Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is OHMSS Better Without Sean Connery?
Having recently sat down again to re-watch OHMSS I can happily report that it still is one of the best Bond films out there (and just one of my favorite film’s full stop). Often talk surrounding the movie seems to be centered on how OHMSS is a more emotional and human story for Bond, but I feel that over the years what has been forgotten is quite how entertaining and thrilling the film truly is.
The Director:
Peter Hunt’s contribution to the story is considerable as tonally the film feels like an evolution in the franchise. Hunt gives the movie a large, epic and romantic sweep whilst maintaining a very classy and elegant feel to the proceedings.
Traditionally Bond films have been seen as personality-less affairs directorially, but this is far from the case when it comes to OHMSS. Whilst the previous five films looked great, it's clear that with Hunt at the helm the style of the film came first for him above anything else. The is evident just from the witnessing the first few moments of the picture; despite being in such familiar sets like M and Moneypenny’s office, Hunt and his cinematographer Michael Reed find new ways to shoot those sets which had previously become rather dry and drab looking over the years.
Furthermore, the entire first segment of the film has an extremely glamorous, lavish and exclusive feel about it. Reed’s photography is very elegant and opulent and his framings and compositions are really exquisite. No shot is wasted in this film; nothing looks or feels like it’s mere coverage coming from the second unit. For instance, the ‘love’ montage sequence would be easy to dismiss had it not been for Reed’s excellent photography. The film looks expensive with the production design by Syd Cain looking very lavish, baroque and classical.
Hunt’s major contribution to the Bond mythos was his unusual editing patterns in those early Bond pictures, so it was somewhat inevitable that when he stepped up to the mantel to direct his own film that the editing would be equally as kinetic. The editing of OHMSS is off the wall and very avant-garde. Steven Soderburgh in his review of the film pointed out that Hunt took some of the cues that were emerging in the French new wave and applied them to the action movie template and, my God, does it looks brilliant. Often I found myself flinching, wincing and ducking for cover. It’s just a very impressive and experimental piece of filmmaking from Hunt.
The Girl:
The film belongs to Diana Rigg. She is mesmerising and like Bond I found myself getting more and more smitten with her the longer she was on screen. I love everything about her; starting with her 1960’s wardrobe, her mischievous smile and of course her elegant manner. By this point in the 1060's the Bond films had something of a reputation for not typically having well-written or developed female characters. The previous five films had pretty lacklustre female leads so it’s fantastic to see the emphasis here on creating a great character and Rigg rises to the task.
Tracy is a rather tragic character; when we first meet her she’s driving a fast car and wearing a stunning dress on the way to commit suicide. She’s clearly extremely reckless and has some noticeably self-destructive tendencies beyond suicide, for instance, at the casino and bets big with money she doesn’t have. Why does she do it? I suppose because she can and possibly she may want to get caught. This is of course all a matter of interpretation but the patterns in her behaviour are clearly crying for help. Beyond the tragic dimension to the character, Tracy is of course very intellectual and witty and more than a foil for 007. By finding Tracy and taking her under his wing, Bond in many ways is acting out a commonly-held male fantasy in the opening act of the film. After finding this young and broken woman 007 begins his attempts to mend her and put her back together again.
Nonetheless, by doing so Bond offers her a future, something she never previously could imagine, only then for it to be quickly robbed from her. It’s a tragic character arc and by far the most complex ever to appear in a Bond movie. It may be the chief reason why people rejected the film back in 1969, a recent Variety review also voiced these concerns saying what they expect from Bond is sheer thrills and OHMSS felt like a vague attempt to make an art-house action film. I totally disagree with this and think the film has amazing weight and I feel this element of the story is likely the reason why OHMSS has provoked such divisive opinions beyond the normal discourse of who’s the best villain? Girl? Etc. I think it’s the main reason why after 45 years the reception for the film has changed considerably as the far from a triumphant happy ending is in fact a very complex and emotionally tragic one.
By choosing the path of ‘The Secret Agent’, Bond cannot live a normal life. In OHMSS, Bond is the most human we have ever seen him and as a result he pays the price. Because of the profession he’s chosen there will always be ghosts around him and people lurking in the shadows. He even acknowledges this when speaking to Tracy in the barn but he still proposes. But as we discover it was foolhardy for 007 to think he could drive happily off into the sunset. What’s more tragic about the ending is Bond’s reaction as we see him initially in denial about Tracy’s demise while clutching her body. It’s a very poignant scene and the most grown-up thing yet to appear in a Bond film.
