1 reply to this topic

[Jaelle]

[continuation of December 1992 article from Films in Review mag]

Telly Savalas expertly captures the spirit of Blofeld's grand malevolence. Though his characterization may lack some of the mystery glimpsed in the earlier movies, this is a necessary result of his being an integral character and not just a symbol of evil. Diana Rigg gives a memorable performance as Tracy, perfectly conveying the image of Fleming's "bird with a wing down." Also making strong impressions are Gabriele Ferzetti as Draco and Ilse Steppat as Irma Bunt, the most degenerate villainess of the series since Rosa Klebb.

In the pivotal role, although George Lazenby lacks Sean Connery's presence, as do most actors, he proves to be quite effective and gives a very compelling performance. Actually, he may be more appropriate for this film's 007 in view of Connery's portrayal of a Bond whose casual attitude toward women might have made his proposal and desire for stability difficult to accept. Lazenby didn't have this burden and could be more creditable. His relative youth also adds to a sense of vulnerability necessary for the characterization. And in the final scene, he projects a dramatic range that is quite impressive for a film debut.

Considering the fact that his first acting role was the centerpiece of a multi-million dollar production that was continuing the most successful series of all time, Lazenby succeeds admirably. Regardless of the talents of the experienced actors and filmmakers surrounding him, he had the major burden of the movie and carries it commendably. In the first week of the New York engagement, the DeMille Theater was packed and the movie held the rapt attention of the audience, the action scenes greeted by cheers and applause while the finale caused a silence that was deafening. This type of intense audience involvement can only be possible when the lead actor has considerable screen appeal.

Nevertheless, many critics seemed to be lying in wait for Lazenby. And not only was he the subject of unfairly cruel reviews but in some circles it was also open season on Bond as well. The reviewer for Newsweek wrote that "the James Bond craze has ended but Bond movies live on. (The new movie) carries the slightly faded air of a chic coat two years out of style," adding that Lazenby has "an open, characterless face (and) blank eyes ... reflecting a mind that has never held a thought." Hollis Alpert in The Saturday Review called Lazenby "a rank amateur" but at least added that the movie "delivers its full share of action." A.H. Weiler in The New York Times provided one of the relatively unbiased reviews, writing that Lazenby "is, if not a spurious Bond, a merely casual, pleasant, satisfactory replacement." Weiler liked the movie's "breakneck, devastating chases ... overabundance of continuous action ... flip dialogue and characterizations set against authentic, truly spectacular Portuguese and Swiss scenic backgrounds."

Unfortunately, On Her Majesty's Secret Service earned disappointing U.S. rentals of just over $9 million, approximately half of the previous film's earnings. In assessing the blame for the reduced profits, Lazenby was considered a major factor. But since the earnings of You Only Live Twice had also decreased considerably from Thunderball, it was unfair to blame Lazenby for a decline that had started with Connery's last movie. However, he was a convenient target, particularly since the production company had no investment in him.

Another reason for the financial failure of the film was felt to be the departure from the formula of the previous films, specifically Bond's marriage and the unhappy ending as well as the absence of gadgets. This misguided perception would have a tremendously negative effect upon future films in the series.

Still another detrimental factor was the anti-Bond sentiment that flourished in the year 1970, a typical example of which was an article by A. Marks in The New York Times attacking the Lazenby film as well as the entire series. The writer confessed that as a result of the violence of the sixties, he (or perhaps she) could no longer enjoy the Bond films "in which even the people die beautifully." The writer explained that "in those days (when Bond films were the rage), boys didn't grow up," adding that "we have all changed ... we are enlightened young men and women (who) aren't buying any hate propaganda." And in a possible attempt to publicly prove that his (her) consciousness had indeed been raised, the writer assailed Bond's "fraudulent" intellectuality and masculinity, concluding that 007 represents "the sadistic and cruel last ditch expression of the confounded militant egotism which used to be the trademark of the normal middle class male."

Not only was the article classically erroneous in its interpretation of the character of Bond and in its prediction of the demise of the series, but the writer also never really understood that the Bond movies are good versus evil morality tales as well as fantasies. Actual events of the sixties may have clouded the issue of right and wrong but there is no such confusion in the Bond films, making it quite ludicrous to suggest that such villains as Blofeld, Goldfinger and Dr. No are innocent victims of British and American militarism.

It is also difficult to understand the writer's condemnation of the violence in the Bond movie which isn't at all explicit and quite negligible compared to other films of the era, including Bonnie and Clyde and The Wild Bunch. But, one supposes, "socially meaningful" films by auteurs are not subject to the same criticism as James Bond movies. Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were "in" but 007 was "out." Arthur Penn and Sam Peckinpah were fashionable but who on earth was Peter Hunt?

Marks had also apparently been unaware that the purpose of escapist entertainment is to literally enable the audience to escape from the real world into a fantastic and better world. It was not accidental that Bondmania exploded the year after one of the most senselessly violent and traumatic events of the 20th century---the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The horror of that act made people everywhere desirous of a James Bond in whose world good always triumphed over evil, quite unlike the real world.

Nevertheless, however faulty the anti-Bond polemic, it represented an opinion that was considered fashionable and contributed to the stigma that would be associated with On Her Majesty's Secret Service, a brand that would be hard to shake. When the movie was intially telecast on ABC-TV in 1976, the network almost completely destroyed it by separating it into two weekly parts and presenting each part on a Monday night from 8:30 to 10:00 as a filler before the soap opera Rich Man Poor Man. Furthermore, narration and clips of action scenes from the second half were interjected at various intervals during the first half. Widespread disapproval from viewers convinced the network to subsequently present it in its original form and it has since had several repeat showings, winning new fans each time.

[Tarl_Cabot]

Great article. Tnx!