Would you rather drink a Campari fireside with Draco OR a Sherry with an unusually fine solera?

007HallY

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find much evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. I might be wrong. Whatever way, Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking. So I think Hunt was right doing that take and giving that direction.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

SIS_HQ

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find any evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

But again, what do you think of the acting in DAD Or even Craig's inconsistent acting in NTTD (that Blofeld prison scene for example)? Isn't that a work done by a director?

Or even Talisa Soto's delivery of "I Love James So Much!" Or Barbara Bach's monotone acting and line deliveries? Brosnan's pain face? Or some other acting faults in the franchise? They're the works of the director.

And they're individual like Talisa Soto and Barbara Bach or Denise Richards, despite of the overall cast being good (maybe with the exception of DAD when half of the cast suffered).

One can blame it on the director, and Lazenby wasn't an exception to that directorial irresponsibility.

Although those mentioned above were mistakes, but in Hunt's case it's irresponsibility.

007ClassicBondFan

There is a James Bond radio podcast on the making of OHMSS where they touched on this subject. According to Charles Helfenstein, Lazenby had made the claims that Hunt got mad at him once then never spoke to him again for all of filming, but when Helfenstein asked other crew members of that was true, all of them claimed that story was bogus. To quote Mr. Helfenstein; “You just can’t make a Bond film without directing your star.”

As for the question of the thread, I’m not entirely sure. It’s like being asked if I would rather be mauled by a Siberian Tiger or a Bengal Tiger; not particularly pleasant experiences!

SIS_HQ

Here:

https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/12953/george-lazenbys-diamonds-are-forever-or-timothy-daltons-bond-17-goldeneye/p3

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movies/on-her-majestys-secret-service-james-bond-lazenby.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/tcm-film-fest-george-lazenby-785313/amp/

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ohmss_the_forgotten_bond?id=1670

I'm searching for more, that one that I've read years ago.

Benny

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Benny wrote: »

Nothing in any of the behind the scenes documentaries has ever suggested anything to what you elude @SIS_HQ which is why I questioned you on it earlier. It's fine to have an opinion on such things of course, and we all respect that. But I've never seen anything in any bts or anywhere else to suggest that Peter Hunt was harsh on George Lazenby or directed the film via a telephone.

Again, I will find it, I've read it somewhere, even in here.

It's been a while since I've read it, but it's there.

I will post it in the right thread when I found it (not here).

I've read it in the behind the scenes, one of the discussions in here (years ago), so, it's not just came from one source.

When you say years ago, aren't you only in your early 20's? How long have you been a serious Bond fan @SIS_HQ ?
Personally I think Peter Hunt should get more credit than he possibly does. Worked on the editorial team for the first 5 Bond films.
Directed one of the most popular Bond films amongst fans, as well as being one of the few Bond films to closely follow the Fleming source material.
For me it's a shame that OHMSS was Peter Hunts final contribution to the Bond series.

SIS_HQ

Benny wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Benny wrote: »

Nothing in any of the behind the scenes documentaries has ever suggested anything to what you elude @SIS_HQ which is why I questioned you on it earlier. It's fine to have an opinion on such things of course, and we all respect that. But I've never seen anything in any bts or anywhere else to suggest that Peter Hunt was harsh on George Lazenby or directed the film via a telephone.

Again, I will find it, I've read it somewhere, even in here.

It's been a while since I've read it, but it's there.

I will post it in the right thread when I found it (not here).

I've read it in the behind the scenes, one of the discussions in here (years ago), so, it's not just came from one source.

When you say years ago, aren't you only in your early 20's? How long have you been a serious Bond fan @SIS_HQ ?
Personally I think Peter Hunt should get more credit than he possibly does. Worked on the editorial team for the first 5 Bond films.
Directed one of the most popular Bond films amongst fans, as well as being one of the few Bond films to closely follow the Fleming source material.
For me it's a shame that OHMSS was Peter Hunts final contribution to the Bond series.

Long before I joined here, maybe somewhere in 18, 17 or maybe even 16 like that.
And long before I joined here, I've been visiting this forum, checking and reading on them.
Still, undecided to join the forum then, but the discussions interested me to join.

This was the first forum I've joined, then Commanderbond forum, and Ajb007, then start joining into the discussions in the James Bond subreddit (although, I couldn't stand the toxicity in Reddit and made me leave them).

I've been listening, reading different articles about Bond, because I've became obsessed with the Franchise, that I'm curious enough to know more about the ins and outs of the Franchise.

Again, I have no against Peter Hunt, he's a part of the Bond family, I liked his works on the previous Connery Bond films, I liked his work as an editor (although Thunderball may be a bit flawed).

And yes, I do thanked him for insisting the film to be close to the source material, but in case of Lazenby (not the guy's fault, he's hired by the Producers), he needed a more hands on director, and Peter Hunt didn't gave him that.

But still I loved the film as it is, it's my favorite Bond film.

But would a second film would've likely to redeem all of that? Possibly, if not for the bad advice of Ronan O Rahilly (whom I consider as one of the real Bond villains 😁).

007HallY

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Here:

https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/12953/george-lazenbys-diamonds-are-forever-or-timothy-daltons-bond-17-goldeneye/p3

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movies/on-her-majestys-secret-service-james-bond-lazenby.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/tcm-film-fest-george-lazenby-785313/amp/

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ohmss_the_forgotten_bond?id=1670

I'm searching for more, that one that I've read years ago.

