the series would achieve renewed cultural relevance with much attention being focused upon the question of which movie would win the head-to-head battle between two vastly popular Bond actors. While Octopussy would ultimately emerge victorious at the box-office, the Cold War-centric plots of both films gave them a contemporary edge and sense of socio-cultural significance that had debatably been on the wane for some years, re-energizing audience interest at a time when the action movie genre was entering a kind of cinematic golden age that would continue throughout the 1980s and beyond. Yet in a number of ways Octopussy was also slightly atypical for a Bond movie at the time, deliberately paring back a reliance on overly familiar tropes in ways which allowed a pertinent, timely geopolitical parable to emerge throughout the narrative with greater confidence than in many other features of the cycle.

John Cork: Octopussy represents James Bond as one of the worst secret agents in the history of espionage, and yet he’s so self-assured, so smug that he takes the day. This is a film with audacity, absurdity, unintentional comedy, a painfully boring theme song, but it just works. This is a movie where Bond dresses up both as a gorilla and a clown, a movie filled with twins / doppelgangers, a Bond movie that seems to harken to the past rather than the future, but it is always fun to watch.

The movie’s pre-credits scene is a perfect example: Bond drives to a horse show conveniently next to a military base in an Argentina-like country. This was shortly after the Falklands War, but all the military officials look like they were extras from the Woody Allen film, Bananas. Bond coolly adopts the disguise of a Colonel whose name he clearly does not know, then starts to leave before he’s reminded that he needs to put on his fake mustache. He promptly gets captured and is only saved because his trusty accomplice Bianca is paying attention. For reasons that completely defy logic, two of his guards taking him off-base in a jeep are wearing parachute packs on their backs. In the history of all the militaries in all the world, no security detail for a prisoner in a jeep has ever worn a parachute. Bond soon hops into the BD-5J “Acrostar” jet which, apparently, he did not properly fuel. A few minutes into his flight, he seems surprised when it runs out of gas. But the scene is brilliantly entertaining. Audiences loved every second of it. Using old-school effects, a real Bede jet, fantastic stunts, and one of the greatest miniature explosions ever, this is the best pre-credits scene of the 1980s.

That’s Octopussy. It’s one fake mustache away from being a complete disaster, but somehow it pulls everything off and ends up sitting pretty.

Lee Pfeiffer: I’m pretty much out there on my own with this, but Octopussy has always been my favorite Roger Moore Bond film. The conventional wisdom among fans is that The Spy Who Loved Me is generally regarded as his best, and while I do love that film, Octopussy has an off-beat, more exotic quality probably because it combines the India locations with major set pieces behind the Iron Curtain. It’s a bizarre, audacious premise but they pull it off well.

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

Chowdhury: My journey to Octopussy was particularly memorable. My cousin, Raj Singh, had visited the set of the film in 1982 prior to him starring as Zalim Singh, the adolescent Maharajá of Pankot in Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. Raj had told me about the Udaipur setting he had seen recreated. As a 12-year-old Englishman of Indian extraction, I was intrigued by this.

Early in 1983, my parents were selling their home and a prospective purchaser was a costumier on the film. We lived 20 minutes from Pinewood Studios in North West London and I was regaled with tales of the circus ending of the film. Heck, this was pre-internet 007 gold!

On 6th June 1983, I watched the ITV broadcast of the Royal Premiere of the film and the aforementioned James Bond: The First 21 Years, the star-and-President studded celebration of 007. Together with an embryonic collection of magazine cuttings, by the time the film wended its way to the less expensive suburban cinemas, I was fizzing like Alka Seltzer in a flute of Bollinger.

On what must have been a Saturday afternoon in early August 1983, I queued with my entire family — with many other entire families — round the block of the Harrow Granada cinema. No different from now, the eventual viewing of a Bond film at the cinema is the end of a long, anticipated, clue-studded wait. Seeing Octopussy was the tip of the tentacle of my enjoyment. And enjoy it I did, leaving the cinema on an all-time high. Octopussy is a tight, considered Cold War-themed thriller wrapped in a sun-never-sets-on-Empire fantasy. Roger Moore embodied Cool Britannia before the term had been invented. Arguably, it is the most iconic of the Eighties Bond films with the Acrostar pre-title sequence becoming the memorable set-piece of the movie.

Christie: Back in the eighties, there was a real sense that Octopussy marked a determined attempt by the Bond production team to reassert the Cold War roots of the series — arguably even more so than had been the case in For Your Eyes Only. I first saw the movie midway through the decade on VHS, and was rather struck at the time by the way that there seemed to be more of an effort to play down the more fantastical elements that had become common to the series, putting greater emphasis on dialogue, character development and plot dynamics. Scenes like the tense backgammon game between Bond and Kamal Khan may well have seemed out of place in some other movies in the cycle, but here they seemed perfectly pitched given the rather more stately pace of the narrative. Yes, naturally there are elements of exotic travelogue, the obligatory chase sequences, cutting-edge Q-Branch gadgets, and all of the expected fight scenes remain present and correct. But this really felt like a darker, more mature Bond movie that was consciously working to downplay the increasing level of heightened technological fantasy and knowing whimsy that had manifested itself from the mid-seventies onwards, instead embracing the grittier strain of realism evident in John Glen’s directorial debut For Your Eyes Only and continuing along the same vein.

Cork: I saw Octopussy in New York City at a critics screening at a theater on Times Square. I was staying with a film critic, Tom Sullivan, for whom I had interned years earlier. I attended with him. The crowd loved it. I was scheduled to meet a girl who was in the same program in college with me after the screening. I had enjoyed the film so much that I figured out a way to sneak her in for the second critics screening a half an hour later.

Pfeiffer: I saw the film at the Loew’s State Theatre in Times Square at an advanced critics screening. I liked it immediately. I had mixed opinions about the previous Bond film, For Your Eyes Only, though I have warmed to it over the years. I felt that while it was a major improvement over the slapstick of Moonraker, it was still too silly in parts. I thought that the balance of humor and thrills in Octopussy was exactly right…though I still cringe at the scene in which Bond makes that Tarzan yell while swinging from a vine. The plot is complex…in fact, it’s too complex and I still find it hard to figure out all the intrigue about the egg. Someone tried to explain it to me once and midway through their explanation, they determined that even they didn’t quite understand it. But it’s a lively, fun film with Moore in top form. It also has a very good title theme song and a marvelous John Barry score. The script is witty even when it’s confusing and it’s very well cast.

Coate: In what way was Louis Jourdan’s Kamal Khan a memorable villain?

Chowdhury: That professional Frenchman Louis Jourdan was cast as the exiled Afghan Prince Kamal Khan says a lot of about the film industry of the time. Try getting away with that now! Known India-phile, George MacDonald Fraser had originally envisaged a more typical subcontinental buccaneer-type with flowing robes and a black turban. As played by Jourdan, he matched Roger Moore for urbane suaveness and his Hollywood background gave the film an elevated air of class. He has a number of classic scenes including a backgammon duel where he is ingeniously outwitted by Bond — he hisses the Fleming line, “Spend the money quickly, Mr. Bond” — and the dinner at the Monsoon Palace where he devours a sheep’s eye to the audiences’ and Bond’s obvious disgust.

Christie: Kamal Khan was a slightly problematic antagonist, in the sense that while the late Louis Jourdan was undeniably an actor with abundant charm and sophistication, he seems to be overshadowed at every turn by Steven Berkoff’s snarling, posturing Soviet zealot General Orlov — nominally the secondary villain of the movie. It doesn’t help that Orlov’s aims are so much more tangible in nature: the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the expansion of the USSR’s military influence into Central and Western Europe, thus tipping the balance of the Cold War in favor of totalitarianism. Khan may well be the shadowy figure behind the scenes whose schemes are helping to aid the general’s illicit objectives, but the convoluted nature of the bait-and-switch plot concerning the smuggling of priceless Russian art treasures into the West (with the originals being painstakingly duplicated and returned to Moscow) seems oddly genteel compared to the nuclear warhead-triggering intrigues employed by Orlov. While the detailed expository scene at the beginning of the film makes it clear that Orlov’s reckless actions are not sanctioned by the Soviet leadership, throughout the film the threat posed by the character seems so much more immediate than that of the film’s comparatively sedate central adversary. In this sense, of course, Khan seems like a natural progression of the more grounded Bond villain heralded by Julian Glover’s charismatic, manipulative Aristotle Kristatos in For Your Eyes Only, in that he was willing to use Cold War geopolitics not for ideological ends (as Orlov intends to), but rather because of the personal benefit he could obtain from playing both sides against each other. This was a theme to which screenwriters Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson would return in A View to a Kill, and most especially The Living Daylights, later in the decade.

Cork: Louis Jourdan wins the prize for playing the most unctuous Bond villain. He had tragically lost a son to a drug overdose in 1981. He had all but retired by that point, doing occasional TV appearances, but his friends urged him to dive back into work as a form of therapy. He had played a villain in Swamp Thing, which everyone thought was a disaster, but Cubby Broccoli was a friend and he decided to cast Jourdan. Jourdan had memorably played a villain in the Doris Day film Julie back in the mid-50s, which coincidentally ends with a deadly battle on a plane in flight. Jourdan was a lot of fun to watch. Some of the cast and crew described him as “prickly,” always wanting to go over his lines, adjusting a word here or there, but I think that meticulousness shows in his performance. Unfortunately, his character is ostensibly working for Octopussy, and he has multiple scenes where he is seen kowtowing to her. This does little to create a character that we fear or respect. I wish he had a great moment of villainy, some scene that celebrated the character’s dark heart in a particularly chilling moment. Nonetheless, the way he says the name, “Octopussy” is just so delightful. He’s a great actor.

The real villain of the film is General Orlov, played masterfully by Steven Berkoff. He seems to channel a bit of George C. Scott from Dr. Strangelove, but he makes every scene he’s in leap off the screen. The war room scene where he perfectly articulates the Reagan-era fear of a conventional invasion of West Germany is appropriately chilling. His attempt to force NATO to unilaterally remove nuclear weapons from Europe is both believable and brilliant. When Bond confronts Orlov about the consequences of a nuclear explosion on a U.S. military base, he points out that NATO will certainly retaliate. Berkoff plays his line perfectly. “Against whom?” he asks. He is so good that his scenes lift up the performances of everyone around him. Orlov is a great character, wonderfully written, played to the hilt. I wish he had lasted until the end of the film rather than foolishly and needlessly getting shot at the East German border.

Pfeiffer: While Khan isn’t a larger-than-life Bond villain, he fits the bill suitably. He’s dapper, witty, debonair, and proves to be a good match for Bond. Supposedly Jourdan felt out of place on the set. He was from the old world studio system and had never made anything like a Bond film previously. Word is that he found the entire experience to be somewhat bizarre compared to all those films he had shot on MGM sound stages, but he comes through admirably. He’s especially good in the requisite scenes in which he banters politely with Bond, even when he describes how he intends to give him a mind-killing truth serum.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Maud Adams’ Octopussy a memorable Bond Girl?

Chowdhury: Casting director Jane Jenkins had originally looked to cast Indian actresses as Octopussy including Star Trek: The Motion Picture’s bald beauty, Persis Khambatta. However, again, in a sign of the times, Maud Adams was eventually re-cast as the title character. Trailed as the first female Bond villain, Octopussy has a depth of background drawing cleverly from the eponymous 1966 posthumous Fleming short story. Adams had gained in confidence and her mysterious introduction feeding her pet octopus is atmospheric and bodes well. Adams’ scenes with Moore sizzle — especially where she dresses 007 down as a paid assassin and daring him to become two of a kind and move with her as one. Adams did the best with a poorly written part — MacDonald Fraser has her name revealed to be October Debussy — whose villainy is co-opted by her male co-stars. She is athletic in the Monsoon Palace attack and beautiful in a sari and acquits herself with grace and poise.

Christie: Octopussy may well be a movie which has been blighted by claims of cultural chauvinism over the years, but there was no denying the robust feminist credentials of its eponymous figure. Maud Adams’ Octopussy is smart, resourceful, and perceives Bond more as a useful instrument to achieve her goals than as the singular answer to her problems. In that sense she owed more to the tradition of strong, highly-skilled female supporting characters such as Anya Amasova and Melina Havelock than she would to the somewhat less independent Stacy Sutton who was to appear in Moore’s swansong A View to a Kill. The audience could believe without question that Octopussy is such an intelligent and quick-witted character, with undeniable qualities of leadership and organizational ability, that she is perfectly capable of taking on the film’s antagonist directly with no necessary involvement from Bond; a fact which is emphasized by the highly effective assault on Khan’s palace by her employees, which she orders when the scope of his treachery becomes clear. Rather than diminishing Bond’s relevance, Octopussy’s unwavering competence, ingenuity and autonomy make the on-screen pairing an interesting match of professional skills and understated romantic chemistry which was handled with customary proficiency by both Adams and Moore.

Cork: Octopussy was the first attempt to do a full-scale female Bond villain. She’s very much inspired by Pussy Galore, even down to having her own “flying circus” (of acrobats, not pilots). And like Pussy Galore, she’s really a good girl at heart once she’s slept with 007. There is something that dances into Tennessee Williams territory when she sleeps with the man responsible for her father’s death, but I’ll leave that to Octopussy’s therapist to handle. She also reminds me, oddly, of Marnie from the Hitchcock film starring Sean Connery in that she’s an obsessed kleptomaniac with sexual issues. Maud Adams is good in the role, but I miss the film where she’s the actual villain. As it is, she has far too little to do. She never seems essential to the plot.

The father of the cinematic character of Octopussy is one Major Dexter Smythe. Smythe commits suicide when confronted by Bond over the murder of a mountain guide some years previous. In the film, Bond refers to Smythe’s “native guide.” All this is a reference to the original Ian Fleming short story Octopussy. In that original short story, where the murder of the guide takes place in Austria, not North Korea, the guide is given a name, Hannes Oberhauser. The literary Bond describes Oberhauser as a father figure after the death of his parents. And in the film SPECTRE, Oberhauser is also the father of Franz, who grows up to become Blofeld. This means in some twisted merged literary / cinematic universe, Octopussy’s father killed Blofeld’s father.

Pfeiffer: I’ve known Maud for many years and she still remains one of my favorite Bond actresses. She was one of the few admirable elements in The Man with the Golden Gun. She has the distinction of being the only actress who played two different major roles in two different Bond films. She’s exquisitely beautiful as Octopussy and kudos to the costume designer for outfitting her so exotically. In the past, some of Bond’s leading ladies were…well, let’s put it this way…they were responsible for eliciting some unintended laughter from the audience. But Maud can act and can deliver some questionable lines of dialogue without the unintended consequences. She and Roger were great friends in real life and remained so. In 2010, Roger was in London and had agreed to appear at an event for our magazine, Cinema Retro. We were able to arrange for him to have a surprise reunion with Maud and Britt Ekland, who was also in Man with the Golden Gun. It was quite apparent how much respect Maud and Roger had for each other.

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

Chowdhury: I find ranking Bond films particularly difficult and actually unhelpful and inaccurate. Also, my mood shifts and times change. For me Octopussy was certainly the winner of 1983’s The Battle of the Bonds having a better story and setpieces than Connery’s Never Say Never Again — American fans tend to prefer the latter. Octopussy had too much broad humor which offset the clever and politically astute plot. However, as I outline [in my answer to the next question], as the Bond films moved away from setpieces and locations extravaganzas, one sometimes misses the sheer, unabashed entertainment where Octopussy’s virtues overcome its vices.

Christie: It seems that Octopussy has become a bit of a curio amongst Bond movies, and while unlikely to rank amongst the very best of Moore’s appearances in the role, its Cold War credentials have lent it a kind of contemporary political relevance (shared by its predecessor) that would be largely lacking in Moore’s final performance as Bond two years later. While it could be argued that the conceit of a nuclear incident being deliberately engineered to shift the Cold War status quo was more effectively delineated by Frederick Forsyth’s later novel The Fourth Protocol and its cinematic adaptation, for a Bond film the scenario felt fresh and germane to the glacial geopolitics of the early eighties in ways that demonstrated a shift away from the more grandiose global annihilation strategies of the late seventies entries in the series. However, what may feel like a move in the direction of greater subtlety and finesse in the film’s political commentary would inevitably make it seem remarkably sedate when viewed in the wider context of the Bond cycle, meaning that Octopussy has divided the opinions of both fans and critics since the time of its initial release.

Cork: I enjoy Octopussy. In my 2012 rankings I did with my son, it landed 15th, but that seems low to me today. Yet, when I look at the list, there are no real clunkers above it. It’s not a great Bond film. It’s too long. I never need to see the tuk-tuk chase in India again or cringe at Octopussy thanking Bond for causing her father’s death. But the chase to the airbase in Germany works on a Hitchcockian level, building real suspense. The film is saddled with a lot of silliness, like reaction shots from camels, and the smarmy sex jokes feel a bit creepy, but so much of the film just works.

Pfeiffer: I don’t think it outshines the first six films in the series or Casino Royale or Skyfall, but I do think it can fit snugly in as perhaps my 9th favorite film in the series. So middle-of-the-pack, in my opinion. I watched it last year when I screened the film at the Players Club in New York City, where we inducted Roger Moore as a member some years ago. I was very pleased with the way it held up, not having seen it in quite a few years. It still made me laugh and I believe it’s Roger’s most enjoyable performance as 007. More importantly, the audience, which was comprised not of Bond fans but of private club members, enjoyed it immensely, so I think its merits hold up well today.

Coate: What is the legacy of Octopussy?

Chowdhury: Watching the film now, one realizes they don’t make Bond like they used to. In 1983, they went to real, iconic locations and interacting directly with them: the Berlin Wall and Udaipur are incorporated into the story and action.

Back then, they kept loosely to the Three Girl Formula as coined by Roald Dahl: Tina…good, Magda…bad-ish, Octopussy…good-ish augmented by publicity pulchritude, the Octopussy Girls.

In those days, Bond films were the iron fist of a world affecting caper clad in the velvet glove of an elegant, seemingly unconnected MacGuffin, seasoned with elements of Ian Fleming. George MacDonald Fraser, later rewritten by Richard Maibaum and Michael G. Wilson, confected a Zeitgeist-ian tale of forced nuclear disarmament exploited by a renegade Soviet general unraveled by the trail of a jeweled Faberge Egg, The Property of a Lady.

In 1983 there was still a suave central villain — the Afghan Prince Kamal Khan — assisted by physical heavy with a novel accoutrement: beturbaned Sikh warrior, Gobinda with his yo-yo buzz saw.

The film exemplifies the then typical Bondian trope of many staggered endings. Firstly, we have the nail-biting, absurdist Hitchcockian circus finale. Then, the all-girl assault on the Monsoon Palace, a feminist take on the boiler suit end battle. This is capped by the stinger where the villain and/or henchperson are dispatched using their devices against them. In this case, Bond using the Beechcraft airplane to off Gobinda (the twanging aerial) and Khan (his jacket jamming the airflap). Of course, the film finally ends with an “Oh James” waterborne ending. And, alas, Octopussy is the last Bond to end with the announcement of the title of its successor.

Watching any Bond film is to examine a pop-cultural time capsule but watching Octopussy is to examine how they used to make Bond films and how that process has evolved. For me it is nostalgic exercise, capturing the enjoyment of my youth. May 2017 marked the first time an actor who played Bond in the Eon series had passed. With the death of Sir Roger Moore, watching Octopussy now is freighted with poignancy, evoking the ache of all my unbought yesterdays.

Christie: While Octopussy may always be fated to be best remembered as the Bond film that went head-to-head with Never Say Never Again, its real legacy was to reaffirm the relevance of the series to an increasingly sophisticated international audience that was being presented by a resurgent action movie genre which was offering whole new levels of cinematic spectacle and excess. Whether it can be regarded as vintage Bond, or even a classic of the Moore era, is questionable. However, there is no doubt that the movie did play an important part in ongoing efforts throughout the eighties by John Glen and others within Eon Productions to reinvigorate the series, and that the groundwork laid at the end of Moore’s tenure in the role would act as a foundation for the considerably moodier and more starkly uncompromising approach of the Timothy Dalton films that would appear later in the decade.

Cork: In the film Ted, Mark Wahlberg belts out a terrible version of All Time High at a Nora Jones concert. That moment, in its own way, cemented the film’s place as an icon of 80s pop culture. Moonraker felt like From Star Wars with Love in 1979, and Octopussy feels a little like Raiders of the Lost Bond until it gets back to Germany during the last hour of the movie.

The legacy of Octopussy is, I feel, tied very much to one of the writers, George MacDonald Fraser. He was the original writer on the film. He oriented the story towards India, decided Bond should disguise himself as a clown and a gorilla. He also personally embraced the ideal of the British Empire, and he gave this movie a slightly anachronistic feel of The Raj, or at least Hollywood’s vision of it in films like The Rains Came (1939) with lots of white folks living in luxury and hobnobbing with exotic princes in India. Fraser did quite a bit more, too. This was Fraser’s version of James Bond which is a very different Bond than any other incarnation. Fraser wrote a famous series of novels about a 19th century bully, liar, and coward named Flashman. The brilliance of these novels is Flashman’s ability to seem like a hero despite being anything but. Fraser was also a passionate lover of the writing of P.G. Wodehouse, and Octopussy gives us a Bond who has quite a bit of Flashman and Wodehouse’s Bertie Wooster mixed with a dash of Ian Fleming. This Bond is singularly annoying like Flashman (his taunting of Fanning at the auction, for example), utterly incompetent like (Magda stealing the Fabergé egg from him), easily flummoxed like Bertie Wooster (Bond is too intimidated by a woman at a pay phone to get word to the authorities about a legitimate nuclear terrorism threat), yet succeeds in spite of himself. Like Bertie Wooster after putting on blackface to escape a tense moment in P.G. Wodehouse’s Thank You, Jeeves, Bond in clown-face finds himself unable to be believed when he desperately needs help. Like Flashman, this Bond is a prankster, a 007 who would fake injuries that require elevation pulleys to be installed on Octopussy’s barge, all to surprise her when he breaks loose from them to reveal that he’s not injured at all. It is an interesting take on the character, and it worked for audiences. Fraser’s view of Bond is far from my take on the character, but it delivered the last unqualified success of the Bond series until GoldenEye, twelve years later.

Pfeiffer: Coming off the anemic Man with the Golden Gun, the series was in trouble. Grosses were down and Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli had broken up as partners. Cubby saved the day with the opulence and grandeur of The Spy Who Loved Me but went off track with Moonraker. That film was a commercial success but he later told me that he knew they had crossed the line in terms of over-the-top humor. He wanted to bring Bond back down to earth. He achieved that with For Your Eyes Only but that film really only comes alive in the second half. There was still too much zany, Keystone Cops-like humor. Octopussy finally got the formula right. I don’t think most fans appreciate the movie on the same level I do, but I urge them to give it another try.

Coate: Thank you — Ajay, Tom, John, and Lee — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Octopussy on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Live and Let Die” on its 45th 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)

Spielberg’s tale of “science eventuality” opened to record-breaking box-office twenty-five years ago this summer, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics and box-office data that places the movie’s performance in context, plus passages from vintage film reviews, a reference/historical listing of the movie’s digital sound presentations, and, finally, an interview segment with a trio of Spielberg authorities who discuss the film’s impact and legacy.

JURASSIC NUMBER$

• 1 = Box-office rank among the Jurassic franchise (tickets sold and adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Peak all-time box-office chart position (worldwide)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1993 (calendar year)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1993 (summer season)
• 1 = Rank among Universal’s all-time top-earning films at close of original run
• 2 = Peak all-time box-office chart position (domestic)
• 3 = Box-office rank among films directed by Spielberg (adjusted for inflation)
• 3 = Number of Academy Awards
• 3 = Number of weeks top-grossing movie (weeks 1-3)
• 3 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1990s
• 5 = Number of films in Jurassic franchise
• 5 = Number of years holding #1 spot on list of all-time top-earning films
• 10 = Number of days to gross $100 million*
• 16 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 17 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing films (adjusted for inflation)
• 24 = Number of days to gross $200 million**
• 28 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (worldwide)
• 29 = Rank on current list of all-time top-grossing movies (domestic)
• 68 = Number of days to gross $300 million**
• 71 = Number of weeks film was in theatrical release
• 876 = Number of digital sound presentations during first-run**
• 2,404 = Number of theaters playing the movie during opening week
• 2,565 = Peak number of theaters simultaneously showing the movie (week of July 9-15)

• $24.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (VHS)
• $29.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (CLV LaserDisc)
• $74.98 = Suggested retail price of initial home video release (CAV LaserDisc)
• $19,561 = Opening weekend per-screen-average
• $1.5 million = Amount paid to acquire rights to Crichton’s novel
• $3.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (June 10 sneak previews)**
• $17.6 million = Highest single-day gross (June 12)**
• $45.4 million = Domestic box-office gross (2013 3D re-release)
• $47.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (June 11-13)**
• $50.1 million = Opening weekend box-office gross (June 11-13 + June 10 sneaks)**
• $63.0 million = Production cost
• $71.1 million = International box-office gross (2013 3D re-release)
• $81.7 million = Opening week box-office gross (June 10-17)**
• $109.7 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $316.6 million = Box-office gross during summer season (June 10 - Sept 6)
• $357.1 million = Domestic box-office gross (original release)
• $402.5 million = Cumulative domestic box-office gross
• $555.6 million = International box-office gross (original release)**
• $626.7 million = Cumulative international box-office gross
• $670.7 million = Cumulative domestic box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $912.7 million = Worldwide box-office gross (original release)**
• $1.1 billion = Cumulative international box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $1.1 billion = Cumulative worldwide box-office gross
• $1.7 billion = Cumulative worldwide box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

*tied industry record
**established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF PASSAGES FROM REVIEWS

“The dinosaurs of Jurassic Park live and breathe. They will astonish you — and scare you. That’s why Steven Spielberg’s $51 million film is a rip-roaring hit, the most relentlessly exciting summer adventure since his Raiders of the Lost Ark back in 1981.” — Jack Garner, Gannett News Service

“Jurassic Park puts us in the hands of a master movie-maker who knows how to manipulate every last shred of suspense and wonder from us. By the end of the movie, you’re left exhausted but exhilarated. It’s that good.” — Marylynn Uricchio, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

“The greatly anticipated Jurassic Park, it turns out, is the poor little rich kid of this summer’s movies. Everything that money can buy has been bought, and what an estimated $60 million can purchase is awfully impressive. But even in Hollywood there are things a blank check can’t guarantee and the lack of those keeps this film from being more than one hell of an effective parlor trick.” — Kenneth Turan, Los Angeles Times

“You won’t believe your eyes. Jurassic Park is colossal entertainment — the eye-popping, mind-bending, kick-out-the-jams thrill ride of the summer and probably the year.” — Peter Travers, Rolling Stone

“On paper, this story is tailor-made for Mr. Spielberg’s talents, combining the scares of Jaws with the high-tech, otherworldly romance of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and of course adding the challenge of creating the dinosaurs themselves. Yet once it meets reality, Jurassic Park changes. It becomes less crisp on screen than it was on the page, with much of the enjoyable jargon wither mumbled confusingly or otherwise thrown away. Sweetening the human characters, eradicating most of their evil motives and dispensing with a dinosaur-bombing ending (so the material is now sequel-friendly), Mr. Spielberg has taken the bite out of this story. Luckily, this film’s most interesting characters have teeth to spare.” — Janet Maslin, The New York Times

“[T]he special-effects wizards worked their magic and the result is beyond belief. Jurassic Park is a blockbuster in the best sense of the word. From the opening scene to the closing credits, it grabs the audience and holds it in thrall, making us believe in things that can’t possibly be real… yet.” — Nanciann Cherry, The (Toledo) Blade

“If Spielberg’s Jurassic zoo is in every way remarkable, however, his human actors are left with sketchy, comic-book characterizations and plot lines that fray and dangle.” — Steven Rea, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Steven Spielberg’s spectacular Jurassic Park has raptors and brachiosaurs and more, oh-my! than any movie in recent memory. It’s a sinfully entertaining, state-of-the-art summer blockbuster whose myriad nonstop thrills easily exceed its mega-hype.” — Eleanor Ringel, The Atlanta Constitution

“Spielberg’s gonzo special effects flick seems to put dinosaurs right in the multiplex. So real you may never feel comfortable in a toilet stall again. But scary? Nah, not if you’re over 10. ” — Judy Gerstel, Detroit Free Press

“Forgive the relentless promotion, the advance publicity, the ’action figures’ turning up in toy stores, and the dinosaurs you’ll be seeing everywhere for the next few months. Get over feeling bombarded, because if you don’t you’ll be missing one great monster movie.” — Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle

“The dinosaurs in this monster of all monster movies are nothing if not awesome — and they have to be, because the rest of the movie, while frequently suspenseful, is disappointingly routine. If only the humans were as impressive. — Jeff Shannon, The Seattle Times

“Director Steven Spielberg is back at the top of his form as master of Hollywood spectacle. He spent tens of millions of dollars on the special effects and spent it so well that you can hardly tell whether you’re seeing a movie or receiving 5,000 jolts of pure Spielbergian movie magic. Jurassic Park combines the wonder of E.T. with all the terrifying thrills of Jaws.” — Bob Fenster, The (Phoenix) Arizona Republic

“In theory, Jurassic Park is Jaws plus Frankenstein: A thrill-ride plot propelled by the most potent movie monsters since Spielberg’s fish swallowed most of Long Island Sound combined with a cautionary tale about the dangers of tampering with nature. In execution, alas, Jurassic Park falls short of delivering either the pulpy, don’t-go-near-the-water thrills of Jaws or Frankenstein’s primal horror of science run amok. Burdened by a clunky script that relies too heavily on mechanical jolts and special effects, and skimpily written characters who amount to nothing more than dinosaur prey, it’s closer to a Gold Card version of a Godzilla movie. Why did these seasoned pros, working with seemingly unlimited sums of money, plow into production with an unpolished script? It’s absolutely baffling. One can only conclude that they were as dumbly transfixed by Stan Winston’s lifelike dinosaurs as the characters are — and poor Laura Dern and Sam Neill are called upon to play open-mouthed awe far too many times for anyone over the age of 12.” — Joanna Connors, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Jurassic Park will at least disabuse anyone of the idea that it would be fun to share the planet with dinosaurs. Steven Spielberg’s scary and horrific thriller may be one-dimensional and even clunky in story and characterization, but it definitely delivers where it counts, in excitement, suspense and the stupendous realization of giant prehistoric reptiles. Having finally found another set of Jaws worthy of the name, Spielberg and Universal have a monster hit on their hands.” — Todd McCarthy, Variety

“It’s a good thing the effects are so solid, because they have to carry virtually all of the emotional charge of the picture. Where Spielberg was able to supply Jaws and Close Encounters with a powerful psychological subtext, centered on threats and tensions within the nuclear family, Jurassic Park plays largely on the surface, without the resonance that gives meaning to the thrills and turns a well-told adventure yarn into our modern equivalent of mythology.” — Dave Kehr, Chicago Tribune

“Jurassic Park is amazing.” — Richard Corliss, Time

“When young Steven Spielberg was first offered the screenplay for Jaws, he said he would direct the movie on one condition: That he didn’t have to show the shark for the first hour. By slowly building the audience’s apprehension, he felt, the shark would be much more impressive when it finally arrived. He was right. I wish he had remembered that lesson when he was preparing Jurassic Park, his new thriller set in a remote island theme park where real dinosaurs have been grown from long-dormant DNA molecules. The movie delivers all too well on its promise to show us dinosaurs. We see them early and often, and they are indeed a triumph of special effects artistry, but the movie is lacking other qualities that it needs even more, such as a sense of awe and wonderment, and strong human story values.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“Jurassic Park is a fun-house with humor, thrills and heart. It has the spine-tingly magic of Steven Spielberg’s best work. Go, tremble and enjoy.” — David Ansen, Newsweek

“Even at his most mechanical, Spielberg brings a sense of wonder to a project, and usually manages to add some wit, too. Thus the theme park in Jurassic Park is the perfect parody of theme parks, down to the Walt-like character played by Attenborough, who appears in a video to introduce a cartoon explaining DNA. Later, when the camera pans the park’s gift shop, you see the very T-shirts, candy and stuffed dinos that Universal will be peddling in ’real’ life for years to come. Yes, it’s cynical. It’s also hilarious.” — Bill Cosford, The Miami Herald

“One of the ironies here is that to make this anti-control-freak movie you’ve got to be a supreme control freak — Spielberg brought this complicated production in ahead of schedule (despite a hurricane) and under budget. It shows. Jurassic Park doesn’t match the heart of Close Encounters of E.T. or Empire of the Sun. With Jurassic Park Spielberg seems to have asked more of himself than to bring to the screen Hollywood’s ultimate theme park ride in the guise of an anti-theme park movie. This he does, riding those special-effects dinosaurs to pay dirt. It’s the work of a great field marshal.” — Jay Carr, The Boston Globe

THE DTS PRESENTATIONS

Jurassic Park was the first motion picture released in Digital Theater Systems (DTS) and the first batch of theaters to install the system and present Jurassic Park in the format are identified below.

The theaters screening the DTS presentation of Jurassic Park were arguably the best in which to experience the movie and the only way at the time to faithfully hear the movie’s award-winning discrete multichannel audio mix and with incredible sonic clarity.

The playback layout for DTS’s digital audio format was in a 5.1-channel configuration: three discrete screen channels + two discrete surround channels + low-frequency enhancement. Unlike competitor formats, however, which placed their digital audio directly on the film prints, DTS was engineered in a fashion whereby the audio was placed on Compact Disc(s) and synchronized via timecode running along the edge of the image on the 35mm prints.

While the DTS timecode was present on each and every print of the movie, discs were shipped only to the theaters that installed the requisite playback equipment. The prints also included a conventional Dolby Stereo analog soundtrack which eliminated the need for multiple print inventory and also served as a secondary audio backup should the digital playback ever fail.

Initially, DTS was offered in two versions: (1) DTS-6, a discrete 6-track (i.e. 5.1) mix and (2) DTS-S, a matrixed, 4-channel Lt-Rt stereo mix. The 6-track presentations, where known, are identified in the listing below with an asterisk. (Eventually, the DTS-S format was discontinued.)

Prior to the release of Jurassic Park in June 1993, there were un-promoted DTS test screenings of some Universal Studios releases including Dr. Giggles and The Public Eye.

