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
I think it's hard when reviewing or discussing a Bond film not to try and compare the film at hand with the ones that have either preceded it or are still to come. For that reason I'll try to remain conscious of the fact that 'Dr. No' was the first film and at this stage there had not been an established formula for these stories. Therefore, the first thing I must state is that DN functions essentially as a black comedy. The stuff that is happening on screen is inherently at times silly and often grandiose but the film plays these moments seriously and often very darkly. For this reason the film really works as it's clear the filmmakers are having fun. Terence Young spoke about how his approach with Bond was to always have his tongue firmly in his cheek and though he took his subject seriously he wanted his audience to have fun with the film. This is something he achieved with aplomb with DN as the film is thoroughly entertaining.
The black comedic nature of the film is evident from the first scene where Strangways is killed by three supposedly blind-men who later ferry off his corpse in a hearse. Later these same men take down Strangway's secretary; this scene in contrast with the first is actually rather dark and these two moments together really contribute towards setting the tone of the piece to follow. Later moments like Bond's chauffeur turning out to be a stooge and his death by cyanide-cigarette and Bond blasé quip about his demise further cement the film's darkly comedic intent. Even later moments like the tarantula in Bond's bed are silly but because the film plays the moment straight it's very effective and most horrific to sit through.
Let's move on then to Bond himself. Sean Connery is the epitome of perfect casting. Bond is a difficult role to cast especially as Ian Fleming described him. Essentially Fleming's Bond is a toff and an actor in the Roger Moore/David Niven-mould would have been too alienating for audiences and would have made it difficult for them to invest in the character. Connery was perfect as on paper he's totally wrong for the part. Bond is a an upper-class sophisticated Englishman and Connery was a working-class brash Scotsman. You wouldn't hire a cockney to play a Duke but that it exactly what Harry Saltzman and Albert Broccoli did. The result payed off in dividends.
Connery is easily as good-looking as Fleming described the character and when he seduces women it's believable that they would fall for his animal magnetism. Connery is also a rare example of an actor that not only females but also males could fawn over as his brute machoism would likely have led many men in the 1960's to walk out of the cinema with their back's straighter and chest pushed forward. I found myself often marvelling at his physique. Furthermore, Sean plays the more sophisticated side of Bond's character with ease and is incredibly insouciant, nonchalant and just plain cool, especially in the small moments like the way he lights a cigarette, walks through a casino or leans against a bar. However, there is a beast lurking beneath that Anthony Sinclair suit and he can be become incredibly rough and genuinely intimidating and menacing when the time calls for it.
One of the great things DN did was not to tell the origin story, something the producers could have done considering this was the first film but instead they took the option to let the character hit the ground running. In the first scene we meet Bond it's clear that he's a very cool character we know he's a bit of playboy and he flirts with his boss's secretary rather cheekily and a girl in a casino. Soon after we see him get a briefing from his chief it is therefore clear that he is some kind of detective or policeman. By his third large sequence he is confronting a chauffeur with a measured degree of force. Therefore within the first 20 minutes we gradually get a measure of who this man is and what he is capable of. However, it is not until the scene with Professor Dent that Bond comes full circle and we finally see what 007 is capable of. This slow drip-feed of information to the audience is far more preferably than being spoon-fed Bond's character in exposition and the film takes it's time over it's opening hour showing us who exactly 007 really is.
Dent's killing is the most expertly staged of the movie and Ted Moore's cinematography is very effective with the fan in the ceiling providing a very eerie effect as Dent's gun smokes in the moonlight. Here we see Bond kill a man in cold blood and it becomes clear the messy business 007 is involved in. My favourite moment about this scene is that after Bond catches Dent he does not arrest or berate the man he merely places his gun down and enters a conversation with him while lighting a cigarette. It's a very cool and nonchalant thing to do and we the audience are shocked to see Bond let his guide down in such an obvious way. However, Bond has read the situation expertly and knows that Dent has used up his bullets and throughout the scene is aware that the cards are stacked in his favour.
Furthermore, we see other shades in Bond's character throughout the film. For instance it's rare that we see Bond disgusted or even fearful however he openly admits to being scared when in Doctor No's clutches. One of the threads that links all of Terence Young's films together is the paranoia that perennially exists in the air. In Bond's world it never pays to be too careful, when he surveys his hotel room he knows the place has been searched over, he sniffs every drink served to him and is very weary of being in any room in case it has been bugged. In addition, airports have always been a place in Young's films where someone is watching.
The ending is also great as Bond is really left in a bad way with his back firmly against the wall. Never have we seen Bond quite as brutalised and exhausted as he is after he escapes his cell and Connery is fantastic in these moments and really sells the physical aspect of the character. These moments I think really displayed Bond at his most human in the entire series at least until we got to OHMSS and CR.
