[best five bond films] few will agree

Who was it who said that if it hadn't been a James Bond film, it would have been acclaimed? On Her Majesty's Secret Service, with soundtracks like this, was very strong as an action romance, it didn't enter the realms of the improbable [not a lot anyway] and it had all the required elements of a top film.

I'll go out on a limb and rate these my five contenders for best Bond films of all time:

1. Casino Royale [2006]

Craig was fantastic the way he exploded onto the screen and later rolled the Aston Martin a record number of times, his leading lady was excellent with real interaction the like which hadn't been seen since OHMSS, Mads Mikkelson and the terrorist were quite creepy and frightening respectively and just as important as a leading lady, in my book, is the quality of the offsider - in this case Giancarlo Giannini, a great choice for the role.

M - Dame Judy, who's done to that role what David Suchet and Joan Hickson did to theirs, is the only conceivable choice.

The locations were superb and that train journey "I'm the money" exotic. From the free-running at the start to the sad ending, this was a film and a half. And don't forget the muscle bound Bond in the blue trunks, rising from the water.

2. OHMSS [1969]

Barry's lush score, the plot, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas and a very strong supporting cast, including the great Ilse Steppart, made for a superb piece of escapism. These were real actors in there. The offsider [as far as Bond has offsiders] was Gabriele Ferzetti - an Italian smoothy, just as in Casino Royale. Don't forget Moneypenny either.

On the down side was George Lazenby, of course, for his woodenness but I contend that he was excellent in the fight scenes and I couldn't see Sean Connery doing romance as well as Lazenby. Remember Entrapment - great film but Sean's writers wisely kept off the romance. The scene in the car with father and daughter in OHMSS was as good as acting gets. "Love? That might come too."

This film had exotic written all over it, from the atmosphere at the glass door of the UE office to the bobsled chase, not to mention suspense in Gumbolt's office. Great film.

3. Goldeneye [1995]

Great return for Bond, bungee-jumping down that dam wall and Sean Bean lifts anything he's in - he was a mean muvver of a baddy [one reviewer said "At last we have a villain who is more than just a megalomaniac."] He always disquietens me, Sean Bean and as for Famke Janssen and Dame Judy, they were right out of the top drawer. Joe Don Baker was much better here, Robby Coltrane was Robby Coltrane and clearly enjoying the part, not to mention Izabella Scorupco's feisty Natalya and don't forget Q.

Very strong and like the previous two, in the hands of a very good director on a mission from the franchise. Downside? Not a lot really and that might be it's main strength, Goldeneye - it's evenness. It's a real Bond vehicle.

4. For Your Eyes Only [1981]

Moore is not my favourite Bond but he sure is smooth. I should think a lady would be more satisfied with a night out with the assiduous Moore than with Wham Bam Sean, however dangerous he looks. Put Carole Bouquet in there with her brooding manner and add Topol, a great rogue if ever there was one and there are the makings of a great film.

The graveyard scene showed Moore back to his best - he can act - and the clifftop finale was very strong, as was the nice touch of the sleigh ride. Less acceptable was the killing off of a baldy meant to be Blofeld and the egregious Bibi plus the Margaret Thatcher at the end was barely OK. That was the Bondishness that the series doesn't really need and where was the Aston Martin, even though the 2CV was fun?

The professional marksman was more frightening than any of the main baddies and it's a pity that couldn't have been developed. However, all in all, it was an excellent film.

5. I'm going to cheat here and say I can't make up my mind between:

a. From Russia with Love - Grant, Tatiana Romanova, the wonderful Kerim Bey and the train motif, often a winner. But more than this - it was a film where all the elements came together, against the odds, of a great director. Don't forget Sean at his menacing best either.

b. Die Another Day - for Halle Berry and Rick Yuen.

c. Goldfinger - because it's great.

d. You Only Live Twice - exotic locales and score but a boring space-plot and tedious destruction of the techno-cavern again.

e. TWINE - for Sophie and Denise.

f. For me, the two best villains ever - Richard Kiel [Jaws] and Goetz Otto [Stamper]

"Villains" is a good theme for another post but for me, Otto and Die Hard's Alan Rickman [Hans] and Alexander Godunov [Karl] take some beating for sheer terror and creepiness.

Anyway - that's my list. And yours?

Master debaters and the art of conviction

Mr. Eugenides asks whether the art of debate is what we require of our politicians today or if it is more that we require integrity and a belief in that which they're arguing.

So glad the Galloping Greek could return for another bout, his previous two pieces being on Scotland, Greece and Russia and then ... yes, believe it ... on Heaven!



I spent my student days at Glasgow University, and quite a lot of that time was spent in the Union Debating society, which was then reputed as among the very best in the world. Noted for producing formidable debating talents (leave aside their politics) such as John Smith, Menzies Campbell and Charles Kennedy among others, Union debaters had a history of success unparalleled by any other university; fifteen times British champions - three times more wins than any other institution, at that time - and five times World champions, a record which still stands and to which I am proud to have contributed.

More to the point, perhaps, we played the game in the right spirit, dammit. Not for us the rituals of debating geeks up and down the land, burying their heads in back issues of the Economist and memorising statistics about world trade. No, GUU men (and girls) stood up and took the fight to the opposition with rhetoric, confidence and (on a good day) razor-sharp wit; bristling with aggression, chutzpah and balls (particularly the girls), we were the first into the bar at the end of the day and the last out every night, without fail.