In the months leading up to the release of Jurassic Park, director Steven Spielberg issued an explanation to motion picture exhibitors as to why he wanted his movie released with DTS audio.

“I’ve heard what my T-Rex sounds like roaring on 35mm Dolby Stereo, and I’ve heard the same roar produced for DTS equipment.”

Spielberg added:

“Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters of the Third Kind (among others) are two of my films that featured sounds and music in a fashion that, when experienced in 70mm six-track magnetic stereo, was virtually a different experience from when enjoyed in 35mm Dolby Stereo theaters. Only 200 theaters were able to exhibit Close Encounters and Raiders with the sound experience I intended. In that sense, very few moviegoers really received the full, head-on force of both of those films. Now, years later, along comes Jurassic Park — a sound experience you will never forget, available not only in those (premiere) 70mm houses, but now, thanks to DTS, in 35mm theaters that carry this new state-of-the-art equipment.” 

Jurassic Park was at the time the industry’s widest release of a film featuring digital sound, and in this one release DTS vastly exceeded the number of Dolby Digital, SDDS and Cinema Digital Sound installations and with it launched a movie sound revolution. (The DTS competitors used, initially, a different strategy on their implementation by primarily targeting premiere venues in major markets.)

The listing includes the DTS engagements of Jurassic Park that commenced June 11th, 1993. (Some theaters began their run with sneak preview screenings on the 10th.) The listing does not include any mid-run DTS installations, move-over or subsequent bookings, nor does it include any international presentations or any of the movie’s thousands of standard analog presentations. (The world premiere of Jurassic Park was held June 9th, 1993, at the Uptown in Washington, DC.)

For the sake of stylistic consistency and clarity, some liberties have been taken in regard to some of the generically named cinemas in which the movie played. If, for instance, such a venue were located in a shopping center, effort has been made to identify the venue in this work whenever possible by the name of the shopping center even if, technically, such wasn’t the actual name of the venue.

Typically the total number of screens in a multiplex have been cited here even though in numerous cases a “complex” consisted of screens spread out among separate buildings.

In numerous cases two (or more) prints of Jurassic Park were shipped to theaters to increase the number of screenings of the movie per day and to allow a greater variety of start times. In a few of these cases the movie was shown in DTS on more than one screen but such cases are cited only once in the listing. Typically any multi-screen bookings were in DTS only on one of the screens and in analog Dolby Stereo on the other screen(s).

In a few cases, a city name has changed since 1993 (due to annexation, incorporation or a redrawing of municipality boundaries) and effort has been made to list these instances according to the city or recognized name at the time of the Jurassic Park engagement.

So, for historical reference, the first-run North American theaters that screened Jurassic Park with DTS audio were….

*6-Track DTS (any non-asterisked entries presumably screened the Lt-Rt version of DTS)

**Version Francaise (Le Parc Jurassique)

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

Event and prestige movies (what we might refer today as a tent-pole or high-profile release) have on occasion been given a deluxe release in addition to a conventional release. This section of the article includes a reference / historical listing of the first-run 70mm Six-Track Dolby Stereo premium-format presentations of Return of the Jedi in the United States and Canada. These were arguably the best theaters in which to have experienced Jedi and the only way to have faithfully heard the movie’s discrete multichannel audio mix. This is the sort of listing (sans the duration figures) that might’ve trended on the Internet to assist moviegoers in finding a 70mm presentation near them had such a resource existed in 1983.

Of the 150+ movies released during 1983, Return of the Jedi was among only thirteen to have 70mm prints prepared for selected engagements. Only about fifteen percent of Jedi’s initial print run was in the deluxe 70mm format, which offered superior audio and image quality but were significantly more expensive and labor-intensive to manufacture compared with conventional 35mm prints.

With a reported 164 large-format prints for North America (plus more for international release), Jedi was at the time the industry’s largest 70mm release and remains to this day among the industry’s ten largest such releases.

The 70mm prints of Jedi were intended to be projected in a 2.20:1 aspect ratio and were blown up from 35mm anamorphic. The noise-reduction and signal-processing format of 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 Jedi, Lucasfilm introduced the THX Sound System (in two markets) and (unofficially) introduced their Theatre Alignment Program (TAP) to evaluate and approve the theaters selected to book a 70mm print.

Seventy-millimeter trailers for The Star Chamber, To Be or Not to Be and Brainstorm circulated during the Jedi release and which were recommended to be screened with the 70mm presentations.

The listing includes the 70mm engagements that commenced May 25th, 1983 (except where noted otherwise). The listing does not include the movie’s thousands of standard 35mm engagements (though if any readers are interested many of these bookings were cited in our previous Jedi retrospective).

The duration of the engagements (measured in weeks) has been included 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 the engagement because the booking was moved to a smaller, 35mm-only auditorium within a multiplex or due to print damage and the distributor’s unwillingness to supply a 70mm replacement print. As well, the reverse was 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.

Some liberties have been taken in regard to generically named theaters (i.e. “Cinema,” “Cinema Twin,” “Cinema 6,” etc.). Typically such venues were located in shopping centers and as such they have been identified in this work whenever possible by the name of the shopping center 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 during the Jedi engagement even if in some situations a “complex” consisted of screens spread out among separate buildings. 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 it is known Jedi was screened simultaneously in 70mm in more than one auditorium in a complex, both engagements have been cited but the numbers provided represent the prints and do not necessarily reflect the auditorium number in which the film was playing.

In a couple of cases, a city name has changed since 1983 (due to annexation or incorporation) and effort has been made to list these cases according to the city or recognized name at the time of the Jedi engagement.

Prior to release, in lieu of a formal premiere for Return of the Jedi, Lucasfilm and Fox chose to hold regional charity previews between May 22nd and 24th. The cities in which these screenings were held included Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Flint, Los Angeles, New York, Oakland, San Francisco, Toronto, and Tucson. As well, the movie was screened as a part of the Seattle International Film Festival.

So, which theaters in North America screened the 70mm version of Return of the Jedi?

ALABAMA

• Birmingham — Cobb’s Village East Twin (19)

ALASKA

• Anchorage — Wometco-Lathrop’s Polar Triplex (24) [opened June 3rd]

ALBERTA

• Calgary — Famous Players’ Palace (18)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Londonderry Twin (19)
• Edmonton — Famous Players’ Westmount Twin (21)

ARIZONA

• Phoenix — UA’s Chris-Town Mall 6-plex (29)
• Scottsdale — Nace’s Kachina (17)
• Tucson — Plitt’s Foothills 4-plex (25)
• Tucson — TM’s El Con 6-plex (41)

BRITISH COLUMBIA

• Vancouver — Odeon’s Vogue (21)
• Victoria — Odeon’s Haida (18)

CALIFORNIA

• Campbell — UA’s Pruneyard Triplex (38)
• Cerritos — UA’s Cerritos Mall Twin (24)
• Corte Madera — Marin’s Cinema (18)
• Costa Mesa — Edwards’ Town Center 4-plex (25)
• El Cajon — UA’s Parkway Plaza Triplex (23)
• Hayward — UA’s Hayward 5-plex (40)
• La Mirada — Pacific’s La Mirada Mall 6-plex (29)
• Long Beach — UA’s Marketplace 6-plex (21)
• Los Angeles (Del Rey) — UA’s Marina Marketplace 6-plex (23)
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — UA’s Egyptian Triplex (21)
• Los Angeles (North Hollywood) — UA’s Valley Plaza 6-plex (22)
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — GCC’s Avco Center Triplex (20) [THX]
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) — UA’s Warner Center 6-plex (22)
• Montclair — UA’s Towne Center Plaza 6-plex (28)
• Monterey — UA’s Cinema 70 (18)
• National City — Pacific’s Sweetwater 6-plex (#1: 41)
• National City — Pacific’s Sweetwater 6-plex (#2: 6)
• Newport Beach — Edwards’ Newport Twin (17)
• Oakland — Foster’s Piedmont (18)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (#1: 22)
• Orange — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (#2: 11)
• Palm Springs — Metropolitan’s Camelot Triplex (17)
• Pleasant Hill — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (28)
• Redwood City — UA’s Redwood 6-plex (41)
• Riverside — UA’s Tyler Mall 4-plex (41)
• Sacramento — UA’s Arden Fair 6-plex (51)
• San Diego — Pacific’s La Jolla Village 4-plex (21)
• San Diego — UA’s Glasshouse 6-plex (22)
• San Francisco — UA’s Coronet (28)
• Santa Barbara — Metropolitan’s Arlington (16)
• Santa Clara — UA’s Cinema 150 (29)
• Thousand Oaks — UA’s Oaks 5-plex (21)
• Westminster — UA’s Westminster Mall Twin (29)

COLORADO

• Colorado Springs — Commonwealth’s Cooper Triplex (19)
• Denver — Commonwealth’s Continental (7) [early termination due to theater fire]
• Denver — Commonwealth’s Cooper Twin (20+)

CONNECTICUT

• Orange — Redstone’s Showcase 7-plex (18)
• Stamford — Trans-Lux’s Ridgeway Twin (12)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s MacArthur Triplex (15)
• Washington — GCC’s Jenifer Twin (18)

FLORIDA

• Fort Lauderdale — GCC’s Galleria 4-plex (16)
• Kendall — Wometco’s Dadeland Triplex (18)
• Miami Beach — Wometco’s Byron Carlyle Triplex (10)
• North Miami Beach — Wometco’s 163rd Street Triplex (21)
• Orlando — GCC’s Fashion Square 6-plex (24)
• Winter Park — Wometco’s Winter Park Triplex (18)

GEORGIA

• Atlanta — Plitt’s Phipps Plaza Triplex (23)

HAWAII

• Honolulu — Consolidated’s Cinerama (24) [opened June 24th]

ILLINOIS

• Belleville — BAC’s Cinema (18)
• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks 6-plex (16)
• Chicago — GCC’s Ford City Triplex (19)
• Chicago — Plitt’s Esquire (16)
• Chicago — Plitt’s State Lake (8)
• Forest Park — Essaness’ Forest Park Mall Triplex (22)
• Lombard — GCC’s Yorktown Triplex (19)
• Moline — Redstone’s Parkway (21)
• Niles — Essaness’ Golf Mill Triplex (15)
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin (16)
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield 4-plex (18)
• Tinley Park — Essaness’ Bremen 4-plex (19)

INDIANA

• Evansville — Stieler’s North Park 7-plex (19)
• Fort Wayne — MSM’s Holiday Twin (21)
• Indianapolis — Y&W’s Eastwood (18)

IOWA

• Des Moines — Dubinsky’s River Hills (26)
• Dubuque — Dubuque’s Cinema Center 5-plex (17)

KANSAS

• Overland Park — Dickinson’s Glenwood Twin (21)
• Wichita — Commonwealth’s Twin Lakes Twin (21)
• Wichita — Dickinson’s Mall (18)

KENTUCKY

• Florence — Mid States’ Florence 6-plex (41)
• Louisville — Redstone’s Showcase 9-plex (29)

LOUISIANA

• Metairie — GCC’s Lakeside 5-plex (18)

MANITOBA

• Winnipeg — Odeon’s Grant Park (19)

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Charles Triplex (17)
• Chestnut Hill — GCC’s Chestnut Hill 5-plex (18)
• Seekonk — Redstone’s Showcase 7-plex (18)
• West Springfield — Redstone’s Showcase 9-plex (18)

MICHIGAN

• Dearborn — UA’s The Movies at Fairlane 10-plex (29)
• Flint — Butterfield’s Flint (25)
• Livonia — NGT’s Mai Kai (18)
• Southfield — NGT’s Americana 4-plex (27)
• Southgate — NGT’s Southgate Triplex (19)
• Troy — UA’s The Movies at Oakland 5-plex (23)

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington — GCC’s Southtown Twin (21)
• Minneapolis — Plitt’s Skyway 4-plex (17)
• Minnetonka — Plitt’s Ridge Square Triplex (19)
• Roseville — GCC’s Har-Mar 11-plex (21)
• West St. Paul — Engler’s Signal Hills 4-plex (18)

MISSOURI

• Hazelwood — Mid-America’s Village Triplex (29)
• Independence — Mid-America’s Blue Ridge East 5-plex (18)
• Kansas City — Commonwealth’s Bannister Mall 5-plex (18)
• Richmond Heights — Mid-America’s Esquire 4-plex (17)

NEBRASKA

• Omaha — Commonwealth’s Indian Hills Twin (29)
• Omaha — Douglas’ Q Cinema 6-plex (22)

NEVADA

• Las Vegas — Syufy’s Cinedome 6-plex (15+)

NEW JERSEY

• Edison — GCC’s Menlo Park Twin (18)
• Lawrenceville — Sameric’s Eric Lawrenceville Twin (21)
• Moorestown — Sameric’s Eric Plaza Moorestown Twin (29)
• Paramus — RKO Century’s Route Four 7-plex (21)
• Sayreville — Redstone’s Amboy 10-plex (13)

NEW MEXICO

• Albuquerque — GCC’s Louisiana Blvd. Triplex (18)

NEW YORK

• Colonie — RKO Century’s Fox Colonie Twin (21)
• East Meadow — UA’s Meadowbrook 4-plex (16)
• Garden City — RKO Century’s Roosevelt Field Triplex (17)
• Hicksville — RKO Century’s Mid-Island Plaza Twin (18)
• New York (Brooklyn) — RKO Century’s Kingsway 4-plex (21)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ 34th Street Showplace Triplex (16)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ Astor Plaza (21)
• New York (Manhattan) — Loews’ Orpheum Twin (16)
• Pittsford — Loews’ Pittsford Triplex (23)
• Valley Stream — Redstone’s Sunrise 11-plex (17)
• Yonkers — GCC’s Central Plaza Twin (18)

NORTH CAROLINA

• Charlotte — Plitt’s Park Terrace Triplex (19)
• Winston-Salem — Plitt’s Thruway Twin (23)

NOVA SCOTIA

• Halifax — Famous Players’ Scotia Square (18)

OHIO

• Beavercreek — Mid States’ Beaver Valley 6-plex (18)
• Dayton — Chakeres’ Dayton Mall 8-plex (18)
• Springdale — Mid States’ Tri-County Cassinelli Square 5-plex (41)
• Toledo — Redstone’s Showcase Triplex (28)

ONTARIO

• Hamilton — Famous Players’ Tivoli (18)
• London — Famous Players’ Park (18)
• North York — Famous Players’ Towne & Countrye Twin (19)
• Ottawa — Odeon’s Somerset (18)
• Scarborough — Famous Players’ Cedarbrae 6-plex (19)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Cumberland 4-plex (10) [La Reserve]
• Toronto — Famous Players’ Runnymede Twin (19)
• Toronto — Famous Players’ University (21) [includes TIFF interruption Sept 9-17]

OREGON

• Beaverton — LT’s Westgate Triplex (29)
• Portland — Moyer’s Rose Moyer 6-plex (41)

PENNSYLVANIA

• Allentown — Sameric’s Eric Allentown 5-plex (28)
• Easton — Sameric’s Eric Easton 4-plex (13)
• Harrisburg — Sameric’s Eric East Park Center Twin (18)
• Montgomeryville — Sameric’s Eric Montgomeryville Triplex (#1: 28)
• Montgomeryville — Sameric’s Eric Montgomeryville Triplex (#2: 2)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#1: 28)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#2: 2)
• Philadelphia — Sameric’s SamEric Triplex (#3: 2)

QUEBEC

• Montreal — United’s Claremont (13) [opened May 27th]
• Montreal — United’s Imperial (18)
• Montreal — United’s Le Parisien 5-plex (25) [opened June 22nd, Version Francaise]
• Ste-Foy — United’s Canadien (7)

RHODE ISLAND

• Warwick — Redstone’s Showcase 8-plex (18)

TENNESSEE

• Nashville — Martin’s Belle Meade (18)

TEXAS

• Addison — UA’s Prestonwood Creek 5-plex (29) [THX]
• Austin — GCC’s Highland Mall Twin (25)
• Dallas — GCC’s Northpark West Twin (21) [THX]
• Fort Worth — UA’s Hulen 6-plex (18)
• Houston — GCC’s Meyerland Plaza Triplex (21)
• San Antonio — Santikos’ Northwest 10-plex (29)

UTAH

• Riverdale — Tullis-Hansen’s Cinedome 70 Twin (15+)
• Salt Lake City — Plitt’s Centre (21) [includes temporary m/o to Regency, June 3-16]
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (#1: 43)
• South Salt Lake — Syufy’s Century 5-plex (#2: 8)

VIRGINIA

• Springfield — GCC’s Springfield Mall 6-plex (18)

WASHINGTON

• Seattle — UA’s Cinema 150 (29)

WISCONSIN

• Milwaukee — UA’s Southgate (19)
• Wauwatosa — UA’s Mayfair (17)
• West Allis — Marcus’ Southtown Triplex (19)

ADDITIONAL / SUBSEQUENT 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

• 1983-07-22 … Thornton, CO — Commonwealth’s North Star Drive-In (4+) [m/o from Continental]
• 1983-07-29 … Toronto, ON — Famous Players’ Palace Triplex (9)
• 1983-09-30 … Montreal, QC — United’s York (4) [m/o from Imperial]
• 1983-10-21 … San Rafael, CA — Marin’s Regency 6-plex (7)
• 1983-10-21 … Toronto, ON — Famous Players’ Uptown 5-plex (8) [m/o from University]
• 1983-12-16 … Montreal, QC — United’s Imperial (3) [Version Francaise; m/o from Le Parisien]
• 1983-12-21 … Carmel, IN — Heaston’s Woodland Twin (4) [second run/discounted admission]
• 1983-12-23 … Cleveland, OH — Variety (3) [second run/discounted admission]
• 1983-12-23 … New York, NY — RKO Century’s Warner Twin (3)
• 1983-12-26 … Atlanta, GA — Fox (5 days) [Holiday Film Festival]
• 1984-03-28 … Toronto, ON — Cinesphere (5 days) [70mm Film Festival]

Though its 70mm prints have not been cited in this work, it should be pointed out that Return of the Jedi was re-released on March 29th, 1985, and in Special Edition form in 35mm with digital sound on March 14th, 1997. And over the years there have been numerous additional 70mm screenings, often for charity (including Star Wars triple features, ILM tributes, THX Sound System demonstrations, 70mm festivals, and 20th Century Fox retrospectives).

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

THE Q&A

Michael Kaminski is the author of The Secret History of Star Wars: The Art of Storytelling and the Making of a Modern Epic (2008, Legacy).

Mark O’Connell is the author of Watching Skies: Star Wars, Spielberg and Us (2018, The History Press).

Craig Stevens is the author of The Star Wars Phenomenon in Britain: The Blockbuster Impact and the Galaxy of Merchandise, 1977-1983 (2018, McFarland).

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Return of the Jedi should be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

Michael Kaminski: The 35th anniversary of Return of the Jedi comes just as Marvel Studios celebrates its 10th anniversary and the release of Infinity War, and I think there are a lot of parallels to be drawn in terms of bringing an ambitious, multi-film saga to a close. I struggle to think of a film series before the Star Wars trilogy which had a multi-movie storyline with the scale and scope that we ended up with in Return of the Jedi. Star Wars broke every box office record in history so of course sequels were going to be made, and we could have had another 10 years of 20th Century Fox cranking out a string of sequels to varying degree of success, and if you look at some of the early Expanded Universe like Splinter of the Mind’s Eye you get a window into this alternate world, but George Lucas took a different approach of making a three-film arc that told a larger tale. This is nothing special today, but before there was Marvel Studios or Harry Potter — which, it should also be noted, were simply adapting pre-existing literary works — Return of the Jedi did something truly unique by offering a satisfying capper to the story that began in 1977. Lucas also was ahead of his game in building in-roads to further the franchise, despite the finale of the third film — offering three more “prequels” set before the trilogy, and leaving the door open to continue the further adventures of the heroes or explore other areas of the world he had created in a cross-hatching “cinematic universe” before that term existed. It’s hard to see Return of the Jedi with fresh eyes and be truly staggered at the level of ambition and risk this approach had when the films were among the most popular and expensive ever made. Marvel Studios is getting massive accolades now as re-writing the book on franchise-building and world-building, but they are really just elaborating upon the example of the Star Wars series that only became apparent with the release of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi — really, a two-part expansion of Star Wars from a fairy tale into a saga, that didn’t just make more sequels but turned towards personal melodrama and a three-part epic, in something that wasn’t adapting pre-existing sources but being made in real-time as a wholly original tale exclusive to the cinema. Even though each entry has an “episode” number, what makes the two sequels unique is that they are decidedly not episodic, but instead the second and final acts of a classic three-act narrative structure. To do this with a fantasy epic set in space on such a large budget would still be impressive today, decades later. Given the landscape of Hollywood in the early 21st Century, Return of the Jedi is prophetic.

Yes, a huge part of the movie drags due to Ewoks, yes, the writing isn’t as clever as before, but Return of the Jedi, for all its flaws, was attempting something not done before. It was this film that we finally got “the trilogy,” still intoned with sacredness all these decades later.

I also think that Return of the Jedi stands as the crowning achievement of visual and special effects from the pre-digital era. Hand-painted mattes, models, puppets, and optical compositing reached a level of complexity and ingenuity that had never been seen before, and I would also say since. If anyone knows anything about optical compositing, the space battle over Endor is a masterclass of optical effects so mind-bogglingly complex, with its hundreds of layers and dizzying motion-tracked camera moves, that it can still compete with the best and most state-of-the-art action scenes of films made over 30 years later like Rogue One. It’s reasons like this that the history of cinema is being shortchanged with the original theatrical versions of these films not being released in new remasters.

Mark O’Connell: Instead of closing the lid on the Star Wars saga and despite its story finality, Return of the Jedi is one of the reasons the franchise continued cinematically. Admiral Ackbar, Mon Mothma, Emperor Palpatine, Nien Nunb, Wicket W. Warwick, Bib Fortuna, Jabba the Hutt, the Biker Scouts, the Ewoks and the Speeder Bikes are all last act ingredients which — instead of celebrating the final hurrah — create story worlds, audience enthusiasm, cool sidebar industries, and an adoration which fed into the momentum of post-1983 Star Wars. The diplomacy and political gravitas of Mon Mothma is all over the prequels, the Ackbar sense of commanding during battle is a major last act device of 2016’s Rogue One via Admiral Raddus, the alien gangster enclave of Jabba’s Palace reverberates in The Force Awakens, and the adventure and speed of the Speeder Bike chase has been furthered in every Podrace, Coruscant night chase, Geonosis pursuit and escape from Canto Bight since.

And aside from being the first Star Wars movie that is finally an all-out war in the stars, Return of the Jedi is also responsible for the first Episode VII and Episode VIII — in the guise of the sometimes-overlooked Ewok TV movies, Caravan of Courage (aka The Ewok Adventure, 1984) and The Battle for Endor (1985).

Craig Stevens: I think that it should be remembered as a fantastic addition to the Star Wars film saga that brought the original Star Wars trilogy to an exciting and satisfying conclusion. It introduced a host of fantastic characters and environments. People can think back to so many wonderful moments in the film, even if they haven’t seen it in years.

Coate: Can you recall the first time you saw Jedi?

Kaminski: I was too young to see the films in theaters, so the first time I saw it was from family friends taping it off of HBO for me in the mid-late 1980s, knowing that I liked the first two films so much. Return of the Jedi always bored me the most out of all the films when I was a child, and it still does. Star Wars was a lot of fun, and Empire Strikes Back just looked and felt so interesting, but even as a five-year-old Return of the Jedi never left the same impression on me. In fact, I taped over the first 25-minutes of my Return of the Jedi recording with an episode of Super Dave Osbourne around 1990 — nothing of note happened until Han comes out of the carbonite around the 25-minute mark anyway, right?

The main thing I watched it for as a kid were the scenes between Luke, Vader and the Emperor, and the space battle, and those continue to be the highlights for me as an adult. Over time, I have found the behind-the-scenes history and context that the film was made in to be as interesting as the film itself, which is the sort of stuff you tend to be oblivious to as a kid. I think I also became aware of the unevenness of the film, having both the best and worst scenes in the trilogy — something I couldn’t articulate as a child, I just knew it didn’t quite grab me like the other two except for certain parts. Still, there wasn’t a Star Wars trilogy without Return of the Jedi, so every film in the trilogy was essential and considered a classic, you couldn’t just omit one from your personal pantheon, you took the whole trilogy or you took nothing. I do recall a few of my friends telling me around the age of 8 or 9 that Jedi was their favorite.

O’Connell: I was seven years old when I saw Return of the Jedi at the Regal Cinema in Cranleigh, Surrey. It was a glorious 1936 monoplex with one screen, one confectionary kiosk and one film playing at any time. Seeing the illuminated yellow marquee with those big black letters spelling out the name of a film that was finally on my doorstep was nothing short of wondrous. One of my vivid memories involves speeding to the restroom for a pee break (I waited until Yoda had passed to show some respect — but the Dr. Pepper intake was killing me). Whilst I stood in the freezing cold and vintage tiled urinal I could hear Alec Guinness booming around me with his Jedi master advice. I can still see the beams of Obi-Wan’s close-ups emanating from the projection room as I raced back to my seat and the film cut through the smoke-filled theater like a massive R2 unit hologram.

Both then and now, I greatly cherish this film, its rich production, its heroic swagger, its sense of optimistic finality, the kinetic and physical set-pieces and the amount of artillery and vessels that Marquand, Lucas and their teams blessed the film with. That is all heady stuff to a seven-year-old with his own artillery of plastic toys from the film waiting at home to be even more relevant after seeing Return of the Jedi.

Stevens: I saw Return of the Jedi at the Romford Odeon a week after it opened. Before the Internet there was less of a culture of counting down the days to the release of a film. I emerged from the cinema believing the film to be the best of the trilogy. I had actually been disappointed as a ten-year old with The Empire Strikes Back and my thirteen-year-old self thought that Return of the Jedi had undone the damage. It had been so action packed, funny and incredibly dramatic. It answered all of my questions in a satisfying way and left me on a total high. I watched the film on DVD shortly before answering these questions and quite honestly I can’t really see what some people have against it. The Ewoks are cited by many but they should perhaps accept the furry creatures for what they are and concentrate on the film’s other themes. I am courting controversy but for me The Empire Strikes Back is slower and more somber than Return of the Jedi but it is not a great deal deeper. The vision in the cave is carried to its conclusion with Luke staring at his own mechanical hand when he is tempted to kill his father. The deepest concept in Return of the Jedi is that Luke finds that Princess Leia, a woman that he loved romantically is actually his sister. There are ramifications for Leia too considering her treatment at the hands of her own father. Few cinematic moments can compare to Luke burning Darth Vader’s armor.

Coate: In what way is Jedi significant?

Kaminski: Again, it did things that no movie had done before, such as an ambitious and expensive three-film arc that had a beginning, middle and end. After Empire Strikes Back came out, the storyline could have been stretched out over an infinite number of sequels that kept introducing new plots and characters like an ongoing soap opera, and that was the plan at the time of writing Empire, but from a narrative point of view it is Return of the Jedi that solidified the Star Wars series as a deliberate and finite storyline with a defined and logical arc. As much as the writing of the film gets criticism, it is also remarkable for its larger narrative achievement, which also built roots for sequels, prequels and spinoffs with such a good balance between subtlety and obviousness that modern studio executives should still be studying it.

I think, also, from a narrative point of view, it doesn’t get enough credit for the maturity and emotional depth it brought to the final confrontation between Luke and Vader. Their scenes are the best scenes in the entire franchise, and bring a realistic nuance and poignancy to the relationship between a comic-book villain in a cape and mechanical mask and his space-wizard son. Rather than having a more simplistic and action-packed revenge-style final battle, it is hard to think of another series where the hero and villain finally face each other and just talk. The drama going on beneath the surface there is more interesting than the swordfights. I don’t remember anyone making as big a deal out of this fact at the time as it deserves, but perhaps that is why this trilogy was upheld so highly, and why the flaws in this film become underlined, as the film has such high highs.

O’Connell: It re-ignited the box office might of the trilogy. If The Empire Strikes Back confirmed the commerce of the sequel, then Jedi ’83 proved the dollars and interest a good trilogy could generate. Like a great many 1980s sci-fi blockbusters — and even those that got less noticed — they are instrumental stepping stones in the evolution of visual FX and franchise productions. A lot of films pushed the envelope for those key effects houses throughout California and San Francisco. Return of the Jedi saw a scaling up of those tricks and inventions. One massive Imperial ship slicing across the screen six years before was no longer enough. Now audiences were witnessing multiple ships cascading in all directions, varying scales of battle, even newer camera motion controls and a wholly balletic battle. That beat when the Millennium Falcon soars inside the new Death Star would not have been possible in 1977. Return of the Jedi led to the CGI nursery slopes of Young Sherlock Holmes (1985), which in turn led to Willow (1988), Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) and then Jurassic Park (1993) — the latter of which then gave George Lucas the technical confidence he needed to fully realize the Star Wars prequels. ILM were of course responsible for it all and pushing the FX envelope on Return of the Jedi — that took its key turn in that Darwinian progression of 21st Century visual effects.

Jedi ’83 also has great significance in the history of franchise cinema. What the film represented for the history of pop cultural merchandise alone is highly significant — with an all-out plastic attack on kids toyboxes and home-video rental markets. It was also the last era of keeping a rumor lid on a big movie’s production. Blue Harvest was the film’s location alias (a tic that continues on Star Wars movies to this day) and it now symbolizes a pre-Internet time when spoilers on a franchise movie could be kept quiet. Add to that a cracking, pounding and fiercely paced score by John Williams who was Oscar nominated again for his composing — and you have a grand summer blockbuster whose popularity continues thirty-five years later.

More crucially, Return of the Jedi is also a masterpiece of franchise editing. Its pace and sense of story purpose comes into its own throughout that last, frenetic epic act. The final, split-action battles in space, the Falcon and on Endor are there in many a franchise sequel since (The Return of the King, Avengers: Infinity War). But the difference is that Episode VI didn’t drop the story ball. Every beat, incident and look matters and propels the narrative on. In trying to better Jedi ’83, many a film since has fallen victim to its own digital devastation and carnage.

Stevens: It was difficult for Return of the Jedi to secure a legacy as a “significant” motion picture and that was not the intention of George Lucas and company when they embarked on its making. The film could not have had the freshness of A New Hope or the maturity of The Empire Strikes Back. It did however set a high bar in the realm of action, excitement and comedy; all of the elements that it was intended to deliver. The film was also instrumental in its advancement in special effects. It is challenging even today to spot the joins between the live-action Endor sequences and the animated walkers. The space battle scenes are still a wonder.

[On to Page 4]

[Back to Page 3]

Coate: Was Richard Marquand a good choice to direct?

Kaminski: I think he was an appropriate choice given what George Lucas wanted, and that is an important distinction to remember. I don’t feel that he directed the film with the style and visual flair that Kershner brought, but I think Marquand did the best job anyone could. Lucas wanted the film done quickly and without great on-set cost, so the mandate was to film in quick set-ups, which is why the film has a rather flat and dull look to it, without much camera movement and intermixing between scene blocking and camera position, instead using simple, locked off angles without elaborate lighting so the film could be shot fast and then driven by editing. To be fair to Lucas, this is the exact same manner Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark were made in, so there was fantastic precedent; Empire Strikes Back looks great because the film went so far over budget and schedule, and Jedi had a budget of about $30 million as it was, making it one of the most expensive films of its time even if everything went according to plan.

You also have to consider the script Marquand was working with, and if Jedi invites some criticism in story, character or dialogue, these are outside of his influence. His main area of influence — the performances — are as good as they can be with the script he had, and when the script is really good Marquand really delivers, as in the case of the scenes with Luke and Vader. The live-action scenes are directed competently, and if the cinematography looks like a made-for-television movie the visuals are made up for by ILM’s magic.

I think Marquand gets a bit short-changed because his life was tragically cut short and so his presence in the history of the series is often overlooked.

O’Connell: George Lucas hankered after Steven Spielberg to direct Return of the Jedi. Could you imagine a Spielberg Star Wars movie?! Sadly, Directors Guild stipulations and politics stopped that from ever happening and the Welsh Richard Marquand ended up taking on the baton from Irvin Kershner. Marquand was a British TV director whose 1981 thriller Eye of the Needle got the attentions of Lucasfilm and its producers.

Sadly, his canon of movie work was short-lived as Marquand prematurely passed away in 1987. It is safe to say what he gave the film was a sense of control. It was probably no easy task to take on the mantle after A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. Alongside the challenges of fan expectation, Marquand not only came into a unit made up of a cast and crew who were suddenly getting a new teacher in year three, he had to no doubt contend with the demands of a sci-fi opera of this nature. Yet — even with those conditions and the understandable twitching of franchise flame holder George Lucas — Marquand created a movie that holds together admirably. After the wilfully enclosed and sparse environs and emotions of Empire, Marquand opens out Return of the Jedi with a big scale intent. As soon as we start we are on an expansive and renovated Death Star, the droids are lone figures again in a sea of sand and the full might of the Empire and Rebellion are finally laid bare. Yes, Han Solo’s role could be more influential, and Leia loses that sense of fight from before. Yet, Marquand successfully spins all the requisite plates — and ends up with a fully-fledged intergalactic war movie those yellow crawls had been promising since May 1977. It keeps its soul, humor, and warmth in its sights at all times — despite multiple narratives all vying for attention and their big conclusions. Marquand is responsible for that. The fact that Lucas never allowed another director to take on an episode on his watch may speak certain volumes, but that may not be solely down to Richard Marquand himself.

Stevens: A lot has been written about George Lucas steering clear of using directors from the Directors Guild of America, so he had to choose from a fairly short list of capable candidates. In any case a Star Wars movie is so tightly scripted and storyboarded that it hardly requires any direction, unless in the mode of Irvin Kershner, the person at the helm decides to improve the material they’ve been provided with. Richard Marquand stuck to the script (which was perhaps unavoidable with Lucas over his shoulder) but he put his stamp on the film nonetheless. In the pre-production planning Marquand fine-tuned the script with George Lucas and Lawrence Kasdan. Marquand was also attentive to the acting. There was an incident where Carrie Fisher was standing in her Boushh costume like a soldier on parade but Marquand told her to be stealthier. It could be argued that Marquand could have drawn out better performances, especially from Harrison Ford but if an actor is uncommitted there must be only so much a director can do. Lucas himself was present at much of the filming and is not known for his communication with the cast. Overall I think that Richard Marquand did an excellent job and perhaps elevated the film by some degree from the pulp that was in the script.

