OHMSS - An Appreciation By Steven Soderbergh

BIG TAM

This is an interesting read:-

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11163&t=mi6&s=news

I like his view it's not Lazenby who's to fault performance-wise but rather is let down by director & producers. I'd say more producers. They didn't feel Connery was as big a factor in Bond's success as Bond himself, but they made the actor who replaced him copy Connery. You can't really have it both ways. Lazenby's overdubbing with lines, funny or otherwise has always been my main gripe with what is otherwise a great film.

Blackleiter

BIG TAM wrote:

This is an interesting read:-

http://www.mi6-hq.com/news/index.php?itemid=11163&t=mi6&s=news

I like his view it's not Lazenby who's to fault performance-wise but rather is let down by director & producers. I'd say more producers. They didn't feel Connery was as big a factor in Bond's success as Bond himself, but they made the actor who replaced him copy Connery. You can't really have it both ways. Lazenby's overdubbing with lines, funny or otherwise has always been my main gripe with what is otherwise a great film.

Thanks, Big Tam. That was pretty intriguing, and I agree with many of Soderbergh points, especially about how the producers and the director fail to fully recognize and play to Lazenby's strengths. And I found out that Soberbergh and I have something in common - we both have an autographed photo of Lazenby in our homes.

AlphaOmegaSin

OHMSS is THE Definitive Bond Film.

Sir Hillary Bray

No argument from me! {[]

Thunderpussy

Interesting article, -{
As many have said before it's a shame Lazenby became difficult to work with and left, as He
could of gradually put more of his own personality in to his portrayal of Bond. Although
even with the faults that others find ( I don't se any myself. ) It still remains My
Favourite Bond film. -{

Le Samourai

That was a great read, and I pretty much agree with all of Soderbergh's points. For what it's worth, I consider Steven Soderbergh to be one of the most bold and interesting directors of his generation.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the beach fight at the end of Soderbergh's 'Haywire' is filmed almost exactly like the beach fight from OHMSS?

BIG TAM

Le Samourai wrote:

That was a great read, and I pretty much agree with all of Soderbergh's points. For what it's worth, I consider Steven Soderbergh to be one of the most bold and interesting directors of his generation.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the beach fight at the end of Soderbergh's 'Haywire' is filmed almost exactly like the beach fight from OHMSS?

Yes, I noticed the homage. Perhaps Mr. Soderbergh may be persuaded to come out of cinematic retirement for Bond 25.

Le Samourai

BIG TAM wrote:

Le Samourai wrote:

That was a great read, and I pretty much agree with all of Soderbergh's points. For what it's worth, I consider Steven Soderbergh to be one of the most bold and interesting directors of his generation.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the beach fight at the end of Soderbergh's 'Haywire' is filmed almost exactly like the beach fight from OHMSS?

Yes, I noticed the homage. Perhaps Mr. Soderbergh may be persuaded to come out of cinematic retirement for Bond 25.

I for one would LOVE that!

He was attached to the 'Man from U.N.C.L.E.' movie at one point, but if fell through. Shame... I'd have liked to see what he would have done with it.

Gassy Man

Although many of his points seem recycled from what I've read elsewhere in books and articles over the year, especially about Lazenby, I pretty much agree with what he's said, with the major exception being the length of the film. For starters, I don't care much for the modern idea that anything that isn't absolutely vital to getting us to the end of the film should be cut. There are scenes in older movies that aren't absolutely necessary to plot, but they demonstrate character or even an aesthetic that simply makes the imaginary world of the film seem more real. And I'm surprised to hear the criticism coming from Soderbergh, whose own films often seem to meander or double back and cover the same territory (Even "Ocean" film after the first one, for instance). Narrative is not his strong suit. Personally, I find the sped up, chopshop action scenes in OHMSS to be the worst aspect of the film -- when I show clips in class, a lot of the students laugh.

L Jones

Screw Steven Soderbergh. OHMSS would not have worked without George Lazenby.

They didn't feel Connery was as big a factor in Bond's success as Bond himself, but they made the actor who replaced him copy Connery.

I heartily disagree. Although director Peter Hunt tried to pass him off as a second-rate Connery in the movie's first 20 minutes, Hunt wisely tossed that aside and allowed Lazenby to portray Bond in his own style. OHMSS isn't some typical Bond movie with women, gadgets and action. The movie's plot is relied too heavily on the humanized aspect of James Bond.

I don't think Soderbergh or anyone else who has criticized Lazenby realized this. The James Bond of the last five movies (with the exception of FRWL) would not have worked. OHMSS required a more human Bond and Lazenby delivered that character. If he had failed to delivered a human Bond and simply been a Connery 2.0 or a block of wood, the movie would NOT have been my favorite Bond movie of all time.