I wouldn't use IMDB trivia as a source (it's user created from what I can tell and has a lot of debunked 'trivia facts'). Also the last article you posted actually exemplifies what I was talking about when it comes to what actually happens on these film sets. The article is all about Hunt and Lazenby saying different things and giving different accounts, to the point where they outright contradict each other.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find any evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

But again, what do you think of the acting in DAD Or even Craig's inconsistent acting in NTTD (that Blofeld prison scene for example)? Isn't that a work done by a director?

Or even Talisa Soto's delivery of "I Love James So Much!" Or Barbara Bach's monotone acting and line deliveries? Brosnan's pain face? Or some other acting faults in the franchise? They're the works of the director.

And they're individual like Talisa Soto and Barbara Bach or Denise Richards, despite of the overall cast being good (maybe with the exception of DAD when half of the cast suffered).

One can blame it on the director, and Lazenby wasn't an exception to that directorial irresponsibility.

Although those mentioned above were mistakes, but in Hunt's case it's irresponsibility.

I actually think Brosnan's acting in DAD is pretty good and confident at times. Better than his attempt at the more dramatic scenes in TWINE (again, it may have been out of his capabilities to play these scenes subtly as an actor). Craig's acting during those scenes in NTTD seem to be deliberate choices. I suspect the concept of Bond being more 'talkative' after his years of exile from the Service was written into the script and discussed during pre-production with Craig. He probably even offered ideas. When it comes to filmmaking, it's not really a case where the director gets credit for the actor's performance. Fukunaga probably gave Craig guidance, worked on the blocking with him, but ultimately allowed him to 'do his thing' and may have given him some notes from take to take. It's not a case where he controlled every minute detail of Craig's performance. Craig's performance is his own in this sense.

For what it's worth, this is where I personally come from with this: I have worked on a number of smaller film and television sets, and have seen directors work with actors. Not one would claim that they can control an actor's performance. They can only guide it. Not one of those directors would ever, for example, recite a line or make an expression in a way they'd want the actor to do it (it would be incredibly stupid - they either embarrass the actor or embarrass themselves). They certainly don't want to highlight the actor's lack of ability to do something, or embarrass them in front of everyone and cause tension. Moreover, all directors I have spoken to have said one of the most important aspects of all this is casting. If you don't have the right actor for the right role it becomes difficult. I've also even seen some actors behaving in a very difficult manner on film sets and know how it can impact things.

SIS_HQ

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Here:

https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/12953/george-lazenbys-diamonds-are-forever-or-timothy-daltons-bond-17-goldeneye/p3

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movies/on-her-majestys-secret-service-james-bond-lazenby.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/tcm-film-fest-george-lazenby-785313/amp/

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ohmss_the_forgotten_bond?id=1670

I'm searching for more, that one that I've read years ago.

I wouldn't use IMDB trivia as a source (it's user created from what I can tell and has a lot of debunked 'trivia facts'). Also the last article you posted actually exemplifies what I was talking about when it comes to what actually happens on these film sets. The article is all about Hunt and Lazenby saying different things and giving different accounts, to the point where they outright contradict each other.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find any evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

But again, what do you think of the acting in DAD Or even Craig's inconsistent acting in NTTD (that Blofeld prison scene for example)? Isn't that a work done by a director?

Or even Talisa Soto's delivery of "I Love James So Much!" Or Barbara Bach's monotone acting and line deliveries? Brosnan's pain face? Or some other acting faults in the franchise? They're the works of the director.

And they're individual like Talisa Soto and Barbara Bach or Denise Richards, despite of the overall cast being good (maybe with the exception of DAD when half of the cast suffered).

One can blame it on the director, and Lazenby wasn't an exception to that directorial irresponsibility.

Although those mentioned above were mistakes, but in Hunt's case it's irresponsibility.

I actually think Brosnan's acting in DAD is pretty good and confident at times. Better than his attempt at the more dramatic scenes in TWINE (again, it may have been out of his capabilities to play these scenes subtly as an actor). Craig's acting during those scenes in NTTD seem to be deliberate choices. I suspect the concept of Bond being more 'talkative' after his years of exile from the Service was written into the script and discussed during pre-production with Craig. He probably even offered ideas. When it comes to filmmaking, it's not really a case where the director gets credit for the actor's performance. Fukunaga probably gave Craig guidance, worked on the blocking with him, but ultimately allowed him to 'do his thing' and may have given him some notes from take to take. It's not a case where he controlled every minute detail of Craig's performance. Craig's performance is his own in this sense.

For what it's worth, this is where I personally come from with this: I have worked on a number of smaller film and television sets, and have seen directors work with actors. Not one would claim that they can control an actor's performance. They can only guide it. Not one of those directors would ever, for example, recite a line or make an expression in a way they'd want the actor to do it (it would be incredibly stupid - they either embarrass the actor or embarrass themselves). They certainly don't want to highlight the actor's lack of ability to do something, or embarrass them in front of everyone and cause tension. Moreover, all directors I have spoken to have said one of the most important aspects of all this is casting. If you don't have the right actor for the right role it becomes difficult. I've also even seen some actors behaving in a very difficult manner on film sets and know how it can impact things.

It's not that control, when I said handling, it's their way of directing, and what Hunt lacked was the support, the guidance, it's evident in how he treated Lazenby, what am I trying to say is Lazenby just needed a better director to handle him (the damage was done, he's hired by the Producers), it's up to the director on how to handle him and Hunt failed in that think of it, he's in better performance every time he's with Rigg, Lazenby shines every time that he's with Rigg, because she's guiding him, that's why some here were saying that there's no Diana Rigg to support him in the second film, because she's the one guiding him.

And again, no matter how great the actor are, if the wrong was in the director's part, there's no way they could've handle it by themselves (it may have no relation to the Lazenby thing, but since this is getting too far, this is a bit worthy of inclusion).