The Star:
So let’s move on to the chief issue with the film: George Lazenby. It seems obvious and slightly reductive to compare Lazenby to Sean Connery but you just can’t help it. Connery had a lot of charm and charisma and it really oozed off the screen. Lazenby is somewhat lacking in comparison, he’s a bit bland and never really registers at all. Instead of really taking possession of the role he instead comes across as nothing more than an adequate replacement. Connery had a certain animal magnetism in the way he stood and he had a certain presence built around his alpha-male persona. I’m not calling Lazenby a beta-male but when Connery walked through a casino and turned heads I believed it, with Lazenby it feels forced. Apparently Lazenby was a real arrogant prick throughout filming; I just wished some of that showed on screen, as he seems far from relaxed, cocky or nonchalant. Let’s face it: George Lazenby is not cool.
However, he’s fantastic in the fight scenes and he has such an amazing physicality and holds his own more than any other Bond. He’s also very handsome and Hunt has decked him out in some very fine clobber throughout the film.
Had this been a routine Bond film with little to no character development Lazenby would have done brilliantly, however, OHMSS actually presents Bond with some character development and motivation. The Bond we meet in OHMSS is obsessive; he’s been on the hunt for Blofeld for two years, he’s impulsive and petulant; look at that scene with M when he resigns. There was a lot more meat on the bone for an actor to chew so it’s a shame to see Lazenby hold back so much. Take the scene after Tracy is captured and M says there is no way he can sanction a rescue mission. That would have been a great time to let Lazenby really go for it, but once again he's too passive. Maybe Hunt should have given him more assistance and groomed his leading man more (clearly the director's mind was more on the visuals and the overall look and tone of the film).
The thing that is most disappointing is that Connery always complained that the Bond role was not taxing enough on him but the character in OHMSS really would have given him an opportunity to flex his thespian muscles but he declined only to return in the lightweight DAF and NSNA. Just imagine Sean Connery and Diana Rigg on screen together? Fantastic stuff. Instead we got some guy called George Lazenby (Maybe Rigg could have played Bond? That’s not an awful idea).
The irritating thing is that during the scenes with Rigg, Lazenby’s performance always improves. Furthermore, he’s brilliant in those last few minutes so it’s a shame that he couldn’t keep the momentum throughout the shoot. On the merit of the final scene alone I genuinely think that had Lazenby stuck around he could have really have become a great 007. Opposed to an adequate one.
The Story:
The biggest problem with the film comes around halfway through the story when Bond goes to Piz Gloria and things get weird and a bit surreal. His impersonation of Hilary Bray and the later -fest just go on for too long. It really draws your attention to quite how ridiculous the whole segment is, had the thing moved faster its inadequacies could have been quickly paved over. Soderburgh in his essay gave a great note where he suggested where a good ten minutes could have been cut from this segment allowing the film to run a little faster. However, despite these criticisms there is a slight goofy charm to the ‘Angels of Death’ sequence and the brainwashing scene has a sorta-weird 60’s trippy vibe which may be slightly kitsch looking today but is still a little endearing (plus we are all guilty of looking at the girls and picking our favourite). In addition, there is something really creepy about hearing Telly Savalas’s voice eerily being played over the scene.
The final third of the film is fantastic and truly contains some of the most thrilling pieces of cinema I’ve ever seen. The action is breakneck and truly beautiful to look at. The ski chases through the Swiss Alps have an almost David Lean-esque quality (if Lean shot crazy manic chase scenes). Beyond the great photography the actual physical feats being performed by the stunt men are mightily impressive. The story going on throughout the chase is brilliant: it all starts with Bond’s escape from the engine room and leads to his escape through the mountains before he loses a ski (!) And has to go around on one. The sequence is capped with a tense moment with Bond standing over a precipice trying to strangle a bloke to avoid detection. It’s such a fun entertaining action-sequence full of big loud moments and followed by quieter tenser ones which makes it all the more engaging and inventive.
Beyond this, the action in the latter half of the film does not let up because soon we are hurled into a car chase. This segment is probably my favorite scene in the film mainly because it’s a real showpiece for Diana Rigg. Beyond the frenetic and brutal photography I can’t help but get giddy when I see Rigg lick her lips or see her cheeky grin throughout that scene. Tracy is a great character and it’s clear that the filmmakers are trying to ingratiate her on the audience so we understand why Bond is falling in love with her as we simultaneously do as well. The avalanche scene is also very impressive and genuinely (and I use this word with it’s original intent) awesome.
