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
I was going to say the same. And I’m well aware of the film’s shortcomings, but I wonder if some can even appreciate the talent and effort that went into that script where they solved certain issues from the film before, while simultaneously creating an entirely new story and characters for Craig’s last film.
In the end, no film comes off unscathed and perfect in execution from first frame to last. Not one. But in the end, each to their own…
Well, Lazenby have a Masculine, boyish charm, he was close to the book in that sense (but again, the film stayed close to the book), given Bond's descriptions in the books, I never thought any woman falling in love with him credible either (I don't find Hoagy Carmichael attractive or even charming in any sense and the literary Bond also came across as unlikable and a bit of a creep either, even for its time, but like Lazenby, I can get the sense that he had this sort of boyish, masculine charm that makes women swoon, I'm female so I can understand this, with me reading him in the books, I can't help but be attracted to him either).
I do agree with you regarding the Tracy character, but at least in the film, Tracy have been fleshed out for us to know what she could do more: aside from showing her driving skills in Stock Car Race, she can also drive a horse, proved to be witty, resourceful, a great skiier, and a capable fighter against Gunther, no doubt Bond married her, she could be everything, she was even capable of holding a gun.
And she's not a fully fledged neurotic person like she was in the book which came across also as exaggerated and a bit annoying, Diana Rigg added more class to the character, she's much more realistic and believable as a human being compared to the one dimensional character in the book, hence, she's an improvement over the book.
Raymond Benson commented that it was the mysteriousness of Tracy that Bond is attracted to. The filmmakers needed to show Tracy being a unique character. So that is how it seemed the filmmakers approached this part of the story. Richard Maibaum said that OHMSS was his favorite of the Fleming novels. It shows. It is a great story due to its faithfulness and taking off-beat chances when necessary.
I agree completely. Green is a very compelling screen presence and Craig matches her step for step. I don't think either's performance would be as good without the other.
This actually is a very good point that I was thinking about recently. Bond is handsome enough to charm women on looks alone; but the sketch doesn't really have that level of charm. (Hoagy Carmichael is alright looking to me). Obviously, Fleming modelled Bond's looks on him and his brother, but Carmichael bore resemblance to many film stars of the time (Tania remarks the same).
This long-winded train of though basically brought me to the conclusion that when considering Bond's relative attractiveness, the prettier face of the typical actor (in line with Brosnan or Dalton) is probably a realistic barometer of translation.
I say this as someone who loves OHMSS, 😂. The gravitas of the film starts and stops with a terrific novel, script, vision of Hunt, and two actors: Rigg and to a lesser extent, Savalas.
George was an empty suit that moved about a set with a clumsy manner, and strange facial expressions and stranger deliveries ("I'll take that if you don't mind"). I see a lot of Lazenby in many of Ben Affleck's performances (in serious scenes, they have no idea why they're being serious, so they knit their brow and stare away)...
+Ilse Steppat and Gabrielle Ferzetti. I think those two performances are great as well.
I have to admit I’ve hardened up on Lazenby lately. I thought he was good in the film (though I can also recognize what others might not like about him - he really struggles in some of the exposition moments) but my issue with him comes down to conduct really. Dude was an asshole on set and from all accounts seemed like he was the hardest of all the Bonds to work with; and it looks like his decision to walk away would cause him a great deal of turmoil later on in life. He really seemed to regret making that decision and if that 90’s feud with Brosnan is any indication - it turned him quite bitter.
Oddly I’d argue it’s some of Bernard Lee and Lois Maxwell’s best performances in Bond too.
It’s a frustrating thing with OHMSS - it’s lead doesn’t do it justice even if he has his moments. I love it by the way, and can also acknowledge it has flaws on a creative/filmmaker level (Nolan and Soderbergh be dammed - I don’t believe this is the best Bond film by any measure). Great film though.
Oh yeah - Desmond has a great moment there at the end too.
Can't blame him, his agent convinced him that Bond was over by the 70s, and if that agent happened to be Ronan O Rahilly who owned the then successful Radio Station, Radio Caroline, his false predictions are to be taken seriously back then.
It's like John Lennon being fooled by Alex 'Magic Alex' Mardas and The Beatles being fooled by Allen Klein.
Ronan O Rahilly was a charlatan.