As I have said the film is very entertaining and I enjoyed it immensely. There is little glaringly wrong with the movie and the story moves so quickly that it's rare that any problems have a chance to resonant with viewers. I found myself happily being swept up in Bond's world. The film is a very fun and breezy affair even if it may not amount to anything too substantial as an end result. Therefore, it may be easy for more sniffy critics to cast it aside but there is no denying that spending two hours in the company of James Bond is a very exciting enterprise.
The plot itself is very straightforward - Bond is sent to investigate the sudden disappearance of a fellow Mi6 operative in Jamaica. That's it really. There is some stuff about toppling American missiles thrown in for good measure but the plot is really a clothesline for the filmmaker's to string together some beautiful locations, colourful characters and inventive set-pieces. I found myself being swept up in the momentum of all this and really enjoying the inventive nature of the film. Remember of course this was the first Bond and there is definitely a blissful unselfconsciousness to the filmmaking of DN. Later films would of course unintentionally fall into the realms of self-parody.
I can only imagine the excitement that audiences back in 1962 had when watching this film. Here was a character who openly killed people in cold blood and had sex with the most exotic of beauties. Back in those more conservative times the idea that the leading man had a sexual relationship with one woman in a motion picture was more than enough let alone three. Think back to 'North by Northwest', Cary Grant has to marry Eva Marie Saint before taking her through the tunnel, well don't expect that from 007. The Vatican apparently disapproved of DN and if anything this fact to me is more a seal of approval than anything else.
Some have taken issue with the misogyny on show especially in the Miss Taro scene. I for one don't see the issue here, only moments earlier had she led Bond to his presumed death and it's only fair that he'd be angry with her. Furthermore, I like the scene as it perfectly displays Connery's flinty nature as Bond and the great duality he bought to the character. One second he could be very charming and romantic and the next he could be very intimating and threatening. Another issue is the characterisation of Quarrel who at times is used for unnecessary comic-relief. It is also quite worrying that on one occasion Quarrel is literally left to carry Bond's shoes (it's with relief that in the next scene he isn't holding them - I like to think he threw them away once he realised what he was doing).
For me the character of Doctor No does introduce something of a tonal misstep. For the most part the film has been a rather scrappy little thriller and Doctor No as a character feels a little cartoony/comic-book. The character is much more effective in the novel, however like the book the slow introduction before finally meeting him is very well done. In particular I enjoyed the scene with Bond sailing up to Crab Key for the first time and the ominous change in the score. I do love the dinner scene though, I think it's a great touch that when we do meet Doctor No he is a classy guy who treats his prisoners like guests of honour. I enjoy in particular the moment he threatens Bond while a waiter is pouring him a glass of champagne. There is clearly some homoerotic tension between Bond and Doctor No, especially on the good Doctor's side of things. This aspect makes the character slightly more unnerving as the dinner scene is basically No trying to seduce Bond after having been impressed by what he has seen of him. This is departure from the novel where No only keeps Bond alive to later put him through his obstacle-cause, in the film No seems genuinely bruised when Bond rebuffs his advances.
The big problem for me in DN comes in the third act. For a thriller the ending is well...not really that thrilling. The film has been very tightly paced but the last part in Doctor No's reactor room is very slow moving and rather dull. For me at that point the film had really earned a better send-off and I was itching to see Connery get in another fist-fight. I think the ending could have been better done and I'd really liked to have seen Honey have escaped on her own volition like in the book (In the film she is reduced to the damsel-in-distress). After such a great and memorable entrance it's a shame that Honey does disappear into the background for the finale. We know she is a very strong and capable woman and I think the film owed her more after her fantastic initial set-up.
As far as casting goes the film is impeccably decked-out. Ursula Andress is one of the most beautiful women in the world and is marvellous in the film. Honey is a strong Amazonian woman and her gentle flirtation with Bond and genuine chemistry with Connery leads to a very earned final kiss at the end. She's such a strong presence in the film especially at the end when she stands facing the Navy with her hands on her hips. Joseph Wiseman is very creepy and his very still stilted performance is suitably menacing. I don't think the guy even blinks or moves his head and it's all very effective. Anthony Dawson has a great hawkish face which gives him a great screen-presence when he's on. Both John Kitzmiller and Jack Lord are also very well cast and give great turns in their supporting parts. Bernard Lee is also fantastic in his small role and really in that very brief scene does a lot: immediately you know who is in charge and Lee has a real imposing presence when squaring off against Connery.
On the technical side of things Ted Moore's photography is perfectly lush and exotic. The script is very sharply-written and often very witty. The Norman/Barry score is bang on the money. Ken Adam's sets are also great though I did find them to be the most dated aspect of the film especially the final reactor-room scenes. I really liked his 'fake' hotel set on Crab Key; there is something very artificial and eerie about that whole segment with the two nurses having a very 'Stepford Wives' quality to them. The car chase in the middle of the film is also slightly risible by today's standards.