In addition, I found myself really liking Blofeld’s plot. Biological warfare and the infertility of the human race is a pretty good super-villain scheme for any film and in OHMSS the stakes feel genuinely high. Beyond that the thing that is of most interest is that Blofeld isn’t after “hundreds of millions of dollars” he wants amnesty and recognition of his title. It’s a nice little twist for character and I really like Savalas in the role. He’s so articulate and has such a great menacing look and an imposing physicality. Also it’s always stuck with me the way he holds and smokes his cigarette, only a real dastardly guy would ever smoke a fag like that.
In terms of the production side of things; John Barry delivers another stellar soundtrack while Maurice Binder’s work is somewhat lacking and rather bland considering his contribution on the three previous Bond films. In addition, the script by Richard Maibum and Simon Raven is very elegant and surprisingly intellectual. The locations are also very beautiful, I had recently watched GF and was struck with how boring the film looked, so I'm happy to report that there is much to marvel at in the 6th Bond adventure.
The supporting performances are great with Gabrelle Ferzetti really standing out. It’s also nice to see more of Moneypenny and M, with both Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell giving their best turns yet. Maxwell in particular stands out, she embodies the image of the sexy ‘60’s secretary who applies a bit of lippy while her boss isn’t looking and she has a genuinely touching final moment with Bond at the end.
The End:
So in summary, OHMSS has it’s faults but they don't dampen my love and admiration for the film. It’s a grand, epic and romantic film that really pushed and redefined the parameters of action-filmmaking. The real hero here is Peter Hunt. His direction is superb; he nailed the tone, look and style of the Bond world excellently. If you want to get transported back to the 1960’s, I suggest you watch OHMSS tonight.
The Director:
Peter Hunt’s contribution to the story is considerable as tonally the film feels like an evolution in the franchise. Hunt gives the movie a large, epic and romantic sweep whilst maintaining a very classy and elegant feel to the proceedings.
Traditionally Bond films have been seen as personality-less affairs directorially, but this is far from the case when it comes to OHMSS. Whilst the previous five films looked great, it's clear that with Hunt at the helm the style of the film came first for him above anything else. The is evident just from the witnessing the first few moments of the picture; despite being in such familiar sets like M and Moneypenny’s office, Hunt and his cinematographer Michael Reed find new ways to shoot those sets which had previously become rather dry and drab looking over the years.
Furthermore, the entire first segment of the film has an extremely glamorous, lavish and exclusive feel about it. Reed’s photography is very elegant and opulent and his framings and compositions are really exquisite. No shot is wasted in this film; nothing looks or feels like it’s mere coverage coming from the second unit. For instance, the ‘love’ montage sequence would be easy to dismiss had it not been for Reed’s excellent photography. The film looks expensive with the production design by Syd Cain looking very lavish, baroque and classical.
Hunt’s major contribution to the Bond mythos was his unusual editing patterns in those early Bond pictures, so it was somewhat inevitable that when he stepped up to the mantel to direct his own film that the editing would be equally as kinetic. The editing of OHMSS is off the wall and very avant-garde. Steven Soderburgh in his review of the film pointed out that Hunt took some of the cues that were emerging in the French new wave and applied them to the action movie template and, my God, does it looks brilliant. Often I found myself flinching, wincing and ducking for cover. It’s just a very impressive and experimental piece of filmmaking from Hunt.
The Girl:
The film belongs to Diana Rigg. She is mesmerising and like Bond I found myself getting more and more smitten with her the longer she was on screen. I love everything about her; starting with her 1960’s wardrobe, her mischievous smile and of course her elegant manner. By this point in the 1060's the Bond films had something of a reputation for not typically having well-written or developed female characters. The previous five films had pretty lacklustre female leads so it’s fantastic to see the emphasis here on creating a great character and Rigg rises to the task.