Again, think of the DAD (maybe with the exception of Brosnan himself, or let me be specific, Halle Berry or Toby Stephens, for example), and there's Denise Richards? Or Talisa Soto.

Again, they're experienced actors but why they've still suffered from those performances that people now usually despise? Could we safely say it's something wrong on the part of the directors? One may blame it on the writing, but it's the director's job to make them execute it better, at least, the execution of what's written.

And also Barbara Bach with her performance (a performance that even makes Lazenby's performance more appreciative to me) with her monotone, almost one dimensional performance, and with her silly fake Russian Accent (don't give me that she's Russian, she's cold kind of reasoning, there's Natalya Simonova and Tatiana Romanova and both are far more convincing in their roles than Bach).

Okay, let's discount Craig, given your explanation.

This is getting longer, and I'm afraid that it's already taking up space in here, when we're supposed to be in a different discussion. 😁

Benny

thedove wrote: »

Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?

This is much easier.
Another Way To Die on endless loop would be far more acceptable than Sam Smith singing The Writing's On The Wall.

007HallY

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Here:

https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/12953/george-lazenbys-diamonds-are-forever-or-timothy-daltons-bond-17-goldeneye/p3

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movies/on-her-majestys-secret-service-james-bond-lazenby.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/tcm-film-fest-george-lazenby-785313/amp/

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ohmss_the_forgotten_bond?id=1670

I'm searching for more, that one that I've read years ago.

I wouldn't use IMDB trivia as a source (it's user created from what I can tell and has a lot of debunked 'trivia facts'). Also the last article you posted actually exemplifies what I was talking about when it comes to what actually happens on these film sets. The article is all about Hunt and Lazenby saying different things and giving different accounts, to the point where they outright contradict each other.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find any evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

But again, what do you think of the acting in DAD Or even Craig's inconsistent acting in NTTD (that Blofeld prison scene for example)? Isn't that a work done by a director?

Or even Talisa Soto's delivery of "I Love James So Much!" Or Barbara Bach's monotone acting and line deliveries? Brosnan's pain face? Or some other acting faults in the franchise? They're the works of the director.

And they're individual like Talisa Soto and Barbara Bach or Denise Richards, despite of the overall cast being good (maybe with the exception of DAD when half of the cast suffered).

One can blame it on the director, and Lazenby wasn't an exception to that directorial irresponsibility.

Although those mentioned above were mistakes, but in Hunt's case it's irresponsibility.

I actually think Brosnan's acting in DAD is pretty good and confident at times. Better than his attempt at the more dramatic scenes in TWINE (again, it may have been out of his capabilities to play these scenes subtly as an actor). Craig's acting during those scenes in NTTD seem to be deliberate choices. I suspect the concept of Bond being more 'talkative' after his years of exile from the Service was written into the script and discussed during pre-production with Craig. He probably even offered ideas. When it comes to filmmaking, it's not really a case where the director gets credit for the actor's performance. Fukunaga probably gave Craig guidance, worked on the blocking with him, but ultimately allowed him to 'do his thing' and may have given him some notes from take to take. It's not a case where he controlled every minute detail of Craig's performance. Craig's performance is his own in this sense.

For what it's worth, this is where I personally come from with this: I have worked on a number of smaller film and television sets, and have seen directors work with actors. Not one would claim that they can control an actor's performance. They can only guide it. Not one of those directors would ever, for example, recite a line or make an expression in a way they'd want the actor to do it (it would be incredibly stupid - they either embarrass the actor or embarrass themselves). They certainly don't want to highlight the actor's lack of ability to do something, or embarrass them in front of everyone and cause tension. Moreover, all directors I have spoken to have said one of the most important aspects of all this is casting. If you don't have the right actor for the right role it becomes difficult. I've also even seen some actors behaving in a very difficult manner on film sets and know how it can impact things.

It's not that control, when I said handling, it's their way of directing, and what Hunt lacked was the support, the guidance, it's evident in how he treated Lazenby.

And again, no matter how great the actor are, if the wrong was in the director's part, there's no way they could've handle it by themselves (it may have no relation to the Lazenby thing, but since this is getting too far, this is a bit worthy of inclusion).

Again, think of the DAD (maybe with the exception of Brosnan himself, or let me be specific, Halle Berry or Toby Stephens, for example), and there's Denise Richards? Or Talisa Soto.

Again, they're experienced actors but why they've still suffered from those performances that people now usually despise? Could we safely say it's something wrong on the part of the directors?

And also Barbara Bach with her performance (a performance that even makes Lazenby's performance more appreciative to me) with her monotone, almost one dimensional performance (don't give me that she's Russian, she's cold kind of reasoning, there's Natalya Simonova and Tatiana Romanova and both are far more convincing in their roles than Bach).

Okay, let's discount Craig, given your explanation.

Well, I think a major part of this discussion regarding Hunt is this: how do we truly know what he was like as a director on-set? As was hinted at, it seems like some of these stories about him being 'hands off' (or at least not talking to Lazenby) might not be 100% accurate. All we have to go on is the finished product. It's the same with any other director.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the DAD examples. I wouldn't say Toby Stephen's performance in that film was particularly bad. Gustav Graves is meant to be (on the surface anyway) a young adventurous playboy billionaire type, slightly arrogant, with that undercurrent of darkness. The concept of him actually being a Korean General is daft, but Stephens plays the character fine and his casting makes sense. Beyond some cringe lines ('yo mamma') I can't remember Halle Berry being bad in that film either, but perhaps I just haven't seen the film in a while. Again, it's just a case where her character is a bit one dimensional and boring, but the performance is ok or at least suitable.

