Vol. 12, No.17 of LIFE, a registered
trademark of TIME Inc.
James Bond
is back.
The
viewers of James Bond movies are typically of a male majority, old and young,
and tend to be fans of spy/action films, the occasional classic film buff
taking a seat in the audience. As this
quote from page 184 of The James Bond Phenomenon: A Critical Reader by
Christoph Lindner reveals, though, defining the viewing demographic of the Bond
films is not as simple as it seems.
“...in the 1960s, the audience for the Bond films had
consisted, in the main, of adolescents and young adults’, whereas by 1979, ‘the
audience consisted mainly of parents and pre-adolescent children.’ While this may well be true, that
parenthetical ‘in the main’ covers a multitude of exceptions.”
(http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=x9-1QY5boUsC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=audience+of+james+bond+movies&ots=EPhDpdDf6P&sig=0nToa2wWpJA5kTfw_ORM8PHcTfg#v=snippet&q=audience&f=false\)
The Bond
audience is far-reaching, not just in terms of viewer demographics, but also in
terms of geographic and generational expanse.
Opening worldwide, celebrating its 50th year, and dividing its release
between MGM and Sony, James Bond needs to be prepared for the entire world to
take a peek inside of this magazine.
(http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/04/sony-and-mgm-finalize-bond-co-financing-partnership.html).
LIFE also
has a readership to be aware of. “Life
magazine was one of the most important magazines published in the United
States. One study revealed that in a given thirteen-week period in 1950, ‘about
half of all Americans, ten years and older, had seen one or more copies’ of the
magazine” (http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=7096).
“James Bond is back.
It’s a slogan as old as 1963, when the second film in the famous series,
From Russia with Love, opened,
and it is being voiced again to welcome Skyfall to your neighborhood IMAX. Bond fans, of which you are one, exult, and
others marvel that the superspy is still with us; 50 years after Dr. No
opened, 23 moves in all. (Well, not quite
all, as will be explained in our pages: There were two “unofficial” feature
films made, plus a television adaptation of a Bond novel, Casino Royale,
that aired way back in 1954.)”
Flesch-Kincaid
Reading Ease: 76.6
Average
Grade Level: 7.0
Word
Count: 100
Words per
Sentence: 16.7
At precisely
the average reading level of the United States, the first paragraph of “50
Years of James Bond” presents itself as clear and concise, using metabasis to
encourage readers to move past the first page.
There’s no wordy introduction, there is no skirting around the facts;
there is just cold blooded statement.
The first sentence “James Bond is
back” is aschematiston in Bond fashion.
In terms of Bond trivia, it’s important to know that “James Bond will be
back in...” was the screen flashed at the end of (almost) every Bond film
(that, or “James Bond will return in...”)
So, this simple opening plays directly into the activity system this
article was written for. Another important
reason to put it out there and lead with the fact that “James Bond is back” is
because 2012 saw the release of Skyfall.
MGM needed the world to know that “James Bond is back” so that they
could sell enough tickets to pay for their multi-million dollar movie.
The
article promptly shifts into a informal “you,” addressing the readers
directly. “...Bond fans, of which you
are one...” The article uses Skyfall
and IMAX theaters as exemplum of how and where you, yes you, will find
yourself being a Bond fan. This
shameless promotion is effective in getting the reader to visualize themselves
heading to that theater, buying a large popcorn, reclining in their IMAX seat,
and living the newest Bond installment, and it also familiarizes the reader,
making the reader feel chummy with the LIFE featurette and comfortable with the
publication’s plain prose.
In terms
of punctuation, there appears to be some looser construction within this
opening paragraph. “Bond fans, of which
you are one, exult, and others marvel that the superspy is still with us; 50
years after Dr. No opened, 23 moves in all.”
The semicolon usage in this sentence does not connect two independent
clauses, and it is is not serving as a “super comma” within a list. But will LIFE readers and Bond fans
notice? Probably not. (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/semicolon). This semicolon
sentence is swiftly followed by parenthesis.
Both of these things contribute to the plain style of the piece, and
cater to the audience’s desire for a fast, entertaining read akin to the
gritty, frothy Bond flicks they love.
Concluding
the parenthesis is the phrase “way back.” For younger readers and Bond fans, this
serves as casual language; for older readers and Bond fans, this serves as
hyperbole and sarcasm. “Waaaay back
in 1954.” Some Bond fans were becoming
parents in 1954; 1954 feels like yesterday.