Napoleon Plural

Nah, sorry, agree with Sodeburgh. It's unfortunate that most of the early stuff has no real action from Lazenby it's mostly dialogue which he delivers in this aren't I clever tone of voice. Connery said those lines with real understatement, and it helped his being Scottish. I agree that it's a different tone in the last five mins thanks to Lazenby, but it's a long time reaching that point. I guess he does also show vulnerablity when in Murren and the ice skating scene.

But all that screwing in the Piz Gloria, it feels a bit icky and claustrophobic rather than a what happens on tour stays on tour kind of thing. It's at odds with Lazenby as the more romantic Bond, it doesn't even work as a kind of stag night thing either. It just doesn't suggest a bloke ready to settle down.

Blackleiter

L Jones wrote:

OHMSS would not have worked without George Lazenby.

I disagree. While I enjoyed Lazenby's portrayal for the most part, I think OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, with Connery in the role. Perhaps the tone of the film would have been somewhat different, but I think it could have been an excellent Bond film nonetheless.

chrisisall

Napoleon Plural wrote:

But all that screwing in the Piz Gloria, it feels a bit icky and claustrophobic rather than a what happens on tour stays on tour kind of thing. It's at odds with Lazenby as the more romantic Bond, it doesn't even work as a kind of stag night thing either. It just doesn't suggest a bloke ready to settle down.

Yes, agreed.
NP, are you a romantic? )

L Jones

Blackleiter wrote:

L Jones wrote:

OHMSS would not have worked without George Lazenby.

I disagree. While I enjoyed Lazenby's portrayal for the most part, I think OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, with Connery in the role. Perhaps the tone of the film would have been somewhat different, but I think it could have been an excellent Bond film nonetheless.

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. If Lazenby had simply copied Connery's portrayal throughout the movie, it would not have worked for me. He had to make Bond a human being, and not a one-dimensional super spy. I'm sure that another actor could have done the same. But as far as I"m concerned, Lazenby did his job in the end and elevated Bond's character from the usual schtick from the past five movies (except for FRWL).

I'm sure that Connery could have dumped his usual Bond shtick to portray a more human Bond. But if I must be honest, I have never found most of his roles in the 1960s that romantic. Even in a movie like "MARNIE". The closest Connery came to being romantic (and not lustful) to me during that decade, was in the second half of "FRWL".

But all that screwing in the Piz Gloria, it feels a bit icky and claustrophobic rather than a what happens on tour stays on tour kind of thing. It's at odds with Lazenby as the more romantic Bond, it doesn't even work as a kind of stag night thing either. It just doesn't suggest a bloke ready to settle down.

It happened in the novel. Bond was NOT in love with Tracy yet. Not yet. Even when he was romancing her earlier in the film, Tracy could tell that he was attracted to her, but not yet in love. And he used his usual method to get info for women . . . and it nearly ended in disaster for him.

Blackleiter

L Jones wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

L Jones wrote:

OHMSS would not have worked without George Lazenby.

I disagree. While I enjoyed Lazenby's portrayal for the most part, I think OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, with Connery in the role. Perhaps the tone of the film would have been somewhat different, but I think it could have been an excellent Bond film nonetheless.

You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying. If Lazenby had simply copied Connery's portrayal throughout the movie, it would not have worked for me. He had to make Bond a human being, and not a one-dimensional super spy. I'm sure that another actor could have done the same. But as far as I"m concerned, Lazenby did his job in the end and elevated Bond's character from the usual schtick from the past five movies (except for FRWL).

I'm sure that Connery could have dumped his usual Bond shtick to portray a more human Bond. But if I must be honest, I have never found most of his roles in the 1960s that romantic. Even in a movie like "MARNIE". The closest Connery came to being romantic (and not lustful) to me during that decade, was in the second half of "FRWL".

But all that screwing in the Piz Gloria, it feels a bit icky and claustrophobic rather than a what happens on tour stays on tour kind of thing. It's at odds with Lazenby as the more romantic Bond, it doesn't even work as a kind of stag night thing either. It just doesn't suggest a bloke ready to settle down.

It happened in the novel. Bond was NOT in love with Tracy yet. Not yet. Even when he was romancing her earlier in the film, Tracy could tell that he was attracted to her, but not yet in love. And he used his usual method to get info for women . . . and it nearly ended in disaster for him.