As for Bach, yes she has a bit of a monotone, but Anya is a professional and rather 'by the books' Soviet spy as you said. I'm not sure why you use Natalya and Tatiana as counter examples because those are very different characters. Tatiana is particularly meant to be quite naive, and both are essentially ordinary people compared to Anya. I'd say it makes perfect sense that Anya has that tone of voice and it gives off a very specific impression of her character that's arguably right for the role, whether you like the performance or not. I've never heard anyone complain about it beyond these forums. Was this down to Bach's decision as an actress or is it a case where her lack of expression happened to work and the direction leaned into this? If it's the former then it points to a clear method on the part of Bach, and if the latter then it points to effective direction. Maybe it's a mixture of both. I don't know.

I don't think everything you're saying about film direction makes sense when applied in practice. There are often many factors at play. Sometimes if an actor doesn't do a particular accent for example then it's because the director thought it most suitable for the film and didn't want to get them to do something beyond their capabilities. Sometimes if an actor struggles with an accent then it's a case where perhaps it wasn't the right casting, the director shouldn't have gotten them to do it, or indeed maybe a producer demanded the actor do it and it didn't go well. We often don't know. It's not a straightforward case of it being solely the director or the actor's fault.

SIS_HQ

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Here:

https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/12953/george-lazenbys-diamonds-are-forever-or-timothy-daltons-bond-17-goldeneye/p3

https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0064757/trivia/

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/27/movies/on-her-majestys-secret-service-james-bond-lazenby.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/tcm-film-fest-george-lazenby-785313/amp/

https://www.mi6-hq.com/sections/articles/ohmss_the_forgotten_bond?id=1670

I'm searching for more, that one that I've read years ago.

I wouldn't use IMDB trivia as a source (it's user created from what I can tell and has a lot of debunked 'trivia facts'). Also the last article you posted actually exemplifies what I was talking about when it comes to what actually happens on these film sets. The article is all about Hunt and Lazenby saying different things and giving different accounts, to the point where they outright contradict each other.

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

007HallY wrote: »

SIS_HQ wrote: »

Maibaum already said that they did really have the intention of following it up with a revenge sequel, as long as Peter Hunt and Telly Savalas would've returned with Lazenby still staying, but when Lazenby quit, everything had fallen.

So they went in different direction, they've made it a slapstick comedy because to make the audiences veered away from the tone of OHMSS (in short to make them forget the film).

Still, I would've liked a revenge sequel on OHMSS, just for the proper closure for both Blofeld, Tracy and the film itself, and to avoid future retcons.

As controversial as this is, I find myself viewing OHMSS slightly less favourably on repeat viewings (it's still a great Bond film in my opinion, but I don't think it's the best version of that story that could have been adapted) and Lazenby is a major factor in that.

OHMSS is my favorite film, but I'll be honest, I don't liked Peter Hunt as a director.

I'm no against Peter Hunt, but he had no knowledge of handling the cast and bringing out the best in them (even Telly Savalas' American accent was slipping in some occasions, when the character was supposed to be a villain claiming to be a European count), unlike Terrence Young, Lewis Gilbert or even Guy Hamilton, they knew how to handle the acting, Peter Hunt failed with Lazenby, had Terrence Young directed the film, he would've trained Lazenby like what he'd done with Connery.

Look at how Terrence Young handled Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger (those who had no proper acting experience prior to Bond films), but he's able to handle them well and bring out the best in them, even Connery whom Fleming told was an overgrown stuntman, Young managed to made him the Bond we knew by training him (bringing him to expensive bars and let him got on booze, have him practice and guiding him), Hunt never did that, and what would expect from an editor? That's his expertise, editing, he had no knowledge about directing, in fact, OHMSS was his first directorial debut.

Remember the occasion when Peter Hunt told Lazenby that it would be better for him to be Bond if he's alone to the point of Peter Hunt telling the whole staffs and crews to stay away from Lazenby in order for him to be alone, he'd even told Lazenby that James Bond doesn't cry, but Lazenby (and Diana Rigg) insisted on this.

Peter Hunt was even only accessible through telephone and only attended the filming near through the wrapping.

I would say it, I think OHMSS would have been a bit better had it been directed by a more experienced director, or dare I say it, either Terrence Young or Lewis Gilbert (diverting from the source material, but could able to improve on it).

Again, I'm not 100% sure of the pre-production, and if I'm honest I'd take what Maibaum says with a grain of salt (always the case when it comes to anecdotal stuff from one single person). I don't think Saltzman and Broccoli were particularly impressed with his drafts/treatments at this point anyway, so it might simply be a case where Lazenby's departure gave them the extra push needed to change course, and from there it veered into the film that we got.

I can understand what you mean about Hunt. I suspect he did make some funny decisions with Lazenby - ie. choosing to dub his voice during the Piz Gloria scenes. But for what it's worth even the best directors can't make bad actors give good performances. They can only emphasise the actor's strengths while not putting them in situations that highlight their flaws (this may explain why they didn't get Savalas to do an accent, and it may have been a good thing as him struggling with a dodgy European twang might have deflected some of his natural charisma he brought to that role). If the director doesn't have a choice over the casting it's especially tricky. Remember, Connery was a relatively accomplished, albeit lesser known actor before Bond. He already had the natural confidence and charisma needed. This wasn't the case with Lazenby. I don't think Young would have gotten a better performance out of Lazenby (perhaps some of the hideous late 60s wardrobe choices would have been minimised, but even this is a big perhaps). Same for Gilbert or Hamilton. The problem with Lazenby was that the producers cast someone that looked 'suitable' for the part, but had limited acting ability and, more importantly, onscreen charisma.

