Connery vs Saltzman & Broccoli - Who Was the Villain?
Revolver66
Melbourne, AustraliaPosts: 470MI6 Agent
I've been reading 'Some Kind of Hero' and have recently rewatched the Everything or Nothing film and I find the eventual friction between Sean and the producers to be fascinating.
I feel that the documentary and EON in general has a tendancy to paint Broccoli always in a glowing light and Connery as a spoilt, temperamental actor who wanted more than he was entitled too.
Aside from this is Saltzman, who is painted as a violent tempered egomaniac, and the bully boy of the 2 producers. But I feel like both producers were underhanded when it comes to Connery, and ultimately were negligent in giving him his just rewards financially. I could be wrong, I don't know all the ins and outs, but it seems like Connery had more of an axe to grind with EON than EON had with him.
The shame for me is that Connery's disatisfaction with the role spilled out onto the screen, with his lazy YOLT performance and his absence in OHMSS.
Do you guys think that Connery was dealt with unfairly? Do you think that Broccoli was probably a bit more of a sly dog than how he is protrayed by EON?
Or is it Connery that was ungrateful and difficult?
I feel that the documentary and EON in general has a tendancy to paint Broccoli always in a glowing light and Connery as a spoilt, temperamental actor who wanted more than he was entitled too.
Aside from this is Saltzman, who is painted as a violent tempered egomaniac, and the bully boy of the 2 producers. But I feel like both producers were underhanded when it comes to Connery, and ultimately were negligent in giving him his just rewards financially. I could be wrong, I don't know all the ins and outs, but it seems like Connery had more of an axe to grind with EON than EON had with him.
The shame for me is that Connery's disatisfaction with the role spilled out onto the screen, with his lazy YOLT performance and his absence in OHMSS.
Do you guys think that Connery was dealt with unfairly? Do you think that Broccoli was probably a bit more of a sly dog than how he is protrayed by EON?
Or is it Connery that was ungrateful and difficult?
Comments
Did Barbara broccoli have anything to do with making the documentary? That would be indicative of its bias...
You think Connery was off in Thunderball? Interesting. I always thought he was in top form in that film
However, that negotiating position did not previously exist since he didn’t yet have the proven box office...so, it’s like the chicken or the egg. So, to paraphrase EON, how can he complain about a gig that earned him the fame and fortune of a lifetime he wouldn’t have otherwise?
Kind of like a modern day footballer who becomes a sensation overnight!
Prob both parties to blame but you do get a feeling Connery was a awkward bugger
Producers have every right in the world to pay their employees whatever they feel the employee is worth. They invested their money in their company and deserved to reap the benefits. Performance of a job is only a portion of a worker's value and they paid him what they felt was fair. As an employee, if you feel that you are being treated unfairly, you can leave. And so he did.
Along with Connery the producers tossed out the Fleming thrillers - the very essence of all things Bond. To this day they persist in turning out cookie cutter films while sitting on some of the best stories in spy fiction.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
As for the contract, it was for six films, one a year from 1961 to 1967. Because the filming of YOLT was approaching the end of the contractual period, EON released Connery short of the sixth film; so around that time there were a few months of negotiations that took place and many offers were given to Connery. In the end, supposedly he was adamant about getting off the hamster wheel, but one would wonder about the degree of interest that existed to withstand such a prolonged negotiation period.
I think it was at that time, similar to when negotiations for DAF would later take place, when Connery was finally in a good position to negotiate...his chance to extract his weight in gold, but I guess the prospect of more money came a little too late, for that point in time at least, lol. Since artistic integrity seemed to be at the core of his contention, he can be accused for either a bit of hypocrisy, or a lowering of standards over time; case in point of course, DAF and the groaner that was NSNA.
The pendulum has swung in the opposite direction currently, maybe Babs has learnt from prior mistakes although the current indulgence has perhaps gone too far.
Roger also had his problems but seemed to manage it better, perhaps that lack swagger did not antagonise in the same way. They had also learnt the risks involved with changing actors and perhaps are still very reluctant to do so until it cant be avoided.
Connery felt his chances sliding away, and the money not coming in as it might.
I did read (on this site) that Connery got paid less, on average, than any other Bond actor! Inc Lazenby, Dalton. Yet Connery was the one who made it legend, the others followed in his footsteps. Of course, those first three films pulled his salary down, as they were not yet 'big' movies.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
While I agree with you in the lack of being the international moviestar before Bond ( imo he not even became ‚international‘ besides Bond), he was well established in Cinema and TV widely across Europe.