Tracy is a rather tragic character; when we first meet her she’s driving a fast car and wearing a stunning dress on the way to commit suicide. She’s clearly extremely reckless and has some noticeably self-destructive tendencies beyond suicide, for instance, at the casino and bets big with money she doesn’t have. Why does she do it? I suppose because she can and possibly she may want to get caught. This is of course all a matter of interpretation but the patterns in her behaviour are clearly crying for help. Beyond the tragic dimension to the character, Tracy is of course very intellectual and witty and more than a foil for 007. By finding Tracy and taking her under his wing, Bond in many ways is acting out a commonly-held male fantasy in the opening act of the film. After finding this young and broken woman 007 begins his attempts to mend her and put her back together again.
Nonetheless, by doing so Bond offers her a future, something she never previously could imagine, only then for it to be quickly robbed from her. It’s a tragic character arc and by far the most complex ever to appear in a Bond movie. It may be the chief reason why people rejected the film back in 1969, a recent Variety review also voiced these concerns saying what they expect from Bond is sheer thrills and OHMSS felt like a vague attempt to make an art-house action film. I totally disagree with this and think the film has amazing weight and I feel this element of the story is likely the reason why OHMSS has provoked such divisive opinions beyond the normal discourse of who’s the best villain? Girl? Etc. I think it’s the main reason why after 45 years the reception for the film has changed considerably as the far from a triumphant happy ending is in fact a very complex and emotionally tragic one.
By choosing the path of ‘The Secret Agent’, Bond cannot live a normal life. In OHMSS, Bond is the most human we have ever seen him and as a result he pays the price. Because of the profession he’s chosen there will always be ghosts around him and people lurking in the shadows. He even acknowledges this when speaking to Tracy in the barn but he still proposes. But as we discover it was foolhardy for 007 to think he could drive happily off into the sunset. What’s more tragic about the ending is Bond’s reaction as we see him initially in denial about Tracy’s demise while clutching her body. It’s a very poignant scene and the most grown-up thing yet to appear in a Bond film.
The Star:
So let’s move on to the chief issue with the film: George Lazenby. It seems obvious and slightly reductive to compare Lazenby to Sean Connery but you just can’t help it. Connery had a lot of charm and charisma and it really oozed off the screen. Lazenby is somewhat lacking in comparison, he’s a bit bland and never really registers at all. Instead of really taking possession of the role he instead comes across as nothing more than an adequate replacement. Connery had a certain animal magnetism in the way he stood and he had a certain presence built around his alpha-male persona. I’m not calling Lazenby a beta-male but when Connery walked through a casino and turned heads I believed it, with Lazenby it feels forced. Apparently Lazenby was a real arrogant prick throughout filming; I just wished some of that showed on screen, as he seems far from relaxed, cocky or nonchalant. Let’s face it: George Lazenby is not cool.
However, he’s fantastic in the fight scenes and he has such an amazing physicality and holds his own more than any other Bond. He’s also very handsome and Hunt has decked him out in some very fine clobber throughout the film.
Had this been a routine Bond film with little to no character development Lazenby would have done brilliantly, however, OHMSS actually presents Bond with some character development and motivation. The Bond we meet in OHMSS is obsessive; he’s been on the hunt for Blofeld for two years, he’s impulsive and petulant; look at that scene with M when he resigns. There was a lot more meat on the bone for an actor to chew so it’s a shame to see Lazenby hold back so much. Take the scene after Tracy is captured and M says there is no way he can sanction a rescue mission. That would have been a great time to let Lazenby really go for it, but once again he's too passive. Maybe Hunt should have given him more assistance and groomed his leading man more (clearly the director's mind was more on the visuals and the overall look and tone of the film).
The thing that is most disappointing is that Connery always complained that the Bond role was not taxing enough on him but the character in OHMSS really would have given him an opportunity to flex his thespian muscles but he declined only to return in the lightweight DAF and NSNA. Just imagine Sean Connery and Diana Rigg on screen together? Fantastic stuff. Instead we got some guy called George Lazenby (Maybe Rigg could have played Bond? That’s not an awful idea).
The irritating thing is that during the scenes with Rigg, Lazenby’s performance always improves. Furthermore, he’s brilliant in those last few minutes so it’s a shame that he couldn’t keep the momentum throughout the shoot. On the merit of the final scene alone I genuinely think that had Lazenby stuck around he could have really have become a great 007. Opposed to an adequate one.