Coate: Where do you think Jedi ranks among the original trilogy of films? Among the entire saga?

Kaminski: On a personal level, I consider it easily the most flawed of the original three, but it continues the story of Empire Strikes Back and has characters I already love — because of this, it rides on the coattails of Empire and overcomes flaws that would otherwise seriously harm the film. I always have a hard time placing those good-but-not-quite-great Star Wars films like Revenge of the Sith, Return of the Jedi, Force Awakens or Rogue One and Last Jedi. To me, there are only two great Star Wars films — the original and Empire Strikes Back — and then everything sort of falls in the middle, with Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones way down at the bottom. I think Return of the Jedi is armed with a secret weapon that none of the other films have though, in that despite having flaws like most of the other films, it gets lumped into the pantheon of Star Wars and Empire by virtue of being the conclusion to the characters and narrative of those films, whereas something like Revenge of the Sith has the opposite problem and has to fight against its ties to two films that failed to develop compelling plot and characters. If J.J. Abrams doesn’t drop the ball with Episode IX I think the new trilogy could stand up fairly well, but nothing will ever come close to that first trilogy, because, well, it’s the first. It did everything for the first time. And as I mentioned — for all its flaws, there is no Star Wars trilogy without Return of the Jedi.

O’Connell: It is a hard trilogy to emerge as victor when you have A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back in your group too. The original trilogy especially are all very different movies with unique parameters and story needs. Return of the Jedi is a masterclass in movie production, effects, modeling, editing and design. Revenge of the Sith, Rogue One and no doubt Episode IX all echo the adventure and genre achievements of Star Wars ’83. And in a movie era of comic book franchises that don’t know how to conclude as separate, standalone movies or even sagas, Return of the Jedi is an ever valuable blueprint in how to conclude with a swagger, confidence and narrative urgency. One observation about the film is how confident it is with its scope, story requirements and audience expectations. One could observe that no Star Wars film since has been so successful with its three act intent and ability to juggle its disparate story elements.

Stevens: To my mind Return of the Jedi is on balance, on a par with its forbears in the trilogy. Each film delivers its own unique package. It’s a common view that the third chapter of the original trilogy is the weakest but now that everyone knows the outcome of the film, only the first time viewer of Return of the Jedi can be kept in suspense. Even then, it is unlikely for people not to know that Darth Vader is Luke’s father, that the Death Star was destroyed and the rebels won (sorry if that’s a plot spoiler for anyone).

Coate: Do you have a preference for the Original or Special Edition? In what way was the Special Edition special?

Kaminski: The Special Edition of the film as it currently stands (2011 Blu-ray) is unwatchable to me because of the ending of the film, more so than Han shooting second which I have an easier time overlooking. I don’t complain much about my favorite franchise being “ruined” like you see so many fans these days, who either are new to their fandoms themselves or have very short memories, but the ending of the film — the ending of the trilogy, when the full meaning of the saga comes to crystallization — has been muddled with changes that completely take one out of the experience, as Darth Vader shouting “Noooo” in a reprisal of a dramatic deflation from Episode III notorious for being unintentionally comedic, and the appearance of Hayden Christensen in place of the redeemed Sebastian Shaw that we saw unmasked a few minutes prior, which makes no sense at all and undermines the arc of Anakin’s character. But I could take the 1997 version, which has some okay additions, especially in the expanded ending which makes better sense in the context of the larger series of today (the 1997 version also lacks the Jar Jar inclusion of 2004’s revision). The new Jedi Rocks dance musical is distractingly bad, but I always thought Lapti Nek was pretty embarrassing too. I honestly do believe Lucas was intentionally trolling the fans with his late addition of Darth Vader shouting “Noooo” in 2011, knowing that it had already become a meme making fun of his writing and directing in Revenge of the Sith. Lucas sometimes holds grudges with a mischievous sense of humor, as when he was photographed on the set of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull a couple years earlier wearing a “Han Shot First” t-shirt.

O’Connell: I am not someone who automatically neck-chokes the Special Editions to the floor. It is sometimes overlooked how George Lucas’s insistence on updating and improving the original trilogy is why we have Star Wars movies today. Some fans may not have liked the new additions and quirks, but they spurred on new audiences to engage with the movies at home and at the movies. The 1997 Special Editions particularly proved the box office love for these films. Imagine if Lucas and Lucasfilm hadn’t renovated the original trilogy at all (which was something he was doing from the first week of release of A New Hope — for reasons of getting it right, not tampering). I am not so sure younger audiences today would fall in love with the original trilogy in its original form had Lucas not upgraded the visuals, sounds and effects to progress and evolve with the times and to feel and operate like non-Eighties movies.

But yes — the originals are the best! The new flourishes of Return of the Jedi — the Palace aliens breaking the fourth wall, the new Max Rebo Band number, the tulip-tentacled Sarlaac Pit, the new Ewok celebration tune and even the non-Star Wars-y explosive ripples of the Death Star’s destruction — do not add anything that was not there to begin with. But they justified new cinema releases which in turn led to new cinema audiences, new fans, new product, and new trilogies.

Stevens: Personally speaking I don’t consider the Special Edition to be all that special. There wasn’t anything in the film that needed fixing. Two of the changes are simply abysmal; the song and dance routine in Jabba’s Palace and the addition of Hayden Christensen’s ghost at the finale (not to mention changing the closing theme and scenes of celebration around the galaxy). I never watch the Special Edition at home.

Coate: What is the legacy of Return of the Jedi?

Kaminski: I think you have to put Return of the Jedi in the context of when it was made and what it was intended to do. It wasn’t the crowing epic of the six-chapter saga of Anakin Skywalker, it was meant to be the closing sequel to Star Wars that wrapped up the story and character arcs begun in that film in a story that was befitting the spirit of Star Wars. The first act at Jabba’s Palace and the corny original closing of “Yub Nub” strike younger viewers as out of place, but I think those two elements are the best examples that illustrate the original context of Return of the Jedi. The Jabba’s Palace sequence lets us see all our heroes together again making wisecracks with each other in a fun and exciting sequence after they were split up for most of Empire Strikes Back, while also celebrating the return of fan-favorite Han Solo, and Yub Nub is a fun and funny send off to our friends as the series ends with a chorus literally singing “celebrate the love” as our heroes clap around a camp fire. As the conclusion to the lighthearted and funny original Star Wars, it balanced the serious melodrama of Empire against that helluvvatime-at-the-movies sense of glee the original film had. George Lucas has said that he wanted audiences leaving the theater in 1983 to feel totally uplifted and in high spirits and in the mood to celebrate, just as the state we leave the characters, and I think that aspect has been lost now that the scale and scope of the Star Wars saga has outgrown that trio of films. You have Chewie and Han dancing with Ewoks and playing the drums on the helmets of stormtroopers, and then the film takes a quiet moment as the spirit of Anakin, Yoda and Obi-Wan appear to give Luke a thumbs up before he rejoins his friends and the music crescendos with “celebrate the love.” I think the original theatrical ending perfectly encapsulates how to appreciate the purpose and expectation in which the film was made, because it doesn’t exist in that context any more. It also has to be seen as a reaction against the departure of style and content that Empire brought, which is partly why it recycles so much.

O’Connell: The last act of Rogue One, the underworld gangsters of Solo, the production golds and reds of The Last Jedi, that the prequels were as much a Palpatine backstory as an Anakin Skywalker one, and that franchise mainstay of good people improvising as best they can with what they can to defeat evil. Add to that — the warm memories of Star Wars younglings who endlessly recreated those Jabba’s Palace scenes, the Speeder Bike chases around the school yard and the Sarlaac Pit which saw many a bedsheet rolled into a deadly tentacle and thrown down the stairs. It was a glorious entry point for those sky kids who missed the theatrical runs of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. In a year of threes — Jaws 3-D, Amityville 3-D, Superman III, Smokey and the Bandit 3 — for one generation Return of the Jedi represents their beginning of Star Wars fandom, not the end of it.

Stevens: With its dramatic and satisfying conclusion of the overall plot and its upbeat finale, Return of the Jedi set the future of the Star Wars brand on an extremely sure footing and ensured that the trilogy would be regarded as one of the greatest of all time. That would not have transpired if the third chapter had been lackluster and had left audiences unmoved. The law of diminishing returns usually applies to film series but this is not the case with Return of the Jedi, judging by the audience reaction and box office takings in comparison to Empire. In the formative years of “blockbuster” films Return of the Jedi proved the viability of film series and the success of the Star Wars trilogy is something that film makers have strived to emulate ever since.

Coate: Thank you — Michael, Mark, and Craig — for sharing your thoughts about Return of the Jedi on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Lucasfilm Ltd., 20th Century Fox Film Corporation, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company.

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. This work is based upon articles by same author previously published at TheDigitalBits.com, FromScriptToDVD.com, In70mm.com and CinemaTreasures.org.

SPECIAL THANKS

Don Beelik, Raymond Caple, Andrew Crews, Sheldon Hall, John Hazelton, Bobby Henderson, Michael Kaminski, Bill Kretzel, Mark Lensenmayer, Monty Marin, W.R. Miller, Mark O’Connell, Jim Perry, Cliff Stephenson, Craig Stevens, and an extra special thank-you to all of the librarians who helped with this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• Graham Freeborn (Chief Make-up Artist), 1943-1986
• Richard Marquand (Director), 1937-1987
• Douglas Twiddy (Production Supervisor), 1919-1990
• Sebastian Shaw (Anakin Skywalker), 1905-1994
• Jack Purvis (“Teebo”), 1937-1997
• Alec Guinness (“Ben ‘Obi-Wan’ Kenobi”), 1914-2000
• Claire Davenport (“Fat Dancer”), 1933-2002
• Peter Diamond (Stunt Arranger), 1929-2004
• Mary Selway (Casting), 1936-2004
• David Tomblin (First Assistant Director/2nd Unit Director), 1930-2005
• James Glennon (Location Director of Photography), 1942-2006
• Alan Hume (Director of Photography), 1924-2010
• Fred Hole (Art Director), 1935-2011
• Ralph McQuarrie (Production Illustrator), 1929-2012
• Kay Freeborn (Make-up Artist), 19??-2012
• Stuart Freeborn (Make-up Designer), 1914-2013
• Kenny Baker (“R2-D2” and “Paploo”), 1934-2016
• Kit West (Mechanical Effects Supervisor), 1936-2016
• Carrie Fisher (“Princess Leia”), 1956-2016

-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 for this segment are (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 JonBurlingame.com.

John Cork produced the special features for the home entertainment release of Live and Let Die. He 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. 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 contributed new introductions for the original Bond novels Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and Goldfinger for new editions published in the U.K. by Vintage Classics in 2017.

Josiah Howard is the author of Blaxploitation Cinema: The Essential Reference Guide (FAB Press, 2008). His other best-selling books include Donna Summer: Her Life and Music (Tiny Ripple, 2002), Famous People Eat Too! A New York City Food Server’s Encounters with the Rich, Famous, Semi-Famous and Infamous (iUniverse, 2009) and Cher: Strong Enough (Plexus, 2013). His writing credits include articles for the American Library of Congress, The New York Times and Reader’s Digest.

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) The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the co-founder 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.

Matt Sherman is the author of James Bond’s Cuisine: 007’s Every Last Meal (CreateSpace, 2014). 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. His events for Bond fans to meet Bond actors, authors and filmmakers recently celebrated a 20th anniversary. Matt’s fan events, including 2018-19 events in New Orleans, Atlanta and Las Vegas, are at 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 Live and Let Die, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Live and Let Die worthy of celebration on its 45th anniversary?

Jon Burlingame: The film marked a sea change in the history of 007 on screen. Sean Connery’s reappearance as Bond in Diamonds Are Forever wiped the slate clean after George Lazenby’s one-shot in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, so the recasting of Bond was major news. Roger Moore took the entire franchise in a new direction, lighter and more carefree, while producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman still kept the action and adventure at a high pitch. And, from my point of view as a music historian, the absence of composer John Barry for the first time and the presence of a huge pop star as writer and performer of the movie theme (Paul McCartney and Wings, in this case) marked a new direction for Bond music as well.

John Cork: Live and Let Die is the most uniquely American James Bond film. It arrived at a time of growing political turmoil in the United States, of an amazing explosion of blaxploitation films, a spreading drug culture, and a deep distrust of governmental institutions. It did not seem like the time for a spy film. Yet, Live and Let Die delivers. Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz set the perfect tone. Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli hired the perfect James Bond. And the action is still some of the best of any film. The boat chase has stunts that never fail to amaze. The supporting cast all deliver great performances. George Martin’s score holds up today. Paul and Linda McCartney’s title song still reigns as a classic. It is the film that finally proved that a Bond film could be a global success without Sean Connery. The film adopts a cool, confident sense of humor that still delivers laughs. The death of Hamilton in New Orleans (“Whose funeral is it?” “Yours”) is one of the great cinematic murders that sets the tone and style that still works. It was a film that walked a cultural tightrope just as smoothly as Bond skips across live alligator backs. It managed to confront the racial demons from the original source novel without slipping into the racist assumptions that bedeviled Fleming’s generation.

Josiah Howard: It really is such a special film; and so influential. Forty-five years have passed and it still holds up. It feels modern; fresh. Today Hollywood is struggling with issues of inclusion — especially as it relates to African American representation in cinema. Well, here’s a film, from Britain no less, that got it right: 45 years ago. All the black characters in Live and Let Die are treated with respect. They are smart, funny, and purposeful. And in the case of (former Playboy Bunny) Gloria Hendry as Rosie, beautiful.

Lee Pfeiffer: It’s obvious that this is a landmark Bond film because it introduced Roger Moore in the role of 007. Bond fans were experiencing an emotional rollercoaster in recent years. Connery had quit the series, then was replaced by George Lazenby, who also quit the series. Connery came back again but then quit the role once more. This time producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman didn’t want to try their hand at developing new talent, as was the case with Lazenby. They were very angry that he quit the role after they had given him the opportunity of a lifetime. Now they wanted an established star. Roger Moore was a good choice, though he was not without controversy. Critics felt he was too amicable and not tough enough for the role. However, he had built in star power based on his years in The Saint TV series. His latest show The Persuaders was a big hit in Europe but flopped in America, where Moore’s drawing power wasn’t as strong. Ironically, the failure of that show made him available for the Bond films.

Bruce Scivally: Why celebrate Live and Let Die? It’s worth of celebration because it began Roger Moore’s long reign as the 007 of the 1970s and early 80s. After George Lazenby had shown how thankless it could be to step into Sean Connery’s shoes, it took either a high degree of confidence or insanity to take over the role of the world’s most popular superspy. Moore, a seasoned actor coming off many years of portraying The Saint and co-starring with Tony Curtis in The Persuaders on television, seemed to possess the former. His solution to playing Bond was to remake 007 in his own image, with more verbal witticisms and a looser, tongue-in-cheek approach than Connery, whose Bond was more physical and menacing. Co-scriptwriter Tom Mankiewicz provided Moore’s 007 with some choice lines, which Moore expertly delivered (“…an underground monorail — connected to the last refuge of a scoundrel, no doubt.”), and he acquitted himself quite nicely in the action scenes, as well, making for a smooth transition that would carry him through seven James Bond films over a period of 12 years.

Matt Sherman: Live and Let Die is an iconic Bond film. The dialogue and humor from screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz is snappy — fans frequently quote from this film. Roger Moore and the supporting cast are interesting and give strong performances. The film has exciting action and thoroughly uses Jamaica for beautiful shooting locations. The Live and Let Die film score is also terrific. Paul McCartney’s theme song is a fan favorite and I love the George Martin soundtrack above all other Bond scores not by John Barry. I listen to it often.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Live and Let Die for the first time?

Burlingame: In many ways it was an edge-of-your-seat experience, visiting the movie theater in the summer of ’73 — not so much the suspense and tension within the story but just watching to see what Moore’s performance would be like. Was he the right choice for Bond? Also, remember that this was the period of “blaxploitation films,” which were mostly aimed at African American audiences but were proving popular with white crowds as well (Shaft and Superfly, for example), so having a black villain, black henchmen and at least one black Bond girl were startling but welcome — and, as always with Bond, staying up-to-date with trends and the times. I must admit I cringed through the J.W. Pepper scenes and still do to this day. On the other hand, what a treat it was to watch and appreciate the extraordinary Geoffrey Holder as Baron Samedi.

From a musical point of view, I found McCartney’s Live and Let Die theme interesting but unsettling at first — because it was such a departure from the Barry themes to which we were accustomed. Still, it was so spectacularly edited with Maurice Binder’s exploding-flaming-skull imagery in the main title that it didn’t matter what I thought. And George Martin’s score, based partly on the McCartney theme, had a raw and more rock ’n’ roll quality than we had previously heard in Bond scores. That took a couple of viewings for me; I always loved his Solitaire theme, however, and his take on the Bond theme is terrific. I have come to appreciate both in much deeper ways over the years, and when you consider that McCartney is still performing Live and Let Die in concert, that certainly says a lot for its staying power.

Cork: I was 11 years old, and my friend Lee Nelson and I rode our bikes to see Live and Let Die at the Capri Theater in Montgomery, Alabama. I had grown up around speedboats as my grandparents had a lake cabin. I knew everything a fast boat could do, and then I saw Live and Let Die. My mind was completely blown. I was just hitting puberty and totally uncertain about these mysterious females of the species, and seeing this confident male character who was totally at ease with his sexual desires without seeming like some leering pervert appealed to me. A loved the theme song, and really everything about the film from start to finish at the time. Years later, when promoting James Bond: The Legacy, I did a book signing at the Capri, and a few years after that, I rode my bike across Los Angeles to see Live and Let Die at the Aero Theater in Santa Monica. When Sam Mendes was asked why he chose to direct Skyfall, he told NPR, “I wanted to kind of get back in touch with my 12-year-old self, [who] had sat down and watched Live and Let Die with Roger Moore…which was my first Bond experience, and remember some of that excitement.” Whenever the day is dark or my mood is foul, I can think back on that experience of watching Live and Let Die. I can be that kid all those years ago, and then think about all the adventures those couple of hours opened up for me. Seeing Live and Let Die was one of those moments that truly changed the course of my life.

Howard: When I first saw it, I was blown away! It was in a downtown theater in a small city in New Jersey called Plainfield. I was ten at the time so I was very impressionable. First of all, I had never seen a black person man a speedboat before: I was ecstatic! I’d seen several blaxploitation films at the same theater so I was familiar with action films, but Live and Let Die was different. It was bigger, more pronounced; there were more car crashes, more exotic locations, better production values and music. It was what the best blaxploitation films — with their miniscule budgets — aspired to be. Another thing that made an impression on me were the endless gadgets and tricks. The wrist watch, the flute that’s also a microphone, the tables disappearing into the floor, the secret passages: I had never seen anything like it.

Looking back, I remain a huge fan of the film but have questions about actress Gloria Hendry. Her character Rosie is pretending to be something she isn’t: independent and strong — and then she’s revealed to be the opposite. But the reveal doesn’t ring true. To me Hendry’s persona is a straightforward “strong black woman.” That’s why she was a blaxploitation film star. In pictures like Black Belt Jones, Hell up in Harem and Savage Sisters she always took care of her own business — even if sometimes she did have a tender heart. It’s great that she’s Bond’s first black on-screen liaison but if we’re supposed to believe that Rosie is out of her element and needs James Bond’s guidance, that’s asking a bit too much!

Pfeiffer: Like most Bond fans, I was cautiously optimistic. We knew that if Roger didn’t click, the series would be in danger. We all loved Connery in the role and most fans were quite enthused about Lazenby and we were disillusioned when he left the series. Fortunately, audiences — and myself included — were very pleased with Live and Let Die. I got to know Roger Moore well beginning in the late 1990s and he would talk candidly about his experience. He knew that the whole franchise was riding on his shoulders. He was friends with Sean Connery, which probably made his burden worse. Image failing where your friend had succeeded. But audience reaction was very strong and it was clear that Roger Moore had “clicked” with the fan base. Critics were lukewarm, but the boxoffice was good and that was all that mattered. I was 16 years old when the film opened and it passed the litmus test: my friends and I paid to see it many times.

Scivally: My first encounter with Live and Let Die was on television, when it was broadcast on ABC. At that young age, I was devouring anything James Bond, so I wasn’t viewing it with a particularly critical eye. Even so, it struck me that James Bond, who in previous films had been involved with villains whose plots involved space ships and possible nuclear annihilation, had been reduced to a drug enforcer, handing a case that would have been more appropriate for an American DEA agent, not a British double-O. The film also continued the trend from Diamonds Are Forever of having a crash-filled car chase, though with the novel addition of boats speeding over the Louisiana Bayou. Though this type of action seems quaint now, it was eye-popping in 1973, before Burt Reynolds’ “good ol’ boy” movies made it ubiquitous.

Sherman: I was too young to fully appreciate the film. It was a Bond film, so I liked it very much, one that’s grown on me greatly with time. Specifically, I used to find the boat and other chases overlong, but now I see them as tautly edited and enjoyable. It’s rather that many different scenes and concepts are inside the boat, plane and car chases.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Roger Moore’s inaugural performance as Agent 007 with that of the other actors who have portrayed the character?

Burlingame: Well, obviously he’s number two from that early era. For those of us who were around in the ’60s, Connery was always the man to beat. And because he was much more dangerous, he felt more like Ian Fleming’s creation to us. I have found that younger people tend to like Moore’s more flippant Bond, and I do have a soft spot for that side of the Moore 007 — all the silly double-entrendres that he carried off so well. But, in retrospect, we’ve been pretty lucky, considering Connery, Moore, the underrated Timothy Dalton, Pierce Brosnan and now Daniel Craig. Remember when John Gavin was signed as Bond before Connery came back to do Diamonds? What a disaster that would have been.

Cork: Roger Moore not only managed to make Bond his own, but he transformed 007 from the very first scene. I cannot fathom Connery’s Bond participating in a Feydeau farce with a semi-nude girl scampering about trying to hide from her lover’s boss, but it was perfect for Moore. It set his Bond up as a more human, fallible 007, but his interactions with M also define him as the prankster Bond with a devilish streak. Unlike Connery, one never gets the sense that sex is an animal passion for Moore. It is, instead, a sport that he casually enjoys more for the amusement than the physical pleasure. If Moore’s Bond were asked to rank the perks of his job, one could imagine that “I get to have casual sex with numerous beautiful women” would fall somewhat lower than “I get to be a smart ass.” I enjoy all the Bond actors, even David Niven, but Moore needs no carefully-lit Connery-style close-ups like Lazenby, no Spielbergian track-in reveals like Dalton, no punch-up introductions like Brosnan or Craig. He is the only Bond, aside from Niven, introduced by his own comic shtick. His performance can best be summed up by his last line: “Just being disarming, darling.”

Pfeiffer: I always thought that Roger’s introduction as Bond should have been more dramatic and memorable. He’s simply introduced lying in bed with lovely Madeline Smith as an Italian secret service agent. I thought that screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz deprived Roger of the kind of memorable, carefully crafted introduction that Sean Connery or George Lazenby had. That aside, Roger’s warmth and witty personal nature came through in his performance as Bond. He once told me that his greatest challenge was to make the role his own without appearing to imitate Connery. Thus, he doesn’t wear a tuxedo, foregoes the “shaken, not stirred” bit and smokes cigars. But he was nervous about the reception. Shortly after he signed for the Bond role, his young son asked him to take him to the cinema to see a James Bond double feature. When Roger reminded him that daddy is now going to be James Bond, his son replied “I mean the real James Bond: Sean Connery!” That’s enough to sow the seeds of self-doubt. Fortunately, it all went well and Moore’s track record extended over six more films and twelve years. Quite an achievement when dealing with a fickle public.

Sherman: Sir Roger stepped into the role seamlessly. Interestingly, to distinguish himself from Sean Connery, in Live and Let Die he never raises an eyebrow, wears a tuxedo or orders a martini. But Roger played the role confidently and made it fully his own. He never breaks character or misses a beat. Possibly only Connery’s confidence in Dr. No is comparable.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Yaphet Kotto’s Kananga/Mr. Big a memorable villain?

Burlingame: I have always loved Yaphet Kotto. Even sat next to him during a press conference back in the ’80s or ’90s when he was in some TV-movie I was covering for United Features. His roles in Raid on Entebbe, Alien and Homicide are all personal favorites. It takes an actor of power and substance to take on James Bond and he filled the bill nicely (although I found the inflating-and-exploding Kananga finale too ridiculous and another example of over-the-top Bond that would get worse and worse as the decade progressed).

Cork: Yaphet Kotto is an underrated actor, and was, I feel, a great choice for Big Kananga, an ambitious drug kingpin who is…wait for it…ultimately trying to sell more drugs. But Big Kananga suffers from VDS or Villain Derangement Syndrome. This is where a character starts off as a brilliant adversary but during the course of the film grows steadily more and more insane, developing twitches, ticks, a nervous laugh and often leads to an embarrassingly stupid death. Big Kananga endures the worst villain death in any Bond film. I am not sure how the fatal flying fart got into the final draft, but it is the lowest point in an otherwise excellent film. Yet, even that deadly flatulence is historic. It would be over half a year on before Mel Brooks would subject audiences to the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles. While the very tame 1959 Japanese family film, Good Morning, featured numerous farts, I don’t know of any other major motion picture, British or American, to feature flatulence before Live and Let Die. Everyone can ask someone to pull their finger in celebration.

What saves Big Kananga from diminishing the film by his small-time hoodlum ambitions are his henchmen. They really make the film. While Whisper (Earl Jolly Brown) has too little to do, Arnold Williams as “Cab Driver 1” chews up the scenery delightfully. Julius Harris as Tee Hee delivers a master class in villainy with just a few lines and a fantastic smile. And then there is Geoffrey Holder as Baron Samedi. Holder was a giant of a man who fills the screen, moves with the fluidity of an octopus, and has more charm in his little finger than one can find in the entire casts of most films. Holder also brought some wonderful lore to the Bond film. He had played Baron Samedi before in Truman Capote’s Broadway musical, House of Flowers. He also knew Ian Fleming, whom he thought was a terrible British snob. He told a story of having Ian Fleming to his apartment for dinner in New York and intentionally spicing Fleming’s food so that it “burned his ass.” I think it is brilliant that the film closes on (spoiler alert) Baron Samedi laughing at the audience.

Howard: He is absolutely brilliant in this film: a complete black movie star. He’s handsome, has a great speaking voice and he has tremendous screen presence. I had seen Kotto in Bone before seeing him in Live and Let Die so I knew who he was. I sort of confused him with Sidney Poitier, both talented, imposing and erudite black men. He’s a fascinating actor and, in my opinion, his contribution to the film is as important as Roger Moore’s. His accomplishment is all the more noteworthy when you consider the fact that he’s playing a dual role. He’s both Kananga, an international drug smuggler and Mr. Big, an inner-city drug seller. Kotto plays it all perfectly: laid back, secure, aware of his power and influence — even in that prosthetic mask and wig!

Pfeiffer: Yaphet Kotto was already an established character actor and well-respected. He rode the recent wave of blaxploitation films to elevate his career even further, but Kotto had already been a well-regarded actor since the 1960s, appearing in films like 5 Card Stud and The Thomas Crown Affair. The role of Kananga provided him with his most substantial role to date and he made the most of it, making history in the process as the first African American actor to play the main Bond villain. Despite the racial component, Kotto provided all the key characteristics of the traditional Bond bad guys: he was elegant, handsome, sophisticated and witty — even when he was about to kill someone. He’s a fine actor and provided a memorable performance.

Scivally: In some ways, Mr. Big/Dr. Kananga is the original Janus, a two-faced villain who goes from gruff and streetwise (Mr. Big) to urbane and sophisticated (Dr. Kananga). The two diverse personas also act as a doppelganger of 007 himself, who is both deadly assassin and suave seducer. Yaphet Kotto seems more at home in the character’s Dr. Kananga incarnation; while Mr. Big is a cartoon caricature of a Harlem gangster, Kananga is more sinister — cool and calculating one moment, and passionately violent the next. He’s memorable for being the first black Bond villain, and indeed this film employed more black actors than had seemingly appeared in the entire 007 series up to this point. Julius Harris, Earl Jolly Brown and Tommy Lane were engaging henchmen, Lon Satton was amusing as CIA agent Strutter, Gloria Hendry made the most of her thankless role as inept turncoat Rosie Carver, and the presence of actor/choreographer Geoffrey Holder’s Baron Samedi added a nice grace note to the climax.

Sherman: Yaphet Kotto is a skilled actor and is believable in his dual roles as a wealthy and erudite political leader and also a hardened, murderous drug dealer. His transformation via prosthetics works well on screen and the look of surprise on Bond’s face is deserved. Kotto presents a large range of emotions on screen, making his character multidimensional. He rages at times, but we see him struggling to keep his emotions in check. He’s one the best things about the film, and Bond needs a great antagonist like Mr. Big to have a great film.

Coate: In what way was Jane Seymour’s Solitaire a memorable Bond Girl?

Burlingame: I just loved Jane Seymour as Solitaire. Loved her. There was something so innocent about her in those early scenes; she had done other films — I would have seen her in Young Winston in ’72 but don’t remember it well — but this was her first big splash as an actress. She was ideal casting, and I followed her career for many years afterwards (especially notable against a John Barry score in Somewhere in Time, 1980, and then as the bad girl Cathy in TV’s East of Eden miniseries in 1981).

Cork: I think Seymour does a fantastic job with the role. Solitaire never feels like a carbon copy of prior women in the Bond films. There is an interesting moment where Bond is about to be taken up in a plane and tossed out. She creates a distraction by pretending to attack him, allowing him to fight back and eventually escape. Seymour never telegraphs this moment. She gives a quick glance at the cab driver then steps out purposefully and walks up to Bond with convincing distaste. At no point does she come across as fragile or even as a damsel in distress, and considering the character was written as a damsel in distress, that speaks to her presence. Seymour creates a very attractive imperiousness about Solitaire, and even in one of the film’s best scenes, where her infidelity is discovered by Big Kananga, she plays her uncertainty and anxiety very genuinely. It should be noted that she was largely dubbed by Nikki van der Zyl, who certainly reflected Seymour’s steely-eyed physical performance in the re-voicing work.

Of all of Bond’s seductions, his use of a cheap card trick to play on the superstitions of Solitaire is the most divisive. Men generally find it tremendously amusing. Women stand united that this crossed an ethical line. Fortunately, Solitaire seems quite comfortable with her #MeToo moment, and the incident appears to be in little danger of getting the Ronan Farrow treatment in The New Yorker.

Since there are long gaps between Seymour’s appearances, special nods should be given to Madeline Smith and Gloria Hendry, who both bring a lot of fun to the film with smaller but significant parts. Hendry in particular makes a bit of Bond history with her love scene with 007.

Howard: Well, I love her character’s name and she’s got a great role. Is she a witch, a soothsayer, a palm reader? We’re never really sure but she certainly has no problem predicting the future. Love negates her powers of course and those pesky playing cards sometimes betray her, but she’s convincingly willing: sultry and beautiful to look at. She also appears completely natural in front of the camera — not an easy task when you’re wearing an elaborate beaded headdress and cape!

Pfeiffer: This was an inspired bit of casting on the part of the producers. Jane Seymour was unknown at the time with only a few bit parts to her credit. She was perfectly cast and could act, too. That helped her evade the fate that befell some of the less-impressive Bond actresses whose recitation of dialogue could often result in some unintended laughter. Seymour was also astonishingly beautiful. We must also mention that groundbreaking role of Gloria Hendry, who played the first inter-racial love scene in a Bond movie, as double agent Rosie Carver. She was another great asset to the film and the combination of the two disparate romantic partners for Bond gave Live and Let Die a certain edge that was a perfect reflection of the societal changes the industry was trying to present.

Scivally: In one of her earliest film appearances, Jane Seymour is stunningly beautiful as Solitaire, and gives a more nuanced performance than the standard-issue Bond woman. Her character is an interesting one — like many before her, she succumbs to Bond’s charms, but in doing so loses her power as a soothsayer (or so she, and Kananga, believe). The way Bond tricks the virginal pawn into being deflowered is undeniably caddish, and with Sean Connery’s Bond, would have seemed much more detestable than it does with Moore, who displays at least a modicum of empathy for his conquest.

Sherman: Solitaire is a Bond ingénue but never descends into a helpless, screaming victim. She deflects Kananga’s designs on Bond and helps him, proving to be plucky. Of course, her role is unique as a virgin onscreen. Bond seduces her to get information. In one of the more effective scenes in the film, one that reminds me of the persistence of Ian Fleming’s Bond, we see Bond over and again relentlessly asking Solitaire for the information he needs about Mr. Big, while she is variously distracted, distraught and romantic.

Coate: Where do you think Live and Let Die ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Burlingame: I would rank Live and Let Die in the middle tier — not among the top ten, not among the bottom eight, but in the middle six among all “official” Bond films in terms of quality.

Cork: Live and Let Die holds a very special place for me because it is the film that made me a Bond fan, so in some ways it will always be first for me. Trying to be a tad bit more objective, when I ranked the movies in 2012, it came in seventh, just ahead of The Spy Who Loved Me. If you think that’s just because I’m a certain age, my son ranked it fifth.

Pfeiffer: I’d rank it middle-of-the-pack. The film isn’t as finely-tuned as most of its predecessors. The script is a bit flabby and padded out with a spectacular boat chase that eats up much of the running time. It also suffers from the fact that much of the footage in the “Caribbean” was actually very obviously shot on sound stages at Pinewood Studios. It’s still a mystery why the film was shot in a “flat” format instead of widescreen, which compromised the sweep and epic feel of many of the more recent Bond films. Also, George Martin’s score, though adequate, doesn’t resonate in the way that John Barry’s scores did. This is the first Bond film that Barry didn’t contribute to and his presence is missed, though the bold inclusion of Paul McCartney’s title song was a stroke of genius and sent record sales soaring, winning an Oscar nomination in the process. Live and Let Die is still fun to watch and most of the credit goes to Roger Moore’s laid-back, self-assured performance. He worked well with director Guy Hamilton, who shared his penchant for accentuating the humorous aspects of Bond, even though they occasionally went “over-the-top.”