I'd also say that editors often make great directors, and in the British Film Industry at the time it was a relatively common career trajectory when one worked for a studio (usually they'd have worked in the Camera Department too, which Hunt had done, so they were more 'all rounders' than what we see today on a typical big film production). David Lean had a very similar background. So I wouldn't hold that against Hunt. I'd argue one of OHMSS's strengths is its filmmaking - the cinematography and editing were surprisingly modern for the time. Personally, I think Hunt did as well as any of the other directors, especially for his first time directing. It's not a perfect effort, but it's a solid one.

The thing about Hunt was his irresponsibility, he's irresponsible for how he left Lazenby hanging, he's there, he's cast it's done, now it's up to the director to handle him, but Hunt irresponsibly left Lazenby.

They even only talked in telephones? Is that the right thing that a director can do? He's not hands on like Young, Gilbert and etc.

Like what I've said, Hunt preferred Lazenby to be alone, that's why he told the staffs and crews to be away from him, and have him as he was, alone.

And at the ending scene where he told that James Bond didn't cry? I mean why? I doubt Hunt's understanding of the character sometimes.

And yes, while OHMSS exceeds in editing, in cinematography, I owe it all to Michael Reed (the cinematographer) and John Glen (the editor).

It's not of Hunt's business, he's just irresponsible, he's lucky because he's been given a talented staffs like Michael Reed, Syd Cain, Richard Maibaum, Simon Raven, and John Glen to worked with.

But in his directing, I'll admit, it could've been so much better.

I'm no longer blind at blaming it all to Laz, when I've already found out the truth, it's Hunt who really have some faults, (sure, Laz wasn't an actor, but it's there, he's cast), now it depends on the director on how to worked with it.

And now I don't see any of the praises that goes with Hunt.

What could I've thanked him? His insistence on making it faithful to the book?

The Cinematography? I'll praise Michael Reed
The Editing? I'll praise John Glen
Architecture? I'll praise Syd Cain
Script? I'll praise Richard Maibaum and Simon Raven.
But acting? Sure the supporting cast were all great, with some few issues, but that's all down to Hunt.

There's something that I believe Bryan Cranston recently said in an interview about crying onscreen. More often it's when an actor looks as though they're about to cry, or indeed about to cry heavily (the 'single tear' image that we often see in films) that packs the most punch for an audience. Craig does this especially well in CR and SF. Sometimes when we see someone balling their eyes out it takes away that impact. In this sense Hunt was actually being a good director. He got the take of Lazenby crying but also got him to do another, more subdued one which likely had more emotional impact. I don't think he can be blamed for that, blunt as he was with Lazenby. It's worth noting too that the point of that moment is that Bond is almost trying to lie to himself to avoid having to face the reality of Tracy's death. It's more a reaction of shock and denial, as per the novel. It's actually what makes that moment particularly sad, and it shows a deep understanding of that scene in the original novel. So honestly, Hunt was probably right. If anything it once again points to Lazenby's lack of natural instinct as an actor - his inability to play anything other than simple emotions without nuance - and is a case where an effective director stepped in to guide his actor.

I agree that credit should go to all those individuals. But a director's job is in large part about working with these different people - particularly the editor and cinematographer - to create a fully realised film with a consistent vision. So Hunt deserves credit if all these elements came together. I mean, OHMSS contains many fight scenes which involve very kinetic camera work and quick cutting. It's something that goes hand in hand and wasn't cobbled together by those different people without a plan. Stuff like that had to be mapped out beforehand by Hunt, discussed with Reed and, later on, Glen etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean about Hunt only talking with Lazenby on the telephone. Was this during pre-production? From what I've heard Lazenby did meet with Hunt in person. Maybe Hunt had his reasons or wasn't available. If that's the case at least he got in contact with Lazenby. It's worth saying as well that different directors can have different directing methods.

Again, not all of the creative decisions of OHMSS necessarily work, but I think it's a pretty solid effort.

I don't know what to tell you.

What Hunt told was: "Cut! Remove the tears, James Bond doesn't cry!" (But Diana Rigg was insisted on Bond crying and he bit Lazenby's lap so it made Laz to bowed himself to cry). (Forgot to wrote this in my comment before, and wish I've did).

Regarding of he only talked through telephone, it's true, reading those behind the scenes and some Bond documentaries before, it's there, he and Laz, and sometimes the other crews talked with Hunt through telephone, and the reason? Because he thought at the time that Laz can be a better Bond if he's alone, so better for him not to be there, in terms of actual presence.

Still, he's irresponsible for that.

It's sounds that you're defending Peter Hunt in this, well, like what I've said, I'm no against the man, I'm a fan of him as an editor in the previous Bond films, but I just don't think he's the right job for OHMSS because of his irresponsibility, sure Lazenby was a newcomer without any acting experience by that time, but he's got cast already and it's not his fault (the Producers picked him for that matter), now, it lies on the director on how to worked with him, and this is where Hunt failed.

Look at Daniela Bianchi and Claudine Auger, both have no proper acting experience prior to starring in their respective Bond films, but Young managed to handled them better that resulted in acceptable performance.

Even Barbara Bach, think of why many people liked her despite of her performance (I personally think her performance was monotone)? Because Lewis Gilbert still managed to handled her.


But Hunt? He failed to handled Lazenby well.

