Would it have been a good idea to shoot a James Bond movie on location in South Africa during the 1970s or 1980s?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I find this a very odd question to ask.

This was before the moralizing of Social Justice went mainstream.
 
It is very much worth noting that the late Roger Moore made no less than three movies in South Africa during the 1970s. The movies in question were Gold, Shout at the Devil, and The Wild Geese.

Diamond Are Forever had some stuff that was set in South Africa. However, the stuff wasn’t shot in South Africa. Bond didn’t even travel to South Africa for that movie.
 
Last edited:
Seeing Jackie Gleason and Rodger Moore getting chased by a lion would have been a lot of fun. Sadly, Buford T. Justice would have probably been eaten.
 
I stayed at the Royal Orleans (now Omni) a few years ago. They’re still very proud part of Live and Let Die was filmed there. They have James Bond posters in a few places.
 
I get what you are saying, but I don’t think it reached boycott consciousness till the mid 80’s. Certainly not in the 70’s.
 
You couldn’t make Live and Let Die today.

It is a shame, because it was seriously underrated It had a great travelogue, interesting characters, a half decent fairly original plot, a little bit of humor, some cool action and an interesting Bond girl.
 
The bond movies were often topical to the issues of the day. If they had done one in SA in the 80’s, it very well could have touched on the social unrest. I wouldn’t think that was a bad thing, if that’s how it played out.

My memory is SA Apartheid became center stage in the mid 80’s as well.
 
Depends what you mean by a good idea. It’s a lovely country for filming in, as is testified by the many films which are shot there now. Roger Moore made several films there in the 1970s (although if I remember right, the crews were specific that apartheid rules were not followed on set and made sure the productions benefited many poor black workers).

On the other hand, would it be moral? That’s trickier. Apartheid era South Africa was a legally racist society, which is highly immoral. Could making films there be considered support for that state of affairs or part of an engagement between South Africa and the rest of the world? I think it would depend on how the film-makers approached those questions.

It is worth noting however that nobody seems to have any moral qualms with filming in modern South Africa, despite the fact that the former President happily sang racist songs in public, despite organised racist campaigns against Boer farmers and Zimbabwean immigrants, and despite the blatant government-led corruption and crime. Similarly many films are produced in authoritarian countries with terrible human rights records in Asia and the Middle East without anyone seeming to worry very much.
 
The book itself had an interesting title to a chapter that was changed.

In your list you forgot to mention the title song which was easily the best Wings song.
 
Briwerr said:
It is worth noting however that nobody seems to have any moral qualms with filming in modern South Africa, despite the fact that the former President happily sang racist songs in public, despite organised racist campaigns against Boer farmers and Zimbabwean immigrants, and despite the blatant government-led corruption and crime
Click to expand...
I know not exactly what event you are talking about, but surely you can’t equate taking the freedom and land of an indigenous to poor taste? I’ve been to SA a few times, the townships are exactly like one of those villages celebrities walk through begging one dollar a day from you. I’m not defending the ANC by the way, it has done a horrible job of governing, but if whites suffer some losses of ill gotten gains there is not exactly much to complain about. Our own country was built on the backs of “free” labor mind you.
 
Last edited:
Indigenous is a difficult question - for example, former President Zuma is a Zulu, a group who came to South Africa after the Boers. Who therefore is more indigenous?

As for poor taste - the examples I gave go far beyond it. Many thousands of farmers (black and white) have been murdered; the Zimbabwean refugees were treated very badly; the language of racial violence is widespread.

Even Amnesty international talked about the possibility of imminent genocide.

The sad truth is that far more people have been killed since the end of the apartheid regime than during it. That’s not a defence of the prior system but a condemnation of the current system.
 
Briwerr said:
Indigenous is a difficult question - for example, former President Zuma is a Zulu, a group who came to South Africa after the Boers. Who therefore is more indigenous?
Click to expand...
With all respect, you know what I mean and such arguments are grasping at straws.
Briwerr said:
The sad truth is that far more people have been killed since the end of the apartheid regime than during it. That’s not a defence of the prior system but a condemnation of the current system.
Click to expand...
As with everything, the current situation is in inextricably linked to the past. White farmers set up a system that led to a highly unjust power structure and this is the end result. Is it the best one? Certainly not and I will give you that the economy of SA was more productive under white rule; but that doesn’t justify the means. Our own country is still dealing with the reverberations of slavery whether the white majority thinks so or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top