›

Connery bored in YOLT? Where? I don't see it.

13»

Comments

  • fromswedenwithlovefromswedenwithlove
    Posts: 654
    I watched YOLT this afternoon and I love it and I think that Connery is way better here than in DAF, that's for sure. I wouldn't say that he look's bored at all. I totally buy it... But that's just me...
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    fromswedenwithlove wrote: »
    I watched YOLT this afternoon and I love it and I think that Connery is way better here than in DAF, that's for sure. I wouldn't say that he look's bored at all. I totally buy it... But that's just me...

    I thought he was having more fun in DAF than in YOLT. In the volcano scenes is where he mainly looks bored out of his mind. Especially the scenes with Donald Pleasance.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    And as mentioned before-Connery got no directorial instructions from Gilbert, as he was just too much in awe of him as James Bond.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,187
    Same with Moore, I believe, but he arguably gave us his best Bond in '77 and '79.
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,804
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Same with Moore, I believe, but he arguably gave us his best Bond in '77 and '79.

  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    Thunderfinger wrote: »
    And as mentioned before-Connery got no directorial instructions from Gilbert, as he was just too much in awe of him as James Bond.

    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Same with Moore, I believe, but he arguably gave us his best Bond in '77 and '79.

    Every actor is different. We know that early on, Connery was very appreciative of the directorial input he got from Terence Young. Perhaps Moore had no need of that input, while Connery was still interested in receiving it.

  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,306
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    It seems to me that we are approaching this question from an either/or perspective: either Connery is underplaying his role because he’d rather not be doing it at all, or the film is flawless and critics are just picking nits that aren’t really there. Having just seen the film again last night I’d like to propose an alternative view: YOLT the film is indeed tremendously entertaining...but the production has some significant weaknesses that must be acknowledged, and Connery’s performance is fully in keeping with both the strengths and weaknesses of this production.

    YOLT the film is the first Eon production to significantly discard its roots: the original Fleming novel. This decision removes some of the most compelling material in the book (Dr. Shatterhand’s Garden of Death) and instead pushes forward one of the most unconvincing visuals of the movie: Connery “turning Japanese.” While Fleming took pains to vary the construction of his later novels in order to avoid repeating a successful formula (with considerably mixed results: TSWLM being narrated by the book’s leading lady , OHMSS ending in Bond’s marriage and his wife being killed shortly thereafter, and YOLT’s fascination with Japanese culture) the films chose to become mired in the formula at this point, so much so that YOLT the film is the most parodied of all the Bond movies (see most notably Austin Powers.) I think it self evident that YOLT the film suffers from a certain creative complacency. Various video monitors such as the one in Aki’s car or another in Blofeld’s main control room show Bond scenes that clearly no camera ought to be in place to catch; instead, he is seeing material that the audience has just seen from an “omniscient” point of view and the filmmakers are indulging in some creative slight of hand by having Bond see this material too. Helga Brandt is very clearly Fiona Volpe brought back to life and given a new name. If Karin Dor had been allowed to keep her natural hair color and Helga had been presented in BOND #8 rather than the very next film in the series after TB, this bit of creative laziness would not have been so obvious…as it is, even Miss Brandt’s healthy chest cannot hide the blatancy of the formula at work in her very creation for this film.

    Let me stress at this point that YOLT the film does have some very pleasing elements: Ken Adams’ design of the volcano hideout is a masterpiece; John Barry’s score one of his most evocative, the casting of many of the supporting characters (such as Tiger Tanaka and Dikko Henderson) is impeccable. I even understand and accept the need to alter some of Fleming’s original plotting as OHMSS had not yet been filmed and the future Mrs. Bond had not yet been killed. I merely point out that at this point in the series, the Bond formula tends to take precedence over originality in plotting, and this is exactly the sort of situation that Fleming himself took pains to avoid.

    Which brings us, finally, to the question of Connery’s performance in this film. I find it unsurprising that the creative complacency already noted in much of the rest of this production might find an echo in some of the work presented by that film’s star. As others (such as @chrisisall and @NicNac) have noted, Connery’s work with his costars is without fault. Indeed, Connery’s reputation among other actors has always been one of unfailing generosity in this regard. But when he is alone on the Blue Screen…as in the fight with four Spectre helicopters against Little Nellie…I’m sorry, but in the middle of my most recent viewing of the film, my cell phone did indeed ring. When I answered, Sir Sean’s voice came through the ether: “Shorry, but here’s my performansh in this schene. Jusht phoning it in, y‘know?”

    Good post. The novel YOLT is obsessed with death, and rightly so. By decoupling the film YOLT from OHMSS completely, the filmmakers hampered themselves from the onset.
Sign In or Register to comment.