Actually Peter Hunt was quite abrasive to him too, Peter Hunt wanted him to be isolated and be alone so he could be a better Bond, away from his co-stars in the set, not a nice advise from a director especially towards a new Bond, Terrence Young could've handled Lazenby better, as he's more hands on, Peter Hunt was one heck of a diva, actually, he was communicating and giving instructions to the cast through Telephone.
I doubt any new Bond actor could possibly have a good working relationship with Hunt, if that was his approach.
I believe OHMSS is one of the best Bond films, but most of the film's fault I blame towards Hunt's directions, the cast are just following him, Maibaum and Raven's screenplay was top notch as it followed the book (and I'm not a fan of the book), while improving on it, the director is the heart of every film, next to the scriptwriter.
I’m not sure how much that stuff about Hunt is true. Richard Maibaum referred to him as a “monster” of a director in a letter penned to Cubby Broccoli before the hiring of Guy Hamilton for DAF - but that had more to do with the fact that Hunt didn’t bow down to Broccoli and Saltzmen. He actively fought for creative control over the film - even going over their heads to UA to ensure that the runtime would remain as it was. So this idea that Hunt dropped the ball when it came to directing Lazenby doesn’t ring true for me.
For one thing, Lazenby is a notorious liar - it’s how he got the job to begin with and Charles Helfenstein mentioned coming across an interview with UA’s publicity department before filming began basically referencing his habit of fibbing. Now the only instance where Hunt did isolate Lazenby from everyone was during filming of the final scene because he wanted Lazenby to be agitated and nervous - and fair enough because that’s his best bit of acting in the entire film and a moment that I can’t see any of the other Bond’s pulling off as well as George did.
But whatever Lazenby thought of Hunt or the others - it doesnt change the fact that he f_ed up that opportunity for himself and pissed a lot of people off with his behavior on set.
Yeah, that’s why even with a very weak leading man in the most iconic role of the 60s, OHMSS is still one of the best Bond films. Hunt held that film together despite Lazenby’s many weaknesses.
@peter
I truly believe it's a missed opportunity that Hunt didn't continue directing more Bond films. Imagine if he had overseen films like DAF, LALD, and TMWTGG in the early '70s. I'm confident we wouldn't have seen some of the comedic elements that, in my humble opinion, didn't quite fit the Bond series.
I must admit that I'm overall not a big fan of Bond directors' other films. I have accepted that most of them did their best work within the series.
Agreed. Hunt surrounded Lazenby with the best actors, and arguably the best script. Hunt and Rigg are the reasons why OHMSS is as great as it is. Plus Barry and of course Maibaum and Raven. The gays did a lot to make this film great (Hunt, Raven, Steppat...). :)
It's not that he dropped the ball, but more likely that he didn't know how to handle Lazenby.
Sure Lazenby lied out of his way for the role, but I think his performance was the result of Hunt misdirecting him, think of it, what if Connery had been handled by a different director in Dr. No instead of Terrence Young?
Whatever we think of Lazenby, I think his performance could've been fixed with a right treatment from the right director, and Hunt was not at it, the two was not in good terms and it showed, actually Lazenby was quite a naive person than what people think of him: Savalas challenged him in gambling and defeated him in the game, the Producers defended Laz from it (with Cubby telling Savalas of not doing that to "his new Bond"), regarding him and Rigg's feud, it's because Lazenby, as we all know, was a womanizer, Rigg, if my memory serves, wanted to date the man (I think Rigg stated this herself at some point in a written interview), I love Rigg and all, but she had also worked with another more annoying actor than Lazenby - Oliver Reed, but she's fine with it.
And yes, he became a victim of a bad advice from a fraud that's Ronan O Rahilly, he's no different than Allen Klein, a Con Man, he had even promised Laz of starring in the back then, trending lines of Martial Arts films with Bruce Lee, but after Lazenby dropped the ball from Bond, that Rahilly fraud suddenly disappeared, had Lazenby picked a different agent or perhaps none at all, I think he could've been talked out to continue in the role by the Producers.
Lazenby was actually a naive man.
Many people are pointing out the weird cuts, the execution of the Blofeld subplot (even though I think Blofeld's plot was an improvement over the book), and some even pointed out the film's slow pacing.