Scivally: I find Live and Let Die a very entertaining 007 film, but it’s not the best; I’d rank it somewhere just above the middle, in the top ten. It was a great introduction for Roger Moore, looking trim and youthful after the producers asked him to undertake a dieting regimen (though he was, in fact, almost 3 years older than Sean Connery), but it lacks the scope and scale of the Bond films that came before and would come again later. However, the villains are colorful, the dialogue sharp, and Guy Hamilton’s direction is confident and breezy.

Sherman: Adjusting for inflation of ticket pricing, and also the increase in world population, Live and Let Die is the 4th most popular Bond film ever, coming only behind the height of Bond mania for the releases of Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice. Audiences appreciated this film as a strong entry, ensuring Roger Moore would carry on for six more Bonds. I rank it as one of the best Roger Moore films and one of the best Bonds overall.

Coate: What is the legacy of Live and Let Die?

Burlingame: In the larger, historical sense, Live and Let Die launches the Moore era of Bond. So those of us who loved him as Simon Templar in The Saint and Lord Brett Sinclair in The Persuaders (still my favorite Moore role) got to appreciate him in a slightly different context. I remember being surprised to realize that, by 1985, Moore had surpassed Connery in number of Bond appearances (seven as opposed to six, although if you count Never Say Never Again — and should we? — they are tied at seven). And starting with Live and Let Die, 007 films would never be quite the serious action-adventure that Connery led in the ’60s. But times were changing and Bond had to change with them.

It’s also (again, on the music side) significant that Live and Let Die marks the beginning of a new chapter in Bond music: reaching out to major pop and rock figures to create and sing Bond themes. Starting with Live and Let Die — the first Bond theme to be Oscar-nominated — that became the standard, especially when John Barry, who only did five more Bonds, wasn’t involved. In many ways that helped keep Bond relevant and interesting to a younger generation, which was and is tremendously important to maintaining its position as the longest-running and successful franchise in movie history.

Cork: One important legacy is Paul and Linda McCartney’s title song. Jennifer Lawrence breaks out into the song for no reason in American Hustle. Frogs sing it in Shrek the Third. A previously unreleased version of the song gets used in the little-seen 2003 In-Laws remake. Guns N’ Roses made it a Grammy-nominated hit again in the early 1990s. The song itself is a force of nature.

Another important legacy is that of late screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz. Live and Let Die has dialog that simply sparkles. The contribution of Mankiewicz to the legacy of the cinematic James Bond should not be underestimated. An ordinary screenwriter would have taken the boat chase and made it simply about Bond escaping from his captors. Not Tom Mankiewicz. The scene becomes about the humiliation of a racist Louisiana sheriff. A perfectly delightful scene where cars chase Bond as he taxies around an airport in a small plane becomes about senior flying student Mrs. Bell. If you want to understand how successful Mankiewicz is with that scene, look at Die Hard with a Vengeance and the scene where the Wall Street banker insists on riding with John McClane in a commandeered cab. It is the same scene, but far less successful because the banker is a tired trope with completely predictable reactions. We’ve all met some version of Mrs. Bell, but the character is so wacky and surprising in a Bond film that she makes the scene come alive. And this was the genius of Mankiewicz. He knew that Roger Moore could brilliantly play the straight man who seems unconcerned with the wake of destruction left behind for the locals to clean up.

The film’s iconic status can also be traced back to Geoffrey Holder and his brilliant make-up designed by Paul Rabiger. Their vision for Baron Samedi was immortalized in Disney’s animated feature, The Princess and the Frog, via the Live and Let Die inspired character, Dr. Facilier. Craig’s costume for the Day of the Dead celebration in SPECTRE was a nod to Holder. And even in New Orleans, where there were very few voodoo shops in 1972, the French Quarter is now filled with shops that will sell you dolls and posters of “the man who cannot die.” Even the recent U.K. hardback edition of Fleming’s Live and Let Die uses cover art that harkens back to Holder’s Baron Samedi, despite the character not appearing (in human form at least) in the novel.

Yet, the most important legacy of the film is that without its success, Bond movies would no longer exist. In 1966, Cubby and Harry decided to strike out on a bold path, unable to come to terms with Sean Connery for more films after You Only Live Twice, the producers decided they would make Bond movies with new actors. As great as On Her Majesty’s Secret Service is, the film made only a fraction of the worldwide grosses of the previous three Bond films. Connery returned for Diamonds Are Forever, and so after negotiations ended with Connery, everything was on the line with Live and Let Die. If the film had failed, and if Connery could not have been lured back, the series would have likely folded up and gone into hibernation. But Roger Moore proved audiences would come to see another actor as Bond. He did more than prove it, he starred in a film that globally out-grossed Diamonds Are Forever.

Howard: For me it’s an early A-list film that recognized the value and influence of the generally under regarded blaxploitation film genre. Although British made, I think it’s a fascinating presentation of modern American ideas: and it was influential. That Man Bolt (a black globetrotting private detective), Cleopatra Jones and the Casino of Gold (a black international investigator looking to bring down the heroin trade) and Friday Foster (a black private detective whose an expert with a speedboat) all appear to have an astute awareness of the film’s many merits. When you add the fantastic theme song Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney and Wings, and the fact that this is Roger Moore’s very first turn as James Bond, you’ve got a film that is distinct and memorable: most certainly worth new consideration.

Pfeiffer: While the film isn’t an outright Bond classic, it has held up fairly well. I hosted a screening of it last year and hadn’t seen it in many years. I found I liked it more than I used to. The good aspects worked better than I had remembered and the weaker ones (i.e. the inclusion of Sheriff Pepper as comic relief) now seemed more tolerable, if not actually enjoyable. Most importantly in terms of its legacy, it preserved the series by presenting Roger Moore, who successfully carried Bond into a new era.

Scivally: Live and Let Die ushered in the Roger Moore era of 007 films, and also signaled a change in Bond films from being trendsetters to trend followers. Live and Let Die was influenced by the then-popular blaxploitation films, while The Man With the Golden Gun served up chop-socky action in the vein of Enter the Dragon, and Moonraker quickly supplanted For Your Eyes Only as a follow-up to The Spy Who Loved Me after the astounding boxoffice success of Star Wars. Live and Let Die is also a rather low-budget Bond, as was its successor. In the inter-office correspondences of Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, it appears that both producers thought the series would run its course within ten years and then would segue into a television series. With a “TV actor” taking over the role, and less ostentatious production values — for instance, both of Moore’s initial outings lack the grandeur of Ken Adam sets and are filmed in 1.85:1 ratio rather than widescreen — these films, when viewed today, seem almost more like TV movies than feature films. It would take The Spy Who Loved Me to re-establish Bond as a big-budget extravaganza.

Sherman: Live and Let Die made a sensation and proved Bond could be bankable for decades to come. As the eighth Eon Bond film, it offered very different fare in 1973 than The Exorcist, American Graffiti or The Sting. Moviegoers have been clamoring for Bond films ever since.

Coate: Thank you — Jon, John, Josiah, Lee, Bruce, and Matt — for participating and sharing your thoughts about Live and Let Die on the occasion of its 45th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Never Say Never Again” on its 35th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, Danjaq LLC, Eon Productions Limited, 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)

Running only a single season (but ultimately inspiring a franchise), the series premiered on television 40 years ago this month, and for the occasion The Bits features a Q&A with a trio of sci-fi authorities and television historians who discuss the virtues, shortcomings and legacy of the series (and franchise).

The participants are (in alphabetical order)…

Mark A. Altman is the author (with Edward Gross) of So Say We All: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Battlestar Galactica (Tor Books, 2018). He also co-wrote The Fifty-Year Mission: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Star Trek (two volumes; St. Martin’s Press, 2016) and Slayers & Vampires: The Complete, Uncensored, Unauthorized Oral History of Buffy and Angel (Tor Books, 2017). When he’s not busy writing large tomes devoted to icons of popular culture, he’s a writer/producer for such hit TV series as The Librarians (TNT), Agent X (TNT), Necessary Roughness (USA), Castle (ABC), Femme Fatales (Cinemax) and others and has sold numerous movies and TV pilots. The Bits readers might recognize Altman as the co-writer/producer of the award-winning romantic comedy Free Enterprise, starring William Shatner and Eric McCormack. Altman also recently moderated a 40th anniversary tribute to the original Battlestar Galactica as part of a screening series at the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles.

Gary Gerani is the author (with Paul H. Schulman) of Fantastic Television: A Pictorial History of Sci-Fi, The Unusual, and the Fantastic from Captain Video to the Star Trek Phenomenon and Beyond (Harmony, 1977). Gary is known as the Card King, having written and edited more trading cards than anyone else, including the Topps Star Wars sets, which Abrams Books has recently reprinted in book form. He co-wrote the screenplay for Stan Winston’s Pumpkinhead and Trading Paint starring John Travolta. His current project, due in 2020, is Romantic Mysticism: The Music of Billy Goldenberg, a documentary about the film/TV composer Billy Goldenberg (Spielberg’s Duel, among others). He also owns his own publishing company, Fantastic Press, in a partnership with IDW.

Herbie J Pilato is the founder of the Classic TV Preservation Society nonprofit and the host of the upcoming classic TV talk show Then Again with Herbie J Pilato. He is the author of several acclaimed books on pop culture, including Twitch Upon a Star: The Bewitched Life and Career of Elizabeth Montgomery (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2012), Dashing, Daring, and Debonair: TV’s Top Male Icons from the 50s, 60s, and 70s (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2016), Glamour, Gidgets, and the Girl Next Door: Television’s Iconic Women from the 50s, 60s, and 70s (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2014), The Bionic Book: The Six Million Dollar Man & the Bionic Woman Reconstructed (Bear Manor Media, 2007), and Mary, a soon-to-be-published new biography of Mary Tyler Moore. He presides over his own production company, Television, Ink, which produces family-oriented TV shows and was a consulting producer on the DVD season sets of Bewitched, CHiPs, Kung Fu and The Six Million Dollar Man. His website is: www.herbiejpilatio.com.

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way do you think Battlestar Galactica should be remembered and/or celebrated on its 40th anniversary?

Mark A. Altman: The original Battlestar Galactica is a terribly misunderstood TV series. In a way, it has sadly become the Rodney Dangerfield of sci-fi TV, never getting any respect. A lot of that is due to the way it is considered by many to be a rip-off of Star Wars, which is no doubt due to the fact that Glen Larson had a history of taking popular movies and re-shaping them into hit TV series which led to the late Harlan Ellison dubbing him “Glen Larceny.” Whether it be Alias Smith and Jones which was clearly inspired by the success of Butch Cassidy or B.J. and the Bear which was extremely redolent of Clint Eastwood’s orangutan comedies. But Galactica is so much more than simply a Star Wars clone. Yes, the hiring of John Dkystra on the heels of his success with Star Wars and, of course, Ralph McQuarrie’s brilliant conceptual design for the show led to some clear comparisons with the Star Wars aesthetic, but BSG was big event television unlike the medium had ever seen. It’s no accident that Universal was able to release the three-hour TV premiere in theaters because the film had cinematic production values and scope unlike any series that had preceded it. The story of BSG is one of great tragedy and pathos. The entire human race is almost completely annihilated in an interstellar genocide by a race of sentient machines. David Gerrold once reviewed the series dismissing the show’s very concept as ill-conceived given it was a show about people perpetually on the run and fleeing which meant the show was inherently flawed in its very premise. And that may very well have been true at the time (despite the fact that The Fugitive had been a massive hit), but television has changed and evolved since then and what may not have worked in 1978 clearly provided the DNA of a very successful premise in 2004 when Ron Moore and David Eick rebooted it in one of the most significant and justly-lauded genre series of all time. At the same time, there was a great deal of heroism in the story of this family that was trying to survive. Despite all the horrors that befell them, they continued to hope and strive and fight and there’s a nobility in that which you won’t find in a lot of other post-apocalyptic genre television or film.

It was also the waning days of the television contract system and the last gasp of some of the great screen stars of film who were wiling away their pre-retirement years doing Universal TV shows. While you had movie greats like Barbara Stanwyck doing The Big Valley and Joan Crawford on Night Gallery, Galactica had legendary talents like Ray Milland, Wilfrid Hyde-White, Ray Bolger, Fred Astaire and, of course, the original James Bond, Barry Nelson.

Gary Gerani: Screening the episodes.

Herbie J Pilato: Battlestar Galactica remains in the history of pop-culture as one of the most star-studded, lavishly-produced, special-effects-laden television shows of all time. It was historic to say the least when show premiered on ABC, and the audience was ready for it. The network knew exactly what it was doing in placing the series on the air, and its viewers embraced the concept with open arms.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like watching the series for the first time?

Altman: I’m old enough to have first seen Galactica as a kid on ABC when it debuted and, as I write in the book, I vividly remember to this day the special bulletin which cut into the premiere in which Jimmy Carter and Anwar Sadat signed the Camp David Peace Accords. At the time I was outraged they would interrupt Galactica for something so seemingly trivial (ah, to be young and stupid), but I was lucky enough that my parents let me stay up to see how it ended because at the time there were no VCRs to record it and the plan to release it in [U.S.] theaters had not even been conceived yet. It was only after the cancellation and its strong theatrical performance in Canada and Europe that Universal decided to release the film in U.S. theaters as a chance to recoup some of the massive costs they had incurred on the series and, particularly, the three-hour premiere. No one expected this flagship series on the number one network to be cancelled after only one year and if it hadn’t been for the success of Mork and Mindy on Thursday nights, which was a bargain-basement sci-fi comedy, it probably wouldn’t have, but ABC said why are we spending all this money on Galactica whose ratings continued to decline throughout the season when we can put Mork and Mindy on instead and it costs us a fraction of what BSG is costing us. Well, they found out, when Mork got clobbered by All in the Family, but by then it was too late. The sets had been struck, some of them being re-painted and re-used on Buck Rogers in the 25th Century for NBC, also a Universal Television disco-era TV series. As a result you have Galactica 1980 instead of season two of Battlestar Galactica.


Gerani: Everyone was at the height of Star Wars fever when the series premiered. After the initial excitement, interest began to dissipate. Upon reevaluation, the show never lived up to its potential.

Pilato: I was just as excited about initially watching the show as anybody else. The late ‘70s was a transitional period for television, as many great shows had left a few years before, such as The Brady Bunch, The Partridge Family, Here’s Lucy, The Odd Couple, Love, American Style, and so forth. And when it came to science fiction-fantasy on television, the days of the original Star Trek series and The Twilight Zone were long gone. There were dynamite superhero shows such as The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Wonder Woman, and The Incredible Hulk, but there had not been a really well-though-out space-geared series since Star Trek. And yes, Buck Rogers in the 25th Century was a respectable show on the air, but that series was more or less played for camp. Battlestar Galactica, on the other hand, took itself seriously, and that’s why the majority of the audience was looking forward to seeing it.

Coate: Is the series significant in any way?

Altman: It was significant in a number of ways. It was really the beginning of TV with cinematic production values. The special effects could, and did, have movie-quality, but so did much of the production design. The bridge set alone cost over a million dollars to build and it looked like it. Obviously, I love the bridge of the Starship Enterprise, but it paled in comparison to the Galactica bridge which the directors shot with a crane because it was so big and had so many levels. I never saw anything like it until I was on the set of the pilot for Deep Space Nine. Even the 2004 Galactica couldn’t compete with the production values of the ABC series in terms of the bridge and the launch bays and much of the ship. Galactica was using more soundstages on the Universal lot than any TV series in Universal history and they ended up having to rent stages off-the-lot because they ran out of places to shoot there. The series is really significant because you had ABC which pioneered the idea of the miniseries as a movie event that attracted huge ratings like Rich Man, Poor Man and Roots and The Winds of War, but Galactica was a huge movie of the week that was comparable in terms of being event television writ large and the ratings, at least initially, were huge. And, of course, even the least successful episode of BSG back then would be bigger than virtually anything on television today.

The visual effects, pre CGI, are also a stunning accomplishment and, in many cases, better than anything in Star Wars. Ultimately though, you can’t keep up that schedule with practical effects on a television budget so you end up re-using effects over and over again as stock footage and that did no favors in terms of Galactica’s reputation over time. The Cylons are also incredibly iconic villains. Yes, they’re men in suits, but with their distinctive voices through the vocoder and those reflective silver armor, they rank among the greatest and most iconic sci-fi villains of all-time. And, of course, the Galactica itself ranks alongside the Starship Enterprise as the most beautiful and brilliantly designed miniature ever seen in a sci-fi series. You look at ships like the Jupiter 2 in Lost in Space and other shows of the 60s and 70s and what even comes close? It’s just a gorgeous ship as are the Cylon Basestars and the Viper and Raiders as well.

The other thing that is significant about the show is its color-blind casting at a time when this was not often the case. Race is not an issue in the show… ever. Colonel Tigh is second in command and it’s not remotely an issue that he’s African-American in the same way Boomer is one of the top Viper pilots and there’s no issue that he’s black. And both Terry Carter and Herbert Jefferson, Jr. in these roles, respectively, are terrific. Sadly, this same progressiveness in casting didn’t extend to gender as one of the most dated aspects of the series is the fact that women can’t become Viper pilots, so in Lost Planet of the Gods you have an episode where the men are sidelined by a virus and the women have to become pilots and they shriek and do their nails until they’re whipped into shape by a disapproving Apollo and Starbuck. That said though, once this happens, you continue to see female Viper pilots throughout the series and one of the best characters who joins the ensemble a few episodes later is Sheba, played by Anne Lockhart, who can fly circles around the men.

Finally, it was one of the first series to embrace serialization to an extent. While it certainly wasn’t as ambitious in this area as later series during the peek-TV, binge era, it did take baby steps by introducing character arcs that would be continued over multiple episodes as well as plot points that would pay off later such as the capture of Baltar’s Cylon fighter in War of the Gods which would then be important in both Baltar’s Escape and Hand of God. Also, the beings of light introduced in War of the Gods would again play a part in Experiment in Terra and Return of Starbuck so you start to see the layering in of serialized plot elements including The Eastern Alliance as a short-lived antagonist as well, which was virtually unheard of in late 70s television.

Gerani: The effects for TV were quite spectacular in 1979.

Pilato: The series was significant in several ways. Number one… it was the first time that any television series, science-fiction-oriented or not, utilized such a large budget and lofty sets and special effects. And it was also one of the initial instances when the story-arc format was utilized in any mainstream way over a succession of episodes. It was the beginning of such a style that was later taken to another level with shows like Star Trek: The Next Generation, which utilized a similar storytelling technique in its second season.

Secondly, it brought together so many different elements of storytelling and pop-culture in one fine swoop with a family-based center to boot. It mixed mystic elements of Erich von Daniken’s Chariots of the Gods with core sci-fi storytelling. And because of stars like Lorne Greene, Richard Hatch, Dirk Benedict, Marin Jensen, Laurette Spang, and Ann Lockhart, it was like Bonanza meets The Streets of San Francisco, with a little Charlie’s Angels on the side, and some Lost in Space with a twist… as Ann is the daughter of Lost in Space star June Lockhart. In the meantime, too, it was the first space-adventure show to feature African-American actors in regular roles since Nichelle Nichols on Star Trek. Herbert Jefferson, Jr. and Terry Carter were wonderful on the show. And just as with Nichelle on Star Trek, no big deal was made about the fact that she was African-American. Herbert and Terry’s characters were just like everyone else’s. They just “happened to be African-American.” That’s ground-breaking stuff.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Which were the standout episodes?

Altman: There are a few really classic episodes. Certainly, War of the Gods is a remarkable two-parter that deals with faith and spirituality. It’s a shame Ron Moore never figured out a way to crack the Count Iblis storyline for 2004 BSG, which he did try to do, because he could have really taken this to the next level, but even back then it’s a really well told story with a remarkable cliffhanger vividly heightened by Stu Phillips’ swelling score. Of course, The Living Legend is a magnificent two-parter that introduces Lloyd Bridges’ Commander Cain as a foil for Lorne Greene’s Adama and is a Patton In Space story brilliantly told. And it eventually led to Ron Moore gender swapping Bridges’ Commander Cain for Michelle Forbes’ steely Admiral Cain as part of a stellar arc on BSG 2004 as well as in the telefilm, Razor. “Commander, why are you launching Vipers… ” another in a great line of cliffhanger endings.

Gerani: War of the Gods was more interesting than most. Living Legend was fun with Lloyd Bridges chewing the scenery. Hand of God was a spirited final episode.

Coate: Which episode is your favorite?

Altman: The one-hour episodes are almost never as good as the two-hour episodes because they don’t have the budget and the tapestry to tell big stories, but there is a one-hour episode that is among the best BSG ever had to offer in its original incarnation. It finally cracks the code on action and character and that, of course, is Hand of God, the final episode of the first season in which Apollo receives, what is revealed to be, a transmission of the lunar landing. It’s just a case of the show firing on all cylinders and it’s so sad that this is the episode on which the show went out on because you can’t help but wonder how much better the show could’ve been had it been renewed for a second season and we might see the original show in a very different light today as a result.


Gerani: War of the Gods.

Coate: Favorite character?


Altman: Like most people, I would have to say Starbuck. Dirk Benedict was just so perfect in that role, and what’s ironic is ABC didn’t want him and didn’t think he was handsome enough. They fought Larson the whole time until they finally had to give in once production began to avoid a shutdown. Ironically, Barry Van Dyke who ended up playing Dillon in Galactica 1980, was one of the runner-ups and ABC jumped on the chance to cast him when it was clear that Benedict was not coming back to do Galactica 1980. And how anyone can’t adore the villainous, mustache-twirling John Colicos as the traitorous Baltar, I’ll never understood. His scenery chewing performance is a classic as is Lorne Greene as the patriarch of the Adama clan and, of course, the late Patrick Macnee as Count Iblis. But you also have to acknowledge the extraordinary challenge that Richard Hatch as Apollo, playing such a straight-laced and one-dimensional hero and then what he managed to do playing the multi-faceted and endlessly fascinating Tom Zarek on the 2004 series. He also was a cheerleader for the franchise and an advocate for BSG when no one else was and for this he deserves endless appreciation. Of course, when I was ten years old watching it, nothing was better than Maren Jensen as Athena at the time, but that was then and this is now.

Gerani: Adama, nicely realized by Lorne Greene.

Pilato: My favorite character was Lorne Greene’s Adama. First of all, it was wonderful to see Greene back on TV in a regular capacity since his Bonanza days. He had attempted a series return shortly before his gig on Galactica with an ABC detective show called Griff. But that didn’t last too long at all, as the audience wasn’t ready to accept him as a detective after loving him so many years as a cowboy. So when Galactica and the role of Adama came along a few years later, that seemed a better fit for Greene. He was still playing a father on Galactica, as he had on Bonanza, and he was now a cowboy in space. It was a perfect alignment of the stars, so to speak.

Coate: Where does the show rank among sci-fi television?

Altman: There are three great science fiction masterpieces in the history of genre television: the original Star Trek, The Twilight Zone and Battlestar Galactica 2004. You couldn’t have that without BSG 1978. Right behind those series, you have Deep Space Nine and then you have The Next Generation and The Outer Limits. Somewhere in the middle is Babylon 5, The X-Files and Space: 1999. Way at the bottom, you have shows like Manimal and Supertrain and Galactica 1980 and Salvage One. So where does Galactica go? Somewhere in between. It’s hard to evaluate the show based on one season, particularly given the amount of nostalgia the series evokes for people like me who watched it in its original run.

Gerani: It’s a notable misfire, but remains fairly unique.

Pilato: The original Battlestar: Galactica series holds sci-fi TV rank somewhere between the original Star Trek series and Space: 1999, and it is light years away from a show like the original Lost in Space, which I loved as well, but like Buck Rogers, was eventually played for laughs.

Coate: Do you believe the series has been well represented on home video?

Altman: In the VHS and LaserDisc era, it was dreadfully mistreated. You had the movie and then later you inconceivably had the one-hour episodes released on tape, which were among the worst of the shows. The two-hour episodes didn’t get released, with the exception of Mission Galactica: The Cylon Attack, a pastiche of The Living Legend and Fire in Space for overseas theatrical release and later Conquest of the Earth, a terrible hybrid of multiple Galactica 1980 episodes. Based on all this, you wouldn’t think much of BSG. Years later, Universal Home Video did a really nice job of releasing the entire series in a Cylon head package with a myriad deleted scenes and some new featurettes for the 25th anniversary which tied in with the success of the new series which hugely benefitted from its sales on home video. In fact, Syfy probably would have cancelled the 2004 series earlier had Universal not been making such a windfall from the DVD releases of the new series. But the real apex of BSG’s multiple releases is the Blu-ray box set which is still a benchmark for the medium. Not only does it include both BSG 1978 and BSG 1980 along with all the deleted scenes from the DVD set, but they re-mastered the episodes for widescreen as well so there’s a second set of discs in which all the episodes are cropped for widescreen. The visual effects are a little softer as a result, but it’s still a great option to have and my preferred way to watch the show. It also includes both the two-hour theatrical cut of the premiere along with the three hour episode as well.

Now, for absolute Galactica completists, there is still a Holy Grail out there. Because of how few episodes were ever produced, many local stations won’t repeat a show that had so few episodes, even with Galactica 1980 added to the syndication package, so like what Fox did with the short-lived Planet of the Apes TV series, Universal edited all the episodes into two-hour TV movies and, in a few cases, added deleted footage as well as a new intro for Experiment in Terra which used pre-production art to explain the history of The Cylon Wars as well as additional footage from the Galactica 1980 episode, Return of Starbuck. These have never been released on home video and I’d love to see them, even as part of their disc on demand service or streaming.

Gerani: The Blu-rays look great.

Coate: How do the sequel series and reboot compare to the original series?


Altman: To me it’s like Star Trek The Original Series and The Next Generation, only flipped. I think TOS is a masterpiece and TNG is a great television series as is Deep Space Nine. In the case of BSG, I think the 1978 is a great, significant and vastly misunderstood series, but BSG 2004 is a masterpiece despite its flaws of which there are a few. I was never a fan of the amount of time spent aboard the Cylon Basestar in the later seasons in which I felt I was trapped inside a Crate & Barrel outlet store nor the Baltar Messiah arc, and it was unfortunate the network was so intent on keeping the show in space because as brilliant as the New Caprica arc was and is, it absolutely could have sustained an entire season on its own when you think of how much they mined from Vichy France and World War II and how many more stories there were that could have been told down there on New Caprica with that amazing cast.

Gerani: The reboot abandoned the Star Wars imitation problem and established a cerebral new direction.

Pilato: The Galactica: 1980 series was simply not the same. The momentum wasn’t there as it had been for the original Battlestar Galactica show. And the latter-day Battlestar Galactica reboot was, of course, darker and edgier. But for my personal tastes, it was too dark and edgy… mostly because the original Battlestar series was already darker and edgier than any space series that had debuted before. So, by the time the reboot arrived decades later, television shows in general, including regular drama series and comedies were dark and edgy… too dark and edgy, for my part. And making an already dark and edgy concept even darker and edgier was just simply a turn-off for me when it came to the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, its wonderful cast and solid writing, notwithstanding. Although, I, and I’m sure many others, would loved to have seen Richard Hatch’s concept of a rebooted Battlestar come to life… which he had worked on for years… even though it certainly was nice to have him involved, at least in some way, when another rebooted Battlestar concept actually made it to the air. I thought it was very respectful to Hatch to include him, and his fans, and fans of the entire Battlestar franchise, appreciated this involvement. It’s important to do that… to somehow respect the original mythology of a concept in some way, even if it means acknowledging and somehow bringing original actors back into the arena, even if they are not playing the original characters with which they are associated.

Coate: What is the legacy of Battlestar Galactica?

Altman: If BSG 1978’s only legacy was that it provided the inspiration for BSG 2004 by presenting the story of an intergalactic Pearl Harbor and galactic genocide that would have been enough, but I feel that the 1978 show’s legacy is far more significant and complex than that. And while unlike Star Trek, which presented a progressive, liberal, optimistic version of the future, Galactica depicts a far more militaristic, nihilistic and neo-conservative view with its dismissiveness of the naïve President Adar who sells out the human race in order to close an arms control treaty, a thinly veiled swipe at Jimmy Carter from the conservative Glen Larson, although, of course, Reagan would go on to be even more aggressive in this regard after the show was cancelled. Galactica ‘78 endorses military rule over civilian leadership, who are often portrayed as self-serving and incompetent, to wit the gluttonous Sire Uri, played by Ray Milland, and the entire Council of Twelve which are time and time again depicted as total incompetents. But this aside, the original Battlestar Galactica is a stunningly realized series which is Star Wars for television in the best sense of the word and a show that epitomizes the best popcorn entertainment has to offer. The less said about Galactica 1980 the better, however. Although it probably is the most marvelous chapter of our book. Seriously!

Gerani: It proved TV producers could move beyond Star Trek in producing a space-based series with continuing characters.

Pilato: The original Battlestar Galactica will forever remain a benchmark in the history of television programming. It arrived in a timely fashion, yes, to take advantage of the new-found interest in “space operas” that was rejuvenated by the original Star Wars film on the big screen. But Battlestar Galactica stands alone in the presentation of the science fiction genre when it comes to weekly TV shows.

Coate: Thank you – Mark, Gary, and Herbie – for sharing your thoughts on Battlestar Galactica on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy ABC-TV, Glen A. Larson Productions, Universal Studios Home Entertainment, Universal Television. Herbie J Pilato image by Dan Holm Photography.

- 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)

Thomas A. Christie is the author of The Cinema of Richard Linklater (Crescent Moon, 2008). 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), The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013), The Christmas Movie Book (Crescent Moon, 2011), Ferris Bueller’s Day Off: Pocket Movie Guide (Crescent Moon, 2010), and John Hughes and Eighties Cinema: Teenage Hopes and American Dreams (Crescent Moon, 2009). He is a member of The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors and The Federation of Writers Scotland.

Christie kindly spoke to The Bits about the appeal and legacy of Dazed and Confused.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Dazed and Confused should be remembered on its 25th anniversary?

Thomas A. Christie: Dazed and Confused remains one of the most iconic teen movies of the early nineties, and yet for Richard Linklater aficionados it’s much more than just that. For such an assertively autonomous figure of the indie scene, Dazed and Confused marked a definite move towards a more mainstream sensibility after the startling, bewildering Slacker had burst onto the scene in 1991 and brought his talents firmly into the eyes of the critics. While the film hasn’t garnered as many admirers as the later Before Sunrise, it was undoubtedly a significant film for Linklater in the sense that it laid out many of his existential concerns in an appealingly understated way while also presenting an involving environment that was filled with mostly likeable but always interesting characters. He coaxes some agreeable performances and inspired dialogue from his young cast, established themes that he would return to later in his directorial career, and ensured that he would build confidently upon the goodwill that existed amongst commentators.

Coate: What do you remember about the first time you saw Dazed and Confused?

Christie: I first saw the film at the time of its original release, and while it didn’t quite blow me away to the same extent as the hugely original Slacker had done, it was still a pleasing break from the norm which suggested that Linklater had so much more to say that was valuable and insightful. In particular, I was hugely impressed by his absolute refusal to rely on long-established tropes of the teen movie genre, instead demonstrating an unerring willingness to push the boundaries of the format and present characters who were believable individuals rather than simply walking plot devices. Even in supporting characters who have only a fleeting appearance, Linklater is able to suggest a level of depth and complexity that built admirably upon the genre’s reinvention in its 1980s glory days. It was also a movie that refused to treat teenage concerns in a glib or superficial way. There was no patronizing attempt to reduce the characters’ anxieties about their futures into a series of facile truisms, and many a stereotype was to be subverted before the end credits rolled.

Coate: In what way is Dazed and Confused a significant motion picture?

Christie: One of the most important things about Dazed and Confused is the way in which it’s often held up, quite rightly, as being an example of how the youth cinema of the nineties was evolving rapidly in comparison to the teen movies of the preceding decade. The kids that Linklater is documenting aren’t by any means John Hughes’s brand of teenager, even though an artistic reaction to Hughes is undeniably there. Here we’re seeing a deliberate move away from the class consciousness of filmmakers like Lewis John Carlino, Robert Boris or Joel Schumacher in the eighties, heading instead for the kind of contemplative reflectiveness surrounding young adulthood that would typify the work of Whit Stillman, Amy Heckerling, Kevin Smith and Cameron Crowe heading towards the turn of the millennium. While Linklater’s later Eric Bogosian drama adaptation subUrbia would belong more comfortably within the distinctive mode of Gen-X disaffection movies popularized by filmmakers like Gregg Araki and Larry Clark during the nineties, with Dazed and Confused he was instead tapping into a much more affable, conversational style of teen movie that owed a great deal to the Hughesian ideal of fashioning each young adult character as a living, breathing individual rather than a cliché-ridden archetype (a strategy that Hughes had, of course, employed to brilliant effect in the expectation-redefining The Breakfast Club in 1985). Here we see the usual teen movie stalwarts dragged out and dusted off – the hazing-obsessed jock, the intellectual loners, and so on – only for Linklater to subvert audience anticipation by layering each character with greater profundity and sophistication that might otherwise have been expected at an earlier point in the genre’s history. Like Hughes before him, Linklater obviously believed that each young character deserved to be treated with respect and portrayed as a fully fleshed-out figure with dimension and believable motivations, though he was also to voice skepticism about the high drama surrounding teen life which was presented in some Hughes movies which led him to deliberately portray a more low-key evocation of the subject. As such the result is an admirably nuanced take on the teen movie that was congruent with the fresh wave of nineties entries in the genre which included films such as Metropolitan (1990), Pump Up the Volume (1990), and Mallrats (1995).

Coate: Where do you think Dazed and Confused ranks among Richard Linklater’s body of work?

Christie: Certainly among Linklater’s early work, Dazed and Confused occupies an interesting space – more structurally coherent than Slacker, less overtly theatrical than subUrbia, and exhibiting slightly less dialogic polish than Before Sunrise. Given the immediacy of these other films, each of which were very much contemporary takes on modern society and culture, Dazed and Confused uses its nostalgic mid-1970s situation to make some inspired points about the modern day (not least the somewhat poignant, if ultimately mistaken, expectation amongst some of the teenagers that the eighties would turn out to be a golden age of progressive socio-cultural development). Linklater avoids the temptation to turn this period piece into a kind of wistful, idealized consideration of a more innocent age. If anything, there is a subtle theme of “the more things change, the more they stay the same” – a motif which has been threaded through some of his later work – while also suggesting that for each of the kids, the shape of their future will turn out to be limited only by what they make of it.

