The following is *very* trivial, but, for some of us, a little fun too.
It could be argued that there is no better form of advertising than the
exposure that comes from showcasing a given brand in a James Bond film. I
can only guess at the phenomenal sums spent by BMW for their present
working relationship with EON (the Bond production company).
Of interest to OM users/fans might be the fleeting inclusion of an OM-4T,
wielded by a naked woman, in the characteristically tacky credit sequence
that begins License to Kill. While a far cry from the sort of showcasing
that BMW enjoys, it was, for a instant, an OM product, fifty-feet tall and
glorious, on movie screens from LA to Birmingham to Canton. The camera lens
was, presumably, a fast 50, but, as it turned out, it was impossible to see
because, by way of an "effects shot," the viewer glided through the lens
into the next segment of the sequence. A guy named Maurice Binder was the
creator and stylist of all of those credit sequences, dating all the way
back to the start (I think). My hunch is that he probably knew nothing
about OM cameras, but he instructed his assistants to "procure a
sufficiently professional camera, but one which isn't *so* professional
that it can't be instantly recognized as a camera." If, for the general
public, a camera is chrome, not black, the then current professional
offering from Nikon (the F3) wouldn't have qualified. Sometimes I get the
idea that the OM system entrenched itself in England rather more thoroughly
than in the rest of the world, although I have no idea why. If OM cameras
were well known and respected there, it's not surprising that Binder would
have recruited OM's flagship, the 4T.
But would Bond have been an OM man? My hunch is probably not. Q branch
seemed to pride itself on supplying its agents with unique and
highly-modified equipment, and where cameras were concerned, size and
concealability seemed to be most important. Bond can be seen photographing
things for reconnaisance in numerous episodes, but generally he has a
Minox-sized camera that advances its film by compressing and then
re-telescoping. It's likely that the designers of these prop cameras were
more interested in building into them some plausible and obvious mechanism
that suggested them to be cameras than in reflecting the real technology of
the industry (were there cameras that worked that way then?). But such is
the way of propping in movies - props must be instantly recongnizable, even
if it means endowing them with an aspect that isn't accurate yet one which
still illustrates the identity of the prop. But I digress. It's hard to
know if, even then, brand exposure was something to pay for, and if there
was heated competition for this coveted "part" in License to Kill. If yes,
it's nice to know that OM was solvent enough back then to outbid Nikon et
al.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|