30 replies to this topic

[sorking]

It's weird, this one. I've never seen anyone mention it in the plethora of 007 books. Even when Thunderball is discussed in terms of being self-referential (Fiona's "heavenly choirs" speech, say, or Connery punning the title of one of his other movies), I've never heard anyone point this out.

But then, I've only just signed up to these boards. And this is where the real Bond pros come to play... :-)

So, here's the thing: There's a running gag in Thunderball regarding THE catchphrase. All through the movie, people ask 007 for his name, and he has to introduce himself. And over and over again he either avoids The Line, just says "I'm James Bond", or is interrupted, or whatever.

I guess what I'm asking - assuming everyone here is already well aware of this fun bit of business - is how come it's never mentioned? Do people think post-modernity only began in the 90s? Does the fact that movie styles have changed since the 60s mean that people genuinely don't notice? Do we put it down to weird scripting - not unlike the FYEO 'delicatessen' stuff - rather than acknowledge it as a gag?

Put another way, I'm absolutely certain that in YOLT 'stirred not shaken' is a totally deliberate reference by Dahl. He'd read the books, seen the films, he knew what the drink was meant to be, and how the line had become important in the films. It was a self-referential dig. With Bond too polite to refuse the hospitality, it's left to the audience to chuckle, knowing that Henderson got it wrong.

But now, every time that line is mentioned, it seems to be described as a mistake! As if not one person was aware of it. Which is crazy - Roger Moore avoided saying it precisely because it had become so iconic; to think they just 'got it wrong' in the fifth film is like assuming nobody would notice Connery saying "My name is James, James Bond". :-)

I guess it doesn't help that Lewis Gilbert wasn't in on the gag - he claims he never noticed the 'error' until later - but Dahl? Not likely.

So maybe that's it - maybe we think the 90s invented this stuff. That Scream began the self-referencing genre. Ah, the arrogance of youth...

Eon was there in the 60s. Ahead of the crowd, as ever.

[stamper]

It was a self-referential dig. With Bond too polite to refuse the hospitality, it's left to the audience to chuckle, knowing that Henderson got it wrong.

But now, every time that line is mentioned, it seems to be described as a mistake!

--------

Agreed, it just shows that today post imdb "movie errors" audience are a bunch of morons with IQ no higher than 32.

[RazorBlade]

Nice catch. I noticed Bond was interrupted or whatever but never thought of it as a running gag which it is.

What was the movie title Connery punned?

[Hotwinds]

"Another Time, Another Place"

Nice catch. I noticed Bond was interrupted or whatever but never thought of it as a running gag which it is.

What was the movie title Connery punned?

[sorking]

Nice catch. I noticed Bond was interrupted or whatever but never thought of it as a running gag which it is.

What was the movie title Connery punned?

"Another Time, Another Place". He says it to Pat (who, BTW, is underratedly sexy - though Thunderball is probably one of my favourites for Bond girls and there's plenty of competition) as hes leaving Shrublands.

Edited by sorking, 21 December 2006 - 12:26 PM.

[bonds_walther]

Nice catch. I noticed Bond was interrupted or whatever but never thought of it as a running gag which it is.

What was the movie title Connery punned?

"Another Time, Another Place". He says it to Pat (who, BTW, is underratedly sexy - though Thunderball is probably one of my favourites for Bond girls and there's plenty of competition) as hes leaving Shrublands.

What is the pun a reference to?

EDIT: A quick dash over to imdb.com answered my question. The film has the same name!

Edited by bonds_walther, 21 December 2006 - 01:05 PM.

[triviachamp]

Another Time Another Place features a woman played played by Lana Turner having an affair with a younger married man played by Sean Connery.

A year earlier (I think) Lana made her last MGM film Diane in which she played a woman having an affair with a younger married man played by...Roger Moore! Interesting.

Pierce also did Mrs. Doubtfire, Tim did Sextette () while Daniel did The Mother.

[darkpath]

I'll have to re-watch Thunderball more carefully!

As far as YOLT:

Put another way, I'm absolutely certain that in YOLT 'stirred not shaken' is a totally deliberate reference by Dahl. He'd read the books, seen the films, he knew what the drink was meant to be, and how the line had become important in the films. It was a self-referential dig. With Bond too polite to refuse the hospitality, it's left to the audience to chuckle, knowing that Henderson got it wrong.

My take has always been that this is supposed to be a clue to Bond that Henderson is a traitor; much like the mention of "Spectre" during the card game in Thunderball.

[RJJB]

If you listen to the second audio track on the YOLT DVD, Gilbert acknowledges the "stirred not shaken" reference was a mistake. What better source than the director of the movie? Even else is just idle speculation.

[sorking]

If you listen to the second audio track on the YOLT DVD, Gilbert acknowledges the "stirred not shaken" reference was a mistake. What better source than the director of the movie? Even else is just idle speculation.