Coate: In what way did having a cast of unknown and early-in-career actors help (or hurt) the film?

Christie: That’s an interesting question. Certainly many of the performers were complete unknowns, and the film came early in the careers of many of the actors who featured in it, including Ben Affleck, Parker Posey, Milla Jovovich and Cole Hauser, to name only a few. I think, overall, this probably aided Dazed and Confused more than it hurt it; the idea of having a plethora of disparate teenagers celebrating the end of school one spring day in 1976 just seems to work so much better when we have no particular expectation of how a specific big-name performer would likely be approaching a particular role. There is a sense of creative exuberance that would otherwise be denied if the audience is actively expecting a certain actor to play their part in a manner that was distinctive to their usual, expected mode of performance. In later interviews, for instance, Linklater spoke of a desire to cast Affleck in the role of the film’s antagonist Fred O’Bannion precisely because of the actor’s engaging personality, thus ensuring that the character became a suitably larger-than-life figure that didn’t fit the expectations of the mean-spirited school bully archetype. Ironically, while many people best remember Matthew McConaughey in the distinctive role of David Wooderson – an excessively easy-going slacker who is now in his twenties, but still hanging out with high schoolers – as being the standout figure of Dazed and Confused, McConaughey was actually a late addition to the cast, and much of the material to expand Wooderson’s role was improvised.

Coate: How would you describe Dazed and Confused to someone who has never seen it?

Christie: When people ask me what Dazed and Confused is about, my usual answer is that it’s about an hour and a half long – because that’s as good a description as any! One of the things that I’ve always admired about Linklater is that he often refuses to impose a plot on his films; from Slacker to Waking Life, he seems content to meander from one sequence to another in the most casual, free-wheeling way, deftly concealing the fact that every little incident is actually planned out with incredible precision and care. So much thought and consideration, both technical and philosophical, goes into every frame. And so it was with Dazed and Confused, where Linklater takes the basic premise of the last day at school in the mid-seventies and then proceeds to dispense with any conventional narrative thereafter, content to use the environment he has chosen as a backdrop for various incidents rather than attempting to enforce a rigid plot on proceedings. If this suggests a kind of Robert Altman-esque approach to the ensemble comedy-drama, it’s probably fair to say that Linklater shares Altman’s inclination to articulate cultural concerns and social observations as much as he is concerned with the dynamics of juggling multiple characters. For him, one is never subordinate to the other.

Coate: What is the legacy of Dazed and Confused?

Christie: Dazed and Confused was a movie that spoke to teens of all ages, from the freshman to the senior. Some of the characters are coming to terms with arriving at a new school, thus entering a new phase of their lives, while others are struggling with expectations about what they should be striving for from adulthood after they graduate. (Indeed, Wooderson is still struggling with this issue several years after leaving school, proving the old adage that sometimes the most interesting people are those who never really decide what they want from life.) Yet it was also a film that made abundantly clear Linklater’s love of naturalistic dialogue, his aptitude for offering audiences an engaging cinematic milieu, and his talent for presenting appealing, watchable characters. His obvious enthusiasm for period detail was rarely so evident, nor was his undeniable fervor for pop culture and pleasingly meandering observations on the small but important aspects of life. Dazed and Confused was a joy to watch back then, and it is no less so today.

Coate: Thank you, Tom, for sharing your thoughts about Dazed and Confused on the occasion of its 25th anniversary.

---

IMAGES:

Selected images copyright/courtesy Alphaville Films, Austin American-Statesman, The Criterion Collection, Gramercy Pictures, Universal Pictures Home Entertainment. Thomas A. Christie author photo by Eddy A. Bryan.

- 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 for this segment are (in alphabetical order)…

Thomas A. Christie is the author of The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013). He has written numerous other books, among them A Righteously Awesome Eighties Christmas (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 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. 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 contributed new introductions for the original Bond novels Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and Goldfinger for new editions published in the U.K. by Vintage Classics in 2017.

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) The Incredible World of 007: An Authorized Celebration of James Bond (Citadel, 1992) and The Films of Sean Connery (Citadel, 2001). Lee was a producer on the Goldfinger and Thunderball Special Edition LaserDisc sets and is the co-founder 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.”

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 Never Say Never Again, and then enjoy the conversation with these James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is Never Say Never Again worthy of celebration on its 35th anniversary?

Thomas A. Christie: Never Say Never Again is one of the great curios of James Bond on film. Independent of the main Eon Productions series, it brought Sean Connery back to a role that few (if any) imagined he would ever assume again, and brought the story of Thunderball – and the SPECTRE organization – right up to date for the technologically-focused world of the 1980s. This Warner Bros. release was a gift to entertainment journalists at the time, who eagerly commentated on a “Battle of the Bonds” between Connery’s belated return and Roger Moore’s sixth appearance in the role, Octopussy, which debuted in the same year. (In reality, of course, several months divided the premiere screenings of each film, making it less of a head-to-head skirmish than had perhaps seemed likely.) Worlds apart from 1967’s deeply divisive comedic ensemble caper Casino Royale, this slick Irvin Kershner-helmed feature answered a question that many a critic had previously asked, namely what a James Bond movie might look like if it was produced by a creative team other than the one that had been responsible for the series’ meteoric success ever since 1962’s Dr. No.

John Cork: Celebration? It is a stark warning, a cinematic signpost marking danger, a brutal example that cross-breeding nostalgia with greed never results in a beautiful baby. It is an unabashedly terrible film. Yet, it is fascinating. It is the answer to every fan who thinks, “If only I were running the show.” It is the film that CBS should have watched before they brought back Burke’s Law thirty years after it went off the air, the movie Kathleen Kennedy should have watched before greenlighting Solo: A Star Wars Story, the movie that made me realize that we never needed a Beatles reunion. This is a 1983 film with the director of the highest-grossing film of 1980, the cinematographer of the highest-grossing film of 1981, and Sean Connery starring as James Bond. What could go wrong? This is not to say that the film is without any charms, that certain scenes and performances don’t work, that fans who love the movie are somehow “misguided.” I love talking to those who are passionate about films that fall flat. The script isn’t terrible, but Irvin Kershner was absolutely not the right director for the film. He had once been pressured to work for the CIA but had resisted. He didn’t like spies or spy films, his only previous experience in the genre being the messy 1974 parody, S*P*Y*S. He and Connery got on well and were friends (they had worked together years earlier on A Fine Madness), but the film needed a visionary director who wanted to make the best Bond film ever, not one that looked down on the genre and the character. For years, Kevin McClory had tried to exploit the rights to Thunderball, which he had obtained in a legal settlement with Ian Fleming’s oldest friend, Ivar Bryce, back in 1963. For years, fans who objected to the “silliness” of the Roger Moore Bond films cheered him on. When, after years of legal wrangling this movie came to pass, the Bond fan community could barely contain their glee. But as Ian Fleming wrote in You Only Live Twice, “It is better to travel hopefully… than to arrive.”

Lee Pfeiffer: The film is significant primarily because it marked the final screen appearance of Sean Connery as 007. Bond fans seem to have mixed emotions about the film with most considering it as having fallen short of its potential. Nevertheless, it did close the books on the Connery era of Bond and for that reason alone it has significance in movie history.

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing Never Say Never Again for the first time?

Christie: I watched Never Say Never Again in the eighties, and was immediately struck by the film’s strange mélange of modernity and traditionalism. Given that it was unfettered by the cast and conventions of the Eon series, it’s strange to see just how conservative the divergence often actually is between the official Bond movies and this independently-produced feature. Many of the familiar tropes are all in place, albeit that the regular supporting characters are recast with different faces such as Edward Fox as “M” and Pamela Salem as Miss Moneypenny, all fulfilling similar or near-identical functions to their counterparts in the Eon films. Yet others, such as replacing Desmond Llewelyn’s avuncular, eccentric “Q” with Alec McCowen’s curmudgeonly, resource-strapped quartermaster Algy, seem like strikingly effective creative choices which offset the jarring absence of long-established elements such as Maurice Binder’s gunbarrel logo or the legendary Monty Norman theme music. Perhaps most intriguing of all is seeing Bond as a character in middle age (Connery was 52 at the time of filming), now forced to rely more on his wits than his physical prowess to achieve his aims – a dash of realism that seemed a world away from the wisecracking excesses familiar from some points of the Roger Moore era.

Cork: For a few short hours, I thought I had the greatest story for seeing Never Say Never Again for the first time. I had, with a friend, snuck into a screening at the Academy Theater in Beverly Hills by giving the list-checker a name that I had spied on his list a few moments earlier. But the next day, I ran into [collaborator and frequent contributor to this series] Bruce Scivally. We were both students at USC and both Bond fans. I dropped that I had seen the film. Bruce had, too. Then he told me his story. He knew a fellow student who had gone to school with Sean Connery’s son, Jason, and that student invited Bruce and some others to attend that same Academy theater screening. Well, their names were not on the list. A demand was made for a telephone, a number was called and some poor publicist from Warner Bros. was soon standing at attention saying things like, “Yes, sir, Mr. Connery. Right away, Mr. Connery. So sorry, Mr. Connery!” So, Bruce got to see the film for the first time because Sean Connery demanded he be let into the theater.

Seeing the film was a strange experience. Although I was a college student, I had worked my way into two premieres and a critics’ screening for Octopussy. Since I had, well, lied my way into this screening, my friend and I were hiding in the darkest corner of the theater sitting next to the wall. Fortunately, there wasn’t a bad seat in that theater. When the film started with that atrocious soft jazz title song, it became clear that something was off. This looked more like a film from The Cannon Group than a slick Bond film. I remember thinking, “How could the cinematographer of Raiders of the Lost Ark make a film look so bad?” But I was a hardcore Bond fan, so I looked for things to love. I found a few. It took a while for it to sink in to me just how disappointing the film was.

Pfeiffer: I saw it at an advanced critics’ screening in New York City. Anticipation was through the roof if you were a Bond fan. Connery had already quit the series in 1967 only to come back in 1971 with Diamonds Are Forever. While that film was a major hit, most fans were disappointed by the flabby script and overt emphasis on sometimes over-the-top humor. So they felt they had another bite at the apple with Never. There was also the sense that the film couldn’t disappoint because it was a remake of Thunderball. Without going over well-trod territory, producer Kevin McClory had been involved in a lawsuit in the early 1960s over the rights to the novel Thunderball. He was awarded the screen rights and served as one of the producers on the blockbuster 1965 screen version of the book which also starred Connery. When McClory tried to exercise his rights to remake the film in the mid-1970s using a screenplay co-written by himself, Len Deighton and Sean Connery (who did not intend to star at that time), Eon Productions took legal moves to block the production from going ahead. It finally did see the light of day in 1983 with Never Say Never Again because producer Jack Schwartzman succeeded where McClory couldn’t, though McClory is still listed as an executive producer. By this time, Connery had been convinced by his wife to star in the film (she also came up with the title.)

In 1983, much was made over “The Battle of the Bonds” because Eon was simultaneously filming Roger Moore’s “official” 007 film Octopussy. They were both supposed to be in theaters at the same time but Never ran into production difficulties that delayed its release until the fall. Octopussy opened in the summer. By the time fans got to see Never, anticipation was at a fever pitch, but the film didn’t live up to expectations. It didn’t have the same feel or polish as the Eon films and of course the absence of the gunbarrel opening and a pre-credits scene also felt strange. The script was rather patchy as well but for me, I suppose the excitement of seeing Connery back as Bond made me overlook flaws that became apparent on future viewings. For one, Michel Legrand’s sparse musical score is mediocre at best and the absence of dynamic music really drags the film down. There’s a bootleg version floating around in which a fan dubbed in old John Barry music over the action and it works considerably better. Additionally, the climax of the film is a genuine mess and was botched during production, causing Connery to have to return to reshoot some of the climax. It’s still a mess especially compared to the spectacular battle at the end of Thunderball. Instead, Never gives us a murkily-photographed and edited one-on-one struggle between Bond and the villain Largo that ends the film on a rather limp note. Having said all that, there is much I like about the film even if it’s better in parts than as a whole. The computer game battle royale between Bond and Largo is particularly enjoyable and some of the dialogue is quite witty. On the other hand, there’s too much satirical humor. Edward Fox’s “M” is abysmal, making him a complete idiot and Rowan Atkinson’s appearance as a bumbling agent is best forgotten.

Coate: In what way did Sean Connery’s return and final performance as Bond stand out?

Christie: Just as Never Say Never Again called for a more mature version of Bond, now middle-aged and no longer the superfit man of action he was in his 1960s glory days, so too did Connery step up to the plate with a suitably seasoned and nuanced take on the role. Though still quick on the draw with a serrated one-liner and able to routinely out-think his opponents, this was a Bond who seemed mildly like an anachronism in the high-tech digital age of the eighties while never quite appearing to be entirely out of his depth. Connery’s take on this older variation on the character is interesting. He seems considerably more comfortable with the character, offering a Bond whose usual professional efficiency is complemented by occasional mellowness and easy wit, and judging by interviews at the time he seems to have enjoyed the filming experience far more than his numerous appearances back in the golden age of the spy thriller (albeit that the production was reportedly not without its frustrations for him on occasion). Connery’s career was, of course, on the cusp of entering a long winning streak at that particular point, with roles such as Juan Sanchez Villa-Lobos Ramirez in Russell Mulcahy’s Highlander (1986), William of Baskerville in Jean-Jacques Annaud’s The Name of the Rose (1986), Professor Henry Jones Sr. in Steven Spielberg’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989), and most especially his Oscar-winning performance as Jimmy Malone in Brian De Palma’s The Untouchables (1987), all just a few years away. These movies each called for him to portray wise, paternalistic characters who can offer experience and understanding (often to younger, less practiced figures) that came with years of practical knowledge and proficiency in various particular skills. In a way, his interpretation of Bond as an astute veteran of the espionage world in Never Say Never Again would kick-start this new phase of Connery’s filmography, emphasizing the ways in which 007’s deadly physicality had given way to an approach to the intelligence world that relied more on problem-solving and outwitting enemies than being able to overpower them. For this Bond, age may have lessened his brute strength, but it brought dividends in the form of greater insight and self-knowledge.

Cork: Sean Connery is always a joy to watch, particularly as Bond. But his performance in Never Say Never Again shows the importance of a strong director with a clear vision. Too often, Connery looks like a man out of step with the modern world, one who is baffled by seemingly most everything. He too often looks confused, cautious, confounded. When Patricia (Prunella Gee) knocks on his door at Shrublands and, later, when Q surprises him with an exploding pen, he seems genuinely startled and worried, unlike the unflappable Bond he used to play. He can’t even peak through a window properly without setting off the roll-up blinds. After seeing clearly suspicious behavior and surviving an assassination attempt, he fails to properly investigate and report what happened, thus allowing the world to be held hostage to nuclear terrorists. When he talks, he too often sounds like a bemused old uncle who grumbles about how in his day you had to get up and walk over to the TV to change the channel. And then we must endure the spectacle of James Bond wearing overalls in the film (an homage to his sibling Neil’s overalls in Operation Kid Brother?) and later biking through town in his boxer shorts looking all too pleased with himself, which still galls me to this day.

Pfeiffer: I think it’s one of Connery’s best performances as Bond. His wry wit is ever-present and he refreshingly plays up the aging process that Bond has to contend with. He looks terrific even if there seems to be some inconsistencies with his toupees. He also seems to be having a good time even though he was quite miffed at what he felt were unprofessional aspects of the production when filming was underway. I think Connery felt comfortable working with director Irvin Kershner, who he had collaborated with on the 1966 zany comedy A Fine Madness. The film will never be a so-called “Gilt-edged Bond,” but it is underrated in many aspects.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Klaus Maria Brandauer’s Largo (or Max von Sydow’s Blofeld) a memorable villain?

Christie: Whereas Adolfo Celi’s sixties take on Largo had been dominated by the character’s glowering disposition and barely-contained temper, Brandauer’s contemporary approach to this villain was quite different – coldly charming, distant and sadistic, when his fury does boil over it seems all the more effective because of the way it clashes with his otherwise cool external demeanor. This variation on Largo is just as brutal and dangerous as his 1965 equivalent but also more darkly calculating in his malign intentions, lending him greater depth and making him a more complex villain as a result. By comparison, von Sydow’s Blofeld seems curiously genial and paternalistic for a criminal mastermind. Though as erudite and sophisticated as ever, this Blofeld’s sense of threat is blunted by the character’s apparent amiability and almost grandfatherly quality, meaning that he appears almost as anomalous a figure as Charles Gray’s archly witty but strangely toothless version of the SPECTRE chief in 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever. Given that much of von Sydow’s screen time is reputed to have been left on the cutting room floor after the film was edited, however, we may never know if this incarnation of Blofeld may have had more in common with his cinematic forebears had the entirety of his appearance survived into the eventual theatrical cut.

Cork: “Sweet, like money!” Brandauer’s Largo is introduced inauspiciously via a distant video screen blathering exposition. His first scene where he’s not on a video monitor comes over 35 minutes in when he lands on his yacht and goes out of his way to politely tell his staff, “Good morning.” He plays Largo as if he were a frustrated romantic poet. He is far more obsessed with Domino than with his mission to extort the Western powers. When she asks Largo what would happen if she ever left him, he gets an expression on his face of someone experiencing sudden explosive diarrhea. This is not a man with the focus and control to plot global extortion. There is never any menace in his performance, his glance often wandering around like a kitten fascinated by a flashlight beam. Much of his mannerisms lead one to assume his inspiration was Jerry Lewis in The Nutty Professor. That said, one can see the villain he could have been with the comparatively brilliant performance he gives during the Domination game scene.

Things are not helped by the usually amazing Max von Sydow as Blofeld. In some of the original material that became the basis for Thunderball, it was suggested that Burl Ives (the affable snowman in the old Rankin-Bass Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer Christmas special) could play Blofeld, and Max von Sydow seems to have been informed of this and does his best Burl Ives impersonation.

Pfeiffer: Film critics Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel were quite influential in 1983 and they both thought Never was terrific. I think they cited Brandauer as the best Bond villain ever. I wouldn’t go that far but his performance is certainly very inspired. He has all the ingredients of the classic Bond villain: he’s sophisticated, witty, and charismatic. He wisely chose not to emulate Adolfo Celi who played Largo in Thunderball and whose performance is much-beloved by fans. Instead, he made the role his own and did an excellent job of it.

Coate: In what way was Kim Basinger’s Domino (or Barbara Carrera’s Fatima Blush) a memorable Bond Girl?

Christie: Kim Basinger brings a welcome sense of credulity to Domino; the character becomes more sympathetic and relatable as a result of her grief and sense of betrayal at the hands of Largo and his murderous machinations. She is capable and resourceful, yet also frequently out of her depth as a result of Largo’s constant scheming; Bond’s genuine concern for her, especially when rescuing her after Largo sells his unsuspecting lover into captivity, makes this one of the more emotionally impactful romances for 007. On the other end of the spectrum, Barbara Carrera seems to be having a lot of fun as the ruthless Fatima Blush. The character, who is an updating of Luciana Paluzzi’s Fiona Volpe in Thunderball (the Fatima Blush name being drawn from an earlier draft of the 1965 film’s script), is a lethal, sado-masochistic villain who clearly relishes her work a little too much, and Carrera shares a playful on-screen chemistry with Connery’s Bond, leading to a spirited interchange between them that eventually ends in Blush’s untimely demise.

Cork: The old story is that when Kim Basinger won her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for L.A. Confidential it was because the Academy didn’t have an award for Most Improved. Never Say Never Again would be one of those movies from which she improved. She delivers her lines like a nine-year-old playing Maggie in an elementary school production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. She is a beautiful woman giving a disappointingly sexless performance, and mostly I feel pity for her watching it. She has enormous talent but needs a strong director. She is just lost in this film.

On the other hand, Barbara Carrera as Fatima Blush steals this movie. She lifts it up in almost every scene she’s in except for her brutally awkward meeting with Bond at a Nassau bar and the cringe-worthy love-making scene on the yacht. Regardless of how idiotic it is to think one might kill someone by tossing a snake from one moving car to another, Carrera does it with aplomb and a smile. The film does everything to sabotage her character, even having her go from water-skiing on a single ski to magically skiing on two skis. But her manic performance predates the similar Xenia Onatopp in GoldenEye, and it is quite fun to watch. Sadly, she dies far too early to save the movie’s final act.

Pfeiffer: Kim Basinger was a struggling actress with only a couple of modest feature film credits when she caught the eye of the late Playboy film critic Bruce Williamson, who championed her talents. I knew Bruce and remember him telling me that he felt she had the makings of a major star but needed some publicity. Bruce told Hugh Hefner about her and ultimately she appeared in a major photo feature in Playboy just around the time she was hired to play Domino in Never Say Never Again. It’s hard to fathom in the #MeToo era, but in decades past up-and-coming actresses welcomed exposure in Playboy. Hefner put her on the cover many months before the film opened and she made quite a splash. Bruce always pointed out, however, that Basinger was more than a pretty face – she could act and he hoped that the Bond film would catapult her career, which it certainly did. She gave a fine performance. Like Klaus Maria Brandauer, she made the role her own and didn’t draw on the interpretation of the role as played by Claudine Auger in Thunderball. I should point out, however, that Barbara Carrera had the flashier role as the femme fatale Fatima Blush in Never. Because of that, she had the more memorable scenes and dialogue so Basinger was somewhat overshadowed.

Coate: Where do you think Never Say Never Again ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Christie: The eighties were a period of readjustment for the Bond films, with John Glen and the rest of the creative team working to draw the tone of the series back from the larger-than-life action epics of the late seventies Moore era and closer to the Cold War ambiance of the cycle’s early sixties roots. Thus although Never Say Never Again was independent of the main Eon cycle of movies, its return to the plot and central themes of Thunderball ironically meant that it was to fit quite neatly into this overall tendency to harmonize with the qualities of the formative years of the Bond film series. Because it is clearly a remake of an existing film in the cycle, employing essentially the same plot and characters (if not the same locations), it is difficult to posit exactly where it should rank alongside other entries in the Eon series, but certainly it was a laudable attempt to introduce a more mature variation of Bond as a figure who was becoming somewhat world-weary and discontented by his life and the demands of his profession.

Cork: It is a tight race at the bottom, but when I ranked the films in 2012, Never Say Never Again came in next-to-last. Only A View to a Kill misses the mark by more. But let me be clear: every James Bond fan should watch it, endure it, and draw their own conclusions.

Pfeiffer: It’s better than some Bonds and not as good as many others. I would rank it along with Diamonds Are Forever. Both films didn’t live up to their potential but there is much to recommend about them. I suppose it’s kind of ironic that both of Connery’s big “comeback” Bond films fell somewhat flat artistically, but both seem to improve over time.

Coate: What is the legacy of Never Say Never Again?

Christie: Although Never Say Never Again was commercially successful at the time of release and enjoyed general approval amongst reviewers, over the years its reputation has proven to be increasingly divisive. This disunity of opinion may well be down to the film’s strange and often frustrating clash of characteristics. Its non-official status and advancing years of its star forced the film’s production team to be innovative in their approach, and yet the film rarely deviates too far from the conventions of the Eon films. While there is arguably greater focus upon character here than was the case in many other Eon-produced Bond films of the time, the narrative has been criticized in some quarters for seeming cluttered and confused the closer it gets to its conclusion. Ultimately, though it may well have been a brave experiment Never Say Never Again is perhaps fated to be forever known as a cinematic curiosity, standing apart from the main series of Bond movies but rarely being considered the equal of the films that had inspired it.

Cork: The legacy of Never Say Never Again is the legacy of Kevin McClory, the charming, deceitful, would-be impresario who sued his way to owning the Thunderball rights. For years, McClory tried to get his own Bond film made. He declared to many that it was he who had unlocked the secret formula for making Bond a success on film. He constantly inflated his creative contribution over that of the real screenwriter who worked with him on the original film project that became the novel Thunderball, Jack Whittingham, and that of Bond’s creator, Ian Fleming. He would go on to claim in a 1997 lawsuit that Bond’s motion picture success was due to his creative talents (and that he should be paid millions as a result). From 1976 until the release of Never Say Never Again, he not only had that story to tell, but he had Sean Connery ready and willing to return as James Bond. After many film companies tried to work with him and found it impossible, Jack Schwartzman stepped in. With Schwartzman involved and clearing up the legal hurdles over McClory’s script that bore little resemblance to the rights he held, the world opened up. Lorenzo Semple Jr., who had worked on a script inspired by Casino Royale in the 1950s and was a fantastic screenwriter (Papillion, The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor), came onboard. Bond veteran Tom Mankiewicz did some punch-up work. After The Empire Strikes Back, Irvin Kershner was one of the most sought-after directors in the industry. Kim Basinger was primed to be a break-out star, and the rest of the cast was filled out with amazing talent. McClory, with all that help, still could not capture the magic of a James Bond film. He had input and veto power over the script, the cast, the behind-the-scenes talent, and the final cut, but his vision of Bond didn’t gel. The cool sophistication, the calmness under pressure, the underlying sense of grim determination, all seemed to vanish when McClory took the reins. He couldn’t tell his talented co-creators how to make a James Bond film because he himself didn’t understand James Bond. The legacy of Never Say Never Again is proof positive that Kevin McClory had virtually no hand in the magical formula that made James Bond an iconic cinematic character. That honor belongs to the incredible team put together by Albert R. Broccoli and Harry Saltzman. There is no greater testament to Broccoli and Saltzman’s talent than the failure of Never Say Never Again.

Pfeiffer: The film’s legacy is that it marked the final chapter of the Connery Bond film era. Whatever you feel about the movie’s shortcomings, it does have some historic importance – cinematically, that is. The movie did well at the boxoffice but was eclipsed by Octopussy, which certainly must have had Cubby Broccoli popping some champagne bottles. Roger Moore and Connery were old chums and I often wonder if Roger rubbed it in when they socialized. If there is another aspect of the legacy of the film is that it closed the chapter on Kevin McClory’s involvement with the Bond films. He tried to milk the same cow again, taking out trade ads stating he was going to turn his Thunderball rights into a Bond TV series and attempting to make a deal with Sony to do another feature film derived from Thunderball.  Eon Productions sued and a long, drawn-out lawsuit commenced in America over whether he had exhausted his legal rights to screen versions of Thunderball. I became involved when I was hired by MGM to write opinions as to whether McClory could be considered to be a major influence on the development of the Bond character. This involved reading through a considerable amount of original correspondence between Ian Fleming, McClory and screenwriter Jack Whittingham when they formed a partnership in the 1950s to develop Bond screen properties. It’s all very intricate and is detailed in Robert Sellers’ excellent book The Battle for Bond. Since I had signed a non-disclosure agreement about the material I was given to study, I can’t comment on specifics except to say that I didn’t find any evidence that McClory had played any significant role in the development of the Bond character. Ultimately, in the 1990s, the court ruled in Eon’s favor and McClory was never able to launch another Bond production. Eon and MGM wisely made the choice to obtain rights to Never Say Never Again, though it is never marketed in conjunction with the Eon-related 007 films which are deemed to be “official.” To their credit, however, MGM and Eon didn’t bury the film and it has been consistently available on home video.

Coate: Thank you – Tom, John, and Lee – for participating and sharing your thoughts about Never Say Never Again on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “From Russia with Love” on its 55th Anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment, CBS-Fox Home Video, Eon Productions Limited, Los Angeles Times, MGM Home Entertainment, Taliafilm, United Artists Corporation, Warner Bros., Warner Home Video.

- 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)

He produced the DVDs Caroline Munro: First Lady of Fantasy (2004) and Ralph McQuarrie: Illustrator (2002), and has contributed to several volumes on author Richard Matheson, including Bloodlines (Gauntlet Press, 2006). His article “Born of I AM LEGEND” appears in Fantasm Media’s Official Night of the Living Dead 50th anniversary Magazine (Fantasm Media, 2018), and he maintains numerous blogs where he continues to evangelize all the things that he loves, including the I Am Legend Archive (with a current count of 155 different editions from around the world, he claims to have the largest collection of Richard Matheson’s novel) (iamlegendarchive.com), bare•bones (with Peter Enfantino and Jack Seakbrook) (barebonesez.blogspot.com) and several episode-a-day TV show blogs, including the currently-in-progress Dark Shadows Before I Die (with his sister Christine) (dsb4idie.blogspot.com).

Scoleri kindly spoke to The Bits about the influence, appeal and legacy of Night of the Living Dead

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Night of the Living Dead should be remembered on its 50th anniversary?

John Scoleri: I think the ideal way to remember the film on its 50th anniversary was to see the Museum of Modern Art’s 4K restoration on the big screen. I was honored to attend the 50th anniversary screening of the film a few weeks ago at the Byham Theater (formerly the Fulton) in downtown Pittsburgh, in the same theater where the film premiered in 1968. The majority of the surviving cast and crew were in attendance, and it was a wonderful way to celebrate the film.

Beyond that, I think Night of the Living Dead should be remembered for the influence that it has had and continues to have on cinema and pop culture. It’s a classic that has inspired countless imitators, and spawned a sub-genre that continues to be exploited today in film, television, books and video games. It remains an important piece of cinematic history, both in how it helped usher in a wave of regional filmmaking, and how it broke new ground in terms of having an African American in a leading role for a character not defined by his race.

Coate: What do you remember about the first time you saw Night of the Living Dead?

Scoleri: Well, it was Friday, July 13th, 1979. I actually just published an essay on my decades-long search to confirm the exact date of my first viewing. Suffice it to say, mine is a pretty common tale among fans of my generation. I was 9 years old, and had heard about the film from my older brother who had seen it. He described it as being scary – even in the daytime! When a listing showed up in the local TV Guide indicating it would be on one of our local Creature Features programs, we made a point not miss it. While I don’t remember the specific details of the film from that first viewing, I do remember being wide awake when it was over, in a state of shock over how the film had ended with the death of our hero, and his unceremonious inclusion in the bonfire with the ghouls. None of the monster movies that I had seen up to that point in my life had prepared me for this. After a single viewing, Night was my all-time favorite horror film, and it remains so to this day.

Coate: In what way is Night of the Living Dead a significant motion picture?

Scoleri: I appreciate that you didn’t constrain that to “horror,” because I think the film, and its importance, transcends the genre. There is no questioning that as a horror film it was groundbreaking. The unrelenting tone and graphic depictions of gore pushed boundaries far beyond most films of the period, certainly in terms of their stark, realistic portrayal. But beyond the film’s horror elements, the underlying theme of a group of people being unable to work together in order to survive will always be relevant and relatable to modern audiences. And it cannot be overstated that the casting of Duane Jones (who delivers an amazing performance in the lead role) provides the film with a historical relevance that still reverberates today.

Coate: How do you think the numerous sequels, remakes, etc. compare to the original ’68 movie?

Scoleri: I’m a huge fan of Dawn, Day and Land of the Dead. Day was the first of Romero’s films that I saw in a theater, and is probably my second favorite behind Night. I love how the film establishes how widespread the problem has become in the opening sequence in Florida before it settles in to the more intimate and claustrophobic setting of the underground mine. I also think that Tom Savini’s make-up effects in Day of the Dead have never been topped; and there have been a lot of zombie films and TV shows since 1985.

I’m less fond of Diary and Survival of the Dead, as I feel those two films were compromised by budgetary limitations; most significantly when it comes to CGI effects and casting. That said, I recently revisited them both and I found that I had warmed up to Survival. The casting was certainly a step up from Diary, and it’s a much better looking film. Unfortunately the CGI effects, which were somewhat masked by Diary’s shot-on-video approach, stand out even more in Survival.

I also count myself among those who love Savini’s remake of Night of the Living Dead. I think it’s a great example of how to approach remaking a classic horror film. It manages to work equally well for both those intimately familiar as well as those unfamiliar with the original. It’s not a pointless shot-for-shot remake, nor is it unrecognizable to fans of the original. For fans of the original, I think it succeeds by playing off our expectations; providing its own unique twists and turns along the way.

The Zack Snyder remake of Dawn has a very strong opening, but overall it lacks the emotional weight that Romero infused in his films. I don’t really care whether his characters live or die – they’re just fodder to prolong the roller-coaster ride.

There are a number of great zombie films that came in the wake of George’s that took inspiration from his films and went on to put their own unique spin on things (not unlike how George took inspiration from Richard Matheson’s I Am Legend and expanded on it). These include Shaun of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead, and Peter Jackson’s Braindead/Dead Alive. I confess that I also have a soft spot for the numerous Italian knock-offs I grew up watching on VHS. They are by no means great cinema, but quite often enjoyable in their absurdity.

Coate: Where do you think Night of the Living Dead ranks among George Romero’s body of work?

Scoleri: I’ve already indicated that Night is my favorite horror film, so you would probably assume it’s my pick for Romero’s best film. When looking at his entire body of work, which includes the great Dead sequels I mentioned [earlier] and several other important classics such as Martin and Creepshow, I would place Night second only to the one film that I’ve come to associate most with George the man and filmmaker: Knightriders. It’s an under-appreciated gem filled with familiar faces from his stock company, and I think the story speaks volumes about the filmmaker. It’s amazing that he was able to make the film when you consider the concept: a traveling renaissance fair built around jousting on motorcycles. It doesn’t exactly sound like a blockbuster idea on paper, but it has grown to be my favorite Romero film.

Coate: Where do you think Night of the Living Dead ranks among the horror genre in general and zombie-themed film & TV in particular)?

Scoleri: I think Night of the Living Dead is at the top of the list. If I were to list my favorite horror films from every decade starting with the silent era up through today, none of those films have had a greater impact on me, and arguably the horror genre, than Night of the Living Dead.

As a fan of zombie and siege films (John Carpenter’s Assault on the Precinct 13 is my favorite non-zombie siege movie; no surprise considering that it was inspired in part by Night), I have seen more than my share of them through the years. As I noted [earlier in our conversation], I am particularly fond of the ones that attempt to do something unique. Unfortunately, the majority of zombie films, particularly those from the last several years, are blatant attempts to cash in on the current popularity of zombies, and are the cinematic equivalent of eating previously chewed food.