I am pretty sure that he did not lack offers at the time that he started with Bond, so I don‘t agree with the dark picture that you are trying to draw here - he was certainly not desperate when he took Bond nor was he on the ‚last chance saloon‘.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
I think this post best encapsulates the central issue of this thread, or in the forum vernacular:
+1
Before the Bond offer, Roger was offered his own chat show, which he declined, and he could easily have made more of the Persauders. His film career, however, died with Crossplot, which had started filming before there was a finished script.
You don't agree that not being paid what he should of may have contributed to his disillionment with the franchise?
I wasn't disparaging Moore and I know he was a hugely successful TV star. That said, I'm not sure if The Saint wasn't finished by then, and certainly The Persuaders had been cancelled.
Personally I can't think of any significant movies he was in until Bond. Certainly none that would offer the standing not to mention the pay cheque that the Bond films offered. Because of that, Moore's attitude to bagging an established role at the age of 46 would have been very different to that of Connery feeling trapped by it, with other offers falling by the wayside, in his late 30s.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Here we agree but from your initial post, it sounded, that Moore was absolutely desperate for roles and money at his "forwarded age" which was certainly not the case.
Having discussed the issue with Barbel yesterday, I think, that we both agree, that no matter how much money EON would have paid him, Connery would have still walked away from them with the attitude that they have totally robbed him.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
There may be something else going on too, I mean Connery did leave with the impression that the producers had actually swindled him, rather than merely not giving him a bigger slice, and took them to court over that decades later. Under the settlement, he's not allowed to talk about it.
Added to which, doesn't another thread on this forum talk about Connery needing treatment for his flagging libido - when was that? Was it 68? If so, that might explain his reluctance to sign up for OHMSS, or another Bond, because the feeling of being trapped and not doing what you want to do can have a very bad effect on the libido.
But if you are trapped, you want shedloads of money to justify it - which Connery didn't get.
Also, unlike the other Bond actors, Connery was locked into a lengthy picture deal of six films I think (it got pulled back to five) whereas the others were just three, and could then negotiate on their terms. In contrast, Saltzman freed Caine from his contract early on as a favour.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
And yes, I think, that they should have given Connery a new and/or much better paid contract after GF or Thunderball.
But I am afraid - no matter how much they'd have added, Connery would still have walked away grumpy and unhappy.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
And I do think that whatever Barry felt about the "James Bond Theme" (and that's all I'll say), being hired to do the scores for FRWL etc made him very happy.
His was the very first truly global screen character. he wasn't a one off - like Clark gable who so wonderfully portrayed Rhett Butler - or even a studio bound low-budgeter like a Tarzan or Charlie Chan. Bond was HUGE by 1965 and he was seeing none of it.
Connery was raised in a tough working-class neighbourhood and did some tough working-class jobs. If you worked you expected reward. Broccoli and Saltzman didn't give it to him, so he told them to shove their job - basically.
When he left the EON stable he made 20 movies in 10 years, some not so good, some dreadful, some brilliant, but all worth watching. He was able to stretch his dramatic repertoire and eventually won an Oscar - though he rather played a mythical version of himself in The Untouchables.
Connery is a very principled man. Once he makes a decision, he stands by it, until it falls apart. His contract with EON was no longer fit for purpose in 1965, he knew it, they knew, but EON were not playing ball. Result: an actor goes on strike.
YOLT displays a shadow of Connery's Bond from 1962-64. I much prefer him in DAF, when the boot is on his foot: he's laid back, twinkly, amusing, studied, there's no disdain or boredom. He's laughing with the audience [or rather the production audience] not at them, as he was in YOLT.
Connery saw his employment by EON as a labour rights issue and to that end, he won the case, and as a working man, I tend to side with the little guy, so for me, Connery, big as he was in stature, is the victim here.
Sorry, but I fail to feel sorry for him. As Bond, he was among the 0,01% of actors, that really could make a living out of their profession.
And he was a very well paid actor in his Bond days.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I think as fans, there's the emotional tendency to stack up all our sympathy on the actor, who after all is "solely" responsible for making us feel good, overlooking everything else that made the experience possible. There's a Jean Luc Goddard movie in which a couple discussed a dream dinner with James Bond and who wouldn't jump at the chance of spending time with Sean Connery? However, thinking about it more carefully in strict regard for any discussion about the ins and outs of film series, my dream dinner would be with Broccoli or Saltzman, or even Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Peter Hunt, etc.
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
But they did. The contract was for 6 films a year from 61-67, and seeing that they were just on their 5th as 67 was approaching, they released him from contract. The overriding condition of the contract was the period it was to be in effect and that's what Connery was bound to. If you think the producers breached their contract in any way, why didn't Connery sue since he was so upset?