In summary then, DN is a thoroughly entertaining film that cemented the introduction of the Bond character with great elan and grace and not forgetting a hearty does of darkly-comedic menace. The film is breezy and fun and really the perfect opening act to the greatest film series ever and 50 years on it stands up with the best of them.
You looked at the beginning of the cinematic Bond, Sean, and Dr. No, with quite a fine lens.
It is interesting to consider Dr. No as a black comedy; I had never thought it through like that before. I do see the nuanced, tongue-in-cheek humor in Bond films (and do prefer it to OTT humor), but I am not sure I would go as far as to say it is black comedy. But mostly I agree with you. I think the term "black comedy" probably has a different shading of meaning to different people. Yes, the humorous elements, whether subtle or more obvious, shaded Dr. No in a different way than other films at that time. Dr. No was so different and exciting and fun. It really surprised and entertained the audience in new ways, especially with introducing this new charismatic and layered character, James Bond. We were also treated to another pleasant and fresh surprise by Honey emerging from the sea, wearing attire that was rather daring and had an edge. Ursula was stunning.
Your thoughts on Sean's performance are spot on. I agree with everything you wrote in general and this was quite succinct (you were mentioning Bond's treatment of Ms. Taro): I like the scene as it perfectly displays Connery's flinty nature as Bond and the great duality he bought to the character. One second he could be very charming and romantic and the next he could be very intimating and threatening.
Yes, that is Connery's Bond. B-) I cannot see David Niven, as example, giving us anywhere near that (and I do love David Niven). We are all fortunate that Sean was the first (film) James Bond.
I appreciate you talking about the technical aspects of the film as well. Dr. No does hold up remarkably well. It is interesting to look back at this very first Bond film, the one that was different from other films at the time and who set the framework in place, the template, for this great series that we enjoy.
Thanks again, Pierce2Daniel! And please join us in the future with more of your thoughts as we go along here.
*******
Note to all: Monday morning it is for me, and I'd like to spend one more day or day and a half exploring Sean Connery's era. I'll change us over to George Lazenby on Tuesday evening. I know that George did not have an "era," but rather just the one film. However, he was James Bond, and for many of you OHMSS is one of your top films. We will probably spend 3 days discussing Lazenby and OHMSS before sailing into the Roger Moore era.
Cheers! Here's to a great Bondian week for all of us ~
Ken Adam's classic sets, Peter Hunt's editing and Lewis Gilbert's direction put this 100x ahead of DAF for me. Connery too is more convincing as Bond than he was in his final swansong.
Sean is not terrible. He is "puffier" ...err, quite. He does not have the sense of intensity, passion, simmering and volatile feelings, etc. that were palpable in his earlier films. He is rather on a low burner, so to speak. It is not a great performance; it is lacking. :-< But I like him better in this than DAF, yes. Other attributes of the film make it an enjoyable one to watch from time to time for me.
Sean certainly gave us a variety of performances during his entire tenure as Bond. Thanks for mentioning YOLT, @BAIN123.
You're right. I do believe him as Bond more here than I do in Diamonds, but something is missing in YOLT. Bored? I don't know. I don't get the sense he's particularly interested...then again I've never been all that good at reading people ;)
Sean was at the time getting truly overwhelmed and sick of the press attention. In Japan, for example, photographers even followed him into the restroom. It was all crushing and getting to be suffocating - and for him, having been through 4 films prior to YOLT, it was just becoming something he had not foreseen and certainly did not enjoy much any more - I think that is true, not that I have personal sources to tell me; this is of course, just my impression from a myriad of things I have read over the years.
That said I do genuinely really like YOLT and, while I do think its probably the weakest of the 60s films, I don't think it deserves the flack it gets. Some sequences are a real visual treat.
In DAF, for his return to the role, he did not seem to be mired in angst/anger/frustration. He seemed to be relaxed (maybe too much at times), enjoying making DAF (with Jill, who wouldn't?). And the money he earned went to a very good cause. Yet, in YOLT, it was a more serious film and I do prefer it to DAF.
@chrisisall, Sean was pretty near burnt out personally, I think. If I can make it in my mind that his portrayal is of a weary near burnt out Bond, ...okay, I guess that helps. Not my favorite performance by any means, though. Don't think it helped the film.
I still feel a bit disappointed by Connery in YOLT. I like him in the film but I do wonder whether he would be as well respected if he had done just this and DAF.
Connery was a part of all this and it was such a pity he did not have the interest or care about his performance by the time YOLT came out.
How would he have fared in OHMSS? I prefer Lazenby there as who knows what attitude Sean would have carried into the sixth film. It was just as well he did not do the superb OHMSS.
Ms. Rigg might have forced him to rise to the occasion....
As for Sean in OHMSS, I personally would have loved that. I think with the script, and especially with Rigg and Savalas, Sean would have been superb. (Especially if they were paying him enough and keeping the press away from him more.) That would have been ideal for me, at least.
So, @chrisisall, we are again in agreement. Indeed, I think she would have helped ... ;)
First I'd still say something about my favorite Bond and what makes it my favorite: Thunderball.
