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
However, even that isn't a fair bar to judge a performance by, because if it were, a handful of Moore's performances would be invalidated, and I hold him in a lot higher regard than Lazenby.
The chief distinction is Lazenby's chipper demeanor. The way he delivers lines, it's as if he's just been given the role of a lifetime and boy oh boy he sure is excited to be here! What a great day I, Jimmy Bond, am having on this secret mission! Yippee! I know I'm coming off harsh, and flippant, but I hope the sentiment here is making sense?
He grates even more considering the film around him is absolutely phenomenal. Hell, I don't even know if Connery would be *that* much better (he was super pissed off by that point in the series, right?). But he was at least a trained actor, and Hunt is clearly a strong director, and part of me really thinks it would've been phenomenal.
edit: He would've been alright in something like LALD, or really any of the Hamilton films. But he would've only been alright, because even Moore had that inimitable, wholly "Bond" feel and tone of dry, emotional coldness and callousness. People forget that just because Moore went for lighthearted deflection doesn't mean he didn't embody that sort of... weariness/pessimism/callousness of Bond. Correct me if I'm way off base, but I've often spent time trying to figure out why I hold Moore in higher regard despite him frequently being somewhat removed from Fleming (there are many exceptions, of course). And I think, ultimately, is that Moore in many ways isn't as far from Fleming as he appears on the surface. He still deflects, just differntly than the literary Bond, and that's more forgivable than a performance that doesn't feel like Bond really at all? (And I acknowledge and embrace that there is a marked difference between Fleming Bond and Cinematic Bond and we shouldn't really use them as concrete measuring sticks for eachother).
I have said this before too.
It would have provided some excellent symmetry with FYEO, although that's in retrospect, of course.
OHMSS was previously planned to come out after TB, but they decided not to have "a snow movie" right after "an underwater movie." Of course, given the novels, it would have made MUCH more sense to have OHMSS before YOLT, but when they got to YOLT they stayed with their formula much more than the book. For one thing -- the audience would not have been confounded by Blofeld's seeming inability to recognize Bond though they'd met in the YOLT film. For another -- plastic surgery and all -- it would have made more sense for Blofeld to be disfigured AFTER OHMSS and then look that way in YOLT. He was taller and buffer in OHMSS -- AFTER YOLT, too.
OK, so continuity is not always strict in these films. But, at the time, they were just a few films in and it was perceived to have been the same timeline, continuing. (Eg. When considering resignation, Bond has mementos from the earlier films)
At any rate, Lazenby was fine, and, as pointed out above by other folks posting excellent comments, he was able to convey some things which the audience might not have "bought" from Connery. Besides, Lazenby was in great shape. Connery would have had to work on himself a LOT to look better than he did two years before OHMSS, in YOLT, or two years after, in DAF.
So -- had OHMSS been made according to the formula, and particularly had it changed the ending -- ugh. We wound up with a better film.
They returned to Fleming, period. Had Connery been in the film it would have been ahundred times better.
It’s like saying your team is better off without Michael Jordan on it. There are some who would think that but of course they’re complete wrong.
Right. The push to stick to Fleming was all because of Peter Hunt’s insistence. The argument that they could ONLY do another YOLT type film with Connery in OHMSS because they had to play it safe doesn’t ring true.
This is a very good movie - perhaps not as perfect as it has been heralded on NTTD's marketing tour - but it's still one of the most iconic and satisfying films in the franchise's oeuvre. Also, perhaps the most historically significant film in the series. For this reason, it garners the ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐/5 treatment.
The film isn't without problems though. The opening of the film is a little long and rambling. It really takes a while for the film to get into gear and even then it does stumble in the second act. For example, the entire 20 minute segment where Bond travels to Switzerland and impersonates Sir Hilary Bray is a slog. There are some moments during the Piz Gloria scenes where film veers into pastiche with its psychedelic brainwashing scenes about learning to love chickens. Seriously, I had forgotten how daft these sequences were. A smarter screenwriter and editor would have exorcised or shortened these scenes. However, perhaps they were acceptable in 1969. Brainwashing hot women to unleash biological warfare and baffling heraldry subplots are risible today.
However, the movie truly LEVELS UP when Bond is captured by Blofeld ⬆️⬆️⬆️. Telly Savalas is such a muscular and charismatic villain. It's at this point OHMSS almost acts as a silent film and there are some truly amazing action set-pieces. Speaking of NTTD, the action in OHMSS tops every sequence in the newer film despite it's more gargantuan budget and enlightened ambitions. It's a thrill ride (also, we need a ski chase in Bond 26)!
