19 replies to this topic

[Mister Asterix]

[mra]Ed

[Agent 76]

As the first part was, this one is a well done article.

The writing is good, and makes me look at the movie with another perspective, I give the movie more credit after reading it.


Great job Ed!

ps: I am looking forward to Dalton's article.

[Genrewriter]

Wow, didn't expect it to go up so soon. Nice work on the art as always, Evan. There might be a little bit more of a gap between this and the next article in the series. I'm working on a non-Bond related project that I'd like to make a little more headway on before I start on LALD.

[Dr. Noah]

Nice article.

One person who never gets enough credit for Lazenby's performance is actually George Baker, who voices 007 for about a third of the movie while Bond impersonates Sir Hilary Bray. It was a sneaky way for the filmmakers to get around Lazenby's flatter, untrained line delivery and use Baker to deliver a lot of great punchlines and character bits. When you think about it, there's really no reason for Bond to alter his voice, as Bray and Blofeld have only contacted each other by letter. But it allows Peter Hunt to marry Lazenby's physical grace to Baker's verbal grace into a single performance, enhancing what could have been a deadly dull expositional section of the film. For instance, the scene mentioned here where Bond energetically bores the girls to death with heraldic trivia is greatly enhanced by Baker's delivery.

Hunt was very careful to protect a first-time actor. In the expositional scene with Draco, he always gives Lazenby an activity as he listens to the long story of Tracy's fall. (Connery was terrific in these type of scenes just reacting to long-winded speeches, but Lazenby wasn't trained enough yet.) Hunt never makes Lazenby carry the scene -- he has him lighting cigarettes, repeating Draco's words -- always giving him an activity and never letting him flounder.

It's a shame Hunt didn't do any more Bond films, but I guess after this one wasn't as successful as they'd hoped, they went back to Hamilton's more glamorous take on Bond. But he did an excellent job of protecting Lazenby as he learned on the job, and I think could have eventually turned him into a very effective Bond.

Also alluded to in the article is the continuity error in which Bond and Blofeld don't recognize each other in person, despite having confronted each other already in the previous film -- which I think is an interesting topic in relation to the current "reboot" controversy in which people are upset that Dench is back, etc.

Edited by Dr. Noah, 18 March 2006 - 02:25 AM.

[roboas]

Thanks for the detailed review of OHMSS and Lazenby's performance in it. I think I share similiar sentiments with Dr. Noah's post in that the movie is skillfully crafted to remove some of the weight of attention off Lazenby and to distribute it among the scenery, music, and excellent cast. It is possible to hate Lazenby as an actor and still enjoy this movie due to the world that Peter Hunt creates in OHMSS - yet I think Lazenby's job is superb considering he is not an actor. He comes across as sincere and enhances the believability of the various "new" moods and emotions of his character.

This movie has it all. If someone were to break the Bond films into categories and rate their merit, I imagine OHMSS would rate highly in many of them. The villian, the girl, the story, the final battle, ect. The movie is my favorite of the series, so I am biased, but I think most would agree with me that OHMSS is underrated and underappreciated. It's rarely on TV, hard to find for sale, and rarely talked about (save for sites like this, with much thanks). I believe that when AMC ran their Bond marathon a month ago marked the first time since the ABC botch job that OHMSS has been showed in primetime. Tell your friends about it!

[Tuxedo wearing Bond]

As usual, this was a nice article. Well done!

Although I just realised that you put 1962 next to the title instead of 1969.

[Genrewriter]

Thanks for the detailed review of OHMSS and Lazenby's performance in it. I think I share similiar sentiments with Dr. Noah's post in that the movie is skillfully crafted to remove some of the weight of attention off Lazenby and to distribute it among the scenery, music, and excellent cast. It is possible to hate Lazenby as an actor and still enjoy this movie due to the world that Peter Hunt creates in OHMSS - yet I think Lazenby's job is superb considering he is not an actor. He comes across as sincere and enhances the believability of the various "new" moods and emotions of his character.