When I watch a Bond movie there are always moments that give me that 'Bond-feeling', that tension, coolness, exoticism (if that's a word). And the film that harnesses these the most with the least distracting assets wins the day. TB doesn't start off bad. I like the fight between Mrs. B and Bond. The grimness with which Connery says he'd have liked to kill him himself sets the tone. here's a serious agent. I'm not too fond of the jetpack, but as it was outlandish technology at the time and WORKED I can overlook it's short, rather useless use.
Then there's Schrublands. Not that impressive other then we see Bond beeing the spy he is day and night. Still it's a step by step introduction. M's face and intonation when Bond walks into the meeting and his 'is she worth going after' show us he isn't too impressed by Bond, who genuinely looks like he feels he isn't taken seriously. After that, it's a proper spy-thriller with no equal. The scene where Bond finds himself playing baccarat wilt Largo, immensely well played by Adolfo, is one of those 'wow, this is cool, intense, etc.' scenes. When we see Bond been taken for a ride by that extremely sexy, hot, etc. Fiona Volpe we feel the danger and excitement. We know this is Bond, for no other series gives you such a feeling. oh, I could go on and on and on. All those scenes where both sides are searching for that definate clue. I so love that film. Considering the actual time I'll leave it at this and skip to the Connery era, just mentioning that for me TB has no un-Bond like moments:
Connery as Bond, under the direction of Young, is what Bond is. For me Dr. No as a starting point captures the spirit of the novels very well. It's outlandish and strange, but not impossible, and well befitting a world where half the world knew little about the other (communist) half. Dr. No's realpolitik was it's time way ahead. This line continues with FRWL. Oddly even as SPECTRE, which one just came to know, allready targets Bond himself. How creepy is that?
For me GF is the first film that loses a step. Yes, I know it's the first that ticks all the boxes, but it's also the forst that's a bit sloppy, with too many plotholes. Gert Frobe is fantastic though, and the plans his Goldfinger has are extreme. Are they already over the top? Perhaps, but everyone plays it so well it's somewhere believable. The way Bond finds out about the plans though I truly don't like. A sign of things to come I'm afraid.
In TB Bond is back again with all the tensity, exotic locales, dames and what not. I think this is the ultimate film, but that i mentioned before.
Sean's tenure after this is going downward. DAF has far too many mistakes, YOLT is better but not as good as TB was. Can we blame him? No, I don't think so. He brought Bond to ultimate highs, and you can't stay there forever. It's an era all others had to compare to. Maybe with first GF, a bit TB and YOLT and DAF Connery also introduced us to the Auston Powers era and later Johnny English as well. In that way he not only made Bond a solid character, but film series with even series just to make fun of them are as healthy as can be.
Out of time again. I hope to contribute more later..
I know we simply do not know how Connery would have been in OHMSS. I would hope that he would have gotten excited about doing that one seriously and with passion. I would hope that the directors, producers, and all involved would have wanted to make a high quality film and that they would not have gone a different route because it was Connery (or for any reason). This is just fun speculation, but I do think Sean with Rigg and Savalas and company in OHMSS could have been truly spectacular. I think Sean would have wanted to be at his best and the supporting cast in that were so excellent. Ah well ... but is is nice to think about. 8->
And hello, @CommanderRoss, thanks for jumping in now! So good to hear about your favorite Bond film, Thunderball, and your impressions of the Connery era. Enjoyed reading your piece, and I really like this: " He brought Bond to ultimate highs, and you can't stay there forever. It's an era all others had to compare to." That is so true. And any era has a beginning, peak, and end. What a great start for James Bond in films, and aren't we all lucky that Sean was first? I do think so.
Still the OHMSS we got wasn't too bad was it... ;-)
Dr. No- I often think how was it possible to get so much right already in the first film? Harry and Cubby really took chances with this one. No one really knew if the film would be a hit or a miss! And taking a mostly unknown actor for such a role was the biggest risk of it all... and did it pay. Connery oozes confidence and charm in this one. With the help of director Terence Young Connery built his Bond from scratch. That very first scene at the Casino is nothing short of perfect, the music, the cigarette, Sylvia Trench (she's one of the reasons the scene works so well)... it sets the tone no only for this film but for the entire franchise. I am personally a big fan of Dr. No (both film and book). The soundtrack might not be the best but it is by no chance bad. The sets are amazing! Both Sylvia Trench and Honey Rider are memorable Bond girls, each in their own style. The villains are top notch, allies as well, and the Jamaica locations are great.
From Russia With Love - The success of DN allowed the producers to really up their game for the second entry. They picked up one of the best novels and an amazing casting to translate it into the screen. Connery provides, in my opinion, his best performance as Bond in this film. I really cannot find a flaw with him! What was done well with DN was done better in FRWL and that is why this film is considered the best by so many, myself included. However, this film has a different tone from its predecessor, more serious and down to earth. Also, the influence of Hitchcock can be seen throughout the film.
