Shameful. Just shameful.
In a conversation with a close friend not so long ago, I found out he isn’t a James Bond fan. (For the more reasonable among you, I’ll give you a moment to settle down and recover from the expected, and perfectly understandable hyperventilating.)
Now, to be clear, it’s not that he’s specifically not a fan of the prissy Roger Moore James Bond; the regrettably forgettable George Lazenby James Bond; the wildly popular — if not un-Flemingesque — Sean Connery James Bond; the dead-on, this-is-who-I-believe-God-Himself-would-have-picked-to-play-James Bond Timothy Dalton James Bond; or the Roger Moore-extra Pierce Brosnan James Bond. I could even overlook the overlooked reference to the Barry Nelson James Bond.
But he doesn’t like James Bond in toto. (Not that I have any strong opinions on the movies and the individual actors, you understand.)
Naturally, I still consider him a friend. I believe there’s still time to save his soul.
To my point: while several actors and producers have contributed, collectively we have a character, created by Ian Fleming, named James Bond. That character is clearly identifiable and, in the world of entertainment, carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.
This is not to say there haven’t been spoofs of the character. The second treatment of Casino Royale — the comedy film version — featured a performance by the brilliant Peter Sellers. The Austin Powers series is another example, though clearly aimed at the Dumb and Dumber crowd. But these can be considered legitimate entities.
I won’t go into naming them, but there have been versions of the James Bond character — overt copies — that are just shameful to watch. Relatively speaking, there aren’t many Ian Flemings — or Tom Clanceys or Patricia Cornwells or Sue Graftons or Jonathan Kellermans and other fiction writers — in this world to create the James Bonds or Kay Scarpettas or Kinsey Millhones or Alex Delawares and other memorable, engaging fictional characters. So, those who cannot create, appropriate and, as a result, can — at best — only present a shell of a character without the substance.
In a recent thread on The Magic Cafe, there was discussion of one of Ted Lesley’s offerings. The primary issue got sidetracked as a direct result of a Cafe member posting a link to his personal web site. I clicked the link and the word “shameful” tumbled out of my mouth. The more I clicked, the more I shook my head in amazement — and not the kind we, as mystery performers, hope to engender in our audiences. (At least, not deliberately. I hope.)
To take you along with me, let us first visit the web site of well-known Max Maven:
That is a distinct, unique look — a character — deliberately created and built over many, many years and thousands of performances. Both in and out of our little world of magic and mentalism, it carries a great degree of stature, substance and marketability.
Now, let us visit the web site of lesser known Deddy Corbuzier:
http://www.deddy-corbuzier.com/
This isn’t Peter Sellers territory. This isn’t even Austin Powers territory. This is in a category all to itself, although — sadly — not a small, sparsely inhabited one. This falls into the category of intellectual property theft and gross disrespect.
And it’s not, as young Corbuzier suggests, coincidence. When I viewed the video of his “Jakarta Blindfold Drive 2004” I see a person who not only appropriated a look clearly identified with Max Maven (the widow’s peak and eye makeup, to start with) but I see attempts at the same clothing, the same gestures, the same overall performing persona. Corbuzier even sports a long, braided ponytail, for pity’s sake. It’s embarrasingly shameful behavior.
His reason for stealing Max’s image? Does it really matter?
Corbuzier considers himself a professional, a self-given appellation he’s only too quick to remind you of. But would a true professional behave in such a manner?
The only thing that might be more appropriate than Corbuzier ceasing to use the word professional would be for him to stop using Max Maven’s look and channeling Max’s performing persona. That would be a good start.
With quite a bit of hard work and effort, there might even be something left worth watching.
EDITED 11/1/2004: I changed “Roger Moore-lite” to “Roger Moore-extra” because of something Andrew W. mentioned in his comment. I think he’s right, I was a bit harsh. Brosnan is, well, manlier than Moore, but still not Dalton. Noted and corrected.
