43 replies to this topic

[Largo65]

Here's a small quote from an interview by Danny Biederman that he conducted with Sean Connery on the set of DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. This was originally from Biederman's own film entitled THE SPY FOR ALL SEASONS, and was reprinted in BondAge #13 (1984) --

[quote]
Biederman:

You once said that the gadgets in the films have developed and developed, and they

Edited by Largo65, 05 January 2006 - 05:51 AM.

[Tinfinger]

Well, I like Connery, I don't particularly agree with his comments, but he's a big boy, he can say what he wants.

[Judo chop]

I wonder what Sir Sean's thoughts were on YOLT and DAF? From that quote above he doesn't care for OHMSS, but that's not to say he doesn't think the same of YOLT and DAF. His gadgetry comment suggests there was at least one thing about YOLT he didn't like. As far as I know, if he thinks OHMSS was "not palatable" he may rank his last two as abyssmal.

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]I don

[David Schofield]

Let's put it this way - I suspect most CBNers would have prefered Laz in DAF than Sean. And also Laz in a version of YOLT based on the novel.

Connery is entitled to his opinion. But on this one he's on a sticky wicket.

[marktmurphy]

Well, the direction isn't actually that great. There's no development of the love story except off-screen (unless you count the montage. I don't- you may as well hold up a sign saying 'THEY FALL IN LOVE'. Show us it then!), which is madness really.
It's a top film, but I can see where Sean was coming from. And sitting on the set of DAF, he could hardly say that he thought OHMSS' approach worked, just as they dump it entirely!

[Lounge Lizard]

Well, the interview was conducted on the set of DAF circa 1970-71, right? That perhaps puts Connery's remarks into perspective. He is re-establishing his own version of Bond, and at the same time he doesn't want to knock the 'other fella' for trying. It's possible that he truly didn't like the film, but I'm still curious what old Sean would answer if he were asked the same question today. Would Connery really disapprove so strongly of Hunt's directorial style? Hunt, the man who expertly edited so many of Connery's great moments as Bond, and used that same 'editor's eye' for OHMSS?

[trumanlodge89]

sean can say all he wants about how lazenby did "a remarkable job for a guy with no expirence" or however he put it. fact is, if you originated a roll it will be hard to watch the next guy, especially you aren't entirely ready to give up the roll. (which sean made clear he wasn't when he came back for DAF and NSNA.)

[Stephen Spotswood]

Actually Connery was getting tired of all the gadgetry and felt that was subtracting from the character, that's why he tried to leave after, You Only Live Twice. Lazenby was a much less intense actor than Connery, and came close to playing a generic good guy Brit. He was like a hedonistic Nayland-Smith, whereas Connery played a Bond that was every bit as dangerous as those he fought. Lazenby was therefore closer to Fleming's vision, but that didn't make him more interesting. Also, as I understand it, the only actor to actually read the Fleming books to develop his character, was Timothy Dalton, and you see how popular he is.

[trumanlodge89]

Also, as I understand it, the only actor to actually read the Fleming books to develop his character, was Timothy Dalton, and you see how popular he is.

ouch. dalton, like george, is gaining respect. i would go so far as to say that dalton is as popular as brosnan right now, as far as the portrayal of the character goes. in fact, and someone could dig up some numbers for me, TLD did better in the box office than AVTAK, which featured roger moore. so discrediting dalton is unfair.

[doublenoughtspy]

It is important to examine the quotes in context of promoting the film as Lounge Lizard says.

Practically every Bond film after Dr No he would say "Well this one has the best script", up to and including DAF.

Also, depending on which Connery interview you read - humor is either key to Bond or it isn't.

I think if you really search you could find contradicting quotes from him on almost every aspect of Bond.

I don't hold it against him - surely all of us at one time or another have changed our minds about films or performances.

And Marktmurphy, you persist in putting down the love portion of OHMSS. Could you please explain how you would have gone about showing a love story in the middle of a 2 hour plus adventure film?