Hunt may have been blunt about it, but it was likely the right call for the reasons I wrote. It doesn't really matter what Rigg thinks about it either (I have no doubt it was impressive seeing Lazenby do this in the moment, but how it would play on camera is a different thing). If it wasn't right for the scene then Hunt had to get that alternate take. Again, if anything it hints at him being a good director who understood the scene.

Maybe I don't know enough about the ins and outs of Hunt's direction to make a call. I really don't know anything about the only communicating on the telephone thing. As I said sometimes directors have very odd methods, and actually 'leaving the actor alone' isn't as uncommon as you'd think. I once worked with a director who claimed their only job with the actor was to 'cast the right person and let them do their thing', with him preferring to do as little directing with the actors as possible. It sounds lazy and hands off, but it worked. There seem to be other factors too here which may or may not have been Hunt's fault (Lazenby's difficulty is something I've always heard about). So with regards to Lazenby's uneven performance it's maybe not something I can put blame on Hunt solely for (the other performances in this film are pretty good I'd say).

Both Bianchi and Auger did have prior acting experience in film, so I don't think that's entirely fair on those actresses. They had more experience than Lazenby for sure.

I don't know, reading the behind the scenes, documentaries and researching different Bond facts had all of it to me.

In Lazenby's case, leaving him alone seemed a more inappropriate choice to do, the guy's a beginner, is that what he could do? Other than to guide him?

As a director, you need to take considerations, granted he may be a little bit difficult to worked with, but for the sake of the film, you need to take it into consideration and worked with it, and Hunt was irresponsible for not taking it.

I even think that Rigg did guided Lazenby better than how Hunt did, with that scene where she bit his lap, it's an excellent thing for such a co-star to do.

And as I've observed, a director has the power to control the acting: think of Die Another Day, yes, the writing may have been bad, but their acting (for whatever the faults we have with the cast there), it could easily put the blame on the director, that's Tamahori right?

Same for one of the most complained scenarios in NTTD, that Blofeld prison scene with that 'Die Blofeld Die!' think of that, that's all down to Fukunaga's direction.

And now, here, it's also down to Hunt whatever the failures in performance were, the cast was there, the director will be the one to drive them like a steering wheel of a vehicle.

And again, in the case of this scenario, the Producers hired Lazenby, that's done, it's now depending on the director, and it's Hunt's responsibility to handle him well.

I can certainly imagine that method sounding feasible for the Piz Gloria scenes. Bond is meant to feel isolated during those sections of the film. I don't think the weird dubbing helps, and it's a part of the movie where Lazenby's Bond gets lost for me, but there's a logic there. Maybe Lazenby was being especially difficult. Maybe nothing else was working. I really don't know.

Like I said, it's worth saying that Lazenby is such an outlier when it comes to Bond. He had no prior film acting experience, was chosen to replace a very popular (and talented) Bond actor for the first time, and seems to have been cast in large part due to his looks and physique rather than his natural charisma. It's very unusual for an actor in a Bond film to have been in that position, no matter what role they play, and it makes directing such an actor difficult. The other performances in OHMSS are pretty good by comparison, so it seems to me that this is something that Hunt, and indeed the producers, struggled with handling.

I'd also say that I'm not 100% sure about some of these stories. I know you've looked these things up, but as I've seen from this forum alone not all anecdotes from film sets (usually told many years after the filming) are entirely accurate or even true. Many should be taken with a grain of salt (ie. there was a popular story about Rigg and Lazenby feuding due to her purposely eating garlic before a love scene, which seems to stem from an innocent joke Rigg made. For many years I thought the two hated each other and feuded constantly on set, whereas in reality it seems Rigg found Lazenby difficult, but it wasn't as cut and dry as them hating each other). I really can't find any evidence of Rigg biting Lazenby's lap during the final scene, at least not from any of the actors themselves. Lazenby doesn't seem to be crying and simply cradles Tracy in the film. Again, it's a reaction of denial and shock, and it's what made the scene in the original novel so heartbreaking.

From my experience, the director can guide the actor, but they can't make them do anything beyond their capabilities. The director doesn't control the actor's performance strictly speaking.

But again, what do you think of the acting in DAD Or even Craig's inconsistent acting in NTTD (that Blofeld prison scene for example)? Isn't that a work done by a director?

Or even Talisa Soto's delivery of "I Love James So Much!" Or Barbara Bach's monotone acting and line deliveries? Brosnan's pain face? Or some other acting faults in the franchise? They're the works of the director.

And they're individual like Talisa Soto and Barbara Bach or Denise Richards, despite of the overall cast being good (maybe with the exception of DAD when half of the cast suffered).

One can blame it on the director, and Lazenby wasn't an exception to that directorial irresponsibility.

Although those mentioned above were mistakes, but in Hunt's case it's irresponsibility.

I actually think Brosnan's acting in DAD is pretty good and confident at times. Better than his attempt at the more dramatic scenes in TWINE (again, it may have been out of his capabilities to play these scenes subtly as an actor). Craig's acting during those scenes in NTTD seem to be deliberate choices. I suspect the concept of Bond being more 'talkative' after his years of exile from the Service was written into the script and discussed during pre-production with Craig. He probably even offered ideas. When it comes to filmmaking, it's not really a case where the director gets credit for the actor's performance. Fukunaga probably gave Craig guidance, worked on the blocking with him, but ultimately allowed him to 'do his thing' and may have given him some notes from take to take. It's not a case where he controlled every minute detail of Craig's performance. Craig's performance is his own in this sense.

