Why Wasn't Roger Cast In OHMSS?
DavidJones
BermondseyPosts: 268MI6 Agent
It seems to me that Roger was the heir presumptive to Bond by the time Sean left, as he'd been effectively playing Bond for several years in The Saint. So why did Cubby and Harry choose Lazenby instead? Had Connery put them off 'stars'?
Comments
how does the timing work out?
wikipedia says filming began on OHMSS 21 October 1968
last episode of the Saint broadcast 9 February 1969
not sure the last day Moore was needed for filming the Saint but that broadcast date is three and half months after filming of OHMSS began. anybody know more details of the filming dates for the Saint?
They couldnt really wait around til Moore was done filming his teevee show, as it was important there be snow up in those alps.
Plus he made Crossplot around that time (with the crew of The Saint I think) which, although I'm sure didn't take long to make, might have been enough to tie him up.
Plus I think I remember reading that Broccoli & Saltzman wanted to take another unknown (as Connery more or less was) and make him Bond at that point- a route I think they abandoned after Lazenby.
I think it's a shame Roger didn't do OHMSS: I honestly think he would have been better in it. The opening of the film in Portugal essentially is an episode of The Saint anyway! 😁 Plus he'd have held his own much better against Savalas and Rigg, and would have handled the romantic stuff very well; as well as the dramatic stuff (he was being effectively serious on this level in The Saint). He'd have made the Hilary Bray stuff much funnier too. The only place he'd have fallen down in comparison is the fight stuff, which George is obviously better at.
It's nice that we got both and Lazenby is decent, but I think a Roger Moore OHMSS just would have been a better movie.
A line that sticks out from my memory of the 'Inside OHMSS' documentary on the DVD is someone (I think Peter Hunt) saying "What we want is another Sean Connery" or something to that effect. Not sure if that means that it should be a relatively unknown actor as emtiem suggested above, or if they were thinking more in terms of physical build and character. It was probably only after they had tried that once with Lazenby that they considered an alternative approach.
It's an interesting idea to consider OHMSS with Moore in the lead role. I'm sure Roger Moore would have done a good job of it, but I would I prefer to have that over Lazenby? Maybe, I'd be far too afraid to hop in the old time machine and go back to see that alternative reality in case it spoiled the wonderful film that is OHMSS.
I think they wanted a "Connery Clone" and George checked off almost all the boxes: ruggedly handsome, tall, athletic build, great with the physical stuff except one huge one, acting. I think in the case of George, Cubby and company overreached and over estimated their ability to be Professor Higgins to George's Eliza Doolittle and create a Bond actor. Plus, George would be a cheaper alternative that they probably thought they could control potentially over the next few Bond films. Connery, while being barely a "B" lister prior to Bond was still a more than a decent actor with an actual resume, including a good performance as a sort of working class/criminal version of Bond in the crime film "The Frightened City".
Yeah I think you're absolutely right: I think they dodged a bullet when George quit on them.
Roger would have given OHMSS a proper lead performance, and that is what it is missing, really. He's even blasted off the screen by Ruby. Roger would have been in control.
Given that OHMSS was more of a "serious" Bond film, especially in light of Peter Hunt's approach, it would been very interesting to see Roger Moore playing it a bit more straight as Bond. While not a great actor, IMO, Roger had enough acting chops to do a tougher, less jokey Bond plus the fact that he would have been 5 years younger for OHMSS than his Bond debut in LALD (and Roger at that age would not have looked out of place next to Diana Rigg nor been blown off the screen by her presence and gravitas). That being said, if we are looking at inserting a different Bond actor into OHMSS as the film was actually turned out, Moore would not be my first choice. I won't include Connery here because I have a hard time being objective when it comes to Connery and for Connery IMO, you just would do the film a bit differently because...well....it's Connery. I actually believe that had Dalton been 10 years older in 1968, he would have my choice for OHMSS. The other issue is, IMO, I'm not sure that OHMSS was the best film/story for a new Bond actor to make his debut in.
Actually, one of the things I think works in OHMSS's favor IS George Lazenby. . .it's hard to imagine either Sean Connery or Roger Moore being as vulnerable and as ready to fall in love as is Lazenby's Bond. Both Connery and Moore would have been kind of worldly and cynical--I can't imagine either man truly loving and needing Tracy. If either man were Bond in OHMSS, it would not be the film we have now.
Great points Hardyboy. I love OHMSS and George's Bond.
I can’t really see that: Moore could do vulnerable very well (see Man Who Haunted Himself or similar episodes or the Persuaders), and even his Bond has a more romantic side than most others: see Octopussy or AVTAK. Really OHMSS is probably hitting more notes which are closer to his work in The Saint than what we saw in his Bond, and he played that very well indeed.
