(Spoilers) Watched On Her Majesty's Secret Service . . .
Gassy Man
USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
which, of course, No Time to Die is being compared to, though it also liberally borrows from other Bonds, like You Only Live Twice.
The first thing I noticed is how jaunty most of On Her Majesty's Secret Service is, though it's also tempered by sad and romantic parts. It's quite literally a lighter film, too, even in the night scenes. It's not just in the scenes but also the scenery, the costumes, the dialogue, and the set design. This is in sharp contrast to No Time to Die, which like many films of the past 10-20 years, seems draped in misery and/or depression, with only occasional glimpses of happiness, as though life is one long existential slog.
The contrast between the many lighter -- and dare I say, fun -- moments and the tragedy is what makes the ending so powerful. We're led to believe this is yet another 007 adventure, themselves like really great vacations with some action and intrigue. And then, of course, the rug is pulled out from under Bond with Tracy's murder. But all the uplifting parts are also a reminder of everything that is lost.
It's hinted at all through the film, both in thematic elements (constant references to time, death, aging, regrets, and the past for instance) and in the music. In fact, the swift opening theme, with its descending chords, sounds like a timer counting down, and Barry repeats elements all through the film, including in the demolition sequence. The bits where Bond infiltrates Gumbold's office and is taken in the elevator to the laboratory also have a similar construction. The music often suggests impending doom. There are a variety of visual cues, too -- the knife in the calendar, M collecting dead butterflies, the clockwork cable car gears that threaten to grind Bond up -- so that in the end, all the elements work cohesively to drive the point home.
This integrity seemed missing in No Time to Die. I suppose if one squints or is prepared to do a level of lawyering that would make Clarence Darrow proud they might construct some weak case, but it's part of the reason I say No Time to Die does not earn its ending. By comparison, its construction is a narrative mess, often empty.
Comments
Well if NTTD was like OHMSS then people would be moaning about how unoriginal it was. So I for one am glad it wasn’t. I don’t see how you can compare one to the other. Totally different story and theme. Or do we count love as a theme now, because then you might as well compare it to Titanic where there is a love story and the main male lead dies. And there’s a sinking ship too. Yeah, it’s just like Titanic. Except Titanic does that story much better. It needs Louis Armstrong though, not Celine Dion, then it would be a better Bond film 🤔
Sometimes dead butterflies in a film mean that someone is interested in Lepidoptera and not that it’s a metaphor for an impending death. Sometimes you can look to deep into a film and see things that aren’t there and devise visual clues that were never intended. Sometimes, it’s just a superficial film meant to be watched and not analysed. And that sums up most, if not all of the Bond films. They’re popcorn action flicks. Not cinematic metaphorical genius.
You must be kidding. Among other things, they literally use music from OHMMS to make the connection.
No one is talking about precisely copying the plot or story. I'm referring to what a mess NTTD is in terms of its construction compared to OHMSS, a film it so obviously uses as inspiration. I'm not saying OHMSS, the novel or the film, is great literature, but all the parts work together in the way a good story does. NTTD feels like the kitchen junk drawer, an assemblage of pieces that comes together mostly because they're in the same film.
I’d watch NTTD over OHMSS every day of the week and twice on Sunday. I put OHMSS down near the bottom of the Bond list.
OHMSS was even more brilliant last night. I have the Blu-Ray, but this version was tweaked more, and the audio was even cleaner. Love the bit where Blofeld goes to shoot Bond in the office and you can see him in the corner of the screen. It’s that way on the Blu-Ray, too, but they fine tuned the contrast even more. The conversation between Draco and M is easier to hear, too. The movie has so many genuinely fun and romantic parts, the pitch perfect ending still evokes a tear or two. It makes NTTD’s seem even more flat and the movie overall one note. OHMSS has such a smart script, where all the motivations are crystal clear and grounded in the characters, which makes the irony even, dare I say it, tidier. Love that they foreshadow the ending with Bunt’s first drive by against Bond in the phone booth. Goldfinger is still the best Bond movie, but OHMSS is the best story and easily in the Top Five films. By comparison, NTTD is a first draft of a muddled story.
