Wheel of fortune?: the spoof James Bond adventure Casino Royale – and first film adaptation of Ian Fleming’s original novel – was a chaotic if luxurious affair, but did it make cinema tills ring?
If you’re at all like me and have ever bothered to sit through 1967’s Casino Royale, the so-called comedy pastiche of all things Bond, you probably concluded as soon as its closing credits, well, closed that that’s two-and-a-bit-hours of your life you’re never getting back. But, again, if you’re at all like me you may also have wondered after watching said flick, just how on earth such a star-packed, dazzlingly looking and beautifully scored, but most of the time incredibly crap, and yet at other times rather amusing grand disaster of a movie ever got made in the first place? And how, coming practically slap bang in the middle of the mid- to late ’60s ‘Bondmania’ of the Connery 007 era, it fared at the box-office?
Well, if you have pondered on those puzzlers, peeps, then dare I say it, this (the latest effort from George’s Journal to mark Blighty’s finest‘s 50th anniversary year) is verily the blog post for you. Just how did this first big-screen effort to offer up another actor to Connery as Bond (actually many of them) come to the screen – especially when the ‘official’ Bond movie people appeared to own the rights to Fleming’s novels as thoroughly as 007 owns the bragging rights when it comes to pulling? And just what did the public make of it? Were they delighted, bemused (like most of us nowadays) or simply disinterested?
So, first things first: it was all Ian Fleming’s fault. Were it not for the uncoordinated manner in which he sold away the rights to adapt his Bond novels into films, Casino Royale would never have been made – at least not by the producer whose ultimately bloated and disfigured baby it was, Charles K Feldman. For it was this one-time Academy Award-nominated producer who brought this flick to cinemas, not James Bond’s regular film chiefs, producers Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman of Eon Productions.
These two had acquired the rights to turn every one of Ian Fleming’s Bond novels into movies when the latter bought them from the author in 1961 and the former teamed up with him to form Eon a few months later. However, as part of this deal, Fleming hadn’t sold them the rights to his very first novel, the breakthrough book that introduced the world to James Bond, 1953’s Casino Royale. That was because three years earlier they’d found their way into Feldman’s mits. Exactly how isn’t important; what is important is Feldman had landed the rights and come the mid-’60s set about filming the book – indeed, filming it as a rival Bond movie to the four highly successful ones Broccoli and Saltzman had by now made.
.
.
Whatever you think of the movie that was eventually churned out, don’t let it discolour your opinion of Charles K Feldman’s career prior to this notorious venture, because it was stellar. Originally a talent agent for Hollywood royalty such as John Wayne, Claudette Colbert, Lauren Bacall and director Howard Hawks (indeed, legend has it that it was Feldman who got Bacall’s debut role bumped up in Hawks’ classic 1946 Humphrey Bogart-starring noir The Big Sleep, a move that made her an instant star), he went on to produce the classics A Streetcar Named Desire (which, of course, made Marlon Brando a total star and got Feldman his Oscar nom), the 1955 Marilyn Monroe comedy The Seven Year Itch (the one with that subway grille scene) and the madcap bedroom farce What’s New, Pussycat? (1965), which co-starred Peter Sellers, Woody Allen, Peter O’Toole and Ursula Andress.
Of all the movies he’d made, it was this latter effort – a big hit notwithstanding – that certainly more than any other pointed the way for what Casino Royale would become. Not only would Casino Royale share those four stars (among all of those it features) mentioned above with What’s New, Pussycat?, but the Swinging Sixties-informed, often crazy and utterly rompish tone of Pussycat could be said almost to be a precursor of Royale‘s. Not just that, but the fact that the former was initially a vehicle for its original writer Warren Beatty (its title apparently was the phrase Beatty used when answering the phone – how very ’60s) and it turned into a project re-written by Allen to such an extent that Beatty jumped ship/ was forced out completely, may well be a sign of the circus Royale would become just a couple of short years later.
Not that Feldman ever intended Casino Royale to turn into a cowboys and Indians-crashing and performing seals-featuring circus, of course – in fact, at the outset his intention was not to make a comedy at all, but adapt the book straight. Just one year after the novel’s original publication, the American TV network CBS had purchased its rights from Fleming and immediately had made an adaptation – so, yes, James Bond first appeared on-screen (the small screen, that is) as early as 1954 (see middle video clip below). The hour-long Casino Royale (Climax!) telly drama wasn’t a success, though; not least because it was filmed live, but also because it rather bizarrely switched around the nationalities of the British Bond and his American sidekick Felix Leiter, ensuring the first screen actor to play the iconic hero was Californian Barry Nelson (although Bob Holness, future host of cult ’80s UK gameshow Blockbusters, had already played the character on British radio – yes, really).
And yet, all this hadn’t deterred Feldman; he was sure that if adapted right, Casino Royale could be a big-screen success. In the late ’50s, he turned to Oscar-winning screenwriter Ben Hecht to have a whirl at a few script drafts. Ironically, as with the ’54 TV version, Hecht’s first attempt retained much of the novel’s content but replaced the British Bond with a card-playing American gangster. Subsequent drafts saw Bond return, but also the gambit that the name ‘James Bond’ is passed on to different agents as a sort of codename to confuse his enemies. For wrong rather than right surely, this idea made it all the way through to the final film, but another Hecht notion that ‘Bond’ escapes from a German brothel disguised as a lesbian mud wrestler did not. Quite frankly, it might as well have done.
Boom and bust: David Niven endures an explosion – figurative as well as literal? – at the start of the film (l), while Joseph McGrath tries to direct Peter Sellers as Jacqueline Bisset looks on (r)
Apparently, in 1966 Time magazine was reporting Hecht had departed the project and the script had been completely re-written by legendary auteur Billy Wilder. Whether that was merely Hollywood tittle-tattle, who knows; similarly, rumour has had it that Catch-22 (1961) author Joseph Heller also contributed to the script. What is true is the flick’s three credited screenwriters would turn out to be Wolf Mankowitz (whom ironically had introduced Broccoli to Saltzman back in ’61 and had written early drafts of their first Bond effort, 1962’s Dr No), former blacklisted Hollywood scribe Michael Sayers and UK comedy writer John Law (whom among other things had penned the all-time classic ’66 Frost Report sketch ‘Class’, which had seen John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbert represent Britain’s three classes by standing in line according to their varying heights).