The Story:
The biggest problem with the film comes around halfway through the story when Bond goes to Piz Gloria and things get weird and a bit surreal. His impersonation of Hilary Bray and the later -fest just go on for too long. It really draws your attention to quite how ridiculous the whole segment is, had the thing moved faster its inadequacies could have been quickly paved over. Soderburgh in his essay gave a great note where he suggested where a good ten minutes could have been cut from this segment allowing the film to run a little faster. However, despite these criticisms there is a slight goofy charm to the ‘Angels of Death’ sequence and the brainwashing scene has a sorta-weird 60’s trippy vibe which may be slightly kitsch looking today but is still a little endearing (plus we are all guilty of looking at the girls and picking our favourite). In addition, there is something really creepy about hearing Telly Savalas’s voice eerily being played over the scene.
The final third of the film is fantastic and truly contains some of the most thrilling pieces of cinema I’ve ever seen. The action is breakneck and truly beautiful to look at. The ski chases through the Swiss Alps have an almost David Lean-esque quality (if Lean shot crazy manic chase scenes). Beyond the great photography the actual physical feats being performed by the stunt men are mightily impressive. The story going on throughout the chase is brilliant: it all starts with Bond’s escape from the engine room and leads to his escape through the mountains before he loses a ski (!) And has to go around on one. The sequence is capped with a tense moment with Bond standing over a precipice trying to strangle a bloke to avoid detection. It’s such a fun entertaining action-sequence full of big loud moments and followed by quieter tenser ones which makes it all the more engaging and inventive.
Beyond this, the action in the latter half of the film does not let up because soon we are hurled into a car chase. This segment is probably my favorite scene in the film mainly because it’s a real showpiece for Diana Rigg. Beyond the frenetic and brutal photography I can’t help but get giddy when I see Rigg lick her lips or see her cheeky grin throughout that scene. Tracy is a great character and it’s clear that the filmmakers are trying to ingratiate her on the audience so we understand why Bond is falling in love with her as we simultaneously do as well. The avalanche scene is also very impressive and genuinely (and I use this word with it’s original intent) awesome.
In addition, I found myself really liking Blofeld’s plot. Biological warfare and the infertility of the human race is a pretty good super-villain scheme for any film and in OHMSS the stakes feel genuinely high. Beyond that the thing that is of most interest is that Blofeld isn’t after “hundreds of millions of dollars” he wants amnesty and recognition of his title. It’s a nice little twist for character and I really like Savalas in the role. He’s so articulate and has such a great menacing look and an imposing physicality. Also it’s always stuck with me the way he holds and smokes his cigarette, only a real dastardly guy would ever smoke a fag like that.
In terms of the production side of things; John Barry delivers another stellar soundtrack while Maurice Binder’s work is somewhat lacking and rather bland considering his contribution on the three previous Bond films. In addition, the script by Richard Maibum and Simon Raven is very elegant and surprisingly intellectual. The locations are also very beautiful, I had recently watched GF and was struck with how boring the film looked, so I'm happy to report that there is much to marvel at in the 6th Bond adventure.
The supporting performances are great with Gabrelle Ferzetti really standing out. It’s also nice to see more of Moneypenny and M, with both Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell giving their best turns yet. Maxwell in particular stands out, she embodies the image of the sexy ‘60’s secretary who applies a bit of lippy while her boss isn’t looking and she has a genuinely touching final moment with Bond at the end.
The End:
So in summary, OHMSS has it’s faults but they don't dampen my love and admiration for the film. It’s a grand, epic and romantic film that really pushed and redefined the parameters of action-filmmaking. The real hero here is Peter Hunt. His direction is superb; he nailed the tone, look and style of the Bond world excellently. If you want to get transported back to the 1960’s, I suggest you watch OHMSS tonight.
^ 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
Haha thanks mate! You should! It's a great film, regardless of it's flaws. In his review Steven Soderburgh makes a good point where he says that out of all the Bond films it's a film that is worth watching time and time again beyond simple enertainment value.
Yes, Hilly's romps are a bit stretched out and we clearly get the idea this Bond is insatiable even whilst burning a torch for Tracy. Maybe it's Bond's own own personal 'Stag-do' sending off of the old womaniser as he knows in his mind he does truly love Tracy as most hot blooded males would want to make Tracy their own indefinitely...
As you state, it's such a tragic story arc beyond other Bonds and helps to illustrate the mindset of Bond in subsequent films of the hard unforgiving and out of reach emotionally womaniser. DC got his Tracy moment too which helped make CR so poignant and probably contributed to the impact of his first outing.