Which version did you watch, @Gassy Man ? If it's not the BluRay, then what was it? If it was 4K was it on a TV channel?
We still don't know when the 4K ones are coming out do we?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Watched it streaming on Pluto TV, which has a Bond channel. It looks like they’re using the Blu-Rays but tweaked them a bit more for broadcast. Maybe it was 4K? I don’t know when those are coming out, but the image and sound quality were excellent. My mother, who saw all the 60s Bonds in the theater, has said they’ve never looked as good in any video form so far as they did in screen.
I’ll have to check my copy of Diamonds are Forever, but I swear they added music to it during the Felix airport scene, too.
The music's called "Airport Source", Gassy, and it's always been in the film. It wasn't on the original release of the OST but was added to the 2003 remaster.
OHMSS struck a balance that no later Bond films have managed to achieve, and probably never will. It has a proper ratio of drama and outlandish fun; it retains the 60s swing of the Connery films but has emotional force behind the fun. It’s long because it tells two stories that intertwine in the last act but not bloated, unlike many later Bond films. It’s self-conscious about Connery’s absence but nothing else, unlike later Bond films that scream about how dramatic they are. There’s a sense of experimentation and play in OHMSS, without the heaviness and self-seriousness that have defined later "serious" Bonds. Connery was gone, everything was up in the air, and the producers let Hunt and Maibaum do what they wanted. That atmosphere will never return, because there are too many corporate cooks in the kitchen, as the leaked Spectre emails demonstrate, and because EON nowadays treats writers like piano movers. None are allowed to see the film through to its final draft, in the way Maibaum was.
NTTD is very much in the shadow of OHMSS and obviously represents the attempt to give Craig his own OHMSS--an emotional story where Bond finds true love and is taken to the limit of his personal life, with a tragic ending. Since killing the Bond girl has been done too often, this time it's Bond that dies (after telling his "wife" and child "You have all the time in the world"). The difference is that OHMSS is--as @Gassy Man notes--a film that's often as jaunty and swinging as it's sad and romantic. It has a full tonal range that is preserved all the way up to the ending, which feels like a spontaneous slap in the face by fate. It's a genuine tragic ending, with no consolation whatsoever. The final quarter of NTTD by contrast feels labored and over-determined in its attempt give Bond a heroic, last-stand death--he gets to defeat the villain, save the world, say goodbye to his family, and look heroic, standing nobly as the rockets fall.
Beautifully said, Revelator.
Edit- is it too much of a cliché to suggest that OHMSS works so well for the very reasons that Revelator says above because it is so close to Fleming's novel? I'm not saying that Fleming got everything right- often the changes, including in OHMSS, are improvements- but the heart of the story and the major characters, particularly Tracy, are very much from the book.
I'd second that @Revelator and @Barbel
Personally, I have barely a bad word said for OHMSS,
Is Revelator actually GassyMan then? What's going on, or did the former leave a sort of ghost post that Barbel is commenting on or that only he can see?
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Thanks, Nap. Chrisno1 is having a premature senior moment. Mind, both GassyMan and Revelator write excellent posts... Maybe I've accidentally hit on something
My apologises to @Gassy Man for not referencing him correctly.
My earlier post had a couple typos, and when I tried editing it I accidentally deleted the whole thing!
Edit: Luckily Barbel performed some technical magic and restored it! A thousand thanks.
Ah ha ! So I wasn't having a senior moment @Napoleon Plural
@Revelator you must have edited after I read your post, I remember it now!
I still offer my apologies to @Gassy Man
And thanks to @Barbel for an immediate restoration.
Haha, none necessary.
I, too, enjoy Revelator's posts (and so many on this board) and find it interesting we're on the same page about so many things. Alas, though, we're two different people, unless I'm blacking out and doing work in an altered state (or he/she/they are).
You know, it's the volume -- it was really turned up the other night, to the degree it dominated the scene. How strange.
To me, it's the difference between someone (Fleming) who read classical literature and pulp that imitated it to learn to write and someone writing today, who more likely is cribbing from old TV shows, movies, and comic books.