I don’t think Lazenby is good for the film because he’s not much of a star.
Where's the romance in Octopussy and A View to a Kill? Baking a quiche? Making snide remarks about loving cups? A hot tub ménage? Virtually assaulting the heroine because she disagrees with you? Crikey.
Lazenby's whole demeanour and attitude is romanticised in OHMSS, it has to be because it's written that way. The scenes at his hotel room and the bull ring are the closest James Bond ever got to emotional maturity until Craig's journey to Venice.
Well it's his whole demeanour in those films, yes. Compared to the other Bonds he's pretty gentle and loving in those: he's the romantic charmer whereas Sean was the ladykiller. Sure, it's relative and he's hardly the greatest lover in Hollywood at those points, but I can certainly see it. It's trickier to imagine Connery's Bond going for a morning-after stroll along the beach with Lisl and it feeling as genuine.
If Lazenby's demeanour in OHMSS is romanticised because it's written that way, then it rather follows that Moore's would have been too, no? But with the benefit that you'd also be getting a more experienced screen lead performing those scenes and giving them more heft.
Plus I can imagine him twinkling away in those Piz Gloria scenes and actually making something of the comedy potential, rather than them having to salvage it by get George Baker to do it in the dub! 😁
"Well, I er.. seem to have a slight stiffness coming on. Oh, from the altitude.. of course"
This is a good, interesting discussion. It also is motivating me to go back and watch OHMSS again....which is a good thing.😊
I'm watching it on Saturday on the big-ish screen at the Prince Charles Cinema, London.
But there's no romance indicated in OP or AVTAK - the screenplay's are devoid of all romantic indications. "We're two of a kind," says OO7 - two heartless rootless loners, maybe, but he's hardly making a statement of romantic intent. As for AVTAK, the relationships between Bond and all the women in this film are physical and Roger's poking fun at Bond's image as a lothario. When he tucks Stacey into bed, he pulls a face at teh camera, acknowledging she's way too young for him.
Now, I get that Sir Roger might do a more cheeky version of Bond up at Piz Gloria, which is fine, the scenes are deliberately comic. The business with George Baker's voice wasn't to hide Lazenby's inability to do comedy, Peter Hunt thought it would add and extra layer to Bond's character, being able to mimic the Herald Puissant. Personally, I'd have preferred no dubbing. I never got the impression Sir Hilary had even spoken to Blofeld. Regardless, Lazenby's okay with the puns, nicely flippant. In the main OHMSS it isn't a very amusing film and Hilary Bray isn't supposed to be amusing, he's a bore, so I don't know how Sir Roger would have coped with that. He'd always look for a softer angle and the movie never implies Bond has a soft angle. I like Lazenby's forcefulness with M, his curt manner with Sir Hilary and Draco; this Bond means business.
It's not included in the ones I'm seeing, unfortunately. They leapt from YOLT to DAF.
Gosh I'm really convinced by Hunt's reason given there: Baker is clearly giving a humorous performance and selling quite few of the gags with his delivery. As you say, there's no reason to dub Bond here and I don't doubt for a second that they'd have never done that with Connery. Baker is doing a knowing sort of fun performance, presumably giving it a layer of sophistication in the playing that Lazenby couldn't. Most of his physical reactions in that sequence are kind of blank.
If you can't see that Moore went for a more chivalrous, elegant and gentler, more romantic style of hero there's not much I can do to point it out, to be honest. I'm not saying that the screenplay has him asking Stacey Sutton to marry him, but he's clearly much softer and gentler around her than Connery is to any masseuse he forces into a steam room. And I'd also say that there's a hint that he and Octopussy can care for each other: it's not a big angle in the script and the film doesn't develop it, but the way he and Adams play it is enough. Given a script like OHMSS, and a co-star like Rigg, I don't doubt he could have handled it. I know there are plenty of scenes in the script where he's supposed to bed a random lady or too: Lazenby does that too if you had forgotten. But I'm talking about the scenes where we get a hint that he can be softer and more caring than that, which are there. The presence of a few more base pull-the-dolly-bird scene isn't really a valid argument to say that those scenes don't exist.
He's superior to Lazenby in every way, apart from the fight scene stuff.
chrisno1 said:
The business with George Baker's voice wasn't to hide Lazenby's inability to do comedy, Peter Hunt thought it would add and extra layer to Bond's character, being able to mimic the Herald Puissant.
