It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Sean and Roger are great actors but they can't play a lover as much as a younger guy, i agree there should have been an experience actor but not like Connery or Moore, they played more Cinematic Bond than bond from the books.
This may be controversial in response, but I don't feel that Connery would've pulled off the falling in love aspect of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. While Connery's portrayal of Bond is undoubtedly the quintessential cinematic Bond, it's that Supermanesque quality of his character which I believe wouldn't have made him believable in falling in-love, IMO. Lazenby's portrayal is the quintessential Fleming Bond along with Dalton. Lazenby was the most Bondesque character in real life, having serviced in the Australian Special Forces, rising to the rank of Seargant, gaining expert skills in unarmed combat. The fact that he was a skii-instructor at one stage and one of the highest paid models in Europe help too. I find that his portrayal of Bond is genuine and heartfelt and it's for this reason that you believe the relationship between Bond and Tracy. Lazenby reacts to situations in the film, not as an actor, but rather as he would as a human-being and that's what makes his Bond relatable. It's moments like when Tracy invites Bond to her room in the Casino and Lazenby stands up only to sit down as she tosses the keys to him that make his performance great. The small nuisances in his performance. I can't image Sean or Roger being afraid of the bear while trying to evade Blofeld's henchmen in St. Moritz. I can't image Sean or Roger proclaiming their love to Tracy in the barn. I can't image Sean or Roger sobbing over Tracy's death at the climax of the film. I'm currently reading OHMSS and the book has given me a renewed love for the film and in particular for George's performance as to me it feels straight from the pages itself. It's really apparent in the book how human Bond really is and it's a characteristic that Lazenby totally nails in the film, perhaps ironically due to his inexperience.
Wholeheartedly agree.
And that's exactly why Lazenby is my second favourite Bond after Dalton.
100% right on the money. Sean and Roger were always acting, which of course, they’re professional actors. George wasn’t, and so he was largely reacting, naturally. He didn’t know how to do anything else.
My take is if they'd gotten to do OHMSS after GF as originally planned then maybe Connery would've been on target, but given the script was different at the time it may not have turned out near what we got. And there's no way he'd have every tolerated the lengthy shoot from late '68 into the spring of '69.
He wasn't in peak physical form then, either, evident as far back as YOLT. He was still in good shape, but looked a bit heavier and older. There's a behind the scenes photo of Connery in Japanese makeup at the ninja training school next to a technical advisor who looks a lot older but is in great shape and makes Connery look less fit.
This is where Lazenby came in and stood out. He just sold it better than Connery could've at that time.
That's a great idea. I'll have to try watching them like this!
Agreed. I also think that the film world was okay with a downbeat ending in 1969--films had gotten darker--in a way that they weren't in 1964, 1965, or 1967. So the timing with Connery simply wouldn't have worked out.
Haven't seen it but I've been told Robin and Marian should be one.
Just kidding. First that actually comes to mind is ROBIN & MARIAN.
I think this is a lot of crap. Quintessential Fleming Bond? The movies goes out of its way to try to make you believe he's still the same cinematic Bond that we had five adventures with prior. In Fleming's OHMSS Bond is a weary and tired man who's initially ready to resign because he believes the search is futile, and when Blofeld gets away at the end Bond doesn't keep up because he doesn't care. I don't get THAT out of the film featuring a very youthful Lazenby strutting his stuff about with a lot of swagger to spare. He has a few moments of vulnerability, but it's not something Connery couldn't have pulled off. You say it would be unbelievable, whereas I think after having witnessed the man in five adventures over the 7 years it would have felt like a revelation to see Connery Bond reaching a point where he meets his match, and be doubly tragic when it's taken away from him.
I do feel some of you sell Connery (and Moore) rather short in order to build up Lazenby.
I agree here. The Connery of the late '60's would have been far more ideal for Fleming's OHMSS, rather than being in his prime as per TB. The book is several years after Vesper and he still pays his respects. He's far more world weary and tired.