Powered by FireStats
Is it possible that while your misguided friend may not enjoy the James Bond created by Ian Flemming, he may still enjoy the James Bond the rest of the world is familiar with, whom I believe is the creation of Ian Fleming (http://www.klast.net/bond/fleming.html).
Of course, the possibility remains that this cretin, whoever he may be, enjoys neither. Heathen…
Could be. Could be. The terrible mispelling condoned by Microsoft’s spellchecker and noted by you has been fixed. Thanks.
Brosnan is Moore-Lite? That’s really harsh. At least he looks like he’s trying to kill people when he fires guns and thumps goons, which is more than you can say for Roger.
I agree, Dalton is better than people give him credit for – but I think Brosnan is up there.
Well, Andrew, maybe I was being a little harsh on Brosnan. I am a fan of his, which goes back to the early 80s and “Remington Steele.” But I’m more of a fan of the Bond novels and Dalton’s performance, to me, was more of the angry widower than any of the other actors’ performances. I should have said “Roger Moore-Extra”.
By the way, as much as I love the Fleming novels, I think John Gardner’s work exceeds Fleming’s. “License Renewed” wasn’t just a shot across the bow; it was an F-16 flyby.
I’ll edit my post because I think you’re right. And thanks for leaving a comment!
My brother-in-law is a certifiable nut about all things Bond. When I’m back in Oz in December, I’ll borrow his Gardner books. Thanks for the heads-up.
Useless trivia: I did actually find a 1st edition Fleming hardcover for my bro-in-law in Braidwood. I think it was Goldfinger or something. Braidwood is Percy Abbott’s hometown, so in a round about way, there’s your magic link. (Sigh).
One last Bond comment: Living Daylights is really a terrific Bond movie. Apart from the cello-hayride sequence, it’s a showstopper from back when stunts involved people taking real risks as opposed to CGI wizardy… One of my all-time favourites, along with Goldeneye.
Here are two more Bond/magic links:
Fleming based the James Bond character on England’s first secret agent, Dr. John Dee. Dee was an astonishing mathematician (he translated Euclid and applied Euclidean geometry to navigation); an alchemist, hermeticist, and cabalist; and a philosopher and astrologer to Queen Elizabeth. He was also a magician, although more so the “magick” conjuring, though I believe he used some of our secrets in his conjuring. The “007” is also attributed to Dee; the double-O indicating “your eyes only” and the “7” being a cabalistic mystical number.
Also, John Gardner, the first man the Fleming estate chose to continue the Bond novels, was a stage magician.
Finally, regarding CGI stuff, I broke down and bought the Star Wars DVD set even though I decided I wasn’t — couldn’t — reward George Lucas’ obscene propensity for revising history with CGI. But, I bought them anyway. They join several different versions and editions of laser discs and VHS tapes.
Lucas and his Jedi mind tricks. Between him and Spielberg’s mucking around with CGI, if I’m not careful I’ll find myself trading in my Colt Python and Gold Dots for a walkie talkie and Ni-Cad batteries. I can just see it now: someone breaks into my home and I point the walkie-talkie at them and say, “STOP! OR I’LL PRESS-TO-TALK!”
In my view, the Gardner books are good, but do not have the “Fleming Effect” as it’s often called. Look at how much extra verbiage Gardner requires in his attempt to emulate Flemings style. The original books manage a refreshing brevity while still propelling the story (and one’s imagination) in an exemplary manner. While I enjoyed the Gardner books overall, after the first few, a marked decline in quality was evident. The last few books show distressing signs of “phoning it in”. But I’ll say this. Even the worst of the Gardner books was better than any that Raymond Benson has since come up with.
And I’ll flout you fellows a bit and admit I don’t care for Pierce Brosnan as Bond at all. I’ll be very glad to see him replaced.
Hello, Chris. I give a hearty “a-men” to the Benson comment. As for Brosnan, I’m hoping Dalton with change his mind. I’d actually go back to a theater to watch Bond again if they can get him back in the role.
Thanks for visiting the blog — and especially for leaving a comment!