Goldfinger - With the huge success of the two previous entries the producers decided to increase the entertainment side of Bond and what happened? Bond became an icon. This film is not a favourite of mine but I can see why it remains so popular to this day. The first PTS, the first true title sequence and the unforgettable title song sung by Shirley Bassey, first appearance of the Aston, first torture scene and exposition of the villain's plan, first sacrificial lamb. This film was huge! Everything that was good in the other films became not better but at least bigger. However I always feel like things started getting slightly out of control here...
Thunderball - A worthy successor of GF that follows the trend of "let's go bigger". I have mixed feelings about this one. There are things in this film that I love! This is one of the most stylish entries fashion-wise, the care taken with the clothes of the Bond girls in this one is extraordinary to say the least. However, the care taken in the first three films with having an exemplary cast is not so visible here and that shows in the overall feel of the film. Also, and perhaps because of what I just said about the casting, I never found the story compelling. On top of that I think here began the decline of Connery. He's obviously not making much of an effort anymore. Sometimes it feels like he is slowly going into auto-pilot and that is a shame.
You Only Live Twice - Here is where they got into trouble... Don't get me wrong, I love YOLT! It's probably one of my most watched Bond films and I would even go as far as saying it's one of my favourites (there, I said it). I love how thrilling and fun it is, the set in Japan, etc. The soundtrack is great and I always had a soft spot for the title song, and Ken Adams gave us his most ambitious set so far: a hollowed volcano. However here the "let's go bigger" become a problem, it became "let's go over the top". The sad thing is to see Connery truly go auto-pilot, he's obviously not caring about it anymore. He's out of shape, both physical and acting wise and that shows, oh how it shows. He wasn't happy and left the role at this point. Would he have done a good job with OHMSS? We'll never know. I personally believe that he was so fed up with everything Bond that it wouldn't have worked.
Diamonds are Forever - After Lazenby's short tenure as Bond Connery was lured back into the role by monetary means. This is my least favourite of the Connery entries. Although he agreed to come back he's not the same Connery who gave us Dr. No or FRWL! Take the bored, out of shape Connery of YOLT and multiply it by 10 (low estimate). It's not like the story is actually bad! It's just that, at least for me, as a whole it doesn't work. Most things in this film are cheesy, cheap looking, uncomfortable to look at. What a shame, especially because this is by no means a good continuation to OHMSS. That PTS brings tears to my eyes... for bad reasons. I admit, however, that the film has its good things but they are few and far between. I find it sad that the Connery age ended in such a low (and don't get me started with NSN, Iet's please forget about that one).
Final verdict: Connery was for most of my life my favourite Bond, though currently he divides the throne with a certain Mr. Craig. When I look at my analysis of his erafor a moment I can wonder why he's remained my favourite so long! But then I see that he was so fantastic in his first two entries that whatever he did in the rest of them couldn't ruin his legacy. He defined the role and nobody can take that away from him, he's still The Man!
It really is quite a journey, and Bond changes, when we go from Dr. No to DAF. Sean's impact on this series cannot be overstated, I think, based upon especially the first 3 or 4 Bond films and what he did to make and shape the character of James Bond through those years (and influenced the character throughout his entire tenure, of course). It is amazing to think of what Sean, Young, and everyone did that was fresh, exciting, and new - different and tantalizing. That Bond became part of our culture is thanks to them.
Good mention of Sylvia Trench - yes, with her there, the scenes have better sharpness, focus, and give us more of Bond's character for sure. Her not in them, it really takes away from those scenes. I think the Bond films over the years, in general, have been very well cast.
And @royale65, thanks for talking a bit with us about the idea of Connery in OHMSS. I really would hope that Sean would have given us a great performance if he did OHMSS - I believe he still had it in him. Many people love the OHMSS we have, though, yes indeed.
Well, the man was James Bond, even if it was only one film. Fortunately for many of you, that film was OHMSS.
So let's spend about 2 or 3 (or even 4 days if discussion is still ongoing) for George Lazenby - his performance as, and impact on, the character James Bond and the entire series of these films, and also take a close look at On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Any comments about Sean's era are still very welcome. But let's move on today.
I do not have much to say about OHMSS, as it is not one of my favorite films. So I would like to do something unusual. I want to reach back into this thread and bring us Sir Henry's splendid info about this film, including his full review because he does talk about Lazenby as Bond in several categories, including in his summary. You can use this as sort of a springboard for your own discussions of Lazenby. I hope you enjoy reading this (I have bolded some parts of it directly related to George). I do find it interesting, and dismaying, that Lazenby had announced that he would not return as Bond even before the film was finished being made. He did not even wait for the final product or the public's reaction.