For what it's worth, this is where I personally come from with this: I have worked on a number of smaller film and television sets, and have seen directors work with actors. Not one would claim that they can control an actor's performance. They can only guide it. Not one of those directors would ever, for example, recite a line or make an expression in a way they'd want the actor to do it (it would be incredibly stupid - they either embarrass the actor or embarrass themselves). They certainly don't want to highlight the actor's lack of ability to do something, or embarrass them in front of everyone and cause tension. Moreover, all directors I have spoken to have said one of the most important aspects of all this is casting. If you don't have the right actor for the right role it becomes difficult. I've also even seen some actors behaving in a very difficult manner on film sets and know how it can impact things.

It's not that control, when I said handling, it's their way of directing, and what Hunt lacked was the support, the guidance, it's evident in how he treated Lazenby.

And again, no matter how great the actor are, if the wrong was in the director's part, there's no way they could've handle it by themselves (it may have no relation to the Lazenby thing, but since this is getting too far, this is a bit worthy of inclusion).

Again, think of the DAD (maybe with the exception of Brosnan himself, or let me be specific, Halle Berry or Toby Stephens, for example), and there's Denise Richards? Or Talisa Soto.

Again, they're experienced actors but why they've still suffered from those performances that people now usually despise? Could we safely say it's something wrong on the part of the directors?

And also Barbara Bach with her performance (a performance that even makes Lazenby's performance more appreciative to me) with her monotone, almost one dimensional performance (don't give me that she's Russian, she's cold kind of reasoning, there's Natalya Simonova and Tatiana Romanova and both are far more convincing in their roles than Bach).

Okay, let's discount Craig, given your explanation.

Well, I think a major part of this discussion regarding Hunt is this: how do we truly know what he was like as a director on-set? As was hinted at, it seems like some of these stories about him being 'hands off' (or at least not talking to Lazenby) might not be 100% accurate. All we have to go on is the finished product. It's the same with any other director.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with the DAD examples. I wouldn't say Toby Stephen's performance in that film was particularly bad. Gustav Graves is meant to be (on the surface anyway) a young adventurous playboy billionaire type, slightly arrogant, with that undercurrent of darkness. The concept of him actually being a Korean General is daft, but Stephens plays the character fine and his casting makes sense. Beyond some cringe lines ('yo mamma') I can't remember Halle Berry being bad in that film either, but perhaps I just haven't seen the film in a while. Again, it's just a case where her character is a bit one dimensional and boring, but the performance is ok or at least suitable.

The same with Lazenby, we never know, we have no idea, like the garlic scene with Rigg, as it made out to be false, here, in how he really acted on set, we even have no idea, in that last article that I've posted, there's Lazenby and Hunt contradicting each other, so we have no idea.

Again, it's the execution which was the problem in DAD, at least at how they could execute their lines, the dialogues, the same case for Stephens ("You can't kill my dreams, but my dreams can kill you"), and Halle Berry's execution of those lines like that ("yo momma") line, ("read this bitch"), I mean it's surprising that you're not offended by those, but some people did, one of them is me, and I disagree, the character of Jinx, on paper was great, she's tough and made as Bond's equal.

But in that film, I felt that they've seemed to overact, maybe it's subjective, you see it that way, and I (or the other people) see it that way.

Halle was a great actress, but it's obvious how she's botched in here, the same for Toby Stephens.

You can ask those people who disliked Halle Berry's performance for example and they might give you the right answer.

You know, it's just a shame as she could've been so much better, many people even shouting to recast her, and I disagree, I think she's finely cast, the problem was how it's made for her to execute.

The same maybe for Toby Stephens.

007HallY wrote: »

As for Bach, yes she has a bit of a monotone, but Anya is a professional and rather 'by the books' Soviet spy as you said. I'm not sure why you use Natalya and Tatiana as counter examples because those are very different characters. Tatiana is particularly meant to be quite naive, and both are essentially ordinary people compared to Anya. I'd say it makes perfect sense that Anya has that tone of voice and it gives off a very specific impression of her character that's arguably right for the role, whether you like the performance or not. I've never heard anyone complain about it beyond these forums. Was this down to Bach's decision as an actress or is it a case where her lack of expression happened to work and the direction leaned into this? If it's the former then it points to a clear method on the part of Bach, and if the latter then it points to effective direction. Maybe it's a mixture of both. I don't know.

But still, even a Soviet Spy, think of Xenia Onatopp, is she cold, yes she's a villain, but she portrayed the part better than Bach did.

And the part where her boyfriend died, there's supposed to be a heavy emotion going on there, but Bach played it monotone with no emotion or whatsoever.

Even Michelle Yeoh (Wai Lin) had more life and complexity to her performance than Bach did, and Wai Lin was also an agent trained in foreign country, China.

Okay, let's discount Savalas of that accent, as it's not intended and obvious in the first place (might've been a nitpicking on my part), but Anya was a Russian Spy, it's obvious, now how could someone buy her into the role if her Russian Accent sounds bad, at least Savalas wasn't trying and again, the character wasn't obvious in that way, but Anya, she's a straight up Soviet Spy and what we're presented was the one trying to master a Russian Accent and came off as silly and ridiculous.

And Natalya, she's not just an ordinary woman, she's a Russian Programmer who's traumatized, she's cold, yes, but not monotone.

Bach, she played it as a one note performance, she's like a mannequin, she's a lot more wooden than Lazenby, people can say what they want at Lazenby, but at least the guy can still move and still have facial expressions and reactions, compared to Bach whose performance felt like a moving Barbie Doll, beautiful but she's not credible to the role, it's obvious how she spoke her lines like just reading the script in lifeless mode (I know she has fans, I do understand that, but it's just my observation).

And again, what's your opinion on Denise Richards? On Talisa Soto?