Indeed. And I hope it's clear I acknowledged as much in my post.

Still, I've worked on enough sets to know that - especially when it's a producer-led film - you shoot the scene on the page. Sometimes you have to. Gilbert didn't pen the script. Just as people involved with FYEO didn't get the delicatessen stuff (but Cubby, looking for a Mafia gag, did, inserting it himself), these things sometimes go through on the understanding of one person, not the whole team.

Speculation isn't automatically idle. There is a measure of sense to what we're suggesting on this one. As I say, the phrase was so iconic by '71 that Moore refused to say it. Are we really saying that in '67 it carried no recognisable value whatsoever? That not ONE person on the cast or crew noticed it was wrong and said so? That CONNERY didn't notice while playing the scene? That it couldn't have been fixed during the film's extensive ADR?

Finally, I also have some measure of experience on commentary recordings performed late after the fact. Memories fail - not just a little, but entirely - and are often prompted by the research of the commentary director. To the point, in fact, where ideas are sometimes just repeated back verbatim to please the production team. Or opinions are given arbitrarily. "Please say something about this"...and a day later, they would have said exactly the opposite. Because the commentary needs filling.

(And if any commentary tracks bumble occasionally into space-filling, it's the old Bonds. Much of the work is good, but sometimes you get "'Maud Adams recalls being slapped by Roger Moore.' 'I remember Roger slapped me'. 'Now we move on to the next scene...'" Memory ain't all that. It's not like Gilbert says "And I desperately wanted to correct it, I called for an DR session, but Gray wasn't available and we'd run out of money.")

It's not unreasonable to suggest that these things happen. Moreover, in the context of what clearly IS a joke nobody notices in Thunderball, it seems positively credible to me that audiences are sometimes quick to leap to wrong conclusions and thus create production myth. That myth ends up in print. The print is used by researchers. The research is presented to the makers, now well past recalling all the details...and that's how it goes around. I've seen it.

But it's only an opinion. Idle or not. :-)

[tambourineman]

I dont believe that its a mistake at all, despite what Gilbert says. Its such a famous line (and was back then too) a script error is possible, but it would mean that nobody there, all those cast members and crew (including Connery who had said the line the correct way several times by now) picked up on such a glaring mistake (if it was one). Impossible. Not to mention the nature of the line, Henderson actually asks Bond if its right!

I've always (and still do) take that exhange as both:
1) Bond being too well mannered to correct him. And
2) A little in-joke for the audience, who by then would all have known the proper line.

imo, absolutely impossible that it was a simple mistake.

Edited by tambourineman, 22 December 2006 - 07:39 AM.

[stamper]

Gilbert his wrong, he word is not god, it was over 40 years ago ! I'm sure someone made him notice and he thought during the commentary he should point out this "error", while it's all water gone under the bridge.

This "mistake" humanize Anderson, so that we feel something by the time he is killed. It's great writing, as for Gilbert, he made Moonraker, so I'm not going to listen to HIM.

[Gere]

As I say, the phrase was so iconic by '71 that Moore refused to say it.

Well Moore didn't refuse to say it, he was told not to by the producers. Because they didn't want the audience to think of Connery when Moore would say it. Like you said - the phrase was so iconic to Connery and Bond and they wanted to establish Moore as the new Bond and a new Bond era.

[stamper]

"Do I look like I care ???"

[Scottlee]

I've never believed Henderson's line to be an "error". It works as a mistake on the character's part, especially when you take Connery's reaction into account. Consider as well Bond's reactions to other lines said to him throughout the film...

Aki He wouldn't touch that horrible woman, would you?
Bond Oh heaven forbid.

Tanaka I imagine your M has a similar arrangement
Bond M? Hmm, but of course
(we know full well M doesn't have a monorail)

In the context of the scipt and the character played by Connery in this movie, it's perfectly in line that he shouldn't waste time correcting Henderson.

[Problem Eliminator]

I dont believe that its a mistake at all, despite what Gilbert says. Its such a famous line (and was back then too) a script error is possible, but it would mean that nobody there, all those cast members and crew (including Connery who had said the line the correct way several times by now) picked up on such a glaring mistake (if it was one). Impossible. Not to mention the nature of the line, Henderson actually asks Bond if its right!

I've always (and still do) take that exhange as both:
1) Bond being too well mannered to correct him. And
2) A little in-joke for the audience, who by then would all have known the proper line.

imo, absolutely impossible that it was a simple mistake.

I've never believed Henderson's line to be an "error". It works as a mistake on the character's part, especially when you take Connery's reaction into account. Consider as well Bond's reactions to other lines said to him throughout the film...

Aki He wouldn't touch that horrible woman, would you?
Bond Oh heaven forbid.

Tanaka I imagine your M has a similar arrangement
Bond M? Hmm, but of course
(we know full well M doesn't have a monorail)

In the context of the scipt and the character played by Connery in this movie, it's perfectly in line that he shouldn't waste time correcting Henderson.