Filming of the movie took place during much of 1966 and, clearly contributing to the almighty mess that was the finished product, was bizarrely chaotic. In the same Time article that had claimed Wilder had worked on the script (a multi-page colour spread on the movie, in fact), star David Niven had admitted: “it’s impossible to find out what we’re doing”. He may have meant that it was impossible for anyone working on the flick to find out what was actually going on. Feldman’s approach to try and better the Broccol-Saltzman Bond efforts was to offer the audience more… and then more and more again and yet more.
Clearly a snowball effect took over, ensuring that not only did the filming process become a seemingly out-of-control Hollywood Frankenstein-like horror monster (Frankenstein does actually feature in the film at one point), but also the budget trumped up by studio backer Columbia Pictures (ironically the financial backers of the Eon Bond today, although they’re now owned by Sony) doubled; it was originally $6million and the end $12million. In this manner at least, Casino Royale bettered the other Bonds – Thunderball (1965) had cost just $11million and You Only Live Twice, released just months after Royale, was a relative snip at $9.5million.
So where did all the money go? Some of it definitely on the cast. As mentioned, Niven, Sellers, Allen and Andress all feature, but so too do Hollywood legends Orson Welles, Deborah Kerr, Jack Holden and John Huston, as well as Swinging Sixties ‘It Girls’ Joanna Pettet, Daliah Lavi, Barbara Bouchet, Angela Scoular and Jacqueline Bisset. There are also cameos from Jean-Paul Belmondo, George Raft, as well as top Brit comedy performers Bernard Cribbins, Anna Quayle and Ronnie Corbett and, in-jokily, Eon Bond alumni Vladek Shebal (Kronsteen in 1963’s From Russia With Love) and Burt Kwouk (Mr Ling in 1964’s Goldfinger and, of course, Cato in the Pink Panther film series).
.
Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile
- Straight after working on Casino Royale, one of its directors Ken Hughes was hired by Broccoli and Saltzman to helm their classic musical adaptation of Ian Fleming’s children’s book Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968)
- One of Casino Royale‘s many female distractions, Angela Scoular became a ‘bona fide‘ Bond Girl just two years later when she was cast as one of Blofeld’s ‘Angels of Death’, Ruby Bartlett, in ‘official’ series entry On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969)
- Casino Royale cast member Terence Cooper (who plays the agent that becomes ‘James Bond’ owing to his ability to sexually attract any woman he meets) was considered for the the real thing in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service – only for George Lazenby to land the gig
Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile
.
As if this incredibly impressive, nay bizarrely diverse, cast couldn’t be cajoled into performing by one helmer alone, the film instead used of half a dozen (hey, at least there’s still less of ’em than there were on-screen Bonds). To be fair, Feldman probably found it necessary to hire so many ringmasters not because of the largeness of his cast, but because of the largesse of the circus threatening to explode out of his big-top. With constant changes of artistic direction and supposed daily re-writes of scenes, no one director could have directed this flick. Enduring the filming process must have been like witnessing the nightmarish development of the final alien in this summer’s Prometheus, a hybrid pulling in inspiration and ideas from all over the shop – Hollywood genre in-jokes, spy-fi satire, moddish nods and psychedelic visuals (sometimes all of them in the same scene).
For what it’s worth, cast member John Huston mostly directed the film’s opening (the scenes at the stately home of Niven’s stately Sir James Bond and McTarry’s Scottish castle with Deborah Kerr); Val Guest directed many of the scenes with Woody Allen (which unsurprisingly were penned by Allen himself) and additional ones with Niven to try and link the whole film together; Ken Hughes (whom Broccoli and Saltzman had originally considered as helmer for Dr No) directed perhaps the film’s wittiest and best bit, the Berlin scenes with the Twiggy-like Pettet; between them Robert Parrish and Joseph McGrath directed the scenes featuring Sellers, Andress and Welles; and, uncredited, stunt arranger Richard Talmadge co-directed the utterly bananas climatic battle at ‘Casino Royale’ itself.
The most legendary leg of the filming, thanks to its referencing in Roger Lewis’s biography The Life And Death Of Peter Sellers (1995) and its pseudo-screen adaptation of 2004, is that which involved Peter Sellers. Cast as Evelyn Tremble, a genius baccarat player enlisted by Niven’s real 007 to smash SPECTRE agent Le Chiffre (Welles) at the gaming tables while assisted by espionage mercenary Vesper Lynd (Andress), Sellers initially invested all his enthusiasm in the project, seemingly seeing Tremble (yet another fake Bond but in the film’s only ‘real’ bit of Fleming adaptation) as the opportunity he’d wanted all his career to play a dashing heroic lead. This then explains why Sellers’ acting seems inexplicably to veer from the slapstick (cavorting on a bed with Andress in costume as Hitler, Napoleon, Charlie Chaplin and Toulouse Lautrec) to the serious (playing it straight in the casino scenes and zealously knocking out an immigration official at an airport like a Bond-esque hard-man).
Whatever aspirations Sellers had for his involvement in the film pretty much went out the window, though, when his involvement became sporadic. A troubled chap and thus an unreliable performee, Sellers’ relationship with Welles quickly turned sour; the scene at the gaming table they share had to be filmed in two parts as neither would act opposite the other. And when Sellers realised the film – or his section of it – was turning into a comedy/ was always supposed to be a comedy (who knows which?) he both started re-writing his own lines and hired Terry Southern to do so it would play straighter. In the end, he totally severed links with the flick and a demise for his character had to be hastily put together from bits already filmed – the strange LSD-esque nightmare sequence in which he’s tortured by Le Chiffre and finally ‘shot dead’ by Vesper. Ironically, it’s one of the most engaging and dramatically satisfying of the entire movie.
.
.
Planned for release at Christmas ’66, Casino Royale finally made it on to screens four months later on April 13 1967. And, after the chaos that had been its production, this date proved far from unlucky for Feldman’s folly because , relatively speaking, audiences of the time actually lapped it up. Sure, Royale was no hit in the league of the Eon Bonds of the mid- to late ’60s (surely it would have been a fantastic achievement, nay a miracle, had it turned out to be), but in grossing about $42million at the box-office – around $283million in today’s money – it was far more than a modest financial success, in spite of its enormous budget. Moreover, not only did hit the #1 spot at the US box-office during its run (see middle image below), but also finished 13th in the list of the highest grossing movies in North America for 1967 – by comparison, the ‘official’ 007 effort that year, You Only Live Twice, finished in seventh place.
So why was it a genuine success and not the utter failure many for decades have assumed it must have been? Part of the reason has to be its marketing. Publicised honestly as something of a Swinging Sixties romp (complete with a body-painted girl à la Andy Warhol on the poster), it was also sold on the line that it was the ultimate Bond film, boasting more girls, more villains, more stunning visuals, more outlandish scenes and, yes, more Bonds than ever before. It simply was ‘more more‘ than the masses had yet seen in any Bond film; in fact, it arguably still is.