“Way back” is a reminder of where Bond has been, but also an emphasis on
how present Bond still is in today’s life.
All of
these things add up to create an opening paragraph that is conversational,
accessible, and tends to the old and young readers alike, mimicking the style
of the Bond films themselves.
“If the movie was, ummm, stupid--and it surely was--many of
its lead actors and other personnel were anything but. One of its five credited directors was John
Huston, who back in the early 1960s had wondered about making a Bond movie
starring Cary Grant. Woody Allen not
only acted as one of the ersatz Bonds, he also contributed some (uncredited)
writing, as did Huston and Orson Welles, who also costarred. Niven, at left with Angela Scoular and above
in the white suit with Joanna Pettet in the foreground, was an Oscar
winner. We have mentioned Deborah Kerr,
and then there was Peter Sellers and Jacqueline Bisset as Giovanna Goodthighs
and William Holden and Burt Bacharach’s music and...”
Flesch-Kincaid
Reading Ease: 54
Average
Grade Level: 10
Word
Count: 120
Words per
Sentence: 20
Flush with
exemplum, this excerpt explores the celebrity attached with the Bond films--even
that of the unloved bastard parody. I
chose this part of the magazine to look at almost explicitly for the line
“...the move was, ummm, stupid...” which for Bond fans is a bit of apodixis. It is unlikely that anyone watching the 1960s
Casino Royale walked away thinking, “Now there was a great Hollywood
classic!” Following the “ummm, stupid,”
the writer launches into the film’s extensive cast, intimating that the film
should have been better, yet somehow tripped and tumbled down a hill, coming to
a stop in the land of poorly executed parody.
I think this excerpt is important in catering to the older Bond fans and
LIFE readers, because it explores an event from “way back” in the 1960s, and lists celebrities from an
older generation.
“Was Q quitting? It
seemed he might be when the MI6 quartermaster, played for the 17th time by
Desmond Llewelyn, introduced Bond to a somewhat younger man he was training,
played by John Cleese. ‘If you're Q,
does that make him R?’ The question is
never answered, but Llewelyn was killed in the aforementioned automobile
accident shortly after wrapping the film, and Cleese played the Q--or R-- role
in the final Brosnan film.”
Flesch-Kincaid
Reading Ease 68.2
Average
Grade Level: 9.1
Word
Count: 75
Words per
Sentence: 18.8
This blurb
opens with the anthypophora of “Was Q quitting?” It then jumps into the Bond
archives to discuss the nuances of Q (or R) and the death of Desmond Llewelyn. The notion that Cleese was “R” is a bit of
assumptio on the writer’s part. Who
qualifies as Q? Was John Cleese allowed
to be Q officially, or was Desmond Llewellyn the one, true Q, yet to have a
successor? I chose to look at this
passage because the presence of Q within the film is vital to this year’s Skyfall;
not only “James Bond is back,” but “Q is back” too. The sentence “a somewhat younger man...played
by John Cleese” caters to the Bond culture as well; in the newest film, Q is
played by an actor in his 30s, and is presented throughout the film as perhaps
even younger than that. (Here it’s suggested that “Bond purists” will be
upsetted by the introduction of a Q younger than Bond, a deviation from the
original Fleming works: http://screenrant.com/james-bond-skyfall-cast-ben-whishaw-kofi-141185/). The prose in this passage subtly hints
at the discussions within the Bond community about Q and Q’s role within the
franchise. It’s things like this that
delight the Bond fan in me. The
reference is simple and simply put, but the allusion to the fact that Skyfall
is debuting the first “official” Q since the Brosnan era is important and
relevant to the fact that “James Bond is back.”
50 years
and 23 films later, I think this LIFE featurette is doing a fair job of
appealing to the established audiences at play, Bond fans and LIFE readers,
while drumming up interest in the newest installment. As I had hoped going into it, the prose is
like the films: simple, fast-paced, and direct.
The piece is effective at introducing nuances of the Bond franchise in
an understated way, and it doesn’t crowd the piece with unnecessary words and
explanation. Ultimately, the prose used
within “50 Years of James Bond” is like the man himself: a blunt
instrument. James Bond is back.
~Kali Brokaw
No comments:
Post a Comment