It's helped in no small measure by Diana Rigg who is the real lead of the film. She is given a real, sincere and genuine character to play. Diana Rigg is so mischievous and charismatic. They were lucky to get such a great actress who makes you love the character. Whilst she takes a needless back seat in the second act, whenever she is on the screen, this movie fires on all cyclinders. It is a very canny move to actually give Tracy some actions sequences for herself and provide her with agency. Previously I always saw her death from Bond's perspective - 007 was foolish to think his professional life wouldn't impede on his private life - but on a rewatch I saw it all from Tracy's perspective. Here was a woman who started the film as a possible suicide risk. She ends the film with a future.
Plus, the romance between her and Bond isn't portrayed as 'the greatest love story ever told.' It's merely presented as a very charming courtship between two people who are clearly a match for one another. In this respect, it's more impactful as it feels smaller and more sincere. It isn't beating you over the head about how 'epic' or 'doomed' their romance will end up being. For this reason, it works. It's more charming and sweet-natured. Their love affair is helped by a never better John Barry score.
I suppose that brings me to Gorgeous George. Obviously, he is stunning. I totally believe him as a playboy spy who every woman would flock towards. At his best, he is reminiscent of a younger, more athletic Cary Grant. The problem is he isn't that charismatic and his line readings can be a little bland. They try to make him funny and more of a gentleman than Connery. It doesn't work. In fact, Lazenby is strongest in his sequences with Bernard Lee, where Bond is portrayed as angsty and brooding. I think they should perhaps have doubled-down on this aspect as it would not only have given George less dialogue but allowed him to portray a meaner, colder Bond. As presented, Lazenby is merely a casual, pleasant and satisfactory replacement to Sean Connery.
Nevertheless, he does get better as the film goes along. His attempt to make Bond more vulnerable and human should also not be understated. It's just a shame that Sean Connery, having seen James Bond through the thinly two-dimensional days, should not be around for the new, more sensitive Bond.
Peter Hunt brings real vibrancy and sophistication to the film with the Portuguese and Swiss scenic backgrounds caught in eyecatching colours. He's helped by Michael Reed who really understood the assignment.
But by 1969, Connery grew tired in the role, may have given a subpar peformance and it would've contained campy elements to try to recreate the success of TB.
But, if it comes down to a choice between a jaded, bored Connery and the sparkling jewel that is Diana in the film, well ....
But with Connery, it'll sell no matter what, so there's less attention to quality. Just put some funny gags and gadgets, let Sean do Sean things, and profit.
Despite his tiredness with the role,I think the acting challenge of this particular story would have inspired Connery to go the extra mile on this one.I do think they possibly wouldn’t have gotten an actress of Riggs calibre to be his leading lady had he stuck around for this film.
Agreed.
Also, IIRC, the treatments for OHMSS when it was originally slated to be made after GF actually still had Tracy die at the end, and that version featured a submarine car. So it seemed EON was always going to at least honor the ending of that novel. The difference is that Hunt stuck closer to it all across with only a few alterations to still give what audiences expect out of an action adventure film.
Given how much more character work there is for Bond and Tracy, I think that would have reinvigorated Connery because thats what he really enjoyed most about the films with Terence Young was the character dynamics. In YOLT it’s practically non-existent because the filmmakers were more concerned with the fantastical elements, and that left Connery noticeably unengaged because he didn’t have much to play with on a character level.
For whatever the reason the producers were initially very keen on casting a French actress as Tracy--perhaps they wanted to make greater inroads into the French market?
In 1967 Saltzman and Hunt went to France to see if Bardot would be interested, but before they could bring up the OHMSS she said she'd just signed onto Shalako with Sean Connery. Bullet dodged! In any case, Bardot was so big a star by '69 that it's not likely she would have been available at other times either.
Hunt then tried pursuing Catherine Deneuve but she declined after her negative experience on another action film, much to Hunt's disappointment ("she would have been wonderful"). Three succeeding candidates were actresses Marie-France Boyer, and France Anglade, and the Swedish model Ageneta Eckmeyer. Boyer had the best chances of the bunch but her accent was too strong and they wanted someone with more experience. Agent Dennis Selinger proposed Diana Rigg and the rest was history.
I think Diana Rigg is probably a better actress though, so for Lazenby, it’s best she was in it to help raise him up (no pun intended)
Since Tracy was 12 when her mother died, she would have had enough time to learn English from her. It might have been the language they communicated in.
A bit like Vesper being a British Treasury officer and having a weird French(ish) accent.
If Connery were fully engaged and committed to giving a good performance (OHMSS has some of the richest character writing for Bond), then it would've been much, much better.
No offence to Lazenby but there's a lot riding on his shoulders in OHMSS and throughout most of it, his lacking acting ability shines through.
Even for model he isn't that good looking, he just looks incredibly smug and unlikeable
Now had this been Dalton...