The 'stag do' metaphor made me chuckle. Personally I don't think Bond had fallen entirely for Tracy yet until after she helped him escape. I feel that during the chase he began to realise how special this girl was.
Vesper's ending is very haunting but it's also slightly melodramatic. What makes Tracy's death more poignant is the raw simplicity of it. She's taken out of the film with a shot to the head and suddenly both we and Bond feel robbed of her presence. It's a painful and rather cruel ending. On eminute she's there and the next she's gone. Hunt's compositions are extremely artful as well. The final shot of the film in particular is harrowing:
http://screenmusings.org/movie/blu-ray/On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service/images/On-Her-Majestys-Secret-Service-1262.jpg
The happiness of Bond's world inside the car with his new wife is penetrated by a bullet from the outside representing the ever present threat that lingers around a secret agent, a threat that can often be lethal. This was a truth that James Bond knew but ignored when he asked Tracy to marry him, he foolishly thought he could leave his past behind. I imagine being in love clouded his judgement.
Diana Rigg is the all time top of the list as Bond girls. Like I said before, we all had schoolboy crushes on Diana Rigg at the time.
Telly Savalas' Blofeld is one fo the best interpretations of Bond's greatest advesary
The action scenes are tops, and this was the first film to feature ski chases.
The emotional love story is a great deviation from the formula and shows us another side of our hero.
The downbeat ending is what makes it unique and an all time classic.
The film had ranked 4th in the MI6 survey and came in at #6 with Entertainment Weekly survey.
"Of course I know what he's allergic to..."
"But I thought you don't like girls Hilly?"
"I usually don't, but you're not usual"
I looked over the film again today and the last hour of the film is wall-to-wall action. Often if you pause the film during some of the more risky looking stunts you can clearly see it is Lazenby in the sequence. I have to say the physicality he brought to role has really been neglected. For instance, the hotel fight is a superb sequence and on par with the train fight from FRWL but rarely does it get it's props and is often forgotten. Watch the sequence again, it's all Lazenby:
Unlike today's productions where stunt doubles are often used, Lazenby is evidently threw himself full into the stunt-based nature of the role and he really excelled.
I won't stink up this thread by saying what I hate about OHMSS, it would take too long.
excellent work @p2d. OHMSS is indeed a top notch film. It does work on so many levels. It also oozes Fleming maybe moreso than any of the Connery films that preceded although the Terrence Young films are right there too. Fine distinction really, but OHMSS did a nice job capturing the romantic adventure vibe of the Fleming novels. Mind you it had the most obvious source material to work with, in achieving this end.
But the film is a Bond tour de force. I am sure Fleming would have loved it. It perfectly closed out the authentic period-era of Bond filmmaking, as none of the first 6 films were made more than 6 years beyond their source material's publication dates.
That changed with DAF, as it inevitably would have to.
And your comments about Laz's physicality are spot on. Yes he was only an adequate stand-in for Connery, but with tremendous growth potential. But what helps distinguishe the '60s period to a large degree is that with both the young Connery and younger Laz, Bond was cast as a strapping young agent in his prime years. Both Connery and Laz brought a young physicality to the role that no Bond actor since has come close to achieving. Craig is plenty physical but he lacks the classic look and has had an "old dog" persona from day one, never mind SF.
For me Connery and Laz are the pinnacle of Bond casting. Both these guys perfectly look, move, and yes do manage to convincingly act the part.
It's a shame IMO that post Moore, Eon hasn't gone back to this kind of casting of Bond.
I have no objection to a good actor such as Connery being allowed to grow older in the role, as we saw with DAF, but please when the young buck is done, find another young buck and do it all over again. At the very least we get better fights and more credible womanizing.
Laz's antics at Piz Gloria were very authentic. This is exactly how a young man of Bond's appetites and opportunity would behave in such a scenario. Tracy can wait. They weren't married yet and he may not have been completely smitten. Rather Bond did what came naturally and there was also an element of intelligence gathering, and strategic ally-making asscociated with his bed-hopping too.
btw I don't think Laz played Sir Hilary as gay. Rather he played him as bookish and disinterested in girls. The girls, with their air of resignation, I think were simply lamenting what a waste of good raw talent Sir Hilly was. But that didn't last.......
One of Laz's best lines was his " you have no idea how it's piling up " Detfly delivered.
"I don't think you like girls, Hilly."