[marktmurphy]

And Marktmurphy, you persist in putting down the love portion of OHMSS.  Could you please explain how you would have gone about showing a love story in the middle of a 2 hour plus adventure film?

2 hours plus. Pretty much the answer there. How is there no space in a 2 hour plus movie for believable characterisation?
You actually show the characters developing over the course of the movie- not leaping from hate to love with one handy montage. Raiders of the Lost Ark manages a fairly convincing relationship which changes believably over the course of the movie. And there's a bit of action in there as well.
Obviously you don't think the love story is shown or you wouldn't have phrased your question in such a manner which admitted its complete absence.

[doublenoughtspy]

No, I do think the love story part is fine. Peter Hunt has said that when editing the film, he stressed keeping the relationship portion between Bond & Tracy intact, and that action was given less of a priority.

What I object to is you saying it sucks without giving an example of how you would have improved it.

I don't think Raiders of the Lost Ark is really a valid comparison - the two characters had a relationship prior to the movie's events - so they are just re-kindling a romance - not beginning a new one.

As was mentioned in the other thread - I think the film improves Tracy's character from the book. She seems a lot less disturbed.

So when watching the film - you don't think you are shown enough to believe that the characters are in love? Or is the marriage the real kicker for you?

[trumanlodge89]

And Marktmurphy, you persist in putting down the love portion of OHMSS.  Could you please explain how you would have gone about showing a love story in the middle of a 2 hour plus adventure film?

2 hours plus. Pretty much the answer there. How is there no space in a 2 hour plus movie for believable characterisation?
You actually show the characters developing over the course of the movie- not leaping from hate to love with one handy montage. Raiders of the Lost Ark manages a fairly convincing relationship which changes believably over the course of the movie. And there's a bit of action in there as well.
Obviously you don't think the love story is shown or you wouldn't have phrased your question in such a manner which admitted its complete absence.

i dont believe the montage was in the film to show bond and tracy falling in love. that was their courtship, which is a different thing. i think bond fell for tracy when she helped him escape from piz gloria. remember that bond was looking for a way out of MI6 anyway, and tracy presented herself as the perfect opportunity.

[Turn]

What amazes me about all this is Connery even saw OHMSS. I've never read anywhere that he'd seen it, and in one particular interview he claimed the only Bond films he'd seen since leaving the role were LALD and MR.

[Flash1087]

What amazes me about all this is Connery even saw OHMSS. I've never read anywhere that he'd seen it, and in one particular interview he claimed the only Bond films he'd seen since leaving the role were LALD and MR.

Wait. I read a quote where he said he really enjoyed the action sequences in Octopussy...perhaps this was beforehand.

[Stephen Spotswood]

I referred to Dalton's reading Fleming's books to form his character, and that for some reason many on this site seem to dislike him for his darker rendering. I'm not one of them. My two favorite Bond actors are Connery/Dalton. One poster even said that Dalton was less Fleming and more Gardner. I couldn't disagree more. Gardner hardly gave Bond a character at all, and his way of updating the gender roles was generally having two females, one of whom would turn out to be the bad buy, and be graphically killed. This got to be too formulaic. I seem to recall Bond chopping off the hands of one when she stumbled into a guillotine during a fight scene. When the Dallas movie critics compared James Bond to Indiana Jones it was the fight on the Afghani airfield, not the relationship between Bond and the female interest.

Edited by Stephen Spotswood, 06 January 2006 - 04:35 PM.

[marktmurphy]

What I object to is you saying it sucks without giving an example of how you would have improved it.

Shown the characters falling in love in a way that makes sense. What more do you need?

And why do I only have the right to criticise if I can come up with something better? Since when have you ever held back your opinion of, for example, an ugly building because you're not an architect?

I don't think Raiders of the Lost Ark is really a valid comparison - the two characters had a relationship prior to the movie's events - so they are just re-kindling a romance - not beginning a new one.

They hate each other to start with and gradually we see their relationship develop. Doesn't happen in OHMSS- it just jumps from point to point. Why does Tracy suddenly decide to like Bond at the bullfight? I have no idea. 'She's a nutcase' doesn't really cut it as an explanation, I'm afraid.