@chrisno1 do you remember where you saw this Peter Hunt quote? are you sure he wasn't just being diplomatic, defending the controversial new star? I can imagine after all the hype of finding a new Bond actor it must have been a bit of shock to audiences to see the new guy had most of his dialog overdubbed. Audiences must have commented at the time, never mind us on the internet 50 years later.
all that said, if the question is Lazanby's ability to do the romantic scenes, its all his scenes with Tracy where Lazenby is speaking in is own voice. So yes he can do that persuasively.
But the scenes with the Angels of Death I think are meant to play more as a sex comedy, definitely something Rogers More would have been a natural at.
I may comment later on Moore's last three BondFilms and his performance in the Saint, lunch breaks almost over sorry. But I got a few thoughts on those that are different from whats been expressed so far
emtiem said:
Roger would have given OHMSS a proper lead performance, and that is what it is missing, really. [Lazenby is] even blasted off the screen by Ruby. Roger would have been in control.
well Ruby did have an advantage: she'd already shared a scene with the "real" James Bond two years earlier!
🤣
I don't think Moore's Bond was a romantic type who would actually fall in love with the BondGirl in any of his films. In the first few he definitely has an objectifying attitude, always shoving one woman in the closet as soon as another one comes along. Like Connery he sleeps with women as part of his strategy to save the world, and picks up chicks in between missions to keep in practice. Moonraker is transitional, with Goodhead outing him as a sexist and we are meant to identify with her not him.
In his last three films, Moore's Bond attitude changes: he is now more protective towards the women he meets, not exploiting them to his advantage. But his interest in all of them is rather avuncular, I don't see him wanting any long term commitment, so much as feeling responsible for them being in these situations and doing his best to get them out alive. So his more respectful manner in these three films is not applicable to the relationship between Bond and Tracy.
a few folks mention the Saint as proof Moore could have played the serious romantic scenes in OHMSS. Five and half seasons into the show, I see no evidence of that. Despite there being a beautiful woman in every episode, Templar's attitude toward women is even more chaste than in Moore's final three Bond films. He rarely even tries to kiss them. In most cases he is the protector, and in these episodes his attitude is literally chivalrous and courtly. Templar is not just a modern day Robin Hood, he is a modern day mediaeval Knight , and those Knights were guided by a Code of Chivalry which included "general gentleness and graciousness to all women" (from wikipedia). There are some women he likes more than others, and these tend to be con-artists who he fancies and lets go free at the end of the episode. There are also a couple he gives a spanking to because he doesn't like their manners. But there has not been one that Templar is tempted to give it all up for in order to live happily ever after.
I actually don't think we could believe this plot with any established Bond actor, the casual womanising aspect being so central to the Bond film experience. I don't even believe it when CraigBond suddenly quits his job to be with Madeleine at the end of the last film, it is unpersuasive. It might be something only a brand new actor in the role could have done.
Well yes, Moore would have been a brand new actor in the role! :D
I’m not saying he fell in love with any of his leading Bond ladies, clearly he didn’t. I am saying that he shows he would have been capable of showing a more romantic disposition, as you mention. It’s not much of a leap for an actor to show some kind of vulnerability from there, and if we’re saying that Lazenby was capable of it then anybody is.
@caractacus potts To clarify:
I slightly misquoted Peter Hunt from Inside OHMSS approx 12 mins in
G.L. "I did practice that accent quite a bit." [He gives quite a good rendition]
P.H. "Much later I had the brilliant idea of putting George's voice on there - George Baker's voice."
On the commentary, at about 45mins George Baker explains it: "Peter Hunt telephoned me and said 'George's voice when he's impersonating Sir Hilary Bray isn't quite right. We'd like you to dub it."
Now what exactly did Peter Hunt mean by 'isn't quite right' and what did he mean by 'brilliant idea' ? I think that's where I misinterpreted Mr Hunt. Sorry about that.
However, the point remains, when did they notice this flaw and why was it necessary to dub it?
The scenes at Piz Gloria restaurant had already been shot, so one assumes Lazenby had already been using this not quite right accent then. Did Lazenby have any idea what George Baker sounded like? The scenes in at the College of Arms weren't filmed until the spring, so by then they must have known the two voices didn't sound similar enough. Hunt in particular was a friend of George Baker's, so he certainly would have noticed. you would like to think a quick script edit could have conjured up the extra lines: "You've spoken to them of course?" - "Oh, no, they're being very discreet. We've communicated by letter only. They haven't objected to my fee of a thousand guineas."
That it didn't happen implies this misdirection of Blofeld was narratively important. I recall there was a deleted chase scene involving the Scrivener. Bond was supposed to have uncovered a bugging device in Bray's office and traced it to the Scrivener's room; so maybe Bray's voice was being relayed back to Blofeld. This was one of the scenes John Glen edited out to reduce the running time. By then it would have been too late to reinstate Lazenby's voice on the soundtrack. Essentially something which may have made sense, now wasn't necessary.