Generously funded by our Union – the only good kind of union – some of us were lucky enough to travel the world at taxpayers’ expense before John Prescott made it popular, and we were damned if we were going to spend our precious week in New York, Manila or Sydney getting an early night tucked up in bed when there was nightlife to be explored and local brews to be sampled. Love us or hate us, few people were unaware of the presence of the Glasgow contingent at a post-debate party; kilted, beers in hand and never shy to start a singsong, they were (and are) a fixture thankfully more permanent than the Tartan Army at international football tournaments.

Glasgow was and is peculiar in so far as internal debates are conducted on a “Parliamentary” system. A number of quasi-political clubs, such as SNP, Tories or Whigs, argue for broadly left- or right-wing points of view throughout the year, and while membership of clubs is not tied to real-world political parties, the system makes it possible for those of a certain world-view to attend debates during the year in the knowledge that they will usually be arguing for policies and positions with which they have some sympathy.

But competitive intervarsity debating is different. When you get to a competition, teams are drawn randomly on proposition or opposition, and only then is a motion for debate announced. You have 15 minutes to prepare a detailed and preferably water-tight argument for or against regime change in Burma, say, or renewal of Trident, or the legalisation of drugs. Your own political beliefs and sympathies are neither here nor there. And, unlike Question Time or the House of Commons, assertions and half-truths are punished by opponents, and by adjudicators.

Those who succeed are those who become skilled at making up cases on the fly, who are flexible enough to quickly adapt to either side of literally any subject, who can be instantly persuasive for or against any proposition at the drop of a hat, and then stand up in the next debate and, if need be, argue for precisely the opposite with apparent sincerity and conviction.

My generation of ex-debaters are now, for the most part, in their thirties, and many of the most successful, from places like Oxbridge, the Inns of Court, Glasgow, Edinburgh or Trinity College, are in politics, either as party hacks, advisers or, in many cases, as elected, or soon-to-be-elected, councillors, MSPs and MPs.( I won’t name them to spare their blushes, but they span all parties from all across the spectrum.)

I can’t claim to know all these people well, but I can predict with a fair degree of confidence that in another ten years or so there will be a liberal smattering of familiar [to me] faces on the green benches – and, by extension, in legislatures around the world.

If you’re still reading, you may by now have divined the point I’m building up to. We have a whole generation of budding politicians who have basically been groomed to construct and deliver arguments based not on their own convictions but on the vagaries of a computerised draw. We’re speaking in favour of higher spending to see the country through recession? Great, I’ve jotted down some compelling arguments from the pro side. Oh, sorry, I wrote the draw down wrong; we’re actually opposing higher spending? No problem; we can do that too. What do I personally think about this? What’s that got to do with anything?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe that my time as a debater really did equip me with critical thinking skills and techniques which have stood me in good stead in my life; I’m confident in front of a crowd, still reasonably quick on my feet in an argument, and I can see both sides of every story. And the aforementioned debaters, who are now making their way into politics and may in time become senior figures in their respective parties, are for the most part people of conviction whom I would be happy to have as representatives, even when their politics differ widely from my own.

But I worry about a political system in which whole cohorts of new MPs have essentially been trained to lie as smoothly and professionally as possible, and boast about it on their CVs (as, indeed, do I). We’ve got enough liars in that place as it is.

[french news] romance more exciting than corruption

The story of Villepin and Sarkozy:

Nicolas Sarkozy accuse Dominique de Villepin d'avoir monté un complot destiné à l'abattre dans sa course vers la présidentielle de 2007.

... is seemingly of less importance to the French, if le Figaro's order of articles is to be believed, than the story of:

"Les amours romanesques de la princesse et du président"

Amusing that she is written of as Lady Di in the French press. The French seem to have their priorities straight.

[rocket to russia] turned on iran

Click pic to zoom

The implications of Obama's turnaround on the European missiles is interesting in that all the strategic analysis in the world will not avail if one is not up with the shadow play. I don't purport to be up with it but little snippets pop up from time to time to indicate the real agenda.

It's all a question of layers. The smart thinkers will say:

Still, some analysts point to the possibility the US shelved planned anti-missile interceptors in Poland and a huge radar in the Czech Republic in exchange for the Kremlin abandoning its reluctance to exert pressure on Iran over its nuclear program.

The White House is good at strategic misdirection and it's possible, just possible, that the official explanation might be close to the truth:

The White House gave two official reasons for scrapping plans for the missile shield. First, it claims to not foresee an immediate or near-term threat from any Iranian inter-continental ballistic missiles. Second, the US is now convinced that Iran is "hastening" its short- and medium-range missiles that can be better intercepted by American ships stationed in the Mediterranean Sea.

Pretty clear though, isn't it, that the effect will be to put pressure on Russia's relationship with Iran, a key obstacle to the U.S. plans for isolating Iran. There's most likely been some cash sweeteners to Russia in this too. Which is why Iran should be just a little concerned.

[thought for the day] sunday evening

If people want a sense of purpose, they should get it from their archbishops. They should not hope to receive it from their politicians.

[Harold Macmillan - 1968]

Unfortunately, while it still might be the case with politicians, it's now also the case with archbishops. A lady named Catherine, on a forum just now, said, "Too many unbelievers preaching."

Presumably she meant that people were in charge who are more into how they are placed with the community and not with what their prime directive is.

Same with the pollies. Can we please have someone who has a clear policy, explains it well and has no intention of deviating from its basic principles without looking over his shoulder to see how it's been received?

[know your cows] which ungulate is which

As usual - name them, say which is the odd one out and why.
Credits: 1, 2, 3, 4