So when watching the film - you don't think you are shown enough to believe that the characters are in love?  Or is the marriage the real kicker for you?

I can believe they're in love at the end- Diana plays it excellently. Unfortunately having seen the rest of the film I have no idea why they fall in love in the first place- the film doesn't show us.

[Kingdom Come]

It is difficult for all of us to understand Connery's opinions in the time they were spoken. But I agree with a lot of what he says but to suggest Lazenby had kept his mouth shut is rich coming from him. As far as OHMSS is concerned, Connery spoke for himself and also the paying public who did not and still do not like this film.

[Number 6]

Let's put it this way - I suspect most CBNers would have prefered Laz in DAF than Sean. And also Laz in a version of YOLT based on the novel.

Connery is entitled to his opinion. But on this one he's on a sticky wicket.

True, true...

[crheath]

It's understandable that Connery says he didn't care for it and he didn't think the directing was that hot.

Diamonds Are Forever was about to come out. It had a different director (Guy Hamilton) and was going the opposite direction OHMSS did. I think he was more or less selling the next film.

As for his comments about Lazenby, I agree. It was Lazenby's big mouth that hurt him, not the performance.

[icecold]

Lazenby was therefore closer to Fleming's vision

I have never once, even in my most inebriated or abstract moments, read Fleming and thought, "MY GOD!!! THIS MAN ON THE PAGE IS LAZENBY!!!!" Fleming's Bond was dark, brooding and dangerous, not a lame- like Georgey.

[Bondesque]

Although Connery IS the ulimate Bond and always will be, OHMSS was a far better film than DAF and Laz was better then Connery was in DAF. DAF suffers with time (Short fat pink tie and a fat very bored Bond) and OHMSS has become more appreciated as a good film.

[00-FAN008]

While I can't fully agree with Sean's comments about OHMSS (personally I loved that film), I fully respect what he says. His comments don't seem like the kind of comments that would cause some kind of controversy. It's all very well said.

[Publius]

I'm tempted to say he's just bitter that he didn't get to do it, and was instead stuck with YOLT and DAF, but at least his comments are half-right, specifically about Lazenby being immature.

[JimmyBond]

I'm tempted to say he's just bitter that he didn't get to do it, and was instead stuck with YOLT and DAF, but at least his comments are half-right, specifically about Lazenby being immature.

Could be he sat in the theater thinking: "If only I stuck with it, they would have given me a great film!"

[enigma662]

I for one could never see Connery in OHMSS. Some of the things Lazenby does in that movie are so un-Bond like that it would completely have ruined my image of Connery. Thankfully, it only ruined my image of Lazenby, who was no good as Bond anyway.

[Santa]

I would so love to like Sean Connery. Love him as Bond, but whenever I hear about anything Sean Connery says as himself, I find myself quite disliking him. I agree with what he says about Lazenby talking himself out of the role but have never actually heard him say anything pleasant about anyone or anything at any time. Obviously he's entitled to his opinion, but I find him rather depressing. By contrast, Roger Moore is a lovely, lovely man.
And incidentally, I liked OHMSS very much as a film but I do agree with whoever said it that the montage was a rather weak spot. That kind of thing works in your average romcom but I don't feel it was quite right for a Bond film. And as a soppy kind of woman, I don't believe we needed it to justify how they fall in love. You don't necessarily have to have horse riding and country walks or whatever, maybe you just need the chemistry with the other person.

[enigma662]

I agree, the montage was unnecessary, it would have taken a lot more than that to convince me Bond fell in love with this woman. After the first 5 movies, and the way Bond is portrayed, what was there to make us think that he would actually fall in love with someone? First of all, it's not his thing, and second, Tracy wasn't even all that special. There's something missing.

[JimmyBond]

So I suppose I'm the only one that likes the montage...or feels Bond and Tracy seem to fall in love naturally? Sure it happens pretty quickly, but I think the spark was there when Bond first saves her, then when they make love at the hotel. Just because they don't say they're in love doesnt mean they're not.