This movie has it all. If someone were to break the Bond films into categories and rate their merit, I imagine OHMSS would rate highly in many of them. The villian, the girl, the story, the final battle, ect. The movie is my favorite of the series, so I am biased, but I think most would agree with me that OHMSS is underrated and underappreciated. It's rarely on TV, hard to find for sale, and rarely talked about (save for sites like this, with much thanks). I believe that when AMC ran their Bond marathon a month ago marked the first time since the ABC botch job that OHMSS has been showed in primetime. Tell your friends about it!

Thanks for the kind words. I couldn't agree more, the film is pretty much as good as a Bond film can get. It's a more serious Bond adventure done the right way. Hopefully Casino Royale can live up to it (I think it has a very good shot at it).

[zencat]

Great work, Genrewriter. I'm really enjoying this series.

[Genrewriter]

Thanks, zencat.

[roboas]

Thanks for the kind words. I couldn't agree more, the film is pretty much as good as a Bond film can get. It's a more serious Bond adventure done the right way. Hopefully Casino Royale can live up to it (I think it has a very good shot at it).

I think Casino Royale was a great novel and I can imagine Daniel Craig fitting the bill. His job in Munich was excellent, and if this movie doesn't try to be as extravagant as the more recent bond films, Craig has a chance to cement himself in bond history.

[Jack Spang]

Thanks for the kind words. I couldn't agree more, the film is pretty much as good as a Bond film can get. It's a more serious Bond adventure done the right way. Hopefully Casino Royale can live up to it (I think it has a very good shot at it).

Yes, a very enjoyable, informative article Genrewriter. Perfect timing too as I had just watched OHMSS again last night. I too hope Casino Royale can live up to this film. They certainly have a wonderful cast. My main fear is that the plot and characterisation will be overshadowed, coming in a distant second place to the action as in the Brosnan era. There has been much talk that Casino Royale will focus more on story and characters but we heard the same sort of claims about TWINE and the final result was a startling contrast to what I had come to expect based on all the articles I had read about the film.

I believe OHMSS had the perfect balance of action and dialogue for a film of this genre, albeit the extended action scene once Lazenby escaped from Piz Gloria may have run on for a little long. However, it was broken up nicely with the wonderful scene where Bond proposes to Tracey in the shed. I like the way the action was structured in this film. There were a few great, tightly cut fight scenes in the first third of the film. Basically after that the film focused on plot and character development until the action commenced once again upon Bond's escape from Piz Gloria. One certainly didn't get the impression the action had been haphazardly thrown in just for the sake of having more action, something that the Brosnan era was guilty of.

So far, we haven't heard of any action in Casino Royale outside of Act 1 aside for the climax in Venice which must be there, as it is after all a Bond film and the general audience will become bored if the third act remains faithful to the book. There may very well be a chase scene (as in the book) where Bond pursues the villain in his new DBS. If there aren't any additional action scenes then we certainly may be seeing a film that does live up to OHMSS providing the actors pull off the emotional intensity required, the film is suitably structured, the tone is of a serious nature and the dialogue rings true and real.

It was interesting to note in your article that OHMSS was actually 142 minutes long. I hadn't realised this. I'm glad they didn't feel inclined to trim it all back to the usual 120 minutes or there about. The film would have inevitably suffered if this were the case. If it turns out Casino Royale has to be trimmed back, I hope it will be sections of the action they choose to cut back on this time around, not the dialogue driven scenes.

Edited by Jack Spang, 18 March 2006 - 11:56 PM.

[Mister Asterix]

Although I just realised that you put 1962 next to the title instead of 1969.

Oooo... My bad. Fixed now.

[col_007]

hi this is my first post on here i think lol and i have been registered here for a long while sorry i have had a few beers george was bond in ohmss and he could of well been in following films but lifes is full of if's and but's but just for the record i think george was fantastic in ohmss

[Rusty Cage]

Great article! OHMSS was a fantastic film. I think Lazenby did a very admirable job, considering he had little to no acting experience. If he had stuck around for a couple of more films, he could have been remembered as one of the best. He looked great in the part.