In marketing the movie this way, Feldman and his Columbia cohorts were shamelessly hitching a ride on the back of the ‘Bondmania’ phenomenon, of course, which unquestionably must have helped pull in the punters (i.e. it was a film that featured ‘James Bond’, therefore people would go on and see it. But the raison d’être of the finished film was to send up the whole Bond thing that had developed into/ fed an entire spy-fi sub-genre anyway, so technically it could have delivered something of a cinematic surprise or twist for filmgoers expecting a straighter ‘Bond film’. The filmmakers then, if challenged, may well have happily defended the shameless publicity linking it to Eon’s Bond bandwagon given such ‘artistic merits’.
But surely there was more to the film’s success than marketing and the Bond brand – dare one say it, but perhaps the film itself played a role too? There’s no getting away from it, Casino Royale is a car-crash of a movie. But, to spin out that metaphor further, at times it genuinely feels like a pile-up of Rolls-Royces and Bentleys. For the vast majority of the time, it looks fantastic. Unquestionably, one the major reasons why its budget spiralled upwards in the way it did was because of the truly impressive sets designed by Michael Stringer.
From the ridiculous to the sublime: despite the presence of both sky-diving Red Indians (l) and Frankenstein (r) in its climax, Casino Royale still hit the #1 spot at the US box-office (m)
Often they’re opulent (with Western aristocratic iconography, including at one point real lions), sometimes deliriously psychedelic (full of swirling pinks and oranges and blues and greens) and other times they brilliantly aid the pastiche (the darkly jagged look of the Berlin spy school wonderfully apes the iconic look of 1920’s classic horror The Cabinet Of Dr Caligari). In short, Casino Royale‘s visuals are an unforgettable tour de force.
Not just that, though, for the movie also sounds terrific. Hiring the composer he’d used for What’s New, Pussycat? again proved one of Feldman’s canniest moves on Casino Royale (you may argue there isn’t much competition there given his other decisions, but hey). For the meloldic meastro that is Burt Bacharach, whom rightly was white-hot property when it came to popular music in the ’60s, hit Royale‘s score absolutely out of the park.
Bacharach’s combining of campy, old British music hall-style themes for the moments of high parody and, well, ludicrousness (an example being the film’s fine title theme played by Herb Alpert’s Tijuana Brass – a chart hit – and sung at the end by Mike Redway) with lush, luxurious, romantic melodies that perfectly compliment the opulent look of the movie (listen to the film’s Oscar-nominated and now classic love theme, The Look Of Love, performed by original singer Dusty Springfield in the clip below) worked a total treat. It’s almost worth sitting through the movie for its music alone. Almost. Well, all right, sort of.
And, even if few of today’s film fans have done so, many a film critic back in the day certainly sat through Casino Royale. While some were unsurprisingly far from won over by what they witnessed (Roger Ebert described it as ‘possibly the most indulgent movie ever made’; Variety decried its lack of ‘discipline and cohesion’), others – admittedly the minority – have over the years somewhat reassessed the flick. At Bright Lights Film Journal (Brightlightsfilm.com), Robert von Dassanowsky claims it’s ‘a film of momentary vision, collaboration, adaption, pastiche, and accident. It is the anti-auteur work of all time, a film shaped by the very zeitgeist it took on’, while Allmovie.com reviewer Andrea LaVasseur even heralds it a ‘psychedelic, absurd masterpiece’.
But what do I, deep down, think? Well, folks, you’ll just have to read for yourself when I come to review the flick itself as the first in the next instalment of my ongoing ‘Bondathon‘. For, yes, in the words of Mike Redway, don’t fear, James Bond is here… and here to stay for some time yet at George’s Journal…
.
.
007/50: Designing 007 ~ Fifty Years Of Bond Style at The Barbican (until September 5)
Man(nequin) and motor: Bond’s iconic Aston Martin DB5 and a mocked-up Sean Connery in his classic grey suit from Goldfinger welcome visitors, but does the exhibition have a midas touch?
If I was that talented Scottish thesp Alan Cumming then I’d buy the full-scale model of him in the guise of the roguish ‘pooter nerd Boris Grishenko that features in The Barbican’s Designing 007: Fifty Years Of Bond Style exhibition (and which was used in the 1995 film GoldenEye when the character has just been frozen solid by exploding liquid nitrogen tanks). Why? So I could put it in my lounge and whenever I come home from a heavy night on the tiles look at it and consider, whatever state I’m in, I’ve always looked worse. I’m not Alan Cumming, though, but if I had a lot more spare cash than I do, I’d still definitely buy that model, plus many more things from this exhibition, for the simple reason they’re utterly iconic and, what’s more, they ensure this exhibition itself is an unqualified success.
Just to clarify, you can’t buy anything that’s on show here – they’re much too special. Bond’s Walther PPK and passports of the character in various actors’ guises? Oddjob’s steel-rimmed bowler hat from Goldfinger (1964)? Jaws’ teeth from The Spy Who Loved Me (1977) and Moonraker (1979)? Tee Hee’s metal arm and claw from Live And Let Die (1973)? Models of the Lotus Esprit from Spy and the Q-Boat from The World Is Not Enough (1999)? The torture chair from that same movie? And Francisco Scaramanga’s golden gun from, er, The Man With The Golden Gun (1974)? Yes, they’re all on show. All of ’em. As is much more besides.
And yet it’s not just the breadth of this exhibition (which itself is considerable) that impresses, it’s the design of it too. Much thought, effort and no little money has gone into the way the space offered up by The Barbican is used to showcase all this stock that’s featured in all 22 Bond epics brought to us by film company Eon Productions across a remarkable half-century. Yup, its curators (aided by the not inconsiderable input of 1990s and 2000s Bond film costume designer Lindy Hemming) have done a fine job.
Having passed the frankly brilliant opening gambit of a Connery mannequin leaning against a battleship grey Aston Martin DB5 (complete with correct Goldfinger number plates and would-be tyre-slashers), you enter the exhibition, which kicks off with a room simply titled ‘Gold’. This unsurprisingly is themed around that most precious of materials that has quite the association with the world of 007 and his films – and works as a loose testament to the iconic legacy and thus mass success of the movie series, introducing the engaging and well executed props-and-audio-visual mixture of content that continues throughout the rest of the exhibition.