So, starting today, please let us know how you feel about George Lazenby as Bond and this particular Bond film. As always, you can be as detailed or brief as you'd like. Bullet points, highlights/lowlights, or paragraphs. Please join in. Thanks! :-bd
SirHenryLeeChaChing wrote back in August 2012:
George Lazenby -
ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE (1969)
"I'm relieving you of Operation Bedlam, 007"
The year is 1968. With Sean Connery having retired from the role a year earlier, Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman begin a search for his replacement while gearing up to film the 6th movie in the series, one they had been trying to film for several years, Fleming's 10th Bond novel entitled "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". For Connery's replacement, Broccoli and Saltzman consider future Bond Roger Moore once again, plus confirmed front runners John Richardson, Anthony Rogers, Hans DeVries, Robert Campbell, and a very young future Bond in Welsh actor Timothy Dalton, who declined Broccoli's offer due to feeling he was too young for the role at the time. Eventually, the producers take a very big risk in settling on a complete unknown with no acting experience whatsoever, Australian print and TV model George Lazenby, based on several factors that mostly centered around his physical presence and action skills. Not wise to politics or anything "Hollywood", Lazenby and his "braintrust" would almost immediately come into conflict with the producers and the cast and he announced he would not return to the role while the movie was still being filmed. Unlike it's predecessor, the movie closely follows the 1963 novel. In the film, Bond continues to pursue SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld as part of "Operation Bedlam". This time, Blofeld plans to sterilize the world's food supply through a group of brainwashed "angels of death" unless his demands for international amnesty (from his previous activities), recognition of his title of "Count De Bleuchamp", and to be allowed to retire into private life are all met. Along the way Bond falls in love with and marries Contessa Teresa di Vicenzo, the daughter of Marc-Ange Draco, who like Blofeld runs a large criminal organization called the "Unione Corse" who Bond notes is only second in influence to SPECTRE.
Principal filming began in Switzerland on October 21, 1968 under the direction of Peter Hunt, who had been an editor from the beginning and the second unit director for You Only Live Twice. It would be his only turn in the director's chair and his last work with the series. Filming moved to England in March 1969 and additional scenes were shot in Portugal from April until May 1969, when filming ended. The movie premiered in England on December 18th, 1969 and was the first in the series to have stereo sound. The movie initially did well enough despite Connery's absence, with a $1.2 million dollar gross in the United States and was the highest grossing film in England for the year. However, unlike the previous films the box office dropped off considerably and the film only made $64.6 million during it's theatrical run, roughly half of what it's predecessor made with Connery as the lead. Despite the poor reception that kept the movie in the "bargain bin" for many years, the movie was rediscovered and rescued by a new generation of fans and is now considered one of the great films, if not a classic
of the series, although most critics and fans are much less generous with their appraisal of Lazenby's performance as they are with the overall film.
THE CAST-
- George Lazenby as James Bond
- Diana Rigg as Countess Tracy di Vicenzo
- Telly Savalas as Ernst Stavro Blofeld
- Gabriele Ferzetti as Marc-Ange Draco
- Ilse Steppat as Irma Bunt
- Bernard Lee as M
- Lois Maxwell as Miss Moneypenny
- Desmond Llewelyn as Q
- George Baker as Sir Hilary Bray
- Yuri Borienko as Grunther
- Virginia North as Olympe
- Bernard Horsfall as Shaun Campbell
Blofeld's Angels of Death
- Angela Scoular as Ruby Bartlett
- Catherina von Schell as Nancy
- Joanna Lumley as an English girl
- Julie Ege as Helen, a Scandinavian girl
- Ingrit Black as a German girl.
- Mona Chong as a Chinese girl.
- Jenny Hanley as an Irish girl.
- Anouska Hempel as an Australian girl.
- Sylvana Henriques as a Jamaican girl.
- Helena Ronee as an Israeli girl.
- Dani Sheridan as an American girl.
- Zara as an Indian girl.