I love the film as it is though, it's my favorite.
The supporting cast of OHMSS is one of the best casts in the series. It's a shame that Peter Hunt didn't direct Maibaum's original screenplay of DAF. I'd be happy to see that cast in a direct sequel. Including Lazenby. It could have been a unique two-parter for Lazenby and the end of SPECTRE. A missed opportunity, but alas, what happened happened. At least the series continued.
An interesting video on what could have been.
Guy Hamilton was WAY too cynical in his last three Bond movies. Probably three of the most cynical and campy films of the series. The real snoozefest was LALD's boatchase. Richard Maibaum may have had an ego as big of a Bond villain with his solo screenplay work, but with what happened in DAF and LALD, I don't blame him. And I actually like those movies for what they are, with or without him. So, it did all work out in the end. I think that the filmmakers then (and hopefully the future ones, now), have learned the lessons that needed to be learned. Denis Villeneuve and Steven Knight are no Guy Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz. We should have a bit more humor after Craig's era. But don't take influence from those two. Bond can survive, but it can't repeat it's mistakes that it has throughout history.
I agree to this, @MaxCasino Lazenby should've really starred in DAF as a revenge sequel, had it not for that fraud Ronan O Rahilly, he's the worst person to be ever connected in the Bond Franchise, I hate that man, when everyone back then was fooling Lazenby (he's really that naive), he's the worst to cut off Lazenby's promising career.
He should've really starred in this film, a revenge sequel, although I prefer him to be with Terrence Young this time.
My controversial opinion about Moneypenny in OHMSS: the movie gave us the greatest Moneypenny moments. In a way, the character never truly recovered from it.
Wait until dark is a classic.
I like some Bronson movies like Red Sun or Cold Sweat.
Wait Until Dark is a great Terence Young film. Bloodline, also starring Audrey and directed by Young, wasn't.
On a further controversial note, I love all of those early 70's Hamilton-directed Bond films. Yes, they are silly and overtly comical, but I also find them witty, quirky and full of eccentric characters. Personally I prefer stuff like "tell 'm he's fired" over Tarzan yells, Jaws' oh-noooo-face and an-antenna-in-the-crotch. Ok, sheriff Pepper can be quite crass, I'd admit that :p
I think you've confused Terence Young for Guy Hamilton and/or Peter Hunt.
I see where you're coming from. I've repeated myself too much on this, but put Roger Moore in it and I think you've got gold. His Bond was more human and vulnerable than Connery's, he would have handled the romance and comedy equally well, and I think if he'd starred in that his reputation as Bond would be a lot stronger.
As for the revenge driven, Lazenby led DAF we never got, it would have been interesting. But I maintain there’s a very good chance Bond wouldn’t have survived a Lazenby era, or such a film.
I agree, no one could do it better than Laz, he fits well in the film.
And really he looked the part, could handle the essential aspects of the character, and I think he had the Masculine boyish charm like the Bond of the books, and was an actual fighter (he's great in martial arts), as for romance, that's the best I could expect from a Bond film, and Lazenby delivered the romance in the most Bondian way possible.
The Bond character, probably another controversial opinion of mine, doesn't require much, actually, its not that I have lower standards, heck no, but as far as cinematic Bond goes, and speaking on behalf of the casual audiences, the cinematic Bond is not that much of a demanding role (cinematic Bond is different from the books, hence why I emphasized that word 'Cinematic'), the cinematic Bond doesn't require much, as long as you look the role, can handle the essential aspects of the character, has that masculine charm, believable in fight scenes, and just be Bond, you're in, maybe it's us in fandom (us, fans in general) that we tend to be very nitpicky, this argument could also be applied for the next Bond as well.
That could be true back then, before the modern films came out, hence, why the people accepted the likes of Barbara Bach, Claudine Auger, Daniela Bianchi, because in their POV, those women carried the roles well.
But on the other hand, we have misfires from A list actors like Christoph Waltz that couldn't even managed to save that Blofeld character in SPECTRE, Rami Malek (an Oscar winning actor) as Safin in NTTD, or Denise Richards as Dr. Christmas Jones despite that she had acting experience or Halle Berry (another Oscar winner) as Jinx in DAD.
It's on the character and how a person could carry the role.