73 replies to this topic

[David_M]

Actually, I have to disagree with this assessment. One of the reasons why I thought Lazenby was right for this particular Bond movie was that he portrayed Bond as a human being, instead of a cool and distant superspy.

I agree Lazenby shines in some "human" moments that would have much been more difficult with Connery. For instance, there's the scene where he strangles a foe with a ski and tries desperately to do it quietly enough that the others won't find him. Here, Lazenby manages to get across a genuine fear that, for me anyway, is very Fleming-Bond and very un-Connery Bond. But in the scene where he proposes to Tracy, he is -- again, for me -- as uncomfortable and awkward as a teenager playing a love scene in front of his assembled classmates in a high school play. Although I suppose you could argue that, too, could be "human" and endearing if you go in with the right attitude. In a sense, it's kind of sweet that Mr. Expert-At-Everything would seem so awkward and at-sea when it comes to expressing genuine love for the first time. What I call shaky acting one could charitably explain as the character's nervousness.

I will also agree with you that as iffy as the scene is for me, it's even harder to imagine Connery pulling it off. It's a two-sided coin: on the one hand, Lazenby as the "human" newby is able to do things the seasoned pro/Superman Connery would have had a much harder time selling. On the other hand, it's this very human-ness that made it so easy for audiences to dismiss it all as "not really James Bond."

Where it would have been nice to have Connery is in "pay-off" scenes like Bond throwing Moneypenny his hat one last time. But in the end, I think his presence would have resulted in a very different film, and ultimately probably not one as remarkable or memorable.

[DR76]

Of course, most of us regret Connery not having done OHMSS, but then Sean had the choice, and decided against it.

I guess I don't. I adored Connery as Bond, but I don't regret that he did not star in "OHMSS". I just didn't miss him in that movie.

[Mr_Wint]

The emotional scenes in OHMSS would have been a walk in the park for Sean Connery because he is a terrific actor in every possible way you can imagine.

But I think it is a mistake to make it sound like the lead actor has so much influence on the characterization of Bond and the overall style of the films. The producers had a firm hand on the Bondfilms already from the beginning. I have a feeling that Connery's performance in DN-YOLT exactly match what Broccoli & Saltzman wanted. Hence, it is very difficult to say anything about Connery's limitations from these films. And not for one second do I believe that the change in tone for OHMSS had anything to do with Lazenby's acting style or Peter Hunt's preferences.. what you see on the screen is what the producers wanted.

[David Schofield]

The emotional scenes in OHMSS would have been a walk in the park for Sean Connery because he is a terrific actor in every possible way you can imagine.

While I'd certainly agree Sean Connery is a huge movie star - thanks, of course, to James Bond - and very capable of giving his standard portrayal, the "Sean Connery character", I can find little evidence in his body of work to support your view. A star, undoubtedly; a terrific actor? No.

And I HAVE seen MARNIE, THE OFFENCE, THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, ROBIN AND MARION, THE UNTOUCHABLES, etc.

However, it would still have been interesting to see how successfully he'd have tackled the requirements of OHMSS.

[DR76]

But I think it is a mistake to make it sound like the lead actor has so much influence on the characterization of Bond and the overall style of the films. The producers had a firm hand on the Bondfilms already from the beginning. I have a feeling that Connery's performance in DN-YOLT exactly match what Broccoli & Saltzman wanted. Hence, it is very difficult to say anything about Connery's limitations from these films.

I wasn't merely criticizing Connery's limitations as a romantic lead from his performances in the Bond movies. I was also criticizing his romantic roles in non-Bond movies from the same decade. And although Connery got a lot better in romantic roles as he grew older, I still have the impression that portraying romance on the screen was a lot easier for Lazenby.

[Mr_Wint]

(...) and very capable of giving his standard portrayal, the "Sean Connery character" (...)

Yes, I agree with this. No matter what role Sean Connery is playing there is always a striking resemblance between his character and Sean Connery.

And I HAVE seen MARNIE, THE OFFENCE, THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, ROBIN AND MARION, THE UNTOUCHABLES, etc.

... but did you pay attention?

[DR76]

What is this argument over whether Bond loved Tracy or Vesper? As far as I'm concerned, he loved both of them. Which is why "OHMSS" and "CASINO ROYALE" are my first two favorite Bond movies.

[David Schofield]

And I HAVE seen MARNIE, THE OFFENCE, THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING, ROBIN AND MARION, THE UNTOUCHABLES, etc.

... but did you pay attention?