Dressed for success: the exhibition’s ‘Casino’ room is fittingly full to the rafters with iconic costumes worn by Bond stars from Dr No right through to the latest film, the upcoming Skyfall
From here it’s into a space dedicated to Bond’s original creator, the great thriller writer that was Ian Fleming, which impressively boasts several first editions of his novels, with their colourfully captivating covers catching the eye. Next it’s back into the Eon film universe, as on one side you pass mock-ups (using real props) of two of M’s offices and on the other side paraphernalia of the character of Bond himself (including, yes, the aforementioned PPK and passports). Fittingly, the next space is named ‘Q Section’ and features a (pleasingly over-)abundance of gadgets supplied by the incomparable Q and used by our man Bond throughout the series – clever weapons, bug detectors, vehicle models and, yes, even that Amstrad 64-esque ATAC thingee from For Your Eyes Only (1981) litter this room; there’s something familiar literally wherever you look.
Without pausing for breath, you’re quickly on to another delight: the room monickered ‘Casino’. Here you’re immediately faced with mannequins lined around the space wearing (mostly) original suits, ballgowns and costumes originally worn by Bond stars throughout the series. Highlights are obviously the tuxedos worn by several Bonds themselves (each mannequin for which features a face supposedly resembling that of the appropriate actor, the results of which are admittedly rather comical but fit with the overall exhibition’s somewhat self-mocking tone; much like that of the films themselves then, you might say).
Still, worth checking out too during your gander of all these garments are Valentin Zukovsky’s enormous tuxedo from The World Is Not Enough (designed by actor Robbie Coltrane’s own tailor), Sylvia Trench’s striking gown from Dr No (1962), Vesper Lynd’s beautifully elegant purple effort from Casino Royale (2006) and – as something of a teasing taster – new girl Sévérine’s outstandingly vampish dress from this year’s Skyfall. Oh, and this room also offers an unexpected gem (as it were) in the shape of the Fabergé egg made specially for Octopussy (1983).
After a quick sojourn through a space that’s open to the public, but still filled with Bond-related artefacts, it’s now on to a ‘Villains’ room, featuring alongside the liquid-nitrogen-afflicted Boris, Jaws’ molars and Tee Hee’s arm and claw, further costumes and props worn by and wielded by the baddies of Bond’s universe. Notable inclusions are scale models of the Rio de Janeiro cable car and the space shuttle and figurines of Hugo Drax and his minions aboard his space station, all of which were used for the filming of Moonraker, of course. Why’s the Drax figurine so memorable? Because close-up he resembles Japanese TV favourite Monkey rather than that film’s megalomaniac villain. A coincidence maybe, but rather marvellous to my mind.
Model perfection: Eon artefacts such as this miniature of The Spy Who Loved Me’s Lotus Esprit – one of several used in the movie’s filming – ensure Designing 007 swims rather than sinks
The exhibition’s final space ‘Ice Palace’ is separate from the rest of the rooms and accessed via lifts (festooned with quotes from the Bond films), but that’s no matter, and, yes, its centre-piece is a large model which was used for the filming of Die Another Day (2002)’s ice palace, while a general snow-cum-ski theme is maintained by several props and costumes associated with snow-bound action from the flicks, including the so-tasteless-it’s-awesome banana-yellow ski suit worn by Sir Rog in the terrific pre-title sequence from The Spy Who Loved Me.
And so, that’s that? Well no, actually. Because now you can visit a rather sleekly appealing martini bar – which, yes, fittingly only serves martinis – and quaff a very Bondian beverage following your hard morning’s/ afternoon’s/ evening’s work re-familiarising yourself with so many 007 delights. And sort of pretend you’re 007 yourself while you sip your Vesper, of course.
Overall then (and not least because it also boasts the martini bar) this exhibition is a resounding success. Both its comprehensive collection and quality curating ensure that for a massive Bond fan like myself it’s a cornucopia of 007 goodness; an Aladdin’s cave of Eon wonders. And making its (present) home The Barbican is an excellent choice too – not least because the stark modernism of that fine venue’s interiors echo the design of so many Bond films, but also as its exterior actually featured in a Bond film, 2008’s Quantum Of Solace, that is. So, if you’re an inhabitant of these isles, this scribe’s advice to you is definitely to give Designing 007 a visit – before September 5 when, oh-so Bond-like, it disappears on a deserved tour of different destinations around the world.
.
Further reading (and for opening times and ticket prices):
http://www.barbican.org.uk/bond
.
.
“I admire your luck, Mr…?”: luck had nothing to do with it, the casting of rough, tough Scotsman Sean Connery as 007 in the first significant James Bond film Dr No was a stroke of calculated genius – even if it certainly didn’t appear to be a trump move at the time
On October 5 1962, a critical, pivotal event took place, something that would ensure the cultural zeitgeist – if not the entire world itself – would never be the same again. For it was on this day that the cinematic James Bond was arguably born, with the world premiere of the first Eon-produced 007 film adventure Dr No being staged at the salubrious Odeon Cinema in London’s ritzy Leicester Square.
And rolling up at the venue that evening (surely the biggest night of his professional life to date) was the man who was playing the British superspy himself, Sean Connery. If anything was likely to prove a fly – nay, a scary, creepy-crawly tarantula – in the big-screen Bond’s ointment before he’d really got begun then, by rights, it should have been Connery. To many an observer at the time, his casting as the three-dimensional incarnation of author Ian Fleming’s hero had raised more than a Roger Moore-style eyebrow. Why? Because – and, as we’re talking about Sean Connery here, it almost seems impossible to contemplate this – the Big Tam was a nobody. He’d been plucked from relative obscurity to lead a $1million-budgeted Anglo-Hollywood action adventure; it was a big risk with bells on and it could have gone tits up. But, of course, it didn’t.
Indeed, unquestionably the casting of Connery was one of the reasons why Dr No went on to become such a box-office triumph, setting the whole 007 tyre-slashing Aston Martin wheel in motion. But given his lack of standing in the movie business, how on earth did he land the role? And given his relative lack of leading man acting experience, how come was he such an instant, indubitable success? This, my friends (the latest post in this blog’s continuing series celebrating the movie Bond‘s 50th anniversary), is that story.
Connery primarily owed his casting – and, arguably, success – as James Bond to three men: Dr No‘s producers Albert R ‘Cubby’ Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, and its director Terence Young, but certainly not to the character’s original literary creator Ian Fleming. When the latter heard the Scot had landed the role, he apparently dismissed him as an ‘overgrown stuntman’. He would eventually reverse this opinion, but taking a look at Connery’s credentials you can understand where his priggish, even snobbish stance came from.
.
.
