Home › Bond Movies › Actors
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Jean-Jacques Annaud on Sean Connery ("The name of the rose")
The source is in French but here it is anyway (radio podcast) :
http://www.europe1.fr/MediaCenter/Emissions/Secrets-de-tournages/Sons/Secrets-de-tournage-Jean-Jacques-Annaud-1587199/
Jean-Jacques Annaud describes during 45 minutes the making of The Name of The Rose (from reading the book to the promotion tours). During it, he explains during a few minutes how he casted Sean Connery and the consequences it made. If what JJA says is true, it can explain Sean Connery's attitude towards 007 to some extent. It seems the problems were not only during the documented fiasco of the "two pictures deal with United Artist in exchange of DAF".
To cast Sean Connery, he first had to meet him face to face : Connery came to Annaud's office after many attempts, Annaud could not imagine "casting Bond" in a movie were the hero is a tribute to Sherlock Holmes : too much confusing. Ok, here it's only Annaud's opinion. But as soon as he decided to cast Connery, he explains the project simply halted for a year : most notably, the producers at Columbia who were handling the project, who were waiting for Annaud to end his casting (this movie had a most unusual casting) did not want to produce any movie starring Connery : "He's Bond, and nothing else. He's square (French : "ringard")" Annaud spent a year trying to find a studio that would agree to produce the movie with Connery (and in the end it was Fox - who did not know how to promote the movie in the end, the US poster is a joke). Hopefully it was a major hit in Europe (France, Germany and in particular Italy), and a critical success. And possibly the first step to bring back Connery in the light in the end of the 80s.
Note : On his site :
http://www.jjannaud.com/index_en.htm
Then "Name of the Rose"
then "Meeting Sean Connery",
you have the short, more diplomatic, version of it :
"I wanted an unknown person to play William de Baskerville, oldish Sherlock Holmes fighting against serial murders in the abbey imagined by Umberto Eco. He had to be over 50 and of course very talented.
During months, I faded away in theatres. In London first and in New York and then in Manchester and Chicago, and at last in badly heated rooms in Canadian provinces and in Welsh parishes. Every two months, I got the same call from the same man, the supposed most powerful agent of Hollywood, Mike Owitz, Sean Connery’s representative.
His speech was invariable : “I remind you Sean would love be in your film. I remind you Sean is a wonderful actor”. I invariably answered to his invariable request : “Sherlock Holmes plus James Bond, there’s one character too many in the abbey”.
One year later and after 6 calls, empty-handed and defeated, I eventually accept to entertain Bond in Munich. He came into my office.
He was a royal fine figure of a man. His build took the door frame. I invited him to sit. He did it as in the theatre, like Polyeucte or Agamemnon. He opened the script on page 1.
He said with a deep voice : “Let me read, boy”. My mane was already whiter than my skirt, and he called me “boy”. He read the first cue ; he gave me goose pimples. What I was hearing was what I had heard inside me for almost 2 years. I stopped him on page 3.
I ran out my office and went downstairs to tell my producer Bernt Eichinger the good news.
I just have then to convince Umberto Eco, shattered by my choice, the distributors who don’t want to bet any cash on an actor they see on the decline, and the reviewers who take years to accept Sean among the greatest of the first century of cinema."
http://www.europe1.fr/MediaCenter/Emissions/Secrets-de-tournages/Sons/Secrets-de-tournage-Jean-Jacques-Annaud-1587199/
Jean-Jacques Annaud describes during 45 minutes the making of The Name of The Rose (from reading the book to the promotion tours). During it, he explains during a few minutes how he casted Sean Connery and the consequences it made. If what JJA says is true, it can explain Sean Connery's attitude towards 007 to some extent. It seems the problems were not only during the documented fiasco of the "two pictures deal with United Artist in exchange of DAF".
To cast Sean Connery, he first had to meet him face to face : Connery came to Annaud's office after many attempts, Annaud could not imagine "casting Bond" in a movie were the hero is a tribute to Sherlock Holmes : too much confusing. Ok, here it's only Annaud's opinion. But as soon as he decided to cast Connery, he explains the project simply halted for a year : most notably, the producers at Columbia who were handling the project, who were waiting for Annaud to end his casting (this movie had a most unusual casting) did not want to produce any movie starring Connery : "He's Bond, and nothing else. He's square (French : "ringard")" Annaud spent a year trying to find a studio that would agree to produce the movie with Connery (and in the end it was Fox - who did not know how to promote the movie in the end, the US poster is a joke). Hopefully it was a major hit in Europe (France, Germany and in particular Italy), and a critical success. And possibly the first step to bring back Connery in the light in the end of the 80s.
Note : On his site :
http://www.jjannaud.com/index_en.htm
Then "Name of the Rose"
then "Meeting Sean Connery",
you have the short, more diplomatic, version of it :
"I wanted an unknown person to play William de Baskerville, oldish Sherlock Holmes fighting against serial murders in the abbey imagined by Umberto Eco. He had to be over 50 and of course very talented.
During months, I faded away in theatres. In London first and in New York and then in Manchester and Chicago, and at last in badly heated rooms in Canadian provinces and in Welsh parishes. Every two months, I got the same call from the same man, the supposed most powerful agent of Hollywood, Mike Owitz, Sean Connery’s representative.