I think I did. But obviously I missed the demonstations therein that showed Connery to be "a terrific actor in every way you can imagine"

[David_M]

I agree with David, Connery is a phenomenal Movie Star in the grand tradition -- arguably the last of the breed -- but he's not what I'd consider one of the great actors of all time. Which incidentally suits me fine as I tend to favor the former: I love Gable, Grant and Flynn, to name a few, and none of them had what you'd call a huge range as actors, though any one of them has more screen presence and star appeal than all the modern male stars put together.

I don't know if Connery would've done better than Laz when it came to romancing Tracy, and really in the body of his work I can't find any examples to say, "There, that's my proof." Probably the closest he came to "true love" on screen was in Robin and Marian, and that relationship had a very different dynamic to it.

Anyway, I still maintain that if Connery had stayed on for OHMSS, the producers would've been happy enough to give us more of the same. I think a lot of the boldness of OHMSS came from the "fresh start" approach, just as it would later with FYEO (even if Roger ended up coming back after all) and CR. Not so much GE, which was something of a retreat to the tried-and-true despite introducing a new guy.

[sharpshooter]

Saw this clip of Connery from "Woman of Straw", filmed before Goldfinger.

Imagine it's Bond seducing Tracy. Connery could've done it just fine.

[ajosefsson1]

delete post

Edited by ajosefsson1, 25 August 2011 - 02:08 PM.

[David_M]

I never doubted he could play a seduction scene, but a proposal is another matter. In the "Woman of Straw" clip, he's still brash and confident in classic Bond mode. He doesn't say anything nearly as heartfelt as "I know I'll never find another girl like you...will you marry me?" It's a hard line to carry off and still be cool-and-in-command movie Bond when it's over. I'm not saying Sean couldn't have done it, but neither can I imagine how he would have.

So that's Gina Lollobrigida? Hard to see what all the fuss was about, frankly...

[Miles Miservy]

Of course, most of us regret Connery not having done OHMSS, but then Sean had the choice, and decided against it.

I guess I don't. I adored Connery as Bond, but I don't regret that he did not star in "OHMSS". I just didn't miss him in that movie.

I agree. I can imagine the whole proposal going something like; Bond cracks her on the and says, "So Darling, would you like to give this whole marriage thing a go or what?"

[CasinoKiller]

This is a pretty interesting discussion, so I thought I'd chime in.

As far as the books go, I think Bond loved both Vesper and Tracy...however I feel that the relationship with Tracy was somewhat deeper.

In the Casino Royale novel, Bond is attracted to Vesper physically (and even expresses to himself a desire to sleep with her after the mission's over), and Vesper isn't as much of a b#tch as she was in the film, so they get on reasonably well. Then, after the whole near-death experience of being tortured by Le Chiffre, Bond starts to experience a bit of a nervous breakdown and begins to question his work in the Service. He is clearly somewhat traumatised by his recent experiences, and this leads him to desperately grab at any chance he can get of a normal life...and since Vesper happens to be around and is living with him during his convalescence anyway, he gravitates towards her and tells himself that he wants to marry her. I'm not saying Bond didn't love Vesper...but I feel that it was mainly because of the state of his mind at the time that it was even possible for him to want to settle down with her. By the end of the novel, when her betrayal is revealed, Bond snaps back to 'reality'-he realises that his dreams of settling down with Vesper were just that-dreams-which had been brutally shattered. He once more accepts his life as a spy and chooses to relentlessly pursue England's enemies without further delay.

In the case of OHMSS though, we have an older Bond who is, at the start of the novel, getting a bit tired of his work in the Service, and especially his mission to hunt Blofeld, and is even contemplating resigning purely out of frustration. He meets Tracy and seeing that she is troubled, begins to view her as the 'bird with a broken wing' and genuinely begins to care for her over time, wanting to help her, and yet unsure if he's the right person to do that. I doubt if he's 'in love' with her in a romantic sense in the early part of the book, though he does sleep with her...but by this point, he's back on track with his mission against Blofeld anyway. Then, towards the end, when Tracy shows up unexpectedly and saves Bond from Blofeld's men, Bond realises suddenly that he loves her and he wants to settle down with her. This realisation hits him in a flash and the rational part of his mind decides this is as good a chance he's going to get of getting hitched as any so he jumps up and proposes immediately. It is interesting to note that unlike in the film, in the book there's no question of Bond quitting-he intends to carry on with his work in the Service, except that he now has someone to come home to after missions. He also seems to be much his usual self-the impending wedding aside. So...I feel that Bond's relationship with Tracy was in a sense more 'normal'-in that he was in his normal frame of mind...as opposed to in CR, wherein he wanted to settle down with Vesper after a traumatic experiance.

Of course, it may well be that the relationship with Tracy was better developed and fleshed out simply because Fleming was a much better writer at the time of writing OHMSS...and Bond a much more developed character.