Hailing from the hard, working-class Edinburgh neighbourhood of Fountainbridge, Thomas Connery had earned his nickname ‘Big Tam’ by, well, growing bigger and taller than anyone else. Unsurprisingly, aged just 18 he’d begun body-building and by 21 had competed in the Mr Universe competition. Vocation-wise, he’d had odd-jobs as a lorry driver (his dad’s profession), a milkman, a boxer, a lifeguard, a coffin polisher, an artists’ nude model and he’d enjoyed/ endured a stint as a seaman in the Royal Navy. He eventually discovered his true calling when he helped out backstage at Edinburgh’s Kings Theatre and then won a small chorus line role in a touring production of the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical South Pacific. It was during this tour that, while playing football against a provincial town team, he famously caught the eye of Manchester United’s legendary manager Matt Busby, who supposedly offered him a £25 a week contract with the club. Connery turned it down; it was an actor’s life for him now.
Bit-parts in British films followed (for which he adopted the stage name Sean, actually his middle name), including the Stanley Baker vehicular vehicle Hell Drivers and Action Of The Tiger (both 1957), the latter of which, like Dr No, was directed by Terence Young. The following year he landed a major role in Paramount Pictures’ melodrama Another Time, Another Place opposite Hollywood actress Lana Turner, with whom he had a brief affair and the result of which was fisticuffs (won by Connery) with Turner’s gun-wielding boyfriend, Johnny Stompanato – who just happened to be a heavy working for LA gangster Mickey Cohen.
Mixing it up, Connery’s next starring role was as far away as anything from demonstrating a hard-man persona; it was in the Disney Irish whimsy-themed musical Darby O’Gill And The Little People (1959), in which he not only sang, but also played opposite leprechauns. And as the ’50s slipped into the ’60s, he took on Classical roles, featuring prominently in British TV productions of Anna Karenina (1960) and Shakespeare’s Henry IV (1960) and Macbeth (1961).
So far so good. Connery was slowly but surely building up a catalogue of work that could have resulted in him becoming a recognisable face on UK TV; a tough guy who’d escaped the rough and ready streets of Scotland’s capital for the respectability of the jobbing actor. What happened next, of course, changed all that. Having signed a contract with film studio Twentieth Century Fox, which he soon discovered had merely left him on the shelf like so many Hollywood hopefuls who’d done the same (his biggest role thanks to this contract was a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it appearance in 1962’s war epic The Longest Day), his agents earned their corn like never before – and surely like never since – when they set him up for a meeting with two gentlemen named Broccoli and Saltzman.
Big Tam and ex-pats: an on-set Connery confers with Bond creator Ian Fleming (l) and goofs around with Fleming’s Jamaican neighbour and one-time possible Dr No, Noël Coward (r)
The Italian-American Broccoli, formerly a New York lawyer, and the Quebec-hailing Canadian Saltzman, who liked to see himself as something of a cinematic showman, had already been in the movie business for years, albeit working separately. In 1961 they came together and formed Eon Productions, a company set up specifically to make film versions of the Bond novels (their Danjaq company – named after both men’s wives, Dana and Jaquie – was set up as a holding company for the films’ intellectual properties).
Broccoli had previously co-founded and run Warwick Films with producer Irving Allen. Warwick was based in London and used many British film professionals as crew-members on its movies (such as future Bond alumni Terence Young, screenwriter Richard Maibaum, cinematographer Ted Moore and stuntman/ stunt arranger Bob Simmons) in order smartly to save money and, thus, well, make more money. Turning out the likes of the Rita Hayworth starrer Fire Down Below (1957), Warwick was finally sunk by the box-office turkey that was The Trials Of Oscar Wilde (1960) – its accurate, but controversial homosexual themes ensuring early ’60s American censorship killed its publicity. Broccoli then was soon looking for a new Britain-based opportunity. He didn’t have to look very far.
Harry Saltzman had moved his family to Britain to further his career as a theatre producer and had quickly entered the film business. In then forming Woodfall Film Productions with dynamic young director Tony Richardson (who would go on to direct 1963’s Best Picture Oscar winner Tom Jones and marry Vanessa Redgrave) and leader of the ‘Angry Young Men’ playwrights John Osbourne, Saltzman had played a spear-heading role in launching the ‘kitchen sink’ genre of late ’50s/ early ’60s UK cinema – he personally produced both the acclaimed Look Back In Anger (1959) and The Entertainer (1960). Yet, always ambitious, he had wanted to make films that would turn a bigger profit and in 1961 he was sure he had found just the vehicle.
Having read Ian Fleming’s 1959 Bond novel Goldfinger, he had become convinced 007 was what he was looking for. Despite notorious legal disputes arising from an aborted screen-treatment for a big-screen Bond adventure knocked up by Fleming, fellow writer Jack Whittingham and eccentric film producer Kevin McClory (which saw the latter two gang up on the former when he turned the treatment into the 1961 novel Thunderball with no formal credit to either of them – read more on that here), Saltzman approached Fleming to buy the film rights of all his novels. The author assuaged and Saltzman got what he wanted (with one or two limitations), albeit for a mere six-month option and at a very pricey $500,000; always the gambler, though, he was confident he could get a first film set up within that half-year window.
.
Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile
- One evening before Dr No‘s premiere, the first broadcast took place of ITV’s classic spy-fi series The Saint (1962-68), starring, of course, one Roger Moore
- On the exact same day as the Dr No premiere, The Beatles’ very first single Love Me Do went on sale in the UK
- Just nine days after the premiere, the Cuban Missile Crisis began, which saw the United States and the Soviet Union come perilously close to tumbling into nuclear war, only for both to blink at the last moment – in a sort of ‘life imitates art’ manner, Dr No’s evil plan aimed to accelerate the tensions between the US and USSR and push them to nuclear war
Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile-Factfile
.
In actual fact, Broccoli too had been interested in pursuing Bond as a big-screen project, but Irving Allen had maintained that the character and his adventures weren’t even good enough for television (Fleming’s first novel, 1953’s Casino Royale, had been adapted into a one-hour TV drama in 1954, which had been pretty forgettable) – Allen had even met with Fleming and snubbed both him and the opportunity to buy the rights for Warwick Films. But now Warwick was no more and, thanks to a meeting with legendary screenwriter Wolf Mankowitz, Broccoli learned Saltzman had bought the rights and approached him. Call it destiny, call it kismet, call it a fait accompli… call it what you will: Saltzman, the relative filmmaking novice with the ‘outside of the box’ thinking, was a natural fit with Broccoli, the hard-nosed and relatively successful industry insider; the former not willing to sell any part of the 007 rights to the latter, they agreed to put Bond on the silver screen together and, yes, chose to adapt the 1958 novel Dr No as their new company, Eon’s first.