In addition, had a faithful YOLT been shot afterwards the Connery of DAF would have been suited to THAT story, IMO.
Only if Cubby and Harry did what Babs and MGW did decades later and give Connery both a piece of the action and substantial creative input. Only then would Connery have given a great performance in OHMSS in 1968.
Babs and MGW do not get enough credit for learning from Bond history.
I’m not Lazenby returning is a fans unfulfilled wish? Agreed on the other points though.
Speaking for myself, it's not that Connery couldn't have, it's would he have wanted to given the circumstances. He was at the end of his tether with YOLT and would've never stood for the epically long shoot that was OHMSS, with a stronger character or not. Lazenby came about at just the right time for the right film. What if he'd have been in another YOLT-type of gadget-laden film?
As for romantic relationships in other Connery films, how about The Russia House or Cuba? Problem is those 2 films are a slog to get through.
He's not as bad as I'm making him out to seem. He isn't terrible. But he certainly isn't good. He's far too chummy to be 007. There's something boyish and unconvincing about the performance. His physicality is certainly great, though, and I'm sure that he would do alright if he continued in the role. But when people praise his performance I am often baffled.
tl;dr - He isn't terrible, but given the context of the film around him, he is (relatively speaking).
Connery was also at the end of his tether with Broccoli and Saltzman. He would’ve been sleepwalking through OHMSS worse than YOLT.
His portrayal of Bond is quite lightweight from Goldfinger onwards. When he got a free crack at his own interpretation of Bond, in NSNA, we could all see what he thought a Bond film should be. And that film was not in the style of OHMSS.
I think that Roger could have carried off an excellent OHMSS, if it had been saved for him. Roger could have made us believe that Tracy was The One, and he could also have acted the grief at the end of the film very well too. He was a much underrated actor, better than Connery perhaps.
This does remind me that the film makers were under no obligation to make OHMSS the next film in 1969. They could easily have put it on the back burner (“too depressing”) and gone with one of the other novels. After YOLT in 1967 they still had LALD, MR, DAF, TMWTGG and TSWLM as Fleming novels or titles still to film, so they could have put Lazenby into one of those.
That way OHMSS could easily have been a Roger Moore film, perhaps a late 1970s one.
Nope. Moore was underrated, but he simply doesn't have a body of work that includes performances like those Connery gave in The Offence, Robin and Marian, The Man Who Would Be King, The Wind and the Lion, The Hill, etc. Connery played a "lightweight" Bond for the same reason Moore played a "lightweight" Bond--it was the template of the character and what audiences expected. The point of OHMSS was the challenge those expectations. Connery got bored with Bond because the movies were giving him progressively less to act with and because he felt he was being taken advantage of by the producers. Had he reached a deal with them and been under Hunt's direction, I have very little doubt that he would have risen to the challenge of OHMSS. His later career shows how good of an actor he was.
+1. His walk and accent is not Bond either. He’s ok in a brilliant film.
That doesn't necessarily prove he couldn't have done a film in the style of OHMSS. I'm sure if he wanted he could have done it, but NSNA at the time it came out was supposed to be something that would rejuvenate his career and be what audiences expected of his James Bond. All that said, he wasn't even happy with how NSNA turned out anyway.
If we take Connery as the actor we know from the rest of his career, and his earlier Bond work with Young, he absolutely could've delivered the timbre of performance that the filmmakers were looking for.
In a 1967 interview that was done sometime after YOLT was completed, Connery said he was willing to return as James Bond if EON had paid him £1m.
I thought he turned that down.
He did just that with DAF.
I'm saying after YOLT Connery's asking price was £1m, EON rejected that, thus he walked away from doing a sixth Bond film. He would only come back in DAF when United Artists made that offer.
It's kind of remarkable though that even though these films made well over $100m, EON wasn't even willing to pay Connery just 1% of that. Cut to 50 years later and EON is willing to pay up Daniel Craig because they know he's worth the money.