Say what one will about Fleming, he definitely constructed his stories along classical lines. OHMSS plays as a tragedy, both for Bond and Tracy. The elements are all there, thematic and otherwise. It has irony. It has wit. Most importantly, it builds us up for the emotional loss at the end, not through image and sentimentality, but through our rooting for Bond and Tracy throughout the story.
NTTD does almost nothing like this. It tacks on an ending that feels more like a soap opera twist than anything worked for. It's more about the situation -- a dad is senselessly killed, separated from his family forever -- than characters -- Bond and Swann are beautifully in love, with a daughter he forms a brief, but strong relationship with before fate cruelly takes it away.
I'll say, too, the film OHMSS makes a few improvements over the novel. While I like some elements in the novel better -- it's more clear Blofeld suspects Bond right from the start and is just waiting until he makes a mistake to out himself, for example -- in the film, Bond fights to continue Operation Bedlam while in the novel, he wants to be taken off of it. In this way, Bond's determination to get Blofeld in part contributes to the outcome where his wife is murdered. That's all part of tragedy.
There's nothing like that in NTTD. Bond may have gone off grid, but for five years, he does nothing, not even investigate Swann to find out what her connection might be. He comes back into the MI:6 fold grudgingly. He meets Swann again accidentally. This is not a movie where Bond takes actions that come back to bite him. This is a movie where actions sweep Bond along, as though he's merely an unwitting pawn. When he's blown up at the end, it seems like the final insult, especially after first getting shot and then infected with incurable nanobots. That's not classical tragedy. That's more or less presenting Bond as something of a fool.
Well, there is that similarity, I mean we find out in NTTD that Craig's Bond really does generate a lot of the crap that comes his own way, via his own bad decisions. This is a theme in OHMSS - I mean, recruiting Draco for a raid on Piz Gloria directly leads to the death of his daughter. It's not necessary - the Govts have agreed to pay the ransom which basically if sweet fa anyway, it's not even money, he just wants to be let off his past crimes and live as a baronet. I mean, the Tory Govt do that to Russian oligarchs all the time now! Nothing in the plot leads us to believe that Blofeld will kill Tracey as a hostage, or that he is even intrinsically evil, it would be different if it seemed Bond know something the Govt doesn't and so on. It's not like his past villainous misdeeds succeeded, not least thanks to Bond. I can carp about NTTD and I can carp about this film too so perhaps they are sort of thematic remake.
I agree that Bond is presented as a fool deliberately in this one, I think that is part of - well, I hesitate to say 'woke agenda' but there is that sense the producers and actor are not quite on our side - one on Twitter suggested that CIA turncoat Ash claiming he's Bond's 'biggest fan' is a dig at us fans, one can generally believe it.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The similarity is along the lines of a bespoke suit and one that is hastily patched together from bits and pieces. The general forms are the same, and if one looks at the hastily patched together suit, one can find similarities in the material and stitching here and there. But merely resembling a bespoke suit does not make it one, and if the wearer and others must ignore all the qualities that make it inferior in order to admire what's left, it's not a quality garment. It will never match up even if at first glance they appear the same.
OHMSS is integrated from scene to scene. Keep in mind that early on, Bond is pulled into Tracy's story by an act of mercy and chivalry -- that is, to rescue her from killing herself. One could question his motives, such as does he do it because he's truly altruistic or because he merely wants to sleep with her, but he does it regardless, and the story doesn't require us to know either way.
Later, when he crosses paths with her at the casino, it's clear he's interested in her sexually, but it's also clear that she shows up to get his attention. The image of her bending over to show cleavage (which is right out of the novel, if I recall correctly) is meant to draw his attention, and her coolness to show how she is independent and almost always in control. That she sleeps with him and returns the money, too, solidifies that her intentions are greater than transactional. Later, when Draco tries to bribe Bond into being with his daughter, Bond not only refuses but makes it clear he enjoys being a bachelor. This is clearly established for the character already, but the story continues along those lines.
He's impressed by her spitfire attitude, but not yet there on the rest. After all, he's Bond, and why would he just settle down? When he discovers her vulnerability, he starts to fall for her, but not enough that he still doesn't sleep with other women at Piz Gloria -- another indication of what he will be giving up to be with one woman and consistent with his personality as we know it.