And, in one of their canniest moves, Broccoli and Saltzman gathered around them a crew of filmmakers especially familiar to the former from his previous projects, including (as mentioned) Maibaum, Moore, Simmons and – most significantly for this tale – Young. For it was thanks to their masterstroke of hiring Terence Young as helmer of the film that the leading actor they cast as Bond went on not just to play the role, but truly inhabit it.
Speculation, wishful-thinking and, quite frankly, myth-making has been at work since the very beginning on who could have, was in the frame to and ‘should’ have played Bond. Word has it Fleming had always favoured his friend David Niven, who gets a mention in the 1964 novel You Only Live Twice as ‘the only decent man in Hollywood’ and would play one of several Bonds in 1967’s crazy spoof comedy version of Casino Royale, which ironically was co-scripted by Wolf Mankowitz. He was also apparently keen on Cary Grant – supposedly the latter would only commit to one film rather than a potential series, but surely in the end Broccoli and Saltzman would have concluded he was too old by 1962 anyway. Other names that have been bandied about include later Bond Roger Moore,who was committed to TV’s The Saint (1962-68), Patrick McGoohan on the strength of his spy drama series Danger Man (1960-68) and – rather unlikely, yet given the number of times he’s admitted to it in public, it’s probably true – future BBC newscaster Peter ‘Swingometer’ Snow auditioned too.
Apparently, Broccoli and Saltzman even ran a ‘Find James Bond’ contest in an attempt to cast the role (so the story goes, a model named Peter Anthony won this competition, the producers liking a Gregory Peck-esque quality to him), but ultimately this wasn’t how they found their man. As noted, it was through a conventional agent-set-up meeting that they met and auditioned Connery. Yet, by rights, the latter should have blown his chance here before he even got started on the gig.
.
.
An actor of little leading man experience on the screen, Connery ‘put on an act’ in the meeting – displaying an air of nonchalance; even tough-guy devil-may-care. That may have proved to work for him in media interviews for decades to come, but it was a definite gamble in clinching his first major film role. And yet it worked. Broccoli and Saltzman liked what they saw, heard and felt from him in that meeting. But apparently what sealed it was the way he walked; both felt his ‘cat-like’ gait (watch him move as Bond in the early films, it’s like a panther) as they watched him through the window of their Piccadilly office walk away down the street. This was their Bond, they decided.
Now enter Young. Although no doubt pleased to be working with a crew assembled from people familiar to him from his Warwick Films days, he wasn’t with the script. The producers had insisted on adapting Dr No as a detective-style adventure with science-fiction elements (almost playing down the espionage of the literary Bond, although admittedly there’s less of that in Dr No the novel than others), believing this would be the most palatable way to deliver an adaptation to the big-screen audience. Indeed, this may well have been one of the reasons they cast the ‘overgrown stuntman’ Connery – rather than perhaps a lither, David Niven-like, more Fleming-friendly actor – as their 007.
All the same, Young felt the script (having gone through several drafts already and a walk-out by Wolf Mankowitz) required more work still. Thus he charged credited screenwriters Richard Maibaum, Johanna Harwood and Berkely Maher to inject humour into the proceedings. In his eyes, to appeal truly to the audience, Bond needed not only to be burly, handsome and sexy, he also had to be witty, charismatic and charming – as much, if you will, Simon Templar as Richard Hannay.
This too meant Connery needed working on. The actor wasn’t a hack, far from it, but he wasn’t James Bond – certainly not Young’s vision of James Bond. So in the few short weeks before filming began, Young took Connery under his wing and introduced him to the rarefied world of tailoring (dressing him in the suits of Anthony Sinclair, his own tailor), London’s fine dining and how to move and speak like a gentleman (forbidding Connery to talk with his hands – a Young bête noir – and embellishing his cat-like walk, while softening his Scots accent to deliver the script’s witticisms).
Shooting the breeze and suiting you, sir: Broccoli chats with Dr No cast members John Kitzmiller, Sean Connery and Ursula Andress (l); Connery fitted for an Anthony Sinclair suit (r)
In fact, over the years, many have suggested that Connery’s Bond – or even Terence Young’s Bond – was Terence Young. He may be a cold-blooded killer, a man with a razor-sharp mind and an exuder of extreme confidence and unthinking bravery, but the Bond template established in Dr No is also unquestionably a man immaculately turned-out (the best possible Saville Row tailoring, never a hair out of place and minimum body movement), a true bon vivant (an enthusiast of the finest wine and food) and possessing the charm, wit and even superiority complex of an English gentleman.
You may be sceptical of Young’s domineering influence on Connery’s performance (given how much the actor has impressed in a variety of roles throughout his long career), but an insider of the calibre of the sadly departed Canadian actress Lois Maxwell – Miss Moneypenny herself – affirmed this was exactly how the director took the star-to-be in hand. She didn’t outright claim that Connery did a Terence Young impression (given Bond’s latent power, sexiness and at times brutality – that’s all Connery – he didn’t), but she didn’t get far from it.
And by the end of filming, a star-to-be Connery most certainly was. Dr No, with its fairly modest $1million budget, brilliantly inventive, nay unforgettable sets (designed by near genius Ken Adam, but partly made of cardboard) and relative unknown leading man and supporting cast, was genuine box-office boffo. Its worldwide gross of $59.6m (inflation adjusted: $440.8m) ensured it made monstrous profits for its producers and studio backer United Artists. And, of course, thanks to his performance and unquestioned screen magnetism, Connery very quickly became a bona fide moviestar.
It would, as we all know, only get better for him – and Broccoli and Saltzman. His five further Bond films – From Russia With Love (1963), Goldfinger (1964), Thunderball (1965), You Only Live Twice (1967) and Diamonds Are Forever (1971) – rang cinema tills to the colossal combined tune of $563m, making him and them very rich men. Well, actually them supposedly richer than him, which was definitely one of several bones of contention for the star as the series continued through the ’60s and Connery the man became practically indistinguishable from Bond the character in the mass public’s mindset. Eventually then, Broccoli and Saltzman were faced with having to pull off the seemingly impossible: cast someone else as James Bond.
But, as the negative doctor might say, no… no more – all that’s for another blog post, peeps…
.
.