I think I understand what you're saying just fine, but I happen to disagree. I don't have a problem with Lazenby's portrayal - I think he did a decent job, especially for a novice. And I'm not suggesting that he should have copied Connery (although it is evident to me that he was attempting to do that to a certain extent). My point is that I believe it is possible that OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, if Connery had starred. I think you underestimate his skill as an actor to suggest that he couldn't be convincing as "Bond in love". Even you admit that he showed that to a certain extent in FRWL, and I think Connery has shown a romantic side in other films (The Anderson Tapes and The Russia House, for example). Sure, OHMSS probably would have had a different vibe if Lazenby had not replaced Connery, but I would love to have seen the result.

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

My point is that I believe it is possible that OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, if Connery had starred. I think you underestimate his skill as an actor to suggest that he couldn't be convincing as "Bond in love". Even you admit that he showed that to a certain extent in FRWL, and I think Connery has shown a romantic side in other films (The Anderson Tapes and The Russia House, for example). Sure, OHMSS probably would have had a different vibe if Lazenby had not replaced Connery, but I would love to have seen the result.

BL, just my two shents here, but I feel like Connery was pretty much past any sherious interest in playing Bond scheriously after YOLT, and even THEN, his interest was waning (although I schtill liked his performance in it immensely).
After watching interviews with him, I'm convinced that after YOLT, he was DONE with Bond as a serious project. If he'd been in OHMSS, it would have been more like DAF than Lazenby's take.
IMO FWIW.

Blackleiter

chrisisall wrote:

Blackleiter wrote:

My point is that I believe it is possible that OHMSS could have been just as good, if not better, if Connery had starred. I think you underestimate his skill as an actor to suggest that he couldn't be convincing as "Bond in love". Even you admit that he showed that to a certain extent in FRWL, and I think Connery has shown a romantic side in other films (The Anderson Tapes and The Russia House, for example). Sure, OHMSS probably would have had a different vibe if Lazenby had not replaced Connery, but I would love to have seen the result.

BL, just my two shents here, but I feel like Connery was pretty much past any sherious interest in playing Bond scheriously after YOLT, and even THEN, his interest was waning (although I schtill liked his performance in it immensely).
After watching interviews with him, I'm convinced that after YOLT, he was DONE with Bond as a serious project. If he'd been in OHMSS, it would have been more like DAF than Lazenby's take.
IMO FWIW.

I'm not convinced of that, my friend. I really believe it's possible that the script for OHMSS could have inspired Connery to put in the effort to make OHMSS a memorable swan song for his tenure as Bond. I think it's a real shame that we'll never know.

chrisisall

Blackleiter wrote:

I really believe it's possible that the script for OHMSS could have inspired Connery to put in the effort to make OHMSS a memorable swan song for his tenure as Bond.

I guess it's poshible... )
But man, it was the 60's. The precursor to the ME generation. Heady times for those cashing in on fame. And resenting producers for not paying? Connery was human, after all. -{

Napoleon Plural

I think Bond in the novel only bangs one broad, the Ruby from Lancashire, could be mistaken. And Fleming describes it tastefully as much as he can, the whole place has a desolate Shangrala (sp?) or even Dr Zhivago feel. But in the film, it is wearing and wrong for a couple of reasons: while Bond gets around, he usually earns his sperms (see what I did there) by saving the girl's life or saving the world, but here he isn't doing anything much, it all seems smug and complacent. Which would work, if it seems intended that way, like he's riding for a fall (see ditto ditto) but the director doesn't convey that. Furthermore, as he is in disguise as a total square and fool, it casts both his and the gals' actions in a very poor light, there is a feeling of subterfuge. It is creepy imo, esp with that godawful sax, makes you feel like having too much chocolate liqueur or something.

CmdrAtticus

I was never comfortable with this part of the film either. Here is the reason it doesn't work:

Though EON decided to stick closely with Fleming's novel, they still wanted THEIR version of Bond's character (playboy/superspy) pasted in it so it didn't veer too far from the image Connery had set.
So instead of having Bond "pumping" one female patient for information, they had him leering after and planning on bedding a number of them. That would have been fine in the other films, but in this film Bond is a real character falling in love and marrying Tracy. He is changing his whole life around. EON wanted it both ways and that's why it doesn't work. It's not the only time EON has done this with Bond's character. It's why Dalton's work in his films is uneven in tone. He wanted to do the character the way Craig is doing it now and cut out all the lame comedy shtick, but EON still wanted to keep the playboy/superspy/I never get hurt image and so we got films that just didn't mesh well. Had Hunt been able to direct the film as the straight spy story it was and left out the left over Connery/smirking character and lines that Maibaum and Raven put it, it would have been an even higher quality film.

chrisisall

Nicely articulated, sir! -{

Napoleon Plural

Yeah, that's cool.

As for Connery, well, the long shoot would have disagreed with him to be fair. And he is on record as not liking snow or ice, odd for a Scotsman or maybe it's a busman's holiday for him.