Since, we're talking the Bond Girls Actresses already, I think we could proceed it to this thread: https://www.mi6community.com/discussion/20809/the-bond-girl-actresses-get-too-much-blame#latest

As I have my opinion already laid in there.

007HallY

Maybe we should just agree to disagree as I think we're clogging up the thread :) Or at least continue in a more relevant thread as you suggested.

GoldenGun

Don't mind either of them to be honest. Come to think of it, I find enjoyment in every single title song of the franchise.

Mathis1

GoldenGun wrote: »

Don't mind either of them to be honest. Come to think of it, I find enjoyment in every single title song of the franchise.

Even DAD? 🫣
All joking aside, I sincerly hope Madge makes a full recovery!

j_w_pepper

thedove wrote: »

Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?

Unless I give a bit of an edge to AWTD, I'd say I'd rather try and get someone to unstick the elevator. If that doesn't help, so be it.

CommanderRoss

I'm not a huge Sam Smith fan, but awtd is by far the worst bond noise ever concocted.

HildebrandRarity

If you want a real Sophie's choice situation, have people pick between The Experience of Love and Never Say Never Again.

mattjoes

These are simple choices for me. I'd rather listen to WOTW than AWTD, and The Experience of Love than NSNA. I love The Experience of Love, actually.

w2bond

I don't mind the AWTD instrumental, especially the beginning where it uses the bond theme and is very similar to the beginning of YKMN. The vocals, on the other hand...

Kronsteen

thedove wrote: »

Would you rather be stuck in an elevator with "Another Way to Die" playing on a loop OR with "The Writings On The Wall" stuck on a loop?

Is this supposed to be a tough choice? I would listen to Sam Smith all day if I could. The bonus of suffering through AWTD is I might find a second or two that's good if I need to listen to it on a loop. Terrible song, terribly produced, bad singing. It's a weird song.

WOTW is a good song and Sam sings it okay. I love his voice, but it took a little time to get used to it in a Bond context. Some days I even prefer WOTW over Skyfall, making it Craig's second best after YKMN.

Fire_and_Ice_Returns

AWTD wins easily for me.

thedove

My son loves AWTD but I think it has to do with the guitar riff which is excellent and the part that I love about that song. I love that they tried something different with it and tried to mesh Keys with White. (edited I was thinking of Jack Black! LOL) Unfortunately when you take risks you end up sometimes missing the mark.

Okay on to another one!

Would you rather get a Bond film every 2 years OR get a Bond film every three to four years?

peter

Just make the best film you can, whether that takes one year or six years— I don’t care

Benny

As much as I'd love a Bond film every 2 years, I think we'd revert too the kind of films that caused EON to make the necessary changes to the series.
In saying that, there's not guarantee having a film every three to four years would be an improvement. So long as the story and script are good. Going forward I think 3-4 years is the best approach.

QBranch

AWTD over WOTW. One doesn't have the best lyrics but is at least bombastic; the other is technically a competent song but as Mr Silva would say, "So dull, so so dull."

Three years between films but not four. Two years doesn't really give me enough time to fully sink in a new entry and gather all the merch/props. Four years wait sucks, and a longer wait is no guarantee of a top notch film.

echo

SIS_HQ wrote: »

I'll go with MR, and to be honest, if that would be his last film, would've been great, it's probably his last Bond film where we saw him in his prime.

He's also great in FYEO, but that film was obviously made for a new Bond and younger Bond actor, it's different from the Moore Era, it's grounded and a bit gritty, and especially that PTS.

Even the Bond Girl (Melina) was meant for a younger actor, with Moore, especially his age was very uncomfortable to look at, Melina was almost like his daughter.

And it's different to see Moore in FYEO, it's a bit out of character for his Bond too, especially that it's already established by the time FYEO was released, it's just felt different compared to the other Moore Era Bond films.

Whereas in MR, it's Moore in his prime, the film that really fits his Bond, it's tailored for Moore, with FYEO it's really written for a new and younger actor.

I think MR would've been a better exit for Moore really, and especially that the film was a success at the time, it would end his Bond tenure in a high note.

I think FYEO would've been an excellent intro for Dalton.

I think his MR performance is overall better, although FYEO is a better film.

I do wonder if the PTS and ending of FYEO was tailored for Moore. I'd like to see the script.

j_w_pepper

thedove wrote: »

I love that they tried something different with it and tried to mesh Keys with Black.

It's White, Jack White. She is the one that is Black :-).

thedove wrote: »

Would you rather get a Bond film every 2 years OR get a Bond film every three to four years?

Two years would be great, but unlikely to achieve on a constant basis. The last two-year stretch between two Bond movies was CR to QOS, and it shows in QOS's quality. Likewise, the Brosnan films didn't exactly improve over time, although the nadir was reached after a three-year break.

But if they start afresh and have a concept they may start the planning early enough to get back to a two-year rhythm, instead of starting to plan the next one after the last one came out.

QBranch

thedove wrote: »

I love that they tried something different with it and tried to mesh Keys with Black.

The Black Keys.

RichardTheBruce

I'll take what I can get. Two great Bond films every 2 years would suit me.

FrankXavier

I think it's difficult to set a pattern like this nowadays, I mean yeah technically Marvel does it but their shortcomings have already started to show in their screenplays and visual effects and overall production values. It's been going downhill for a while.

It would be nice to always get one two years but there's also the possibility that things end up rushed, the Bond actor gets fed up of being locked to only doing Bond (unless there's a way for him to film stuff inbetween Bond movies), the scripts are not up to par, etc.

Now, that's not to say, a film taking more years is guaranteed to be better. But whatever works best for each entry. And ideally no I don't wanna wait 5 years for every entry.