Olympic lore: Doped and duped ~ the 1988 Seoul Games
Champion of cheats?: Ben Johnson crosses the line clear of Carl Lewis and Linford Christie in the Men’s 100m final – yet ultimately it wouldn’t be glory his victory would wrought, but infamy
Well, it’s less than a week away now, peeps – what you didn’t know? Er, seriously? Yes, on Friday night the London Games finally kick-off and this blog’s nostalgic multi-sport celebration has indeed turned into and is wending down Olympic Way with this post, dedicated, as it is, to an event of supreme highs and extreme lows (two of which were shockingly associated with the exact same event). Yup, for good and bad, Seoul ’88 (September17-October 2) was an unforgettable Olympics – a real news-making Indian (or rather Korean) summer in the autumn of the ’80s…
.
The Magic
Rather like West Germany ahead of the ’72 Summer Games, South Korea had enjoyed an ‘economic miracle’ over the past 15 or so years, during which its economy had not just recovered following the Korean War, but developed rapidly thanks to increased industrialisation and urbanisation. In which case, it saw the opportunity of hosting the Olympics as, if you will, a coming-out party to the rest of the world, in much the same way as fellow South East Asian power-in-waiting Japan had looked to Tokyo ’64 as a chance to announce its arrival on the global stage. As such, the host nation made sure it completed the construction of all new venues a full two years before the Games came to town – in order astutely to host the 1986 Asian Games as a test event.
A major fly in the ointment, however, was perhaps unsurprisingly North Korea. An unlikely agreement had been reached between the two Koreas to hold the ’88 Games together (with the North wanting hosting duties of 11 of the 23 sports, as well as its own opening and closing ceremonies); this agreement was – quel surprise – to founder. And North Korea, rather like the USSR four years before, thus led a Communist boycott that included Cuba and Albania, yet the Soviet Union itself was having none of it and was only too happy to attend. After all, the Cold War was now approaching its end; the major nations of the world had no interest in missing out on another Olympic party.
.
The Mascot
An undeniably happy, cute little chap, Hodori the Tiger was chosen owing to the Amur (or Siberian) tiger’s popular one-time prevalence in South East Asia – it’s now mostly only found in South East Russia. Created by designer Kim Hyun, the tiger cub sports an Olympic medal around his neck and the traditional sangmo hat worn by Korean farmband members. A streamer runs from the top of the hat in the shape of an ‘S’, the first letter of host city Seoul, of course. Hodori’s name is fittingly derived from his nation’s word for tiger (‘horangi’/ ‘Ho’) and a colloquial word for boys (‘dori’). To this day, Hodori remains the emblem of the South Korean taekwondo demonstration team, whose sport was a designated ‘demonstration sport’ during the Games and was also demonstrated by mass participators during the opening ceremony.
.
.
The Moment
It’s an age-old cliché is the ‘everybody remembers where they were when so-and-so happened’ statement, but it really applies in this case. Because everybody really does remember where they were when Jamaican-born Canadian Ben Johnson won gold in the Men’s 100m final (see video clip above)… and where they were just three short days later when he was unceremoniously and instantly stripped of his medal for testing positive for a banned drug. It was an extraordinary sporting event – a man went from relative zero to total hero in less than 10 seconds and, seemingly as quickly, to absolute zero. For the average Joe, there was something unnatural, even unearthly about how Johnson had streaked away from the field to cross the finishing line – in reality, it was scientifically improbable. Sprinters slow down after they’ve run 60 metres of a 100m race; Johnson patently didn’t: he maintained his speed. Of course, it was all a sham. He was found guilty of taking the anabolic steroid stanozolol – and would go on to admit to having taken such drugs for at least a year, which meant two world records he’d set (one in the final itself at 9.79 seconds) were stripped from him.
Following an attempted comeback after a three-year ban, Johnson again tested positive and, this time, was banned for life. Bizarrely and more than dubiously, he went on to train notorious drug cheat footballer Diego Maradona and future war criminal Al-Saadi Gaddafi when the latter was attempting to gain a contract with an Italian football club – after which he too tested positive for drugs. In 2006, Johnson opined that around 40 percent of all sportspeople were taking performance-enhancing stimulants, intimating they were all banned substances. Indeed, four of the sprinters he lined up alongside in that infamous 100m final would go on to face drug-related scandals of their own: his training partner Desai Williams (who was implicated with him), American Dennis Mitchell, Brit Linford Christie and even the great hero of Los Angeles ’84, Carl Lewis.
.
Hot sprinting, heroic sailing and cool runnings: taliswoman with the talons Florence Griffith-Joyner (l), sailer saviour Lawrence Lemieux (m) and Calgary ’88’s Jamaican bobsled team (r)
.
The Main Man
Lawrence Lemieux ~ a rare non-sporting achievement (or mis-achievement) here. This Canadian sailer made himself a true Olympic hero for all-time on September 24 when in the Finn Class event, in which at the time he was lying second in the fifth of seven races, he abandoned quite likely podium glory by rescuing two Singaporeans competing in the 470 Class (whose course was nearby) after their boat capsized owing to heavy winds and, injured, they began to struggle in the water. Thanks to his endeavours, Lemieux trailed in to finish 22nd in his own event. At the its medal ceremony, though, he was given the Pierre de Coubertin Medal for sportsmanship (named after the founder of the modern Olympic Games), of which only 11 have ever been handed out. In June this year, Lemieux commented on the episode: “You spend your life working really hard internationally [in sailing] and you get very few accolades. So that’s the ironic thing; 25 years after this rescue, we’re still talking about it”.
.
The Main Woman
Florence Griffith-Joyner (or simply – and with more than a flashy splash of ’80s cool – ‘Flo Jo’) made rather incredible history at these Games, as she ‘did a Carl Lewis’. Yes, she won four sprinting gold medals (100m, 200m, 400m and 4x100m Relay). But not just that, the camera-friendly American with long and garishly coloured finger nails also set two world records in the process – 10.62 seconds in the 100m and 21.34 seconds in the 200m, the latter of which still stands. A colourful athlete in more ways than one then, Flo Jo wasn’t without controversy, however (in the wake of Ben Johnson’s antics, the late ’80s maybe was the era when controversy first seemed devilishly to spring up around every major sport star, something which we still see today of course). Her rivals questioned whether her performances may have be drug induced, not least because she appeared to have gained a great deal of muscle in the early months of 1988; she was never close to being found guilty of relying on stimulants, though. Having reached an undeniable apex and wanting to start a family, she retired immediately after these Games and, tragically, died 10 years later following an epileptic fit aged just 38.
.
.