I never dreamt that one day a zombie-themed show would be one of the most popular shows on TV. Or that the same kind of graphic make-up effects that were earning George’s films’ X-ratings would someday be considered acceptable on commercial television. I have read The Walking Dead comic book since its debut, and to me, it was basically just another rehash of Romero’s ideas. I was optimistic for the first season of the TV show, as I knew Frank Darabont was a fan of Romero and Night of the Living Dead, and he is certainly an accomplished filmmaker. As the show was a relatively faithful adaptation of the comic, it didn’t blow me away. Sadly, with the success of the show came the oft-repeated refrain, “Unlike those that came before it, this show is more about the human characters than the zombies.” Which just goes to show that whoever was saying that had zero familiarity with George’s zombie films.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Do you believe Night of the Living Dead has been well represented on home video over the years?

Scoleri: Night of the Living Dead was the first videocassette that I owned a pre-recorded copy of. It was available at our grocery store alongside numerous other public domain titles for the low price of $14.95. Fortunately, I got my Dad’s money’s worth out of that VHS tape; poor quality copy that it was. And I’m sure that tape was representative of most of the copies of Night of the Living Dead on home video up until the LaserDisc era. For fans of the film, there are two major milestones in Night’s home video history. First and foremost, the Elite LaserDisc restoration. Don May, Jr. and Vini Bancalari deserve kudos for rescuing Night of the Living Dead. By going back to the original elements, they were able to provide us with the best looking Night of the Living Dead we had ever seen (likely true even for those folks who saw the film in its early theatrical engagements). And because of that, I forgive them for the collective cry of terror that went out across the globe when thousands of fans popped in their LaserDisc for the first time only to see a faded, scratched print of the film’s opening. Our hopes were momentarily dashed until the image blew apart revealing the Elite logo, followed by the THX Deep Note intro (forever preserved here)). As wonderful as that transfer was, it was not without issues, including splice repairs that resulted in the use of repeating frames. But that was a small price to pay for an otherwise stellar transfer. And now, decades later, we’ve got a new milestone in the form of a state of the art Criterion Blu-ray, taken from the 4K restoration of those same elements supervised by the Museum of Modern Art, along with fixes to the film’s framing and audio (Ben’s hammering is finally in sync!). Fans can now enjoy the finest presentation of Night of the Living Dead they could ever hope for. I do occasionally hear people say that they prefer to watch films like Night of the Living Dead in grainy, unrestored editions similarly to how they originally remember seeing them. To those people I would say that this film loses none of its power as a result of the restoration. It looks and sounds amazing. But then what do I know. I only own the film on every imaginable format from Super 8mm & 16mm film to the current Criterion disc!

Coate: How would you describe Night of the Living Dead to the uninitiated?

Scoleri: Powerful. Unrelenting. And yet so much more than just a horror film. An extremely important film whose impact still resonates 50 years after its original release.

Coate: What was the objective with your forthcoming Night of the Living Dead book?

Scoleri: First and foremost, I’m a diehard fan of Night of the Living Dead. Twenty-five years ago, I co-edited a 25th Anniversary tribute magazine, which was something of a love letter to the film and the people who made it. That debuted at the 25th anniversary Zombie Jamboree, a convention held in the Monroeville Mall (where Dawn of the Dead was filmed). That was the first time I met the principals involved with the making of the film.

Twenty years later, I attended the Living Dead Festival put on by Gary Streiner (one of Night’s original investors/filmmakers) in Evans City, Pennsylvania, home of the cemetery where the film’s opening scenes were shot. At the event, I met even more members of the film’s cast and crew, and one thing that struck me was how many amazing photographs the guests had to sign. These were not just frames grabbed from the film, and included many images that I had never seen before. It got me thinking about how cool it would be to have an authorized book reproducing all of those photographs. A few years later, as the MoMA restoration was underway and plans are being made for the film’s 50th anniversary, I reached out to Gary and the folks at Image Ten and pitched the book. Fortunately, they were open to the idea and earlier this year I was granted the license.

My goal with Latent Images is to offer a high-quality, oversize coffee table book of photographs from the making of the film. Much like the books I’ve done on artist Ralph McQuarrie through Dreams and Visions Press, I am ultimately a customer of this book, too. I want a copy on my shelf! And I can honestly say that as a fan, people who are into this film are going to be beside themselves when they see some of the photographic imagery that exists. Not just amazing black and white photographs, but color photographs, including some extremely rare Polaroids taken on set. Those who are casually familiar with the film and the most commonly reproduced images will be blown away by what we’ve collected, and I guarantee even the most passionate fans will find plenty of surprises within. I want the book to be a lasting testament to the film, both for the fans who love it as much as I do, as well as for the filmmakers who worked so hard to make it. They have long deserved something like this as a testament to their achievement, and I’m honored to have the opportunity to do them and the film justice. At the 50th anniversary event a few weeks ago, I was able to share sample pages with the cast and crew, and I am pleased to report that everyone is very excited about it, as so many of the images are new to them, too!

Coate: What is the legacy of Night of the Living Dead?

Scoleri: Night of the Living Dead changed the landscape of horror, but it also changed the landscape of independent cinema. We could spend a lot of time listing filmmakers who followed the lead of Night of the Living Dead by making their own independent, low budget horror film. But broader than that, I think aspiring filmmakers who felt shut out from the Hollywood system suddenly had a different example of success they could try to emulate. Here was a small group of regional filmmakers who looked around at the landscape of films on the market and said, “We can do something better than that.” And they did.

Coate: Thank you, John, for sharing your thoughts and insight about Night of the Living Dead on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Continental, The Criterion Collection, Image Ten Productions, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Walter Reade Organization.

- 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 are (in alphabetical order)….

Eugene B. Bergmann is the author of Excelsior, You Fathead! The Art and Enigma of Jean Shepherd (Applause, 2004). Bergmann’s other books include Rio Amazonas (Xlibris, 2001) and (as editor) Shep’s Army: Bummers, Blisters, & Boondoggles (Jean Shepherd, Opus, 2013). His blog is Shepquest: The World of Jean Shepherd (shepquest.wordpress.com).

Thomas A. Christie is the author of A Righteously Awesome Eighties Christmas (Extremis, 2016). Christie has written numerous other books, including 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), The James Bond Movies of the 1980s (Crescent Moon, 2013), The Christmas Movie Book (Crescent Moon, 2011), John Hughes and Eighties Cinema: Teenage Hopes and American Dreams (Crescent Moon, 2009), and The Cinema of Richard Linklater (Crescent Moon, 2008). His latest book, Contested Mindscapes: Exploring Approaches to Dementia in Modern Popular Culture is due for publication later this month from Extremis. He is a member of The Royal Society of Literature, The Society of Authors and The Federation of Writers Scotland. He is online at www.tomchristiebooks.co.uk.

Caseen Gaines is the author of A Christmas Story: Behind the Scenes of a Holiday Classic (ECW Press, 2013). Gaines is a high school English teacher and co-founder of the Hackensack Theatre Company. His other books include The Dark Crystal: The Ultimate Visual History (Insight Editions, 2017), We Don’t Need Roads: The Making of the Back to the Future Trilogy (Plume, 2015), and Inside Pee-wee’s Playhouse: The Untold, Unauthorized, and Unpredictable Story of a Pop Phenomenon (ECW Press, 2011), and he has also written for The A.V. Club, Decider, Rolling Stone, and Vanity Fair. He is online at www.caseengaines.com and on social media @caseengaines

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think A Christmas Story should be remembered on its 35th anniversary?

Eugene B. Bergmann: A Christmas Story is a well-deserved, perennial favorite for holiday viewing. It’s a very funny, clever, and, indeed, pointed commentary on the life and ways of kids. It also comments on the way Christmas has been so heavily co-opted by movies and our society as a whole. For these reasons A Christmas Story deserves a permanent place in American culture. It comments on our gift-oriented way of life, and it does its commenting in a subtle/funny way. Not only as Ralphie goes about promoting his BB gun desires, but as narrator, Jean Shepherd, comments while the family opens its Christmas morning gifts – he says their response is “unbridled avarice,” not the most appropriate way to celebrate the birth of Jesus.

The film should be recognized as a major expression of Jean Shepherd’s legacy. Those reading the opening titles will note four of them devoted to Shepherd: the film is based on his works; the incidents depicted come from his book of kid stories, In God We Trust: All Others Pay Cash; Shepherd co-wrote the film’s script; the voice throughout, of Ralphie as a grown-up, is that of Jean Shepherd.

Thomas A. Christie: I think there’s a good reason why A Christmas Story still enjoys such an esteemed reputation thirty-five years after it first appeared in cinemas, and that is the fact that it captures so perfectly the careful balance between wistful nostalgia for a bygone age and the actual realities of family life with all its idiosyncrasies and occasional absurdities. As the narrator perceptively points out, Christmas is the epicenter of any kid’s year, and we see all the trappings of youth being expressed in larger-than-life terms as though they were high drama. Though the movie may be set in the 1940s, it says so much about childhood that is universal that anyone from the early eighties could easily relate to it, and the characters were so genuinely likeable that even now they are fun to spend time with.

Caseen Gaines: A Christmas Story should be remembered as a small film that had a very large impact. The movie really is a series of vignettes of everyday life, but something about that simplicity made it so universal to everyone who saw it. When you think about the movies that really make a big splash today, they’re filled with special effects and major movie stars. The beauty of A Christmas Story is while, yes, writer Jean Shepherd and director Bob Clark had major successes prior to this film, and yes, several of the actors were very well-known at the time it was released, the enduring beauty of the movie lies in its story and accessibility. Who doesn’t know what it feels like to want something and consistently be told “no”?

Coate: Can you describe what it was like seeing A Christmas Story for the first time?

Bergmann: I didn’t see it when it opened in 1983. When I caught up to it soon after Jean Shepherd died in 1999, I failed to sufficiently appreciate it, but as my family and I have watched it every year since, as broadcast by Turner for 24 hours straight starting Christmas Eve, I’ve come to enjoy it a lot. My wife and I laugh at so many of the funny bits even though we’ve seen them so many times and know just when and how they are about to appear again. That’s how well done this film is.

Christie: It seems strange to believe now, given how enduringly popular A Christmas Story has been in the United States, but here in Britain it didn’t make all that much of an impact when it was first released. In the UK, arguably the best-remembered Christmas movie of 1983 was John Landis’s Trading Places – ironically, a feature that isn’t really considered to be a Christmas movie at all by most critics in the US. But though I didn’t see A Christmas Story until the film was around twenty years old or so, it had by then enjoyed such a stellar reputation within American popular culture that so much of its content was already familiar – Flick getting his tongue stuck to an icy flagpole, Ralphie’s titanic battle of wits with Scut Farkus, and of course Mr. Parker’s infamous “leg lamp.” So the film’s rock-solid cult following came as no surprise.

Gaines: I remember seeing A Christmas Story for the first time and thinking it was actually a very old movie, not made in 1983! I grew up loving the original Our Gang (Little Rascals) comedies, and thought there was a very similar energy to the movie. The flag pole scene was, of course, incredibly impressionable. I had heard of that rumor before seeing the movie, but never actually seen someone fall victim to it. As a black kid in suburban New Jersey, one might not think the film would strike such a strong chord, but it really did. I saw so much truth in all of those characters.

Coate: In what way is A Christmas Story a significant motion picture?

Bergmann: Many people respond to the film with nostalgia, but a perceptive viewer will see that it expresses a sensitive and witty view of the world of kids, families and holidays. It also presents Jean Shepherd’s overall philosophy of life – note that every scene (as we laugh at them all) is somehow a disaster: poor Flick with his tongue stuck to the pole; the dogs snatching Christmas turkey; the longed for BB gun nearly shooting Ralphie’s eye out, etc. The film’s director, Bob Clark, noted that A Christmas Story is “…an odd combination of reality and spoof and satire.” Jean Shepherd hated nostalgia. As the dogs go tramping toward the kitchen’s Christmas turkey, past the oblivious father, narrator Shepherd, presenting his ironic philosophy, says, “Ah, life is like that. Sometimes at the height of our revelries, when our joy is at its zenith, when all is most right with the world, the most unthinkable disasters descend upon us.”

As much as I and millions of others can appreciate the nostalgic aspects of the film, one should note that the metal sign that appears sideways and to which Ralphie attaches his BB gun target, is the cause of the ricochet that nearly shoots his eye out – the dastardly sign, proclaiming a long-gone product and era, is emblazoned with the lovely scripted words: GOLDEN AGE. I strongly suspect that – as all we viewers sigh in the warm glow of nostalgia during the ending, that sweet conclusion of mom and dad watching the snow fall and Ralphie in bed embracing his dangerous BB gun – that warm glow was probably mandated by the film studio as the only way to commercially end a story about Christmas.

Gaines: A Christmas Story is a significant motion picture because, somewhat ironically, it shows the power of radio and television. The stories that make up the film largely come from Jean Shepherd’s radio broadcasts and short stories, and it was by listening to the radio that Bob Clark first fell in love with Shep’s characters and childhood experiences. The movie really wasn’t a success when it first hit theaters, but thanks to cable television and the still-ongoing Christmas marathons, the movie found an ever-increasing audience. About as many people who watch the Super Bowl each year tune in, at some point, to the annual marathon. That’s fascinating.

Coate: In what way was Bob Clark an ideal choice to direct A Christmas Story, and where do you think the film ranks among his body of work?

Christie: Bob Clark had already made a huge contribution to Christmas cinema in the form of the wonderfully atmospheric Black Christmas in 1974 – a movie which became a cult classic for entirely different reasons, effectively launching the Christmas horror as a whole new subgenre and paving the way for films like Christmas Evil (1980) and Silent Night, Deadly Night (1984). Naturally A Christmas Story is a world away from the shadowy suspense of Black Christmas, and the sense of sheer warmth, nostalgia and childhood innocence make it about as far removed from Clark’s earlier work as it was possible to imagine. So in that sense, Clark demonstrated considerable range in presenting this diametrically opposed rendering of the festive season in comparison to his earlier work. It seemed appropriate, given his diversity as a filmmaker – lest we forget that this is the same director who brought us Breaking Point (1976), Murder By Decree (1979) and Tribute (1980), to say nothing of the raucous Porky’s (1982). Intriguingly, of course, Clark’s ill-fated attempt to recapture the magic of A Christmas Story in its belated sequel, It Runs in the Family (1994), was an object lesson in the futility of trying to catch lightning in a bottle.

Gaines: Bob Clark was an ideal choice, but you may not realize it based on his previous films at the time of A Christmas Story’s release. He truly understood what made those stories connect with the audience and, most importantly, he had this uncanny ability to draw great performances out of his actors and make moments that we’ve all seen in our everyday lives seem like a revelation on screen. Porky’s is obviously a very popular film of his, but it’s no surprise that when he passed away, most of his obituaries mentioned A Christmas Story first and foremost among his body of work.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Where do you think A Christmas Story ranks among Jean Shepherd’s body of work?

Bergmann: Because the film encapsulates many of Shepherd’s ideas and humor in a form that millions enjoy, it’s valuable. A Christmas Story is the most visible and popular work of Jean Shepherd. His most ardent enthusiasts consider it a very good piece, but not his best claim to fame and the appellation “genius.” That belongs to his decades of improvised monologues and story-telling on radio that influenced aspiring young intellectuals of New York and surrounding territory. Slyly funny on his broadcasts, he taught us to observe, think, and appreciate American culture and the immensely quirky and delightful humanity around us. We listeners are indebted to him for helping to make us more perceptive observers of our world. For example, Jerry Seinfeld, in his “Season 6” DVD sets of his television show, commented, “He really formed my entire comedic sensibility. I learned how to do comedy from Jean Shepherd.”

Coate: Where do you think A Christmas Story ranks among Christmas-themed movies?

Bergmann: I’m not a good judge of how it ranks among Christmas-themed films because I’ve only seen tiny bits of a couple of the many recent ones – I suspect they’re no better than the average, mindless sitcom. I love A Christmas Story and I avoid the rest.

Christie: Certainly within the canon of Christmas movies throughout the 1980s, A Christmas Story can hold its head high. After a long wilderness period throughout the 1960s and 70s, where there was comparatively little in the way of Christmas-themed cinema (with most of the prominent festive features appearing on TV at the time), suddenly the genre burst back into life in the eighties, and by appearing early in the decade A Christmas Story is now closely associated with this renewal in public and critical interest. It may not have enjoyed the huge publicity of Santa Claus: The Movie (1985), displayed the gleeful subversiveness of Gremlins (1984) or the dark humor of Scrooged (1988), but its good-natured take on what it means to be a child during the tortuously long build-up to the festive season – having to impatiently endure school when all you can think of is the allure of opening Christmas presents – has cemented itself into the public consciousness for good reason. Certainly the movie’s regular marathon screenings over Christmas are understandable, given the way in which it has so successfully established itself across generations as a firm favorite with audiences.

Gaines: Christmas movies are so personal to so many people, so everyone will have a different answer to that question, but I clearly think A Christmas Story is one of the most significant Christmas-themed movies of all time. No other film that I know of has an annual 24-hour marathon, and let’s be honest, when you can make a sexy leg lamp and a Pepto-Bismol-colored pink bunny suit symbols of Christmas, you’ve done something right! It’s easy to turn a movie like Elf into a holiday classic; all the elements are there. But A Christmas Story is so beautifully honest and simple, and subversive at times, it’s great to see the legs the movie has had – pun fully intended!

Coate: What is the legacy of A Christmas Story?

Bergmann: The film’s popularity has resulted in a yearly-produced stage play in scores of towns, a musical Broadway production, many theme products, and the “A Christmas Story House” where parts of the film were made and where visitors can tour a recreation of the film house’s interior. There’s a popular book of reprinted A Christmas Story-related tales and a major behind-the-scenes, illustrated coffee-table book. Those are part of the legacy, but there’s also the importance of Shepherd as its creator.

For me the film’s legacy is that it may forever be by far the most prominently known vessel of Jean Shepherd’s world. As fine as it is, Shepherd deserves more recognition in America’s pantheon of creative forces. For those who care to hear his radio voice, one can find hundreds of complete broadcasts on the Internet – free or cheaply for sale on eBay and elsewhere. Acquire them so that at night, when the cares of the world are shoved aside, relax, open your sensibilities, and absorb the unique and always unexpected commentary by ol’ Shep. (One never knows what quirky mix will ensue.) Maybe he’ll tell a story, maybe he’ll comment on the passing scene, maybe he’ll describe his trip to headhunter country of Peru’s Amazon when he helped deliver 500 pounds of Luden’s cough drops to the natives, or maybe he’ll expertly render a little ditty on nose flute, Jew’s harp, or kazoo. Or maybe he’ll knock out a tune by thumping his knuckles on his head.

Long live Jean Shepherd and his A Christmas Story.

Christie: Fittingly enough, for a movie that is so closely associated with nostalgia, A Christmas Story has benefited from audience fondness of its backwards-looking recollections of the golden age of Christmas cinema in the 1940s and 50s as well as now being affectionately remembered by any children of the eighties who grew up with the film at the time. Thus its evocation of what it means to be a child in the approach to Christmas has never lost its relevance, just as its refusal to present too rose-tinted a view of family life (we see many of the disappointments as well as the joys of youth) feels commendably fresh given the occasionally saccharine tendency that the genre has to idealize hearth and home. As the narrator Ralphie himself wistfully admits, there would never be another Christmas quite like the one we see in A Christmas Story, and I’m sure that statement is true for many of the movie’s fans as well.

Gaines: A Christmas Story is proof that low-budget, small-scale movies can stand the test of time. It is such a testament to Jean Shepherd’s ability to recapture his youth into words, and Bob Clark’s ability to communicate that on screen, all through great performances. No one who worked on that film thought we would be talking about it 35 years later, but now everyone involved knows that 35 years from now, it will still be entertaining new generations of fans. That’s a legacy to be proud of.

Coate: Thank you – Eugene, Thomas, and Caseen – for sharing your thoughts about A Christmas Story on the occasion of its 35th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Los Angeles Times, MGM/UA Entertainment Co., MGM/UA Home Video, Warner Home Video. Thomas A. Christie author photo by Eddy A. Bryan.

- 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 cast of Superman also featured the above-the-title billing of Marlon Brando as Superman’s biological father Jor-El and Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. The memorable supporting cast included Margot Kidder as Lois Lane, Ned Beatty as Otis, Jackie Cooper as Perry White, Glenn Ford as Pa Kent, Phyllis Thaxter as Ma Kent, Trevor Howard as 1st Elder, Vallerie Perrine as Miss Teschmacher, Maria Schell as Vond-Ah, Susannah York as Superman’s biological mother Lara, Jeff East as Young Clark Kent, Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen, and Jack O’Halloran, Terrence Stamp and Sarah Douglas as the Phantom Zone villains.

Donner’s (The Omen, Lethal Weapon) popular and acclaimed cinematic take on the Man of Steel premiered 40 years ago this month, and for the occasion The Bits features a compilation of statistics and box office data that places the movie’s performance in context; passages from vintage film reviews; a reference/historical listing of the movie’s 70mm showcase presentations; and, finally, an interview segment with a group of film historians and Superman authorities who reflect on the film’s impact, influence, and legacy.

This new 40th anniversary article is an extension of our 35th anniversary coverage.

SUPERMAN NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of Academy Awards (Special Achievement in Visual Effects)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films during opening weekend
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films directed by Richard Donner (adjusted for inflation)
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films of 1979 (calendar year)
• 2 = Rank among top-earning films of 1978 (retroactive / legacy)
• 2 = Rank among Warner Bros.’ all-time top-earning movies at close of first run
• 3 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 6 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
• 6 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1970s (earnings from 1/1/70 - 12/31/79)
• 11 = Number of years film industry’s top-earning superhero/comic book movie
• 12 = Number of months between theatrical release and home video release
• 25 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a single-screen theater)
• 30 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement (in a multiplex)
• 45 = Number of weeks film was in first-run release
• 73 = Rank on current list of all-time top-earning films (adjusted for inflation)
• 508 = Number of theaters showing the movie during opening weekend

• $14,695 = Opening weekend per-screen-average
• $7.5 million = Opening weekend box-office gross
• $55.0 million = Production cost* (estimated, and includes some overlapping sequel expenses)
• $82.5 million = Box-office rental (% of gross paid to distributor)
• $134.5 million = Box-office gross
• $166.0 million = Box-office gross (international)
• $212.6 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $300.5 million = Box-office gross (domestic + international)
• $519.7 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)
• $576.3 million = Box-office gross (international, adjusted for inflation)
• $1.1 billion = Box-office gross (worldwide, adjusted for inflation)

*established new industry record

A SAMPLING OF MOVIE REVIEWER QUOTES

“Superman doesn’t transcend its origins, as Star Wars did, but it never means to. For me it’s as if somebody had constructed a building as tall as the World Trade Center in the color and shape of a carrot. Rabbits might admire it. They might even write learned critiques about it and find it both an inspiration and a reward, while the rest of us would see nothing but an alarmingly large, imitation carrot.” — Vincent Canby, The New York Times

“It has been the most heavily heralded and promoted film of the year, yet also the film awaited with the widest genuine curiosity and eagerness. But it is, I regret to say, a very large letdown. Superman has lead feet. No motion picture costing $25, $50 or $75 million can be totally boring. Superman is certainly worth seeing once, to satisfy that yearning curiosity and to experience the pleasures it does offer. But the hopes that Superman might be the next Star Wars or Close Encounters, to be seen again and again, are dashed after the undeniably brilliant first quarter-hour, the Krypton sequence. In a dismaying sense, Superman is like an ice show. Once you’ve established that people can get about on steel runners, there’s not much for them to do except keep doing it.” — Charles Champlin, Los Angeles Times

“A marvel of stupendous film-making. This one will outgross them all.” — Rex Reed, New York Daily News

“Sloppy, yet fun, with most of the magic being supplied by a love story rather than by special effects—that’s the bottom line on the new $40 million Superman. The film’s much-talked-about flying sequences are neither as embarrassing as the gossipmongers would have us believe, nor are they as exciting as we had hoped. The film is a delightful mess. Good performances. Sloppy editing. Cheap nonflying special effects. Funny dialog. In sum, Superman is the kind of picture critics tear apart, but still say, ‘You ought to see it.’ I had a similar reaction to Grease.” — Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

“Superman soars for first hour, but there’s another to go.” — John Hartl, The Seattle Times

“You’ll find it hard to resist the charms of this visually stunning superspectacle, which makes an awesome leap from comic strip to the screen.” — Stanley Eichelbaum, San Francisco Examiner

“After considerable fanfare, Superman has finally arrived. First, the good news. The special effects are splendid. Another piece of good news is that Chris Reeve is marvelous as Superman and super-marvelous as Clark Kent. Now, for the bad news—and bad news it is. Instead of giving Superman a suitable adversary, along the lines of a Darth Vader, the villainous Lex Luthor is right out of the campy Batman series. The minute we see Otis, Luthor’s assistant skipping along the street, already a sight gag in his harmless roly-poliness, we know the movie has gone seriously off-track. When fantasy is forced to mix with camp, it comes off a poor second.” — Eleanor Ringel, The Atlanta Constitution

“A mass entertainment of high class and energy… a major feat in filmmaking.” — Jack Kroll, Newsweek

“Magnify James Bond’s extraordinary physical powers while curbing his sex drive and you have the essence of Superman, a wonderful, chuckling, preposterously exciting fantasy guaranteed to challenge world boxoffice records this time round, and perhaps with sequels to come.” — James Harwood, Variety

“Giving Superman a family history at such great length is a fatal flaw in the film. Superman’s history is far less interesting than his adulthood. By the time we get around to seeing Superman perform the way he’s supposed to, we’re a little bored with him. We just wish he’d fly away.” — Bruce McCabe, The Boston Globe

“I loved it. I think you will, too, because it marks the return of the old-fashioned, cheer-rousing participatory movie experience. I mean, really. At the screening I attended, young and old alike hooted with delight.” — Wayne Harada, The Honolulu Advertiser

“Superman is a pure delight, a wondrous combination of all the old-fashioned things we never really get tired of: adventure and romance, heroes and villains, earthshaking special effects, and—you know what else? Wit. That surprised me more than anything: That this big-budget epic, which was half a decade making its way to the screen, would turn out to have an intelligent sense of humor about itself.” — Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times

“It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s a film that’s fun for everyone. Superman will be a smash. Pure fun, fancy and adventure.” — Gerald Clarke, Time

“The names above the marquee are mostly in for a few lines and a handsome paycheck, but in the case of Brando and Hackman, the paycheck is so large it’s ridiculous. The credit belongs to the army of technicians. John Barry, the production designer of Star Wars, does exemplary work in realizing the icy, crystalline planet of Krypton; Stuart Baird, who worked on the film that made Donner’s reputation, The Omen, contributes the astute editing and John Williams conducts the London Symphony Orchestra.” — Desmond Ryan, The Philadelphia Inquirer

“Despite a lull here and a lapse there, this superproduction turns out to be prodigiously inventive and enjoyable, doubly blessed by sophisticated illusionists behind the cameras and a brilliant new stellar personality in front of the cameras—Christopher Reeve, a young actor at once handsome and astute enough to rationalize the preposterous fancy of a comic-book superhero in the flesh.” — Gary Arnold, The Washington Post

“Since Superman has been so widely publicized, most people will first wonder what’s wrong with it. It suffers from a collision of comic styles, jumping from sophisticated satire to broad parody, and in the closing sequences, the various screenwriters seem to have confused Superman with Batman. Furthermore, the opening scenes are too measured; starting with the destruction of Krypton and Superman’s adoption by Ma and Pa Kent, it takes a long time to get to the offices of The Daily Planet. And there is a deliberate lack of completeness about the film, whetting our appetites for the sequel.” — Philip Wuntch, The Dallas Morning News

“Superman runs for more than two-and-a-half hours, and if it is the hit at the box office that it will have to be to recoup its staggering cost, the 26-year-old ex-soap opera star who plays Superman is going to be a certified Robert Redfordesque heartthrob.” — Tom Green, The (Cleveland) Plain Dealer

“Those who come wanting to believe, ready for magic, will be thoroughly delighted at every turn, right from the moment the opening titles zoom Star Wars-like off into space against the sound of heroic, horn-dominated music, again Star Wars-like, and why not? The same man, John Williams, composed the scores for both movies, and here, as in every film he touches, his contribution is inestimable. The technical wizards send these movies aloft. Williams makes them soar.” — Susan Stark, Detroit Free Press

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

THE 70MM ENGAGEMENTS

The following section of this retrospective features a historical/reference listing of the locales that showcased a 70mm presentation. (For a state-by-state listing of all of the movie’s 500+ opening-weekend bookings, please refer to our 35th anniversary article Still Believing a Man Can Fly: Remembering “Superman: The Movie On Its 35th Anniversary.)

Arguably, the best theaters in which to experience Superman were those showcasing a 70mm print which featured a high-quality Six-Track Dolby Stereo audio experience and were generally shown in larger theaters and with superior quality control. Superman was among only nine first-run films released in 1978 with 70mm prints for selected engagements.

Superman was released in North America on December 15th, 1978. The film’s world premiere, with President Carter in attendance, was held December 10th (in 35mm) at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC. As well, numerous benefit screenings and regional premieres took place between the 11th and 14th (some in 70mm).

The duration of these engagements (measured in weeks) is included in parenthesis following the theater name. The 70mm bookings of Superman were among the film’s longest-playing and highest-grossing.

It should be noted that the majority of the 70mm print order for Superman was delivered late by the lab due in part to the late completion of the production work. As a result, many of the engagements cited below actually commenced with a 35mm print and switched to 70mm upon delivery of the large-format print.

Also note that some of the presentations included in this listing might have been presented in 35mm during the latter week(s) 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, non-70mm-equipped auditorium in a multiplex. Any 35mm portion of an engagement has been included in its duration figure.

And, finally, it should be noted that, as a test, a select few of these 70mm presentations were played back in a special split-surround format. The split surround format, in terms of channel layout, was the precursor to the modern-day 5.1 format. These presentations were considered a test and thus the split-surround component of the presentation was not promoted. Decades later, however, the lack of documentation and promotion has prevented historians and interested parties from determining precisely which venues presented Superman in the split-surround format. (The split-surround decoding equipment had not yet been made available; a prototype of the SA-5 surround adapter for use with the Dolby CP100 was manufactured for the venues in which the test presentations were held. The split-surround format was officially introduced in 1979 with Apocalypse Now.)

The North American first-run 70mm presentations of Superman….

CALIFORNIA

• Costa Mesa — Mann’s South Coast Plaza Triplex (27) [70mm from Week 3]
• Los Angeles (Hollywood) — Mann’s Chinese (22)
• Los Angeles (Westwood Village) — Mann’s National (17)
• Los Angeles (Woodland Hills) — UA’s Warner Center 6-plex (26) [70mm from Week 3]
• San Diego — Mann’s Cinema 21 (7) [70mm from Week 2]
• San Francisco — Plitt’s Northpoint (23) [70mm from Week 2]
• San Jose — Mann’s Town & Country (25) [70mm from Week 7]

COLORADO

• Denver — Mann’s Century 21 (20+) [70mm from Week 2]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

• Washington — Circle’s Embassy Circle (19) [opened 1-26-79]

ILLINOIS

• Belleville — BAC’s Cinema (13) [70mm from Week 2]
• Calumet City — Plitt’s River Oaks 4-plex (21) [70mm from Week 11]
• Chicago — Plitt’s Esquire (12) [70mm from Week 3]
• Northbrook — Center’s Edens Twin (16) [70mm from Week 3]
• Oak Brook — Plitt’s Oakbrook (21) [70mm from Week 3]
• Schaumburg — Plitt’s Woodfield 4-plex (20) [70mm from Week 3]

KENTUCKY

• Louisville — Redstone’s Showcase 8-plex (22) [70mm from Week 12]

MASSACHUSETTS

• Boston — Sack’s Cinema 57 Twin (13) [70mm from Week 4]

MICHIGAN

• Livonia — NGT’s Mai Kai (23) [70mm from Week 3]
• Southfield — NGT’s Americana 4-plex (23) [70mm from Week 3]

MINNESOTA

• Bloomington — GCC’s Southtown (23) [70mm from Week 3]
• Brooklyn Center — Plitt’s Brookdale (23) [70mm from Week 3]

NEW YORK

• New York — Cinema 5’s Murray Hill (16)
• New York — Loews’ Astor Plaza (16)
• New York — Loews’ Orpheum Twin (17)

OREGON

• Beaverton — LT’s Westgate Triplex (23) [70mm from Week 2]
• Portland — LT’s Eastgate Triplex (23) [70mm from Week 2]

TEXAS

• Dallas — GCC’s Northpark West Twin (21) [70mm from Week 6]

THE Q&A

Jim Bowers is the editor of CapedWonder.com and author of the forthcoming Superman: The Richard Donner Years.

Kevin Burns is the director and executive producer of Look, Up in the Sky! The Amazing Story of Superman (2006).

Mike Matessino is a Soundtrack Producer and Film Music Preservationist and was involved with the Superman soundtrack CDs released in 2000 and 2008.

Bruce Scivally is the author of Superman on Film, Television, Radio & Broadway (McFarland, 2006).

Larry Tye is the author of Superman: The High-Flying History of America’s Most Enduring Hero (Random House, 2012).

The interviews were conducted separately and have been edited into a “roundtable” conversation format. (This Q&A includes a mixture of new and repurposed material from our 35th anniversary coverage.)

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Superman: The Movie should be remembered and/or celebrated on its 40th anniversary?

Jim Bowers: Superman: The Movie is, and always shall be, remembered and celebrated as a Christmas season classic movie experience, with “experience” being the definitive word. Although I often watch the movie in its entirety throughout each year, I also make a point to enjoy it during the holidays alongside The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, A Charlie Brown Christmas, Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, The Snowman (1982), and The Nine Lives of Christmas. The best way for me to celebrate this movie is through the way I live my life. The movie guides and inspires me to take responsibility for myself, express sincere gratitude and kindness, acknowledge others, embrace differences, offer love and a helping hand, encourage others to help themselves, repel negativity, and believe in dreams.

Kevin Burns: Up until that time no one would take a comic book movie seriously. The legacy is that it was the first film that said, yes, this can be worthy of an epic motion picture treatment.