But she's no ordinary girl. Beyond her beauty and intelligence, she's essentially his female equal. She rescues him, and they end up escaping together. At this point, he's fallen in love for real and proposes. From there out, he's driven no longer simply by his carnal wants or his professional duty but by his emotional need to love and protect her -- hence he's not taking any risks with Blofeld, whose pursuit he never wanted to give up in the first place.
It all makes complete sense, emotionally and intellectually, for his journey because it's shown onscreen -- and that journey is the story. He starts in one place and the scenes reveal his steady movement toward an end that will be tragic. A classical tragedy requires that a great man's flaw leads to his downfall, and in Bond's case here, it's his hubris -- his hubris in thinking he can bring Blofeld down and save the girl. But all that is in keeping with the Bond we know. Of course he thinks he can best the villain and get the girl -- he's done it before. (Even if we didn't know this, the film has enough evidence to make it clear dramatically.) And in this film, he does again -- to a point. When he finally marries her, he will be giving up everything the story has shown us is important to him -- except she now takes their place. We know the rest.
No Time to Die has little of this. It mostly skips out on the important stuff -- just like the cheap suit skips out on the canvas and pick stitching -- to only give us glimpses of what we need to know -- like the cheap suit still has buttons and lapels -- to fool us into believing there's more there than there is -- like from a distance, the cheap suit resembles the bespoke one.
We meet Bond and Swann doing some generic kissy face lovey dovey stuff at the beginning against a beautiful back drop, but within moments, he's nearly blown up and then off to the races with stunts and so forth. Before the romance has begun onscreen in actual scenes, he's putting her on a train to send her off. We've been given just enough information to get the point, but we have to imagine the rest.
Five years go by. We don't get to see any of that either. Is Bond lonely? Who knows. We're just shown he lives by himself and goes sailing a lot. I guess that's shorthand for being lonely. Did Bond miss Swann? Who knows. Apparently, he didn't even bother to investigate her story or situation -- he doesn't even know she's Blofeld's therapist. I guess he completely shut her out of his mind, which is ironic given how Vesper seems to haunt ever waking moment he has. I guess Swann really isn't the big love of his life after all.
Then he's out on the case, zipping from this point to the next, until by happenstance -- the script can't even create a dramatic situation where Bond is actively engaged and responsible for this -- they run into each other. Biffo, boffo, she has a daughter and it's probably his. How do Bond and said daughter Bond? Through some brief conversation at breakfast one morning. That's it. Wow. Impressive. Bond and Swann profess their love for one another and sleep together again, so he gets some, too.
At this point, what is Bond giving up? What is the big conflict? He's alone, so that doesn't seem like a conflict. He's already left MI:6 (again) and returned (again), so he apparently there's a revolving door for him if he wants to come back. No conflict there. What exactly is at stake for Bond here? The answer appears to be nothing except, I guess, admitting he was wrong and hoping Swann forgives him. But he could have had that without the rest of the story so far. Dramatically, the stakes are not remotely as high as they were in OHMSS because there's been little onscreen except suggestions of issues to illustrate it. This is a hollow Hallmark movie moment.
Then Swann is kidnapped and Bond has to rescue her and his maybe daughter. Okay. People he cares about, I guess, are in jeopardy. We know he cares because the script told us so, not because there were any real scenes to show us this or that Craig and Seydoux and the little girl have any chemistry together. It's all situational. Just accept it so the movie can move on.
This the part where people with children or who have screwed up relationships all chime in that they get what's going on because of their personal experiences . . . but personal experiences should not be required to "get it." The story itself should do that and in a way that we can both feel and understand without having had to go through something similar ourselves. That's a big reason why we tell stories in the first place -- to live vicariously rather than merely relive sentimental moments in our own lives.
Anyway, what's Bond's reward for all this mess? Get shot, get poisoned with incurable nanobots, and get blown up by a British missile strike he called in. I guess his girlfriend and probably daughter get the car, so there's that.
Cheap suit by comparison, which isn't to say that some people don't prefer the cheap suit. It doesn't cost much and if they don't need it very often, it can do the job. But a cheap suit.
