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
It likely would have changed them to some extent, yes. But I don't think it would've been that strong a change. If one film goes for a certain tone, and the next one goes for a different tone, I personally find myself adjusting rather quickly and forgetting about the previous one, as long as there is competence in capturing said tone. And I think the same holds true in reverse. For instance, when rewatching GF, I wouldn't have been thinking much about a Connery OHMSS. I might've been thinking about DN and FRWL but not the films yet to come. That is in fact why I've always thought it viable to drop the Blofeld storyline from Spectre for Bond 25 and just do something else.
It works well on the written page, but I'm not so sure if it would necessarily work so well cinematically. Everything becomes linked then, even if it's not as obvious as how they did it for Craig.
Hunt said he could get a performance out of anyone. As an editor he thought it was just bits of film and tinkering and coercing until the moment was captured, and for all we know based on the evidence of OHMSS he was right. He got the performance he wanted out of Lazenby. Connery wouldn't have needed the same sort of coercing because of his experience, but it remains that if Hunt pulled it off with Lazenby he would've pulled the thing off with Connery. Again, I think it's just harder to conceive.
@barryt007 Couldn't agree more.
@Strog It isn't that I don't think Connery could pull it off. More that it would probably be jarring to see him do so, given the way he carried his interpretation of Bond up until that point.
I think he could have, but I've never really seen him as vulnerable in anything, and like @Roadphill noted I think that is the quality which makes OHMSS work so well. He always seems so much in control and part of that could be his imposing screen and physical presence.
As much as I love George, and feel he did a great job under the circumstances, he was very much a novice actor learning his ropes on that film. Connery had years of acting experience under his belt by the time he got DR NO. He knew his craft. I think Connery's display of emotions would have been subtle, never indicated yet would have quite an impact.
I personally feel Connery's OHMSS would have been his best, as the film was pretty much always intended to follow the novel.
Personally, I think it wouldn't have worked. There was too much bad blood between Connery and Broccoli by that point, and Connery was going through the motions in his performance, fulfilling his contract but little else.
If OHMSS had followed GF so that Connery was at the top of his Bond game, now we're talking. (But that would have meant maybe no Rigg, no Hunt directing, Barry not yet peaking...all elements of OHMSS that are indispensable to my mind.)
If there's a better example of a score helping a performance than OHMSS, I don't know it.
I think part of the problem might come from attempting to mentally drop Connery into the film that starred Lazenby, because that inevitably winds up with our mixing Connery's performance into the one Lazenby delivered. I suppose the real question is, if Hunt had developed the film with Connery in mind, how much would it have differed? What changes would he have made to the script? What mood would he go for in certain scenes? Etc.
I don't know enough about the production history on this one to say, but I'd assume the answer is, at least a little bit. But I don't believe that Hunt would've seen Connery as a reason to eliminate the vulnerability from the character, which would've been integral to the final effect he wanted to achieve. It is definitely true of Connery, as @bondjames says, that:
But this is also true of Lazenby, who also has an "imposing and physical presence" in the film (he's maybe even more brutish), yet is vulnerable when necessary. In fact I think Hunt probably cast Lazenby because his physical/imposing/commanding screen presence was so reminiscent of Connery. So in the same way Hunt didn't shy away from the vulnerable aspect of the character with this view of Lazenby in mind, I don't think he would've for Connery.
This is all assuming of course that Connery was in top form. As @echo notes the timing for this film never would've worked out, especially as the earliest drafts were more focused on spectacle.
I also don't agree on the one-off thesis of @bondjames . Tomy mind Craig has shown it's possible to make an 'emotional' start, and keep on working the field. I love the way Craig portrays Bond in the follow-up films, Getting more loose by the film but at the same time protecting his own emotional personallity more and more (with the walking away from Swann as the epitomy of closing down emotions while on the job).
Which brings me to another thought: SP doesn't properly work because it's not one coherent story, but a lot of loose ends tight together. As a viewer it doesn't come over as a consistent story and that's why the romance between Bond and Swann doesn't really work. He's first bitchy to her, then she lets her hair down as a wounded bird and next thing she's the hot famme fatale in the train. It all serves a purpose but as a story it doesn't hold up. Same goes for the 'stepbrother' angle, Bond's behaviour, and even Blofeld's reason to 'invite' Bond to his lair.
I love the Connery and Moore films as they exist. I just know that I wouldn't want my overall perception of those earlier films (and those lighter characterizations) to be clouded in any way by association with a heavy handed emotional story. So ultimately I'm quite glad that Laz did the 'one off' thing so successfully - so that I don't have to contend with that concern.
Well I think Roger would've been even better at this, as Craigs Bond has more of a brooding character and Moore's was a bit more open emotion wise. Take his visit to Tracy's grave i.e. Moore really plays it well. You feel there's a loss but he did leave it behind him. I think Moore would've done that perhaps better then Craig if he'd first done OHMSS and then LALD (also beeing good as not-connected villains, contrary to the tie-up SP mde out of Criags films).
I agree with this.
Eloquently put, @Strog
I said it before and I'll say it again: Moore was the most convincing widower of all the Bonds.
I think FYEO would have been mostly the same. OP and AVTAK would be very different.
My controversial opinion : all three movies would have suffered at the BO replacing Moore with Dalton but AVTAK would have improved in intrinsic quality.
The question one should really be asking is how DAF might have looked had Lazenby starred in it, even if they'd followed the same identical Connery script. With more time to shoot the climax on the oil rig and the subsequent Blofeld chase, without the worry of going over-schedule and paying Connery a huge daily bonus for every day that it did, Hamilton (or Hunt for that matter) would've had the extra days needed to make it ten times better than it was. But I guess some people just can't mentally drop themselves into such a concept.
Me too.