Mike Matessino: Superman remains a great, groundbreaking movie that is highly entertaining and beautifully made. It’s a true classic. This anniversary also aligns with the 80th anniversary of the character and [we recently celebrated] the centennial of Superman’s creators, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. The 1978 movie falls right in the middle of the character’s history and crystallizes, if you’ll pardon the pun, all of his mythology.

Bruce Scivally: It seems that when you go to the multiplexes now, half the movies in theaters, and certainly the highest-grossers, are films based on comic books. That is a phenomenon that began with Richard Donner’s Superman. Before 1978, there was a general consensus that — with movie serials having died out in the 1950s — the place for superheroes was television. This was cemented by the success of the Superman TV series in the 1950s, and Batman in the late 1960s. In the 1970s, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man and The Hulk came to prime-time TV, and there were TV-movie pilots for other heroes, like Captain America and Doctor Strange. Plus, a live-action Captain Marvel had a successful run on Saturday mornings. So when Ilya Salkind proposed the idea of Superman as a big-budget, star-studded feature film, it was — at the time — a very radical idea. And I truly believe that if Superman had failed at the box-office, we wouldn’t have all the Marvel and DC Comics-inspired films flooding theaters now.

Larry Tye: It was the best of the Superman movies in everything from giving us a great storyline, a believable Superman, and a film that is true to Superman’s root. All that is especially worth celebrating in the wake of Warner Bros.’ latest Superman movie[s], which didn’t hit any of those high notes.

Coate: Can you recall your reaction to the first time you saw the 1978 Superman movie?

Bowers: I first experienced Superman: The Movie on the silver screen in Tacoma, Washington, in December 1978 as a 17-year-old high school senior. I clearly remember reading snippets about the movie and first seeing the trailers and TV spots. I was immediately reminded of my childhood years watching George Reeves’ escapades in syndication on my tiny 13-inch B&W TV. The anticipation for this movie was almost more than I could handle; I was already bursting with excitement. My heart was pounding as I walked into the theater lobby with my then 6-year-old brother, Clarke, and gazed upon the colorful décor of Superman standees, posters, lobby cards, and a giant Superman: The Movie crystal banner. I just knew that something special — an event — was about to happen, and boy, oh boy, did it happen! Once the B&W vintage theater curtains parted, the first blue streaking credits flew by, the crimson red and golden yellow Superman shield exploded, and John Williams’ rousing music ignited before us, the rest of the world disappeared for 143 minutes. My recurring childhood flying dreams were realized. Filled with elation as we walked through the snow in the theater’s parking lot, Clarke looked up at me and asked if he could change his last name to “Kent”! We eagerly returned to the same theater 13 more times over the course of four months to relive the experience that continues to make a significant and powerful impact on my life.

Burns: I was entertained. It was spectacular. The Smallville scenes — other than seeing the putty on [Jeff East’s] nose to make him look like Christopher Reeve — I loved that section. It was fun to see the cameos. I thought Richard Donner was sending a love letter to the character. And the Metropolis section was entertaining with Kidder and Cooper and Gene Hackman, all of that was a lot of fun. I wanted to love it — it was a good enough movie — but I was never as satisfied with the last part of the story as I was with the first two parts. I didn’t want to see them turn it into comedy. I wanted my Superman played straight.

Matessino: I loved the movie immediately and what I associate with my overall “reaction” is the beginning of the picture… the opening of a curtain, the black-and-white comic book prologue, and then the incredible impact when the screen widens, the colorful animated credits fly past you and John Williams’ theme starts thundering in Dolby Stereo. It was so theatrical and it felt that this is what going to the movies was all about.

Scivally: I wish I could say I was ecstatic, but it’s a little more complicated than that. From the time I first heard about the film, I followed its progress through magazines like Starlog and Fantastic Films and little blurbs in the entertainment columns of newspapers. There were rumors that the producers were pulling out all the stops and had developed a new kind of 3-D system that would make it seem like Superman was flying right out of the screen. By the time I got to the theater — and I went with a group of my high school friends — I was so filled with the hype that there was no way ANY movie could live up to it, so it was a bit of a disappointment. I also wasn’t bowled over by Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor, or the overall campy tone of the modern-day Metropolis scenes. Having gotten over that initial letdown, however, the film really grew on me in subsequent viewings, and now when I watch it I feel it’s just about perfect. One of the things that experience taught me, however, is to avoid, as much as possible, all hype for a movie until I’ve seen it.

Tye: No, just that I loved it/him.

Coate: Were you a fan of the Superman character prior to seeing the 1978 movie?

Bowers: I was a regular viewer of the George Reeves television series, The Adventures of Superman, from about five years old throughout my pre-teen years. Comic books were never very accessible or of much interest. I was all about the live-action telling of Superman, Batman, Tarzan, Captain Marvel, Ultraman, and other fantastic heroes. Superman: The Movie is the primary reason I love the character and filmmaking in general.

Matessino: I wasn’t a comic book reader as a kid, but the George Reeves TV series was re-run in syndication constantly and the character also appeared on Saturday morning cartoons at the time, and I was a faithful watcher of both.

Scivally: Some of my earliest memories are of watching George Reeves in reruns of The Adventures of Superman. From as far back as I can remember, I was captivated by Superman. I think the character has enormous appeal for children, because when you are small and powerless, the ultimate fantasy is to be bigger and stronger, if not smarter, than everyone else. Throw in flying and bullets bouncing off your chest, and that’s just way cool.

Tye: Yes, I was fan from the days of George Reeves’ TV Adventures of Superman. He may not have been much of an actor, but he made kids like me believe.

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

Bowers: Superman: The Movie is the “grand daddy” of today’s superhero epics, a benchmark from which many directors and filmmakers, such as Patty Jenkins, director of Wonder Woman, continue to find inspiration and guidance. The first movie will forever resonate with moviegoers as the ultimate expression of hope, optimism, humility, selflessness, and a strong moral compass within the genre. Richard Donner’s careful direction, Geoffrey Unsworth’s dreamy cinematography, John Williams’ magical score, a multitude of ground-breaking visual and physical effects, exquisite writing, and superb acting all morphed into what is now considered a masterpiece of classic filmmaking. Richard Donner made Verisimilitude the watchword of the production: the mandate to make Superman: The Movie realistic and believable, with total respect and love for the material.

Matessino: Obviously Superman: The Movie is the template for every comic book superhero movie that followed. Prior to that, what immediately came to people’s minds was the 1960s Batman TV series. The 1978 film walked a fine line, incorporating just enough campy humor but treating the character seriously and depicting the world as a real one.

Scivally: Superman took a comic book subject and treated it with respect. After the campy 1960s Batman, that was a big deal. But, as creative consultant Tom Mankiewicz once said to me, the safe and easy way to do a superhero movie is to stand outside of it and make fun of it. What is more difficult — and more interesting — is to get inside the material and treat it with respect. While he was rewriting Superman for Richard Donner, the watchword was “verisimilitude” — they had to make it seem like it could actually happen. This was later reflected in the ad-line for the movie: “You’ll believe a man can fly.”

Tye: It was on his muscle-bound back that the genre was constructed. No need to say more.

Coate: Can you compare and contrast Christopher Reeve’s performance with that of other actors who have portrayed the character of Superman? Was Christopher Reeve the best Superman?

Bowers: George Reeves is my fatherly Superman, and Christopher Reeve is my brotherly Superman. Both actors had “it,” that special ingredient necessary to breathe life into the characters of Superman and Clark Kent come in a distinct and believable ways. Noel Neill told me on more than one occasion that Chris reminded her of George because they were both consummate gentlemen who loved the craft of acting first and foremost over their desire to become “movie stars.” Since Christopher Reeve was only nine years my senior, I could more easily identify with him as someone to aspire to and become in my own “humanly” way. His humility, vulnerabilities, strengths, and selflessness brought peace and clarity to my teenage and 20-something years, and later in real life after his 1995 accident. I was completely captivated by Christopher Reeve in 1978 because he possessed such genuine energy… so authentic and honest. He really did feel like a true “friend.” Was Chris Reeve the best Superman? Sure was. Sure is!

Burns: Reeve was the best.

Matessino: I think all of the actors who’ve portrayed Superman over the years were well chosen in the sense that each had an instinct about what the character meant for the time in which each played the role. Christopher Reeve was the first one to plausibly deal with the conceit of why no one could recognize that Clark Kent was Superman with glasses on. He played Clark exactly like what he would really be… a farm boy totally overwhelmed by the big city. It didn’t feel like something he was doing just to conceal his identity. It therefore felt relatable. It tapped into that sense we all have that there is an ideal, confident, balanced person inside each of us.

Scivally: Looking at the actors who have portrayed Superman on film and TV, Kirk Alyn was pretty much a stock serial hero, without a lot of shadings to his portrayal – but then the serials never had characters who were more than one or two-dimensional. George Reeves gave two performances as Superman. In the first couple of seasons, his Superman is a tough crime-fighter. In the later seasons — the ones made after Dr. Frederick Wertham’s notorious attack on comic books — he’s a much jollier, affable Superman. His portrayal of Clark Kent softened as well, though there was never much differentiation between his Kent and his Superman; his early Kent was a tough, no-nonsense reporter who would have been at home in a Humphrey Bogart crime thriller. Looking back at the shows now, George Reeves’ Superman is like a surrogate parent, with Lois and Jimmy his children that he has to keep in check and keep rescuing from trouble. It was a pretty innocent portrayal for a much more innocent time. There wouldn’t be another major live-action portrayal (outside of TV commercials) until Christopher Reeve twenty years later. By that time, the country had experienced the Vietnam War and Watergate, so the wide-eyed innocent approach wouldn’t have resonated with a much more cynical, jaded era. Consequently, Christopher Reeve — under Donner’s direction — gave more shadings to Clark Kent and Superman. For the first time, audiences could see a hint of sadness and loneliness in the character, and Reeve made a much greater effort to play Kent and Superman as different individuals, which helps sell the illusion that Lois Lane wouldn’t be able to see past the whole eyeglasses-as-disguise bit. While his Superman is a confident charmer, his Clark Kent is a shy, bumbling Jimmy Stewart type. Or, as Reeve put it, his Kent is a put-on, a reflection of the way the alien Kal-El (Superman) sees us.

Tye: Hands-down the best, in part because he let us see the differences between Clark and Superman. The only other Superman to do that was Bud Collyer on the radio.

[On to Page 3]

[Back to Page 2]

Coate: Between the original theatrical release, television broadcasts and the numerous home-video releases of Superman, which cut/version do you believe is the best?

Bowers: Superman editor Stuart Baird is one of my greatest filmmaking heroes. Assembling the ultimate theatrical cut of the first movie, with over two million feet of film at his fingertips, was likely first viewed as an unsurmountable task. What I experienced in the theater will remain my favorite cut — beautifully paced and balanced, retaining many of Richard Donner’s continuous and perfectly choreographed takes (such as Clark asking Lois out to dinner as they walk through the Daily Planet offices, followed by Lois going into the ladies room and Clark pressing the down button at the elevator), and showcasing the best of the best from the lead actors and supporting cast, specials effects wizards, and seasoned crew. I see the 188-minute extended release — first shown on ABC-TV in 1982 — as a bonus gift after a birthday celebration; a marvelous surprise and curious insight into the level of energy and talent poured into the long and challenging production.

Matessino: I think that the original theatrical release — with its original sound mix only — is nearly perfect. The extended TV cut is interesting because we get to see what else was shot and it serves its own purpose, but I think all the right editorial decisions were made in creating the theatrical cut. The one piece of added footage I wish they’d kept is the one that shows Superman’s attempt to catch the eastbound missile head on, only to establish that its avoidance system prevents him from doing so. The movie establishes that Metropolis is basically New York with a name change, and therefore the geography is unclear when Superman leaves Metropolis and ends up behind the eastbound missile. They may have cut that material because the visual effect was unsatisfactory, but it also unfortunately necessitated the abrupt cutting of the music score there.

Scivally: I’m always a fan of sticking to the original presentation, so I prefer the original theatrical cut. The same goes for Superman II — despite the much-heralded Donner Cut, I still feel the original Donner/Lester hybrid is superior.

Tye: The [TV] cut is great but I like the one that I saw in the theaters.

Coate: Superman was made in a mixture of styles and tone, particularly with respect to the direction, acting and cinematography. Is this an asset or detriment to the overall effectiveness of the movie?

Bowers: There’s something for everyone in Superman: The Movie. I view the mixture of styles and tone as an absolute asset to the movie’s appeal. I’ve always viewed this movie as a trilogy — three distinct chapters that tell a complete origin story, from Kal-El’s journey from a strange and magical planet, to his arrival to Earth in an Andrew Wyeth-esque environment that firmly establishes his “human” roots, to his reveal to the world to fight for Truth, Justice, and the American Way...and discovery of the love of his life. Today I can’t imagine the movie not having these three “flavors”. It works, it just does.

Matessino: It works for me because that’s the character’s experience. We’re introduced to his place of origin, a truly alien world and then his life experience, which is rural Americana and then the world’s biggest, most bustling city. This is contrasted by the villain Lex Luthor, who is arrogant and feels in control of that world. The changes in tone and photographic approach reflect this. Life changes its look and its tone, after all. It made the movie feel more real and relatable.

Scivally: Despite the reservations I had on first seeing it, I can now appreciate the way the movie switches tones from the Krypton scenes to the Smallville scenes to the Metropolis scenes. If they had kept up the solemnity of the Krypton scenes throughout, the movie might have ended up being overly dark, as I feel today’s modern superhero movies are. And especially with Superman, who is a character who represents light and goodness and the best qualities we have inside us, audiences should be able to have some fun in the theater. Batman — that’s a different story.

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

Bowers: Superman: The Movie delivers in spades the best of what the cinema is meant to offer moviegoers: pure magic, heart, optimism, wonder, adventure, love, loss, yearning, escapism, and bright colors. We get to fly with Superman! The Daily Planet newspaper headline “CAPED WONDER STUNS CITY” reflected how the public, both inside the movie and inside the movie theater, felt about this “friend from another star”… stunned. We totally believed that this “guy that flies… with bright red boots” was the real deal who recognized his calling and wished to make the planet a safer place.

Burns: Entertain and satisfy. Even with the goofiness of the Metropolis section. Even with the contrivance of turning back time, it was bold. And Christopher Reeve… you can’t disassociate the film from that performance.

Matessino: For me, what Donner’s film did is reach beyond non-comic book readers to all potential viewers, young and old, and to everyone who enjoyed going to the movies. It didn’t require you to have any experience with the character prior to that. The other thing it did, rather boldly, was set it in the real world of the late 1970s. It was not really stylized in any way. What they shot on the streets of New York felt like the exact same city as Taxi Driver. The movie’s famous tagline was “You’ll believe a man can fly” and it delivered that not only through its groundbreaking effects but by placing Superman in a world that was familiar and that felt very real. Some of the latter day entries in the genre do this in their own way, but for me nothing comes close to the sense of realism that the first Superman achieved. Think about how hard it is to pull off a character in a costume like that and have an audience accept it. You can either make the world completely fantastic and stylized so that he doesn’t stand out… or you can do the tough work of figuring out how to get the script, the cast, the look and the tone exactly right so that this character can speak to a pimp before he stops a falling helicopter, and then crowds in the street applaud the arrival of a true hero.

Scivally: As I said earlier, Donner’s Superman was the first superhero movie to be made like a serious Hollywood epic. Prior to the late 1970s, if you set out to make a superhero film, it would be considered a “B” movie — at best — and be done with a small budget, like Warner Bros.’ previous Doc Savage film. Superman was a game changer. After Superman, studios realized that if they took these films seriously, so would audiences, and the box-office rewards could be astronomical. As a result, by the 1990s, there had been a flip-flop in film budgeting. Movies that — in the early 70s — would have been considered “B” films were now “A” films with “A” budgets, and films that would have been considered “A” movies were now being done as “B” films with smaller budgets, if at all. In terms of other Superman films, what Donner — and Tom Mankiewicz — got right is that Superman is, at heart, an innocent with super powers. Superman Returns and Man of Steel, in my estimation, were misfires, trying too hard to give a dark inner turmoil to the character. He ain’t Batman, but since The Dark Knight was, for a while, the second highest-grossing film in history, moviemakers keep trying to turn him into a conflicted Batman-type character.

Tye: He made us believe not just that a man could fly, which was the marketing promise, but that Superman still soared.

Coate: Where does Superman rank among director Richard Donner’s body of work?

Bowers: Superman: The Movie is most certainly Richard Donner’s greatest cinematic achievement. It was his “baby,” a project he embraced because of his belief of, and devotion and love for, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster’s character. The opportunity must have nearly knocked Richard off his toilet seat when Alexander Salkind offered him the job in 1976! This movie is still a very emotional topic for him today.

Matessino: Donner would be lauded for the film even if he had not directed any others. But certainly it’s one of several for which he will be remembered along with The Omen, The Goonies and Lethal Weapon. He was obviously the perfect director for Superman and I think its success played a role in the longevity of the character.

Scivally: When I think of Richard Donner, three films immediately come to mind: The Omen, Superman and Lethal Weapon. For me, Superman is his best film.

Tye: It is, I think, his best. I was with him last year in Los Angeles, in a program I moderated, and I can’t imagine that he would disagree. He loved Superman from boyhood, and gave us a hero worthy of the one he worshipped.

Coate: What is the legacy of Superman: The Movie?

Bowers: Superman: The Movie is a monumental achievement in cinema thanks to its filmmakers, producer Ilya Salkind — who envisioned Superman on the silver screen — and actors who gave it its heart and soul, who made it succeed, and made everyone Believe A Man Could Fly. Richard Donner wrote in a memo to the cast and crew in early 1978, “I love you all, everything is going Super. The Magic is still ours. Let’s keep it that way.” Superman: The Movie radiated magic in 1978 and continues to captivate the world 40 years later. This December, surely multitudes of fans will be watching Superman: The Movie — via streaming, DVD, Blu-ray or the new 4K UHD — with the same hope, optimism, and innocence they felt the first time they watched in awe as Christopher Reeve soared out of the Fortress of Solitude and into the world.

I would like to thank you, Michael, for including me in his special anniversary article, and Brian McKernan and Bill Williams for writing assistance and inspiration for many years. I Will Always Believe A Man Can Fly.

Burns: I don’t know if you’d have the Tim Burton Batman or Chris Nolan Batman or Iron Man or this incredible legacy of film franchises if Superman had not been successful. It was the first.

Matessino: Superman is the ultimate immigrant story. When Superman flies over the Earth at the end of the picture, with that grand score playing, it’s the character now claiming this place as his home. He has become fully part of a place that was originally foreign to him and has figured out his place in it. Of course it has overtones of the stories of Moses and Jesus and so it is overflowing with mythic resonance. All of that comes out in the 1978 film without it feeling heavy handed. It came out at the perfect time because prior to that things were campier and in later decades we moved toward making things darker and more complex. In the 1970s movies felt very real and yet it was acceptable at the time to put the tongue into the cheek here and there and have a little fun with it. But underneath it all is a basic story that we can all relate to that has to do with wondering about our origins, looking at our formative experiences, and figuring out a way to let the selfless, heroic part of ourselves express itself in our lives. If you had to pick one incarnation of Superman where all of this is codified definitively, it’s Superman: The Movie.

Scivally: As a character, Superman is a symbol of what is best about human character; he really does represent truth and justice, and at one time — when the phrase had only positive connotations — the American Way. Superman — the movie — was a major game-changer in Hollywood. And I do believe Ilya Salkind, its producer, should get credit for seeing that a comic book character, treated with respect, can connect with a mass audience. Had he not had that vision and pursued it, we wouldn’t have any of the superhero movies we have today; they’d still be “TV material.”

Coate: Thank you — Jim, Kevin, Mike, Bruce, and Larry — for sharing your thoughts about Superman: The Movie on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.

--END--

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Jim Bowers, Dovemead Limited, Film Export A.G., International Film Production, Warner Bros. Pictures, Warner Home Video. Home-video collage by Cliff Stephenson.

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

Jim Bowers, Kevin Burns, John Hazelton, Bill Kretzel, Mike Matessino, Bruce Scivally, Cliff Stephenson, Larry Tye, Sean Weitzel, and a very special thank-you to all of the librarians who helped with the research for this project.

IN MEMORIAM

• Geoffrey Unsworth (Director of Photography), 1914-1978
• Les Bowie (Creative Supervisor of Mattes & Composites), 1913-1979
• John Barry (Production Designer), 1935-1979
• John Stuart (“10th Elder”), 1998-1979
• Denys Coop (Creative Director of Process Photography), 1920-1981
• Antony Scott (“5th Reporter”), 1933-1983
• Robert Henderson (“2nd Editor”), 1904-1985
• Michael Gover (“6th Elder”), 1913-1987
• Trevor Howard (“1st Elder”), 1913-1988
• Harry Andrews (“2nd Elder”), 1911-1989
• Norman Warwick (“Superchief Driver”), 1924-1989
• Gordon K. McCallum (Re-Recording Mixer), 1919-1989
• Roy Charman (Sound Mixer), 1930-1990
• Lee Quigley (“Baby Kal-El”), 1976-1991
• Joe Shuster (Superman Co-Creator), 1914-1992
• Bob Peak (Promotional Material Illustrator), 1927-1992
• Derek Meddings (Model Effects Director & Creator), 1931-1995
• Jerry Siegel (Superman Co-Creator), 1914-1996
• Alexander Salkind (Presenter), 1921-1997
• Mario Puzo (Story), 1920-1999
• Billy J. Mitchell (“1st Editor”), 1942-1999
• Rex Everhardt (“Desk Sergeant”), 1920-2000
• David Neal (“7th Elder”), 1932-2000
• Roy Field (Creative Supervisor of Optical Visual Effects), 1932-2002
• David Newman (Screenwriter), 1937-2003
• Alan Tilvern (“2nd Controller”), 1918-2003
• Robert MacLeod (“General”), 1915-2004
• Marlon Brando (“Jor-El”), 1924-2004
• Christopher Reeve (“Superman”/“Clark Kent”), 1952-2004
• Maria Schell (Vond-Ah), 1926-2005
• John Hollis (“4th Elder”), 1927-2005
• George Harris II (“Officer Mooney”), 1921-2005
• Phil Brown (“State Senator”), 1916-2006
• Roy Stevens (“Warden”), 19??-2006
• Glenn Ford (“Pa Kent”), 1916-2006
• Tom Mankiewicz (Creative Consultant), 1942-2010
• Susannah York (“Lara”), 1939-2011
• Jackie Cooper (“Perry White”), 1922-2011
• Phyllis Thaxter (“Ma Kent”), 1919-2012
• Larry Hagman (“Major”), 1931-2012
• Stuart Freeborn (Creative Supervisor of Makeup & Special Visuals), 1914-2013
• Vas Anderson (“3rd Elder”), 1933-2015
• Margot Kidder (“Lois Lane”), 1948-2018
• Yvonne Blake (Costume Designer), 1940-2018

-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)

Stuart Galbraith IV is the author of The Emperor and the Wolf: The Lives and Films of Akira Kurosawa and Toshiro Mifune (Faber & Faber, 2002).

Galbraith’s other books include Japanese Cinema (Taschen, 2009), The Toho Studios Story: A History and Complete Filmography (Scarecrow, 2008), Monsters are Attacking Tokyo! The Incredible World of Japanese Fantasy Films (Ferel House, 1998), The Japanese Filmography (McFarland, 1996), Motor City Marquees: A Comprehensive, Illustrated Reference to Motion Picture Theaters in the Detroit Area, 1906-1992 (McFarland, 1994), and Japanese Science Fiction, Fantasy, and Horror Films (McFarland, 1994).

Galbraith has worked as an archivist for the USC-Warner Bros. Archives and Warner Bros. Corporate Archives, written essays that have accompanied some home video releases of Seven Samurai, Rashomon and The Quiet Duel. As well, Galbraith recorded audio commentary tracks for Invasion of the Astro-Monster, Tora! Tora! Tora! and The Sadist. He has also reviewed nearly 2,000 titles for DVD Talk and is a member of the Online Film Critics Society.

Galbraith kindly spoke to The Bits about the appeal and legacy of The Hidden Fortress.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think The Hidden Fortress should be remembered on its 60th anniversary?

Stuart Galbraith: I think it probably should be remembered as the picture Kurosawa set out to make and, I think, achieved: what he called “100% entertainment.” It’s no more or less than that — an exceptional piece of fairy tale-like escapism.

Coate: Can you recall the first time you saw The Hidden Fortress?

Galbraith: The Hidden Fortress was actually the last major Kurosawa film I saw. (My first Kurosawa was Yojimbo, seen at a college screening in 16mm back in the 1970s, when I was around 15 or 16.) Somehow I missed The Hidden Fortress when it was re-issued in the U.S. in 1984 — the first time outside Japan at its original length — so I think my first experience was probably Criterion’s LaserDisc version.

Coate: In what way is The Hidden Fortress a significant motion picture?

Galbraith: It was significant on several fronts. It was Kurosawa’s first movie in anamorphic wide screen, Toho Scope, the company’s version of CinemaScope, and the first to be released in stereophonic sound, albeit Perspecta, which had its limitations. Kurosawa took to the new screen shape like a fish to water, though that in itself isn’t especially remarkable, as Japanese filmmakers at all levels adapted to ‘scope better and more quickly than their American counterparts. In any case he certainly used the format to its fullest advantage, and personally I think his compositions and especially the blocking of his actors really blossomed just as he was a little bit restricted by the limitations of 1.37:1 standard format. I suppose his mastery of ‘scope is perhaps best represented by the final scene in High and Low.

I think the movie also demonstrates that, like many of the shrewdest Hollywood directors — Hawks, Ford, Hitchcock and so on — that Kurosawa realized that he needed a real “crowd-pleaser” hit after Record of a Living Being, The Lower Depths, and Throne of Blood. Those movies were acclaimed and won various awards at home and abroad, and Throne of Blood was Toho’s top-grossing movie of the previous year, but after three very dark films he understood that some lighthearted escapism was probably a good thing at this point in his career. And he was correct: it made around 362 million yen (around $1 million) in Japan, making it extraordinarily popular by the standards of the day, and it ranked second on the influential Kinema Jumpo magazine’s list of the year’s best films.

Finally, I think it was with The Hidden Fortress that Kurosawa’s relationship with composer Masaru Sato really began to bear fruit. He’d written the scores for The Lower Depths and Throne of Blood, but in The Hidden Fortress Sato’s music really becomes an essential ingredient.

Coate: In what way was Akira Kurosawa an ideal choice to direct The Hidden Fortress and where do you think the film ranks among his body of work?

Galbraith: Well, to be clear, it was a script he developed from the outset, and it’s hard to imagine anyone other than Kurosawa directing it. Most big-budget Japanese historical pictures of the time tended to be rather stately, all-star affairs, like Hiroshi Inagaki’s big movies for Toho during that period, such as his Musashi Miyamoto trilogy or his 1962 Chushingura. And like Chushingura they tended to be based on iconic stories that good be filmed again and again through myriad interpretations. Those films, good as they are, also tend to be pretty humorless, whereas The Hidden Fortress is quite funny. Conversely, I can’t imagine any director of that time building such a sweeping epic around two comically cowardly, incessantly bickering and scheming peasants. Anyone else would have had a virtuous samurai lead along the lines of the kinds of characters Kinnosuke Nakamura was playing.

Coate: Can you discuss Toshiro Mifune’s performance? In what way was he ideal for the role of General Makabe Rokurota?

Galbraith: One factor is that no one could play such an intimidating character that could so believably make the two peasants, played by Minoru Chiaki and Kamatari Fujiwara, cower in fear with nothing so much as a glowering stare. The story, too, depends largely on a great bluff, a princess and a general pretending to be peasants carting firewood and all that, and the great scene where he rides into the nest of enemy soldiers, besides Mifune getting out of that situation through sheer bravado, begins with that great moment of Mifune on horseback, hell bent for leather. I don’t think many big male stars of that era would have rode so furiously and dangerously, even for a director with the stature of Kurosawa.

Coate: How would you describe The Hidden Fortress to someone who has never seen it?

Galbraith: The obvious one, of course, is Japanese Star Wars. No Death Star, but the plot is more or less the same and the characters are instantly recognizable. It’s also a good place to start if you’ve never seen a Kurosawa film or even a Japanese film. The story is easy to follow, it’s highly entertaining, and from a filmmaking standpoint plays very modern even today. And on a big screen with a decent projection system, it sure looks epic.

Coate: Has The Hidden Fortress been well-served on its numerous home-video releases?

Galbraith: Yes. If I remember correctly, even the VHS release was letterboxed from the beginning. When Criterion announced the DVD, my very tiny contribution was to contact them offering to put them in contact with someone I knew who could help them decode the original Perspecta Stereophonic Sound tracks. I think they ended up doing that through somebody else, but I applaud them for doing that on Hidden Fortress, as well as other Japanese Perspecta titles. My memory is that there’s hardly noticeable directionality to the audio on Hidden Fortress, but on other Toho films the use of this process is often very effective. And the most recent incarnation of the film looks great.

Coate: Where do you think The Hidden Fortress ranks among the jidai-geki genre?

Galbraith: Very high, of course, but again it’s also really a kind of one-off picture unlike the usual jidai-geki.

Coate: What is the legacy of The Hidden Fortress?

Galbraith: It’s basically an irresistible blend of grand comic adventure with Kurosawa’s emblematic humanism and innovative craftsmanship. It’s genuinely rousing, a great film to see with a big, receptive audience, and just enormous fun.

Coate: Thank you, Stuart, for sharing your thoughts about The Hidden Fortress on the occasion of its 60th anniversary.

SPECIAL THANKS

Alain Dorange

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Asahi Shimbun, The Criterion Collection, Los Angeles Times, Toho Company.

- 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)

Rob Edelman is the author (with Audrey Kupferberg) of Matthau: A Life (Taylor, 2002). His other books include Great Baseball Films: From ‘Right Off the Bat’ to ‘A League of Their Own’ (Citadel, 1994), Baseball on the Web (MIS Technology, 1998), and (with Audrey Kupferberg) Meet the Mertzes: The Life Stories of I Love Lucy’s Other Couple (Renaissance, 1999). He teaches film history at the State University of New York at Albany, and is a film commentator on WAMC Northeast Public Radio, a contributing editor of Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide, and a frequent contributor to John Thorn’s Base Ball: A Journey of the Early Game. His essay on early baseball films appears on the Reel Baseball: Baseball Films from the Silent Era, 1899-1926 DVD. As well, he was the keynote speaker at the 2016 NINE Spring Training Conference in Arizona, and was an interviewee for supplemental material included on the director’s cut DVD and Blu-ray release of The Natural.

Edelman kindly spoke to The Bits about the appeal of The Odd Couple.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): What do you remember about the first time you saw The Odd Couple?

Rob Edelman: I never did see the play. However, the first time I saw — and savored — the film was during its initial theatrical run. I was with my Uncle Mel; we saw it in a drive-in in Florida. And I had never seen my uncle laugh so hard — and so frequently! He passed away a number of years ago, and this remains an extra-special memory.

Coate: Is The Odd Couple a significant motion picture in any way(s)?

Edelman: It is significant because it is not at all dated. At their core, Felix and Oscar remain identifiable to the masses of males all these decades later. And you do not have to be a New Yorker or (in Oscar’s case) a sports fanatic to appreciate these characters.

Coate: In what way were Matthau and Lemmon ideally suited for their roles?

Edelman: Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon were two consummate actors. Both were adept at comedy and drama. I’ve long-screened Some Like It Hot, Billy Wilder’s classic comedy, to my students, and it is a special pleasure to share the laughter with college students who are enjoying an almost 60-year-old black-and-white film — and being introduced to the comedic brilliance of Jack Lemmon! And then, a couple or so years later, you have Lemmon playing an alcoholic in Days of Wine and Roses! The point here is that Jack Lemmon could do anything.

And as for Walter Matthau: The Oscar Madison character both defined his career and made him a star. As noted in Matthau: A Life, the Walter Matthau biography I co-authored with Audrey Kupferberg, “New Yawker Oscar’s world is one in which New Yawker Matthau could relate. He lives and works within an all-male bastion of athletics and Friday-night poker games. He carouses with his pals while reeking of stale beer and cigars amid the unkempt grandeur of his eight-room, twelfth-floor Riverside Drive apartment.”

Audiences certainly can relate to Oscar and Felix all these years later. The bottom line here is that they are perfectly played by two sharp, knowing actors.

Coate: How do you think the play, TV series and sequel, etc. compare to the ‘68 movie?

Edelman: Obviously, The Odd Couple has enjoyed an extensive life. While I particularly liked Tony Randall and Jack Klugman on TV, I cannot imagine anyone beating Matthau and Lemmon!

Coate: How would you describe The Odd Couple to someone who has never seen it or is familiar only with the prior or subsequent iterations?

Edelman: Just sit back, relax, watch the film, and allow yourself to be entertained for 105 minutes!

Coate: How do you think The Odd Couple has been treated over the years in terms of its home video releases? Does it deserve a lavish special edition treatment like so many other films have received?

Edelman: Economics and marketing come into play here. But given the timelessness of its characters and its genuine entertainment value, why not offer a lavish special edition!

Coate: How do you think The Odd Couple should be remembered on its golden anniversary?

Edelman: The Odd Couple is one of the great Neil Simon comedies — if not the all-time-great Neil Simon comedy! And with his recent death, The Odd Couple is well-worth including — and spotlighting — in any Neil Simon retrospective.

The film version was released at a time in which America was undergoing great change — and these changes are reflected in some of the era’s most celebrated Hollywood films. Quite a few of the era’s classic titles — the list begins with The Graduate, Bonnie and Clyde, Midnight Cowboy, Easy Rider, The Wild Bunch, M*A*S*H, Taxi Driver, Five Easy Pieces—were redefining the late-1960s-’70s and reinventing Hollywood. Sure, The Odd Couple is old-school when compared to films like The Graduate or Bonnie and Clyde. But it is proof that not all top-of-the-line late-’60s films were political or reflective of the era. Simply-put, The Odd Couple was — and is — pure entertainment!

Coate: Thank you, Rob, for sharing your thoughts about The Odd Couple on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Paramount Home Entertainment, Paramount Pictures.

- 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 for this segment are (in alphabetical order)….

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

John Cork produced the special features for the home entertainment release of From Russia with Love. He 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. 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 contributed new introductions for the original Bond novels Casino Royale, Live and Let Die, and Goldfinger for new editions published in the U.K. by Vintage Classics in 2017.