Keep forgetting this bit, too -- even the titles show the difference. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is just such a wonderful title. It evokes the spy genre, takes a familiar phrase and gives it a freshness just by adding the preposition "on," and works as either a complete or incomplete phrase -- Bond clearly is "on Her Majesty's secret service," but then he also loses his wife "on Her Majesty's secret service," for example.
No Time to Die is so generic, I'm not sure how to take it. Is it a murder mystery? A slogan for suicide prevention? Is it a joke? Should we expect a wounded Bond at the end to turn to the camera -- a la George Lazenby -- and say with a sheepish smile while ruing his soon-to-be unattainable life with Swann and their daughter, "Well, guess this is no time to die, isn't it?"
Excellent post @Gassy Man !
"That she sleeps with him and returns the money, too, solidifies that her intentions are greater than transactional."
Well said. And Bond in turn shows his intentions are greater than transactional after Draco tells him Blofeld's whereabouts and Tracy storms off, saying "Now Mr. Bond need have no further need of me." He follows her, wipes away her tears, and then proceeds to spend a good deal of time with her (telescoped into the montage "We Have All the Time in the World"), proving that he does need her, and not in a transactional way.
As you note, Tracy then proves herself Bond's "female equal" (whereas Madeline just knows how to fire a gun--even her job as a psychologist doesn't add much to her character), thanks to Bond's emotional support. She is a strong and vulnerable character.
OHMSS thus has a rich emotional dynamic to its romance. NTTD has the lackluster (and never properly resolved) trust issue between the couple, but not much else, as you demonstrate. Madeline and her daughter are symbols rather than characters. And as you point out, Bond's "revolving door" at MI6 means the stakes of what he's giving up aren't very high.
"This the part where people with children or who have screwed up relationships all chime in that they get what's going on because of their personal experiences . . . but personal experiences should not be required to 'get it.'"
Agreed 100%. I'm sick of reactions that begin "Maybe it's because I'm a father" (is this an admission of being easier to emotionally manipulate?) Someone at the MI6 board had the gall to suggest that those who had problems with the ending either didn't have families or didn't get along with them. But it could be that some of us who cherish family life find its depiction in NTTD shallow and sentimental. And we might add that the mark of a truly great movie is that it can make you feel invested in what you have never experienced. I'm not a well-off playboy who regularly fights supervillains, saves the world, and sleeps with scores of beautiful women, but I sure as hell "get" James Bond!
@Gassy Man sez:
I guess his girlfriend and probably daughter get the car, so there's that.
Took 500+ words to get there. It's a chick flick, a film noir - everything the original Bond films were meant to counter.
Those final lines, that final scene is like the closing shots of Body Heat or The Last Seduction, they aim to chill you to the bone - if you're a bloke.
Bond is off the scene, she gets a kid AND the cool car - she can now cruise the Mediterranean for some young hot blood to keep her better satisfied. And as the music suggests, she has all the time in the world to do so.
Even Skyfall is burnt down so she doesn't have to return to deal with some Mrs Danvers type, the insurance money is all hers. Hmmm. but did Bond have time to make a will to sign it over? No Time for a DIY Will...
You say OHMSS is a bespoke suit but it isn't really because everything about it would fit Connery not Lazenby. It was one of the few books written after Fleming has seen Dr No, so he had the actor in mind. Connery was middle aged, like Bond is in this. Lazenby just doesn't look like he'd settle down and I can gripe about what this film would or should have been. No Time To Die on the other hand is written with Craig in mind of course, but I agree there just isn't Time to make this work, in fact like Casino Royale this would work better as a serial over a few parts so it's not crammed in.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Appreciate it -- enjoy your insights and the time you take to express them fully and properly!
You know, I was just thinking about how I'd never been confused or unconvinced by Bond films up until recently.
Just looked at PlutoTV, never heard of it before. Can't find the Bond channel though, can anyone advise please? Thanks :)
I have it as an app on my PC while I work. You may have to scroll up through the channels -- it looks like Channel 50. I think they may have streaming videos, too, but I haven't tooled around with it enough.
Many thanks Grassy Man, but the 007 channel clearly is not available in UK. That's so annoying!
Aw, nuts -- sorry about that. They claim to have some Bond films "on demand" -- perhaps that's available there?