"Usually I don't, but you're not usual."
Sounds pretty gay to me!
This thought never appeared to me in the slightest. I always saw him as playing it shy and innocent.
That's just a line to make her feel special. Standard operating procedure. All guys know that technique. You don't have to be Bond. ie, always make girls feel like they are unique and special, even if you are laying it on thick, and they know it. Its part of the game.
btw, the world is full of men of all ages who have no idea how to talk to women, but they are not gay. They just lack confidence around the fairer sex, but often they do meet that one woman they are comfortable around, or girls spot their problem and set them up.
And some guys just aren't interested in women. They like their hobbies or whatever. But interested girls can often "club" these guys. They just club them, caveman style and drag them off to be their mate. I've seen it happen, many times. Guy doesn't know what hit him.
Bond is playing Hilly up as this last type, I do believe.
I think OHMSS has reached legendary status because of Lazenby. The film may not have become quite as iconic as it is if Connery had starred. It works because of Lazenby. It's a unique one-off in a franchise that has since tended to sway towards formula.
Lazenby wasn't perfect, but his solitary appearance in a series known to have its actor reprise the lead role stands up. In fact, I think that in spite of Connery, his performance gets better on repeat viewings.
A Connery-led version of OHMSS may have had the film disappear as part of the pack.
I do say it.
OHMSS has 'iconic' and 'cult' status. Now a lot of Bond films are very memorial, but OHMSS doesn't feel like a entry in a 'franchise.' OHMSS feels more bespoke and individual. A lot of that comes down to the production values and unique direction.
The appearance of Lazenby makes the film all the more curious and intriguing. The myths that have gown around it since have only helped. How it was generally dismissed at the time and eventually adored add to those myths.
Much of that comes in spite of Connery and because of Lazenby. He had the ingredients to make a great Bond and its a shame....he was arrogant, cocky, handsome. A real leading man......I think people make the mistake of reviewing how Lazenby wasn't Connery with this film
Also, Diana Rigg is truly amazing in this film. Here is a photo with her and a young Helen Mirren.
Lazenby's performance does nothing to take me out of the experience. He's really ripped in that photo. I wonder if that was the inspiration for one of the concept posters of him shirtless.
Steven Soderbergh wrote a great essay on this film....Check out this quote that I could'nt agree with more:
Also, Lazenby has a vulnerability that Connery never had—there are scenes in which he looks legitimately terrified and others in which he convinces us that he is in love with Tracy (particularly in the final scene), which brings us to another reason OHMSS is so distinctive—it’s the only Bond film with a female character that isn’t a cartoon, and the only film in which Bond is so completely frustrated with his bosses he wants and tries to quit. In fact, everything about the film suggests a reboot before the idea of rebooting was even in the air,
Lazenby could have been a movie star. He looked like an athletic Cary Grant.....he was handsome, sexy, a little more refined than Connery but very physical. He had great prowess. He made Bond more a 'gentleman spy'. He worked better than people expect....he was a genuine leading man.
I think Peter Hunt directed him very well. He made sure that Lazenby looked like 007. George had a glint in his eye and something a little darker.
I think Fleming would have approved....he was closer to Fleming's conception than Roger Moore.
Funny, that's the same thing Cubby and Harry said about Moore when he took over in LALD.
Those pesky producers will say anything to get buy-in from their audience... :)
+1
And I've said it before and I see Soderbergh agrees: no Bond actor has captured the fear, the inscurity, the vulnerability of a man running for his life like George in the Mürren sequence. He's about to break, to fall into despair. He's like a poor animal pursued by poachers.
Contrast Laz’s attitude to Sean's on a similar sequence on TB: he's very scared (the part when he rams into an innocent passerby), but mantains his cool and self-reliance. Doesn't panic like in Shrublands. He's debonair, mantaining his cool even injured by a bullet. A true professional.
I love this contrast between actors. And both do a great but vastly different job in two similar, suspenseful scenes.
I've always felt that Bond's moments of turmoil were a product of internal monologue. In the novels he always tries to disengage his emotions, never showing the pain and fear he might be experiencing. He purposely holds these things to himself, never giving his enemies the satisfaction. This is why I think Connery's performance in Dr. No is still the closest to Fleming (minus the flourishes of style)
Haha, she's quite a woman...she might be the best Bond girl, right? So chic, sexy and 1960's.
But George wasn't a bad looking chap either....