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 From Russia with Love, and then enjoy the conversation with group of James Bond authorities.

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): In what way is From Russia with Love worthy of celebration on its 55th anniversary?

James Chapman: From a cinematic point of view, I’d say that From Russia with Love is the best-made film in the James Bond series, and the one that most stands up as a thriller outside the conventions of the series. In many respects it’s reminiscent of Alfred Hitchcock. Obviously the helicopter chasing Bond bears a close resemblance to the crop-duster set piece in North by Northwest (except that Young cuts to the pilots, which Hitchcock didn’t). But beyond that, the locations are used in a very atmospheric way, especially the sequence at the San Sofia Mosque. The train sequence is also very Hitchcockian. There’s real suspense in the Bond/Grant confrontation: how can Bond get Grant to open the attache case? I think Young handles this scene very well.

John Cork: From Russia with Love is, quite simply, one of the greatest spy films ever made. It is relentlessly entertaining, sexy, sophisticated, elegant yet raw, beautifully shot, brilliantly edited, wonderfully cast, with a score that puts 99.999% of all other modern films to shame.

All of this is in spite of the chaos that surrounded the production. The title was selected to capitalize on John F. Kennedy’s embrace of the novel as one of his favorite novels, and production began even before Dr. No had been released in the United States. Like Dr. No, the film set out to capture the structure and feel of the novel, but to remain less jingoistic than Fleming’s portrayal of the Soviets. Thus, SPECTRE replaced SMERSH as the villains. This was to appeal to viewers in international markets where the Cold War rivalries were viewed with more skepticism than in the US and the UK. Yet, the script remained problematic. Largely written while Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman were distracted with their only non-Bond venture, Call Me Bwana, the script went through numerous rewrites. The entire cat-and-mouse game involved the British, the Soviets, the Bulgarians, the Turks, SPECTRE, and agents of SPECTRE that Soviets and British thought were still part of SMERSH. There are a lot of moving parts, and they didn’t all mesh in the shooting draft. This film came close to becoming a somewhat incomprehensible mess.

Further problems developed when locations in Turkey proved impossible to practically use. Then Pedro Armendariz, who had been hired by Terence Young at the recommendation of John Ford, began showing difficultly with the daily shooting while on location. When Young expressed concern, he discovered the true reason Ford had implored him to hire Armendariz: the actor was dying of cancer and wanted one last paycheck to leave his family. After scrapping the attempt to shoot the boat chase sequence in Turkey, the filmmakers returned to the UK where schedules shifted to allow Armendariz to complete his work early. Nine days after leaving the production, Armendariz committed suicide in the UCLA Medical Center. Back on location in Scotland, Terrence Young and art director Michael White nearly died in a helicopter crash in Scotland, and Daniela Bianchi got her face badly bruised when her driver fell asleep at the wheel driving her to the set.

Yet, out of all this, Terence Young, working with editor Peter Hunt, delivered a tight thriller that balances spectacle and spycraft, convention and innovation, and drama and humor. From Russia with Love may not be a great example of how to make a film, but it is one of the best examples of what a film should deliver to audiences.

Bruce Scivally: From Russia with Love was a transitional 007 film. The first Bond film, Dr. No, had been essentially a low-budget crime thriller that stylistically seemed to owe more to the 1950s than the 1960s. The third film, Goldfinger, was a lavish, thrilling action adventure with comedic undertones that set the formula for the Bond films to follow, and was very much of its time — the swinging 60s. In-between was From Russia with Love, a nearly gadget-free 007 adventure that hewed closely to its source material and remains one of the best spy thrillers of the 1960s.

Coate: What do you remember about the first time you saw From Russia with Love?

Chapman: I would have seen it on television (ITV) in the late 1970s. My memory of seeing it for the first time is a bit hazy, but the atmosphere sticks in my mind more than the plot. It’s grown in my estimation whenever I’ve seen it since.

Cork: The first film I recall seeing in a movie theater ever is From Russia with Love at the Capri Theater in Montgomery, Alabama, when I was three years old. My mother informs me that this was a double-bill release with Dr. No. My only recollection of watching those movies is seeing the water catch on fire. I knew that water didn’t burn, so I remember asking my mother about it, which I’m sure I did — like all three-year-olds in movie theaters — at a volume that was quite loud enough for everyone there to hear. This trivia would have been incidental to me if I hadn’t become a Bond fan some eight years later. While I saw it on ABC in the 70s and uncut on HBO in 1980, the next time I saw the film on the big screen was in September 1980 at the Nuart Theater in Los Angeles. That was when it became clear to me that the film stood out on so many levels.

Scivally: The first time I saw the film was on its initial TV run, and it left me underwhelmed because the numerous commercial interruptions destroyed its narrative flow. Later, after I moved to Los Angeles, I saw it on a double bill at a “revival house” (a theater that showed older films), and seeing it for the first time on the big screen was a revelation. It has, since that viewing, been my favorite Bond film, though the 2006 Casino Royale gives it a good run for its money. From Russia with Love has a strong cast, a suspenseful storyline, and a Bond who relies on his wits more than on gadgets — not to mention one of the best train fight scenes ever filmed.

Coate: In what way was Robert Shaw’s Donald Grant (or Lotte Lenya’s Rosa Klebb) a memorable villain?

Chapman: Robert Shaw’s Grant remains, for me, the best henchman-villain of the series. He’s sinister, menacing and represents a real physical threat to Bond — and he doesn’t need props like a steel-rimmed bowler hat, a metal hook or steel teeth. And he remains silent for much of the film — a deadly presence lurking in the background. The scene where he has Bond on his knees in the train compartment is very well done: you get a sense that Bond really is in trouble, how’s he going to get out of this?

As for Lotte Lenya, she’s the perfect visual representation of Fleming’s character. In the film, of course, Klebb has defected to SPECTRE, but that’s a fairly cosmetic change.

In fact I’d say that From Russia with Love has probably the best cast of any of the Bond pictures. Pedro Armendariz, Vladek Sheybal — even down to small parts such a George Pastel as the train conductor.

Cork: The casting in Dr. No had been almost haphazard. Significant parts were cast with local Jamaican actors who were dubbed back at Pinewood. United Artists wanted a stronger cast for From Russia with Love. Harry Saltzman wanted Robert Shaw, whom he knew through John Osborn, Saltzman’s former partner at Woodfall Productions. Shaw had been having an affair with Osborn’s wife, the actress Mary Ure, resulting in some chaos in all their lives during the production of From Russia with Love. But Saltzman also became interested in Shaw as a writer, since Shaw was getting some critical acclaim from two novels he had recently written, particularly The Sun Doctor, which in 1962 won an important literary prize. Saltzman, in the wake of the success of Dr. No had individually optioned Len Deighton’s hit spy novel, The Ipcress File, and had even hired Deighton to do an initial draft of From Russia with Love (the radio telephone in Bond’s Bentley is the only known remnant from Deighton’s draft). Soon, Saltzman had Shaw writing an adaptation of The Ipcress File, which, by accounts, was discarded. Along with Shaw’s prodigious drinking habits, one can see how he burned the candle at both ends and died so young. Yet, despite his grueling work ethic, Shaw turned in a one of the greatest performances in any spy film. While Donald Grant doesn’t have the scale or ambition of Goldfinger or Blofeld, he is every bit a killing machine on the same level as the shark Shaw faces off against in Jaws. Despite being four inches shorter than Connery, Shaw, as Grant, looms over every scene like the grim reaper.

Lotte Lenya almost steals the show from Shaw. It is impossible, I think, for Bond fans to understand how important a figure Lotte Lenya was, having been a huge star in Europe in the late-1920s and early-30s, or how she thrilled audiences with her stage work in the 1950s. She got the role as Rosa Klebb after her haunting Oscar-nominated performance in The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone where she is a pimp of sorts for Warren Beatty’s character. Rosa Klebb, pimping Tatiania to the British for SPECTRE, bears some similarities. Both performances are brilliant.

Scivally: Donald Grant is a purely physical presence for the first half of From Russia with Love, a cool assassin whom we never hear speaking until he’s on the train with Bond. And Robert Shaw is perfect in the role; few actors can seem so deadly just standing still. And because the pre-credits sequence (an innovation of this second Bond film) shows Grant killing “Bond,” we genuinely feel that he might get the best of 007 in the train fight. Where Grant is the brawn, Rosa Klebb is the brains, a toad of a woman tasked with executing Kronsteen’s plan to manipulate Tatiana and Bond into Grant’s clutches. Lotte Lenya embraces the role with relish, with her severe hairstyle and milk-bottle glasses, and a hint of lesbianism in her interrogation of Tatiana that is portrayed as a threat. As Tatiana says of her in the end, she is a “horrible woman.”

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: In what way was Daniela Bianchi’s Tatiana Romanova a memorable Bond Girl?

Chapman: I think she’s more of a “normal” character that most other Bond girls: an ordinary young woman caught up in events beyond her comprehension. Rather like Kara in The Living Daylights (which is quite similar to From Russia with Love in a lot of ways). She’s not a professional smuggler or adventurer a la Tiffany case or Pussy Galore, and not a professional agent like Anya Amasova or Jinx.

Cork: Daniela Bianchi is a strikingly beautiful woman. Terence Young, who maintained an apartment he couldn’t really afford in Rome insisted that the producers look for Tatiana there, claiming that Rome was filled with the most beautiful women in the world. Having succeeded in dubbing Ursula Andress, Young had no concerns over Bianchi’s limited English. She, like Andress, was cast late in the process after months of debates, a screentest, and push from some quarters to cast a more established American actress. I love Bianchi’s performance. Tatiana’s fragility comes through, although the dubbing does take some of the intimacy away from the character.

Barbara Jefford did the re-voicing work, and she did an amazing job. She knew Robert Shaw and Sean through her work with Sean’s wife. When she arrived to re-voice Daniella, she had neither seen the film nor read the script. She referred to her approach as “instant acting,” basing her line-readings almost solely off Terence Young’s “meticulous” directions. She is a brilliant actress, and her work on From Russia with Love complements Daniela’s performance.

Scivally: Tatiana is a very sympathetic Bond woman, an unwilling pawn in a game of international intrigue. Chosen to act as a lure to draw Bond into the trap, she follows orders dutifully but then falls in love with the British agent. Though not a very accomplished actress, Daniela Bianchi is easy on the eyes and just manages to bring enough depth to her characterization to pull it off. She’s particularly good in the scene where she first encounters Bond, sneaking into his hotel bed. The banter between her and 007 is so well written that the scene became a standard one for screen-testing future Bond actors.

Coate: Where do you think From Russia with Love ranks among the James Bond movie series?

Chapman: For me it’s one of the very best, possibly even the best of the series. It seems a much more confident and assured film than Dr. No, where Terence Young and the producers were to some extent still finding their way. But there’s still a freshness about it, it hasn’t got bogged down under the weight of expectations.

Cork: From Russia with Love is my favorite Bond film. It only edges out Goldfinger by a hair, and I reserve the right to change my mind, but aside from the wacky back-projection of Bond’s hand unspooling SPECTRE’s film into The Grand Canal, and the too-static shot of the helicopter exploding, I’m not sure I would change a frame.

Scivally: For me, it’s the best of the series story-wise, though Goldfinger has a brisker pace and is more of a crowd-pleaser. From Russia with Love is more of an international chess game between the superpowers, with Bond and Tatiana as willing pawns — and the superpowers themselves are pawns of Ernst Stavro Blofeld and SPECTRE, an ingenious touch not in Fleming’s original novel. The only gadgets Bond has are a collapsible sniper rifle (used not by him but by Kerim Bey) and his exploding-talcum-powder-briefcase with hidden knife, and Bond’s quips are amusing without being groaners. It’s a more “grown up” Bond film, with a screenplay that stays close to Fleming’s book, assured direction from Terence Young, and a cast of great actors: Pedro Armendariz, Vladek Sheybal, Robert Shaw, Lotte Lenya and Sean Connery, at the top of their game.

Coate: What is the legacy of From Russia with Love?

Chapman: It’s curious that a film that many Bondologists rate among the very best is not in fact wholly representative of the series. Many of the ingredients we associate with the Bond style aren’t there: no Ken Adam sets, no Maurice Binder titles, even the big pitched battle comes at the mid-way point rather than at the end.

Oddly, perhaps, From Russia with Love didn’t really have much of an influence on the films that followed, which with Goldfinger, Thunderball and You Only Live Twice moved decisively away from the spy thriller mode and embraced technological fantasy. But it tends to be the reference point when the series periodically wants to come back “down to Earth” after excursions into fantasy: For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights are perhaps the closest in style.

Cork: The legacy of From Russia with Love is strange and complex. When released in October 1963, it became the highest-grossing film of all time in the UK. Studios took note. The Man from U.N.C.L.E. got its final network greenlight for the production of a pilot in November, 1963. Before From Russia with Love’s release in the US, plans were put in place to mount a Matt Helm series, to make Len Deighton’s The Ipcress File, and to make Our Man Flint. The first true quasi-Bond spoof out of the dock was Carry On Spying, but by then many others were in the works. While the success of From Russia with Love was not the start of the Bond phenomenon, and the books were selling incredibly well around the globe by 1963, it was the final tipping point where everyone was grabbing on to the Bond bandwagon.

The film proved to be very influential in film editing. Peter Hunt liked to say he was a perfect match for Terence Young because Terence didn’t shoot everything like a perfect jigsaw puzzle. Hunt said he would “fight with the film.” Thus, he started tossing rules out the window, cutting much faster than studio films of the era, using shots to convey emotion rather than matching continuity. Every modern action film owes a debt to Peter Hunt’s editing style.

The film also altered action films. The fight on the train was like a gauntlet thrown at the feet of future generations of filmmakers. The raw violence in the film upped the ante for action films. In most films up until From Russia with Love, fight scenes had been relatively short affairs or quasi-comic barroom brawls that seemed to go on for hours. Real mano-a-mano beatings were rare, and when they did exist, they rarely felt real, with actors trading absurd roundhouse punches or the camera panning away as we hear the violence but don’t see it. Stunt coordinator Peter Perkins choreographed the train fight like a dance scene, but Terence Young insisted that it feel real, that Connery and Shaw grapple more than punch, that the scene be partially shot with a handheld camera. The result was groundbreaking.

There is also the legacy of John Barry. While he did not write the lovely title song (that’s Lionel Bart), this is his first full Bond score, and nothing can top it. It is a score where he knows when to go big and knows when to stay small. With this film, John Barry creates a sound that, along with his arrangement of The James Bond Theme and his theme for Zulu, comes to redefine the boundaries of motion picture soundtracks.

Time and again, filmmakers will talk about a spy-themed project, and when asked about James Bond, they will say that they hope to make something more in the vein of From Russia with Love, a believable thriller with all the elegance, sexuality, spectacle, and violence that we have come to expect in the genre. The legacy of From Russia with Love is we are still looking for a spy film that comes close to matching it, even fifty-five years later.

Scivally: From Russia with Love’s most lasting legacy is that it was the first 007 film to have a pre-credits sequence, something that became standard from that point forward. It also helped to further establish Sean Connery’s James Bond as a box-office draw, and Connery’s performance in this film is more assured and relaxed than in Dr. No; at this early stage, he was settling into the role, but hadn’t yet become bored with it, as he often seems in You Only Live Twice. It was also one of the rare instances of a sequel being better than the film that preceded it, and as such helped stoke the anticipation for the next one in the series, Goldfinger.

Coate: Thank you — James, John, and Bruce — for participating and sharing your thoughts about From Russia with Love on the occasion of its 55th anniversary.

The James Bond roundtable discussion will return in Remembering “Quantum of Solace” on its 10th Anniversary.

IMAGES

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

SPECIAL THANKS

Sheldon Hall, John Hazelton, and Dave Worrall

- 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 popular musical recently turned fifty, and for the occasion The Bits features a Q&A with a trio of film historians who reflect on the film’s appeal and legacy.

(This new 50th anniversary article is an extension of our anniversary coverage five years ago. Please refer back to that 45th anniversary retrospective for a detailed chronology of the film’s long-running North American roadshow engagements and a Q&A with Sony Pictures Entertainment’s Executive Vice President of Asset Management, Film Restoration & Digital Mastering.)

FUNNY GIRL NUMBER$

• 1 = Number of Academy Awards
• 1 = Rank among Columbia’s all-time top-earning movies at close of original release
• 1 = Rank among top-earning films with Streisand in a lead role (adjusted for inflation)
• 2 = Number of markets showing the movie during opening weekend
• 2 = Rank among top-earning films of 1968 (retroactive / legacy / lifetime earnings)
• 2 = Rank among top-earning films of 1969 (calendar year)
• 5 = Number of years Columbia’s top-earning film
• 5 = Rank among top-earning 1960s musicals
• 8 = Number of Academy Award nominations
• 11 = Rank among top-earning movies of the 1960s (earnings from 1/1/60 - 12/31/70)
• 15 = Peak all-time box-office chart position
• 16 = Rank on AFI’s list of Greatest Movie Musicals
• 72 = Number of weeks of longest-running engagement

• $14.1 million = Production cost
• $16.5 million = Box-office rental through 12/31/69 (% of gross paid to distributor)
• $24.6 million = Box-office rental through 12/31/70
• $24.9 million = Box-office rental through 12/31/71
• $25.6 million = Box-office rental through 12/31/72
• $26.3 million = Box-office rental through 12/31/73
• $52.2 million = Box-office gross
• $101.7 million = Production cost (adjusted for inflation)
• $175.7 million = Box-office rental (adjusted for inflation)
• $357.2 million = Box-office gross (adjusted for inflation)

THE Q&A

Kim R. 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, Delaware, with his wife Nancy and a menagerie of pets. He is the author or co-author of several other film and performing arts books, including Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes: An Illustrated Filmography, Volume II (1996-2016) (with Tom Winchester, McFarland, 2018), 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), Attila’s Sorceress (New Libri Press, 2014), The Shakespeare Controversy (with Warren Hope; McFarland, 2nd ed., 2009), Susan Hayward: Her Films and Life (McFarland, 2002), Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Film Sequels, Series and Remakes: An Illustrated Filmography (with Tom Winchester, McFarland, 1997), Richard Widmark: A Bio-Bibliography (Greenwood Press, 1990), and Starlet (McFarland, 1988).

Matthew Kennedy is the author of Roadshow! The Fall of Film Musicals in the 1960s (Oxford University Press, 2014). Matthew is a writer, film historian, and anthropologist living in Oakland. His other books include Joan Blondell: A Life between Takes (University Press of Mississippi, 2007), Edmund Goulding’s Dark Victory: Hollywood’s Genius Bad Boy (University of Wisconsin Press, 2004), and Marie Dressler: A Biography (McFarland, 1999). His articles have appeared in the program books of the San Francisco Silent Film Festival and Turner Classic Movies Classic Film Festival. He is film and book critic for the respected Bright Lights Film Journal and has hosted retrospectives based on his books at the Pacific Film Archive, UCLA Film Archive, and the Museum of Modern Art.

Peter Krämer is the editor (with Yannis Tzioumakis) of The Hollywood Renaissance: Revisiting American Cinema’s Most Celebrated Era (Bloomsbury Academic, 2018). Peter is the author and/or editor of several additional academic books, including a BFI Film Classics volume on 2001: A Space Odyssey (2010), The New Hollywood: From Bonnie and Clyde to Star Wars (Wallflower, 2006), and American Graffiti: George Lucas, the New Hollywood and the Baby Boom Generation (forthcoming from Routledge). He is a Senior Fellow in the School of Art, Media and American Studies at the University of East Anglia in Norwich (UK).

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

Michael Coate (The Digital Bits): How do you think Funny Girl should be remembered on its golden anniversary?

Kim R. Holston: As the film that made Barbra Streisand a star.

Matthew Kennedy: Funny Girl was, is, and forever should be remembered as Barbra Streisand’s film debut. By the time this film appeared in 1968, she had conquered Broadway in the stage version of Funny Girl, was an established recording star, and had performed in top-rated TV specials. Movie stardom might have seemed inevitable, but would her unconventional looks translate on the big screen? The results dazzled and exceeded already high expectations. The film has merits beyond her performance, but they take a backseat to her.

Peter Krämer: As arguably the most amazing movie debut by any performer ever: Barbra Streisand combines rapid fire comic delivery, slapstick comedy, numerous costume changes, melodramatic acting and that amazing singing voice into something quite incomparable.

As an incredibly moving biopic in which the lead actress does not only bring a legendary Jewish performer (Fanny Brice) back to life, but also tells her own story about becoming “the greatest star” against all the odds. Indeed, by the time she appeared in the movie version of her Broadway hit Funny Girl, Streisand’s amazing success as a theatre and concert performer, as a recording artist and television personality had already made her, at the young age of 26, the biggest star in American entertainment, not only of the 1960s but quite possibly of all time.

As the beginning of an unprecedented film career, which saw Streisand appear in an almost unbroken string of hits until 1979 (while her success in other media continued as well). Her track record at the box office during this period far exceeded that of all other female movie stars then or later, and was the equal of any male star at a time when women were more marginalized in Hollywood than ever before or since.

Coate: What do you remember about the first time you saw Funny Girl?

Holston: The first time I saw it I did not care for it. It seemed archaic. Remember, it was 1968 and the world had changed dramatically (Vietnam War, civil rights marches, political assassinations). Funny Girl looks better in retrospect, perhaps because it represents one of the last good roadshow musicals. Watching the DVD version, which features an Overture, Entr’acte and Exit Music, I waxed nostalgic. Something jarring I noticed while watching this and the same year’s other giant musical, Star!, with Julie Andrews and was perhaps why I didn’t like it in 1968 were the close-ups during the stage production numbers. It was unrealistic. No audience member without opera glasses could home in on the performers like this. Upon reflection, I realized that this sort of camerawork did occur in such classic Hollywood “stage” musicals as 42nd Street and Alexander’s Ragtime Band. Perhaps it was the era of the 60s. “Realism” was in.

Kennedy: I saw Funny Girl at the Showcase, the one fancy first run theater in my hometown of Redding, California. I remember being excited during the opening credits, a kind of big city big show excitement not often available in Redding. And then there she was — this giantess demanding not only our attention, but also our awe and supplication.

I remember media obsession over her looks, specifically her large nose. Will she or won’t she have it reduced? It’s easy to forget what an exceptionally special and odd creature she was on first sight. She wholly embraced her singular place in show business. It worked brilliantly for her. It was as though society was congratulating itself on prizing a woman of such rare talent who redefined beauty.

Krämer: I was doing some research in various archives in Los Angeles, and so as to reward myself for a hard day’s work I thought I might go and see an old musical on the big screen. When I arrived at the cinema I was surprised that the audience consisted almost exclusively of men — and many of them were holding hands or showing each other affection in other ways. Now, I had vaguely been aware of the fact that Streisand was a gay icon, but I had not previously attached any particular meaning to this. But then we all sat down, and when the story finally started (after a long credit sequence — I can’t remember now whether they also played the overture), we followed Streisand, who had her back to the camera, walking through the stage door of the theatre and along various corridors until she came to a tall mirror. Now she finally turned so that her face — with that grand nose of hers — could be seen in the mirror, and she addressed that image: “Hello, Gorgeous.” At this point the auditorium erupted into applause and cheering. And I suddenly understood a little bit about what made her a gay icon. She was different (as the rest of the film makes clear, she — like Fanny Brice — was considered ugly by the standards of beauty of the time, she was too Jewish) — and yet she was able to accept herself just the way she was. Or so it seemed.

Coate: In what way is Funny Girl a significant motion picture?

Holston: It was a star-making turn for Barbra Streisand, who joined a select team of actresses who were stars from their first time on screen, e.g., Katharine Hepburn, Doris Day.

Kennedy: Funny Girl was directed by William Wyler, arguably the greatest director of the studio era. It came along after his heyday, and the commonly heard story is Streisand dominated the set, despite Wyler’s veteran experience. But I wonder — is that representative of sexism, or did she exert influence beyond her domain as a vastly talented, disciplined, and ambitious screen newcomer?

The score is excellent. Broadway Songwriter Jule Styne had a fabled career as composer of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, Bells are Ringing, and the oft-revived much loved Gypsy, all before Funny Girl premiered in 1964. Here we get Second Hand Rose, My Man, and the hit single People, along with several other worthy tunes.

The film not only preserves and glorifies Streisand’s original stage performance, but also Kay Medford’s playing Brice’s mother.

Funny Girl is also a strong example of how to translate a stage production into cinema. Don’t Rain on My Parade gets opened up to take in lower Manhattan, a train, a boat, and Streisand’s thundering proclamation of a self-guided destiny. Wyler employs those wonderful things unique to cinema — the ability to change perspective and distance with each camera set-up. So while the stage audience thrilled to Streisand live, the film audience sees and hears her in close-up, medium, and far shots, with the camera guiding us and contributing greatly to the emotions of the story. Very often Wyler recreates the stage experience as well, with many scenes of Brice rehearsing or before a live audience. But unlike live theater, we get close enough to see tears welling in her eyes.

Krämer: People often forget that, with the exception of the late 1920s and very early 1930s, Hollywood — an industry pretty much founded and largely run by Jewish-Americans — had always been very cautious about coming across very Jewish. So many actors changed their names — and indeed their looks (through cosmetic surgery). p>

Then in 1967 and 1968 everything changed (at least for a while). Streisand (no name change for her — except for dropping that second “a” in her first name), as mentioned earlier the biggest star in American entertainment, makes her debut in a film about a Jewish performer succeeding against all the odds. And the biggest surprise hit in all of Hollywood history, The Graduate, released late in 1967, but dominating the box office all through 1968, has Dustin Hoffman (no name change here either) appearing in the role of a WASP jock. Several commentator at the time noted that this was a bit of a (perhaps subversive) mismatch.

From then onwards, for about a decade, many of the key performers and the most iconic characters in Hollywood movies were ethnic Americans (mostly Jewish-American or Italian-American). Just think about Don Corleone and Al Pacino.

So, together with The Graduate, Funny Girl marks a real turning point in Hollywood history.

[On to Page 2]

[Back to Page 1]

Coate: Can you discuss the casting of Streisand and Sharif in the lead roles?

Holston: Perhaps most noticeably with the final number, My Man, which can be watched over and over again, Streisand could sing up a storm and had no trouble at all being funny. Sharif was suitably handsome.

Kennedy: In Funny Girl, Streisand found a vehicle perfectly suited not only to her gifts as an actress and singer, but as an introduction to her as an instant movie star. She is less than ideal as any facsimile recreation of Fanny Brice, who excelled on stage, screen, and radio, but was never a star of Streisand’s rank. But does that matter to most anyone watching? The story of a poor and plain Jewish girl from the Lower East Side rising to headliner of the Ziegfeld Follies, and suffering heartache in her private life, might as well have been fiction.

Omar Sharif, as heartthrob gambler-swindler husband Nicky Arnstein, does not register as strongly as Streisand. Once I looked away from her blinding light and concentrated on him, however, I saw effective acting. It’s no stretch to see why Brice would fall so thoroughly for him. Hiding behind his great male beauty is tenderness, danger, and self-destruction. Under Wyler’s guidance, Sharif delivers it all.

Krämer: Once Streisand was cast as Fanny Brice for the stage version of Funny Girl, which became a huge success on Broadway, it seemed a foregone conclusion that she would also appear in the movie adaptation. And yet, Hollywood was wary to cast an actress who had never before appeared in a movie in such an expensive production. Also, there were continuing concerns about her looks. A lot of people acknowledged that, despite being declared ugly and being told on numerous occasions to get a nose job, Streisand had somehow managed to come across as beautiful to so many people, that she represented a new kind of beauty. But how could this work when her face was blown up on a huge movie screen? At the same time, her success as a performer on stage, records and television was so massive that she could not really be ignored either. And of course she was absolutely perfect for the role because, to a large extent, the story of Fanny Brice was her own story.

The casting of Omar Sharif, on the back of the success of Doctor Zhivago, created a number of problems. For one thing, he was an Egyptian playing an American Jew. For another thing, Egypt (as well as other Arab countries) and Israel went to war in 1967. For a while, it looked like he might have to be replaced, but then the war was quickly concluded and some people said that, in any case, Streisand and Sharif appearing together was a kind of gesture of peace, or something like that. I haven’t come across any negative comments about his non-Jewish background in the film’s reception.

Coate: How do you think the stage production and sequel compare to the ’68 movie?

Holston: Haven’t seen the stage production or Funny Lady.

Kennedy: I’ve never seen Funny Girl on stage, but I found 1975’s Funny Lady to miss the mark. It has a self-consciousness that plagues so many sequels. There’s a caution to it, and referencing of Funny Girl, rather than making something new and exciting. I don’t like Streisand in Funny Lady half as much as I do in Funny Girl. She became imperious and self-righteous, and I don’t know if that was her evolution as an actress, human being, and/or her interpretation of an older, wiser, angrier Brice. The title becomes a misnomer; she’s not funny anymore. But Streisand is in fine voice and well served with the songs How Lucky Can You Get? and Isn’t This Better.

Krämer: By all accounts, the stage production was constantly evolving, not least because Streisand gradually took control. So it is not easy to compare the film to “the” stage production. What is interesting, though, is that it was widely reported at the time — and confirmed by later reminiscences — that Streisand was battling veteran Hollywood director William Wyler and the rest of the production team for control of the movie as well. And she often seems to have gotten her way.

Compared to my fascination with Funny Girl, I feel rather lackluster about the sequel Funny Lady. It was a considerable hit at the box office. But I don’ think it was particularly special.

Coate: Where do you think Funny Girl ranks among roadshow musicals?

Holston: Funny Girl ranks in the upper echelon of roadshow musicals, of which there were about two dozen between 1955 (Oklahoma!) and 1972 (Man of La Mancha). In contrast to some, which had great scores but lacked pizzazz or had cheap sets (Finian’s Rainbow), it is one of the fully-realized entries. Ahead of it would be West Side Story, The Sound of Music, Oliver!, My Fair Lady, and Gigi. (Note that those movies were in the “naturalistic” mode, i.e., spontaneous singing and dancing, not stage musicals.)

Kennedy: Funny Girl is pretty high on the list of excellent roadshow musicals. It suffers from a sluggish second half and some costume and hair choices too reminiscent of 1968, rather than Brice’s era of the ’30s and ’40s. Despite the all-consuming presence of Streisand, it has other assets. There’s an elder Walter Pidgeon playing an exasperated Flo Ziegfeld. There is everywhere the evidence of a loving, lavish treatment, effectively opened up so as not to slavishly echo the stage version. It well captures the razzle-dazzle of the big splashy Broadway transfer to film.

Two other highly anticipated roadshow musicals appeared that year: Star! and Oliver! Star! with Julie Andrews was an epic bomb. The box office successes of Oliver! and Funny Girl were contrary to the industry trends that would kill the roadshow by the early 1970s. Oliver! dominated the 1968 Academy Awards, beating fellow Best Picture nominee Funny Girl for the big prize. Funny Girl picked up one award — for Barbra Streisand as Best Actress. In a rare tie, she shared the honor with Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter.

Krämer: I am not a great connoisseur of roadshow musicals. I have seen quite a few but I don’t have much of a personal investment in most of them. But Funny Girl means a lot to me.

Coate: What is the legacy of Funny Girl?

Holston: The legacy of Funny Girl is as a prime example of the musical roadshow, which had not long to go. 

Kennedy: A good part of Funny Girl’s legacy and value is as a recreation of Streisand’s one-for-the-ages turn in the stage version, now preserved as long as we can watch movies. As a double whammy, it also captures the moment her movie stardom was born. From Funny Girl came these many years of songs, movies, and concerts. Streisand sings I’m the Greatest Star early in Funny Girl, with the lyric “but no one knows it.” Not anymore! She’s been laying claim to that assertion for fifty years.

Krämer: Well, I would say that, to some extent, Funny Girl, together with The Graduate paved the way for ethnic diversity, not at the margins of Hollywood, but at its very center, in its most successful and most highly acclaimed films — at least for a decade or so.

There is also something very resonant about the almost mythical stardom Barbra Streisand has achieved, and this film offers us one version of the story of her rise to fame. Her version of A Star is Born would be another. And, of course, the latest version of that particular movie has Ally (Lady Gaga) talking about the fact that she does not want to perform her songs because “almost every single person that I have come in contact with in the music industry has told me that my nose is too big and that I won’t make it.” This takes us right back to the opening scenes of Funny Girl, when, in the If a Girl Isn’t Pretty number, a teenage Fanny Brice is told the same thing by her mother’s friends, and her mother responds with the immortal lines: “Is a nose with deviation / such a crime against the nation?”

Coate: Thank you — Kim, Matthew, and Peter — for sharing your thoughts about Funny Girl on the occasion of its 50th anniversary.

IMAGES

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.

IMAGES

Selected images copyright/courtesy Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment. Roadshow ticket stubs and program from the collection of Robert Morrow.

IN MEMORIAM

• Gerald Mohr (“Branca”), 1914-1968
• Harry Stradling (Director of Photography), 1901-1970
• Isobel Lennart (Screenwriter), 1915-1971
• William Kiernan (Set Decorator), 1908-1973
• Robert Luthardt (Art Director), 1917-1977
• Kay Medford (“Rose Brice”), 1919-1980
• William Wyler (Director), 1902-1981
• Walter Pidgeon (“Florenz Ziegfeld”), 1987-1984
• Frank Faylen (“Keeney”), 1905-1985
• John Harmon (“Company Manager”), 1905-1985
• Gene Callahan (Production Designer), 1923-1990
• Irene Sharaff (Costume Designer), 1910-1993
• Jule Styne (Music), 1905-1994
• Gertrude Flynn (“Mrs. O’Malley”), 1909-1996
• Mae Questel (“Mrs. Strakosh”), 1908-1998
• Bob Merrill (Music), 1921-1998
• Penny Santon (“Mrs. Meeker”), 1916-1999
• Robert Swink (Editor), 1918-2000
• Walter Scharf (Music), 1910-2003
• Ray Stark (Producer), 1914-2004
• Ben Lane (Makeup Supervisor), 1912-2007
• Maury Winetrobe (Editor), 1922-2008
• Anne Francis (“Georgia James”), 1930-2011
• Omar Sharif (“Nick Arnstein”), 1932-2015

- 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)