Mentioned in dispatches
- This would be the final Olympic Games contested by both the powerhouse teams from the Soviet Union and East Germany, as the Berlin Wall would fall just over a year later when the process of the break-up of the USSR and Eastern Europe began. Many observers had questioned the dominance of East Germany in different Olympic events, not least women’s swimming, and lo and behold after Germany was reunified secret files were discovered verifying that a staggeringly high number of their female Olympians had been taking undetected stimulants for years
- Future unifier of the World Heavyweight boxing belts Lennox Lewis won gold in the Super Heavyweight division – for Canada, that is, rather than the UK, the land of his birth and which he would later represent. Another future professional, Roy Jones Jr. of the United States didn’t fare so well, though. After dominating the Light Middleweight final he was judged to have lost the bout to home favourite, South Korean Park Si-Hun. Jones got the last laugh, mind, for as a professional he became a world champion at four separate weights, including heavyweight, and was named the 1990s’ ‘boxer of the decade’
- Keeping it in the family, Flo Jo’s sister-in-law Jackie Joyner-Kersee won both the women’s heptathlon and long jump, setting a world record in the former (7,291 points) and an Olympic record in the latter; her heptathlon world record still stands today
- American swimmer Matt Biondi attempted to emulate at these Games the Munich ’72 achievements of his countryman Mark Spitz by winning seven gold medals. He came up short, winning only five, as well as a silver and a bronze and setting eight world records. As second bests go, not exactly dreadful then
- For right or wrong, these Games marked an Olympic return for tennis after a 64-year absence. In the women’s singles event, West German superstar Steffi Graf added a gold medal to the four Grand Slams she also won that year (making it a so-called ‘Golden Slam’)
- Evoking memories of ‘1966 and all that‘, the Great Britain men’s hockey team made it all the way to the final of the tournament and overcame the well-fancied West Germany 3-1 to claim the gold medal, in which Asian player Imran Sherwani memorably scored two goals (see video clip above)
- Further success came for Blighty in the pool where, following in the wake of his Montreal ’76 hero David Wilkie, Adrian Moorhouse upset the odds to win the 100m Breaststroke, while rower Steve Redgrave won the second of his five gold medals in five consecutive Summer Games in the Men’s Coxless Pairs, along with Andy Holmes. Meanwhile, in athletics Linford Christie saw his bronze in the 100m upgraded to a silver following Ben Johnson’s disqualification (Carl Lewis was upgraded to silver); Christie also earned a silver in the 4x100m Relay with John Regis; famed long- and middle-distance runners Liz McColgan and Peter Elliott both claimed silver in 10,000m and the 1,500m, respectively, and a silver was also won in 110m hurdles by Colin Jackson
- A British hero of a very different kind emerged at the Calgary Winter Games, held in February, in the shape of ski jumper Eddie ‘The Eagle’ Edwards (see bottom video clip). Amiable and very normal bloke-ish (owing to his wearing thick-lensed glasses and, well, not particularly looking like an athlete, at least in the face), Edwards quickly became a household name and even quicker a national hero in the manner only the British will entertain: because he was crap. He finished last in both the 70m and 90m events and by some way too. Yet his fame also spread globally and goodwill seemed to greet him everywhere he went, even in the Games’ closing ceremony during which organising committee chairman Fran King referenced him in a speech: “At this Games, some competitors have won gold, some have broken records and some of you have even soared like an eagle”
- Even more famous exploits at the Winter Games were made by the Jamaican bobsled team who, contrary to popular belief, were welcomed to participate in the event by rivals despite the very un-Winter Olympics tradition of their country. Their non-finish but walking alongside their overturned bobsled to the finish line was immortalised (albeit with them instead carrying the bobsled) in the popular John Candy-starring Hollywood film adaptation Cool Runnings (1993).
.
Majestic, plastic and desperate Brits: the men’s hockey team delight a nation by winning gold (l), Lennox Lewis back in the days when he considered himself Canadian (r) and our Winter Olympic legend, for all the wrong – or is that right? – reasons, Eddie ‘The Eagle’ Edwards (m)
.
The Memory
No question, the pong of drug-aided cheating (both very real and in other cases only speculated) stunk up these Olympics – and has continued to tarnish its memory in the years since whenever more allegations and revelations have reared their ugly heads. There’s simply no getting away from the fact that Seoul ’88’s Ben Johnson affair is easily the most shocking and most dramatically theatrical doping scandal ever to have rocked the Olympics, nay the entire sporting world, both of which it changed forever. Seemingly every high profile sport suffers from drug-related trauma nowadays, from cycling to football and from baseball to – yes, still – athletics. All this is the legacy of the Seoul Games and Ben Johnson getting caught.
And yet, to dismiss these particular Summer Games like that is to obfuscate the truth, for these were also an Olympics of fine joyful moments (Lemieux and Biondi) and historic achievements (Lewis and Graf). Moreover, they also had a profound, positive effect on their host country – one which would surely have far exceeded its inhabitants’ hopes. Although South Korea had sought and won the right to host the Games as part of a wider desire to reinforce its emergence as a global player, this had been done under the authoritarian administration of President Chun Doo-hwan, who had assumed power in August 1980. However, in the wake of actually hosting the Games in a years’ time and the desire not to have the country presented to the rest of the world as an embittered military dictatorship – and thanks to recent pressure applied by mass political protests – Chun stood down and Presidential elections took place in December 1987, ensuring that by the time the Olympics came to Seoul the host nation was a democratic republic.
All this undoubtedly helped drive improved relations not just between South Korea and the West, but between the nation and China, the USSR (effectively soon to be Russia) and Eastern Europe. In which case, the Olympics played a genuine part in South Korea becoming a more confident, more open and better society that would, economically and otherwise, go from strength to strength in the decades to come.
.
The Medal Table
| Gold | Silver | Bronze | Total | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 55 | 31 | 46 | 132 | |
| 2 | 37 | 35 | 30 | 102 | |
| 3 | 36 | 31 | 27 | 94 | |
| 4 | 12 | 10 | 11 | 33 | |
| 5 | 11 | 14 | 15 | 40 | |
| 6 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 23 | |
| 7 | 10 | 12 | 13 | 35 | |
| 8 | 7 | 11 | 6 | 24 | |
| 9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 16 | |
| 10 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 14 | |
| 12 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 24 |
.
.
.






































































































































































