BOND- One positive but mostly negatives in my opinion. For the positive, Lazenby completely delivers in the action sequences. He has an undeniable physical presence in action and I hadn't seen a Bond this physical until Daniel Craig's recent portrayals. After that, it's all more downhill than an escape from Piz Gloria, as action stars are mostly a dime a dozen. Lazenby completely doesn't deliver in nearly every scene. Voice generally monotone and face generally wooden. I'll always feel that Connery would have done a universe better. The fact is, a Bond actor ideally needs to be able to cover all aspects of the role and while Lazenby does the best he can for a rookie actor, it's almost painfully obvious that like most action stars he's in way over his head with a serious script such as this one, and that the rest of the cast are the real stars of the movie- 1.5/5
WOMEN- After original choice Brigitte Bardot decided to star opposite Connery in "Shalako", and fellow French actress Catherine Deneuve also declining the role, English TV and stage star Diana Rigg agrees to portray the woman who would be James Bond's one and only wife, Contessa Teresa "Tracy" Di Vincenzo. It's the first of several exceptional choices that would revitalize the initial negative reactions many years down the line. Rigg delivers perhaps her greatest performance I've ever seen, perfectly embodying the spirit in the way Fleming envisioned her, she had to nail the role and she did so in spades. The other women in the movie are generally limited to Blofeld's "Angels Of Death", in which Catherina von Schell is the standout star. Half of these women fall flat for me in the looks department, and although Angela Scoular is saucy fun as Ruby, she looks atrocious in this and it's hard to believe Bond would sleep with her. Rigg and von Schell lead the way- 4.5/5
VILLAINS- A great category for this movie. My favorite all time Blofeld, American actor Telly Savalas, brings even more vast experience and a definite menace as bad old Ernst Stavro. I only wished he'd have been Blofeld in every adventure, because he also brings a physical presence sorely lacking in Pleasance and later Charles Gray. His assistant Irma Bunt, who looks like an ex-Nazi camp guard, is also perfectly brought to life by German actress Ilse Steppat. Highly efficient and as coldly ruthless as her boss, they make a perfect pairing, though not quite in the way Fleming portrayed. Steppat's contributions behind the scenes only added to the coaching that Savalas and Rigg also provided, and it's been said Lazenby credited her influence on him as invaluable. Russian wrestler Yuri Borienko and a host of others round out the rest, a tremendous and perfect cast- 5/5
HUMOR- True to the tradition set forth by Terence Young, humor is limited but good. Lazenby delivers most of it and other than action, it seems to be the other area where he shows some spark and natural talent- 3/5
ACTION- Somewhat "From Russia With Love" but even more so due to the Bond/Tracy romance getting strong emphasis, action is set aside to concentrate on the story going on. However, there are some great fights throughout, and some magnificent ski chases that stand out to push the score as high as I can rate it given the nature of the script- 4/5
SADISM- Not on the level of the prior films here either. Blofeld's plan to initiate world starvation can be considered, as can his treatment of Bond's MI6 colleague, but the movie doesn't dwell on shock value. The most sadistic thing in this movie is courtesy of the script, where a SPECTRE henchman is pulverized by a snow blower while Lazenby notes "He had a lot of guts!". That alone makes me want to stand up and cheer and raise the score a bit- 3/5
MUSIC- Short of the Nina/Barry collaboration that was very average considering the source, Barry once again presents a soundtrack master work. The instrumental title song, using the then newly innovative Moog synthesizer (believe it or not, the Monkees song "Daily Nightly" was the first release to use the instrument) is one of the great instrumentals in movie history. Add to that the exquisite "We Have All The Time In The World" featuring the final performance of jazz icon Louis Armstrong, rousing action tracks such as "Escape From Piz Gloria" , and the classy casino tune "Try" . Aside from a slight deduction for the holiday tune this one rocks-4.5/5
LOCATIONS- The breathtaking scenery of the Swiss Alps we first saw in "Goldfinger" is revisited to a much larger degree and the filming of aerial photographer Johnny Jordan brings it to life to an impressive degree. Some nice locations in Portugal also are given some prominence. Like Thunderball and water, there's a little too much emphasis on snow and ice but in this case, there's so much to see that here it adds rather than detracts because there is almost always fast paced action going on- 5/5
GADGETS- Aside from Q's radioactive lint (boring and unused) and the safe cracking copier, very little is used- 1.5/5
SUPPORTING CAST- Standout. Italian actor Gabriele Ferzetti joins the ranks of great Bond allies such as Kerim Bey, Tiger Tanaka, and later Milos Colombo. He plays Tracy's father, crime boss Marc-Ange Draco, just the way I'd always envisioned the character. M and Moneypenny give what is among their greatest performances given more to do than usual, which is always a bonus. Add some solid work from George Baker as Sir Hilary Bray, Virginia North as Olympe, and the AOD, every part is done as well as it can be- 5/5
OVERALL SCORE AND RECOLLECTIONS- My view of the overall film has greatly changed over the years, but at the time it was released I was like almost everyone in the thought that the franchise was in real trouble without Connery, or someone of his caliber. This movie is much like a complex piece of machinery with many moving parts. Many of them function very well but when the key cog of Bond himself is not quite up to par, it lessens the full impact of what the machine can do. For all the areas where the film is highly successful, which is what makes it a great entry for me, I can't in good conscience overlook the worst official Bond actor in the series and pretend he's great or even good when he isn't. I remember exactly what I thought in 1969- "This guy is great until he starts talking", and I still feel the same. Some of the key elements such as gadgets, which could have been used to add a little zip to the character and were something that at the time that was a highlight for many, are noticeably absent as well. Again, I like the film very much and after GF and FRWL it's my 3rd favorite from the classic 60's era. This one scores 37 out of 50 points for me, or 3.7
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
That was SirHenry's take on OHMSS and Lazenby. Please let us hear your opinions.
Cheers!