His speech was invariable : “I remind you Sean would love be in your film. I remind you Sean is a wonderful actor”. I invariably answered to his invariable request : “Sherlock Holmes plus James Bond, there’s one character too many in the abbey”.
One year later and after 6 calls, empty-handed and defeated, I eventually accept to entertain Bond in Munich. He came into my office.
He was a royal fine figure of a man. His build took the door frame. I invited him to sit. He did it as in the theatre, like Polyeucte or Agamemnon. He opened the script on page 1.
He said with a deep voice : “Let me read, boy”. My mane was already whiter than my skirt, and he called me “boy”. He read the first cue ; he gave me goose pimples. What I was hearing was what I had heard inside me for almost 2 years. I stopped him on page 3.
I ran out my office and went downstairs to tell my producer Bernt Eichinger the good news.
I just have then to convince Umberto Eco, shattered by my choice, the distributors who don’t want to bet any cash on an actor they see on the decline, and the reviewers who take years to accept Sean among the greatest of the first century of cinema."
^ 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
It makes me dizzy to see how blind, unimaginative and stupid some people in high places were, and probably still are. William of Baskerville didn´t remind me in any way of James Bond when the film came out. And how can you speak of "an actor on his decline"? Especially Connery got only better and better in his later years.
Paramount did not want Marlon Brando in The Godfather because he was supposed to be box office poison at the time. I cannot seriously imagine anybody else as William of Baskerville.
Well, if you´re box office poison, you can always change your name to Carlos Esteves ;-).
I think it is a combination of many things: overconfidence in one's acting talent, a tendency to typecast from some companies, the use of big names as tickets selling magnet regardless of the quality of the project, etc. Sometimes there is also cynicism on the part of the actor. Malcolm McDowell said in an interview that he chooses his roles regardless of the script, which he rarely reads, but according to how much they are willing to pay him. And that's why he ended up in some soft porn productions. But he didn't care.
The career of an actor according to the producer's mind (a joke I heard on the set of a movie). Insert your favorite actor here
"Who's DeNiro ?"
"I want DeNiro"
"Find me a cheaper DeNiro"
"Find me a younger DeNiro"
"Who's DeNiro ?"
So the period where producers can fully back the actors is quite short, then they think they become too expensive for the budget and then too old to lead a movie.. (don't forget sometimes the agents won't allow their actors to sign for less than their "usual fee", it's all about lawyers).
PS for the context : remember, in 83, he lost the "battle of the Bonds", when NSNA did less than Octopussy. 84 and 85 : no movies. 86 : Name of the Rose + Highlander, and then back in action...
Connery carries his performance in De Palma's film with his weight and charisma but he's just playing Sean Connery in In The Name of The Rose I believe he is the character and can forget he was Bond. I'm afraid there aren't many roles where Sean steps outside of his usual persona but NOTR was one , I think he really goes for it in the Offence, undoubtedly some of his finest work as an actor.
Connery will never be able to make people forget Bond as he isn't that an amazing an actor but the baggage of being the first and what is widely accepted as the best Bond does not help matters, on the occasion he steps out being SC he can deliver some truly great work but this is few and far between, yes he's very entertaining in Untouchables and the likes of The Rock but these aren't any great stretches for the man.
Some actors just have to accept being one thing a star or an actor some can manage both but they have far more versatility than Connery has ever been able to display, De Niro or Pacino he ain't (In their prime that is).
And he plays a misogynistic monk, utterly uninterested in sex.
Actually it's the original novel by Umberto Eco (who loves playing with intertextual references) which pays tribute to Conan Doyle: the monk's name (played by Connery in the movie) is called William of Baskerville and his novice's name is Adso (which is similar to Watson and with the Italian slang word for penis.)
I strongely recommend you to read the novel first!
Eco himself didn't like the movie... but I think it's enjoyable to see it as Annaud's interpretation of the text (and nothing more.)
I feel that most roles I saw Connery in apart from Bond didn´t remind me of Bond at all. Marnie, or that Cuba flick would be two films where he reminds me of Bond, but Highlander, TNOTR, The Untouchables, Forrester, The Rock, nothing there reminds me of Bond.
You never watched it? Just leave everything, pick a copy, and watch it. Then read the book. By the way, I once read a wonderful essay on the literary Bond by Umberto Eco.
Funny story, The Name of the Rose was the film my mother didn't allow me to watch, it impressed her so much when she first saw it. When I went to Uni the film was showing on TV the very first night I moved. Needless to say I watched it in transe, it was the symbol of my adulthood, I was now free to decide if it was too impressive for me. I have to agree it is impressive. And Connery is great in it, oh yesh!
I'm not referring to a fan like yourself who is likely to say such a thing as you can't bear any criticism of one of your heroes I talking about Connery's acceptance by the general public as mostly being Bond, are we now going to say that Connery didn't have a type casting issue? In my view he's never got over it.
The narrative structures of Ian Fleming. It's a great essay and I think Eco is a true fan.
Yes, that's the one! I'm pretty sure I read it online, I'll look into it and if I find the link I'll post it here.