[Jericho_One]

I'm going to revive a thread a few months old, but what the hell.
First, I'll congratulate you for a very well written text.
Second, just a thought I'd like to share: you have to love the introductory scene while Lazenby is driving the Aston. The way the road stretches and swirls (my beloved country, eheh), the way they only show the lower part of his face, how he lights up the cigarrette while driving and then takes off his sunglasses.
It just oozes style.
That particular scene was somewhat copied a few years later by some director in one of the Martini ads, those that feature the Martini Man - a Bond-like character. He shows up in one of them driving a car in a very smilar stye.
Just great.

[LadySylvia]

One person who never gets enough credit for Lazenby's performance is actually George Baker, who voices 007 for about a third of the movie while Bond impersonates Sir Hilary Bray. It was a sneaky way for the filmmakers to get around Lazenby's flatter, untrained line delivery and use Baker to deliver a lot of great punchlines and character bits.

Considering that Lazenby didn't seem to have any trouble with the delivery of his lines that didn't require George Baker's voice-over (in scenes that featured Bond's plea for M to authorize a rescue of Tracy, proposing to Tracy, the movie's finale, Bond's narrative about Blofeld's contact with the College of Arms and Sir Hillary, etc.), I don't see why Baker was needed in the first place.

I also believe that the success of the Piz Gloria dinner sequence had as much to do with Lazenby's facial expressions than just George Baker's voice.

Edited by LadySylvia, 10 April 2007 - 06:53 PM.

[Dalton_Craig]

Second, just a thought I'd like to share: you have to love the introductory scene while Lazenby is driving the Aston. The way the road stretches and swirls (my beloved country, eheh), the way they only show the lower part of his face, how he lights up the cigarrette while driving and then takes off his sunglasses.
It just oozes style.

Yes, I enjoyed that particular aspect as well. They even manage to hide Lazenby's face in shadows when he gets out of the car and strips off his tux and holster (granted, it's a quick shot, but still, it's good how they kind of kept his identity hidden until he delivers The Line). Must question the idea of wearing a hat and shades with a tux, though...

There is one thing that puzzles me, though: during the beach fight, as Bond kicks the thug's knife-hand under the boat, the shot seems to be missing a segment of the man's hand moving. This also happens when Sir Hilary and Bond examine Bond's coat of arms: Baker's hand just magically leaps across from screen left to screen right.

Anyone else notice this? Or are my eyes dodgy?

[PrinceKamalKhan]

Ed�s Second article in the �First Looks� series.

First Looks Part II: One Man, One Film

_{George Lazenby is James Bond 007 in Ian Fleming�s On Her Majesty's Secret Service}

In honor of the 40th Anniversary, I thought I'd revive this thread. Harris writes an excellent article about OHMSS. I especially like this paragraph that brilliantly encapsulates how OHMSS shakes up the Bond formula:

"Capping off the escape is the reintroduction of Tracy into the story. Her ensuing rescue, culminating in a gleefully destructive demolition derby (literally) gives Bond a real and honest reason to fall in love with her, which he does. I feel that the reason the film has been overlooked so often is the very thing that makes it such a unique, wonderful entry in the franchise. It inverts the importance of the plotlines. In the typical outing, the main plotline is the usual “megalomaniacal villain with a doomsday weapon” scenario while any romantic angles are left for the secondary plotline. Here though, the action oriented plotline is given a secondary, almost superfluous status and the primary story ends up being the development and tragic end to a romance. The scene in the barn where Bond proposes is well done and nicely written so the proposal comes off as natural rather than forced."

[DR76]

Thanks for the detailed review of OHMSS and Lazenby's performance in it. I think I share similiar sentiments with Dr. Noah's post in that the movie is skillfully crafted to remove some of the weight of attention off Lazenby and to distribute it among the scenery, music, and excellent cast. It is possible to hate Lazenby as an actor and still enjoy this movie due to the world that Peter Hunt creates in OHMSS - yet I think Lazenby's job is superb considering he is not an actor. He comes across as sincere and enhances the believability of the various "new" moods and emotions of his character.

Personally, I think this movie would not have been that great if Lazenby was not a good actor. Considering the type of personal story "OHMSS" was, he had to be a naturally competent actor for the movie to work.

[Jim]

Wonderful article and splendid timing on a re-read of it.