Clearly Hunt had an agenda early on to replace Lazenby's voice, but it still isn't clear why he felt it was necessary to do so; after all, Bond did kill the Scrivener in the original edit - did Blofeld ever receive those tapes - were there any? The fact Lazenby knew nothing of the dubbing until he saw the film suggests the underhand nature of the 'brilliant idea'. And, had this been Connery in the role, would Hunt have dubbed his Scots accent? Like hell he wouldn't - could you imagine the feisty Connery putting up with that? A disappointing decision on Hunt's part, I feel, and one which the finished film doesn't really suggest as being necessary - the line "Tactfully adjusted to suit me" is talking about the physical description of Hilary Bray, not an aural one.
***
Back to topic, in the same documentary at 4mins 30secs, Hunt says he interviewed probably one hundred actors and couldn't figure out what the producers wanted. In the end, he says; "They wanted another Sean Connery." So, according to the director, it was a producers decision; Moore is something, but he's not Connery.
Both Alec Mills and George Leach - minor players I know, but present through the screen testing - rated him. Hunt also says: "He looked like a credible James Bond."
Hunt also ends the documentary by summing up Lazenby's one-off tenure thus: "Who's James Bond? It's not Sean Connery. It's not Roger Moore. It's not any other actor. It's James Bond and he was James Bond."
We all have our favourites, but I think we all take his point.
I must admit I'm not quite sure what he's getting at there(!) but in some ways I do find Lazenby easiest to picture as Fleming's Bond because he added almost nothing to it, unlike the other actors who have played him. He's somewhat a blank, which to be honest Fleming's Bond is on the page too. He has lots of quirks and gimmicks but he's not really an amazingly well-created rounded character: he's basically just the grizzled handsome hero. Craig is terrific but he's not really Fleming's Bond- he's more interesting than that! 😊
Very interesting stuff about the Baker dub there: thanks for that. Good point about the bugging scene: that would appear to have made the change in voice necessary when they were making it. I wonder if Lazenby's Hilary voice just sounded bad? He might have been trying a very posh voice and it just came out poorly when they watched it back. I do think that Baker's performance adds a knowing quality and a twinkle that isn't really present in the rest of Lazenby's performance though.
Lazenby did receive a lot of voice coaching for OO7 - he continues to use the coached 'English' voice in all his interviews but can easily drop back into his rural Australian twang if he wants to. So not only did he have to practice being Bond, I assume he also had to practice being Hilary Bray. I suspect - and can only suspect as I have no evidence - that he was probably dropping into the wrong accent at the wrong time. Which again begs the question, why didn't they simply alter the College of Arms scenes so that Bray's voice wasn't important? True, Bond has never had to actually impersonate a real person until now, but even for the best secret agent mimicking another person's voice and actions would be extremely taxing !
@emtiem I think your point about Lazenby being somewhat 'blank' is exactly why I like him ! The idea he is able to be a non-entity is exactly what surely makes a great spy.
Odd that we're all champing on about the Bond / Bray voice when the biggest question is why Blofeld never recognises Bond having met him only two years previously in Japan? Is it because he was then disguised as a Japanese fisherman? Or are we back to the time line debate?
He makes a fine spy, but it is a movie and a movie needs a strong lead. He's fine, he could be a lot worse (see any number of ripoff 007 movies around this time which had truly dreadful nonentity leads) but he wasn't a big loss to Hollywood when he bailed out.
I think the reason why Blofeld doesn't recognise him is the same reason why he's changed nationality, face and lost his scar: the films are not really joined-up any more. Or rather they are when they need to be (Bond getting all of those things he can't possibly own from the previous movies out of his desk) but not when they don't need to be.
It's like how come the next time we see Moneypenny after James' tragic wedding in this film she asks him for a diamond ring from Amsterdam? Is she really that tasteless? 😁
thanks @chrisno1 for looking up the details behind the overdubbing. I never knew about those deleted scenes.
its not just OHMSS that has this Bond vs Blofeld continuity problem. The whole point of FRwL is they know exactly who Bond is, and can even make a rubbermask of his face. But in Thunderball Bond introduces himself to Largo using his real name and Largo doesn't recognise the name. Maybe Largo just hadn't been briefed on the man who had twice foiled SPECTRE plans despite being entrusted with such an important mission?
but I think the real reason is Thunderball and OHMSS were both filmed as near straight adaptations of the books without worrying about continuity with the previous films. I prefer the effort they went to with FRwL to continue the story begun in Dr No.
Ha! I never thought about that Largo thing: he's number Two in Spectre, isn't he? You'd have thought it would come up :D