Many people do love this film for several reasons. I think even folks who think Lazenby did an adequate job (are there some who feel it was far more than adequate? I do want to hear from everyone ...) still praise other parts of the film much more highly. I hope we can get a variety of opinions about Lazenby here, and also talk about this film, which is so special to many.
"My name's Bond...James Bond"
The first scene with Draco
The bull fighting scene
"and kindly present it to that monument in there"
"I assumed you'd reassign me sir" (M's home)
Even parts of the wedding at the end ("thank you Q but this time I've got the gadgets...and I know how to use them")
His limitations are fairly obvious, but when he "gets it" he's good. Its a mixed performance overall.
A mixed performance; I can agree with that, although I lean one way. The man was stellar in action scenes, I think we can all give him that.
Oh yes. Very Craig-like. A note about the dubbing: in many movies with fairly obvious dubbing the actor or actress gets a kind of unconscious pass from most viewers, kind of like we understand that an actual recorded-at-the-moment voice would have been better. I feel this also works in Mr. Lazenby's favour.
Nowadays, we can expect a replacement Bond every decade or so but in 1967-69 it was unheard of.
Lazenby may have been wooden in some scenes but he did look the part. In his biography, "When the Snow Melts" Cubby Brocholi is asked which Bond actor was the sexiest. Cubby's response: "I'm not in tune to that being a man but whenever George Lazenby entered the offices the secretaries would fall off their chairs."
George carried an air of self assurance about himself and he was good in test fight scenes. These qualities is what led him to win the coveted role. It was his arrogance and youthfulness and immaturity that instead of him being a great success story has labeled him as the man who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
George had been a model and he needed constant direction. He felt that Hunt never had time for him. Peter Hunt like television directors felt that if an actor could not act they would not be on set. George's attitude alienated him from the producers, director, much of the cast and crew. He felt he knew it all and did not have to listen to seasoned actors.
Had George paid his dues waiting tables between gigs until the big break, then he would have appreciated just how blessed and lucky he was. Instead he took advice from the wrong people and he has lived to regret this.
Like I said earlier, it is tragic that so many people choose to stay away from a great entry in the series simply because Sean was not in it. I feel sorry for people nowadays who avoid watching this film. For years, EON delibertly choose to treat the film like a bad relation by promoting the Connery and Moore films. After more than 30 years, the film is seen as a classic Bond adventure.
As for George, many of us agree that he is top notch in the fight scenes. His physicallity is unmatched when compared to other Bond actors. Only Daniel Craig can match him. He is good and highly believable in the final scene. (This is one of the few moments when Hunt actually took the time with him).
The circumstances under which Sean Connery left the role of James Bond have long invited a heightened level of speculation. While it is certainly enjoyable to indulge in a session of “What-ifs,” we also need to keep a sense of the full context of those times in mind, if our speculations are to attain any true level of plausibility. It is easy to suggest that, if the weather had co-operated, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service would have been filmed before You Only Live Twice, per Eon’s original intentions. In that case, Sean Connery may have found the role of a grieving, widowed Bond a satisfying bit of character growth, and the sort of challenge he had been hoping for as an actor -- with the result that he may not have been as dissatisfied with the idea continuing to play James Bond as was the case in the reality that we know and inhabit. Additionally, without the hounding he received courtesy of the Japanese press during the 1967 filming of YOLT, Connery may have stayed on with the role of Bond for at least one more film -- or so goes the speculation offered by many, including myself.
However, it occurs to me that these speculations do not take the zeitgeist of the times into account. Let me offer just a few concurrent events in a small timeline:
1967- YOLT is released, ostensibly Connery’s last film as James Bond
1968- The Beatles form Apple Records.
1969- OHMSS is released, with George Lazenby as Bond
Curt Flood files suit against the Major League Baseball’s Reserve Clause, refusing to be traded from one club to another
1970- The Beatles break up -- not over one girl friend or another as some unkind souls might suggest, but in a dispute over management: Paul McCartney simply refuses to accept Allen Klein as his manager.
1971- Sean Connery returns to the role of James Bond in Diamonds Are Forever, with a substantial raise in salary (which he then donates to a charitable trust) and United Artists’ promise to fund two future films of his choosing.
What do these items all have in common? They are part of a struggle by performing artists --for athletes are performers as fully as actors or musicians are -- to assert their importance to and independence in the entertainment industry. Curt Flood rejected being bought and sold or traded as if he were a piece of property. John, Paul, George and Ringo decided they needed to be able to grow as individual artists, rather than continuing to be considered a four-headed, single-bodied mop-topped amalgamation. Sean Connery needed to be respected as a vital part of the phenomenon that was James Bond, but more than that: he needed Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli to acknowledge his importance in the creation of that phenomenon.
So as much as it may be amusing to consider a world in which Sean Connery plays James Bond in OHMSS and then leaves the series because of the pressures brought to bear by the Japanese press, leaving Roger Moore to take over as the comedy lead in Diamond Are Forever…I think that scenario ignores some of the other forces that were shaping the world at that time.