Excellent responses you two. Right on the mark.

[zencat]

What better source than the director of the movie?

Um...the writer of the movie?

[bill007]

Nice topic sorking. Well explained.

.....I'm absolutely certain that in YOLT 'stirred not shaken' is a totally deliberate reference by Dahl....

At least Connery didn't look at the drink, then turn to the audience and wink.

[Blofeld's Cat]

What better source than the director of the movie?

Um...the writer of the movie?

Touchy touch

[Bonita]

[RJJB]

It seems everyone is going to believe whatever they choose.
People don't agree with Gilbert, someone wants to check with the late Roald Dahl, and someone says Gilbert is not the final word refers to the character as Anderson instead of Henderson.

Merry Christmas everyone.

[stamper]

This is exactly the problem these days : people on the web drown the truth in a torrent of late revisionism and DOUBTS and use affirmations from the 1985 years old director who don't even remember the name of half the cast that was in the movie.
Just watch the friggin movie. It's not a script mistake, it's on purpose !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! END OF DISCUSSION

[RJJB]

deleted

Edited by RJJB, 24 December 2006 - 07:37 PM.

[JimmyBond]

I've never believed Henderson's line to be an "error". It works as a mistake on the character's part, especially when you take Connery's reaction into account. Consider as well Bond's reactions to other lines said to him throughout the film...

Aki He wouldn't touch that horrible woman, would you?
Bond Oh heaven forbid.

Tanaka I imagine your M has a similar arrangement
Bond M? Hmm, but of course
(we know full well M doesn't have a monorail)

In the context of the scipt and the character played by Connery in this movie, it's perfectly in line that he shouldn't waste time correcting Henderson.

Based on the banal responses to those lines, it appears that not only was Connery sleepwalking through the film. Bond was too!

[sorking]

Just curious what commentaries you've produced and where we can hear filmmakers regurgitate back your research verbatim just to please you?

I'm headed to Amazon.com the moment you provide me with some titles!

"Just to please you"? I'm not sure that's exactly what I said (pleasing a production was the point). But, more importantly, I hope I'm reading that as more facetious than it was intended!

As should be kinda obvious, I guess, I'm posting here anonymously and certainly wouldn't name names when it came to actors or crew members who I respect - regardless of how their memories fail them when it comes to work they performed years and years before. So I'll remain unknown. Partly out of consideration, and partly because I'd like to remain in work, thanks very much!

You're not required to believe what I have to say. That's the price of my anonymity, and I pay it gladly. But...well, even if you don't, it's not all that outlandish a suggestion, is it? Memories do fail, and people do TRY to help when working on a production - even when that production is a DVD commentary or documentary.

It's less of a problem in group commentaries, of course. When in a room with three other people who MIGHT remember accurately, a commentator tends to stay quiet if they don't have the facts in their head. But one-on-one situations - documentary interviews (where you also try to get them to include the original question within their answer for editing purposes), solo commentaries - kinda force you to say SOMETHING rather than NOTHING...if only because you are getting a fee for the job and want to be seen as earning it!

As I say, the phrase was so iconic by '71 that Moore refused to say it.

Well Moore didn't refuse to say it, he was told not to by the producers. Because they didn't want the audience to think of Connery when Moore would say it. Like you said - the phrase was so iconic to Connery and Bond and they wanted to establish Moore as the new Bond and a new Bond era.

Possibly my mistake. I've heard various versions, but - indeed - the last was Moore claiming Guy Hamilton suggested it.

I guess I see it as mutual consent, that if Moore had wanted to, he would have been permitted to. Especially when you consider the ways the line is used in, say, TSWLM. It appears in the dialogue, it's just not Moore saying it. As if the scripts are trying to get around the problem. It's the same with the hat gag - they shoot around it a LOT in Moneypenny's office, using hand-doubles or avoiding the ACTUAL throw. It's like the star stipulated he wouldn't...

But, as with so much, that's a reading of the films alone. As we've seen above. stories from the production differ from day to day and person to person!

All that said, Moore's playing James Bond in Eon Bond films - the idea that avoiding one line will avoid comparisons is crazy!


Oh, and - Scottlee, I thought your post was teriffic. Analysis of a production through the nature of the final film content is invaluable done right, and you're absolutely correct - the gag sits exactly with your examples. Splendid.


Still, all this has rather sidetracked the original point of the topic - which was 'Ooh, that running name gag in Thunderball's interesting, innit?' :-)

Edited by sorking, 26 December 2006 - 02:13 PM.

[Bonita]

Sorking,

I somehow didn't think you would want to cite any examples of commentaries where this happened. And that to me is the problem.

My posting was because I think it is easy for folks who do post anonymously to cite "professional experience" or "inside information" when butressing their arguements. But that is a sword that cuts both ways. I would humbly suggest that if you wish to stay annoymous, you cite verifiable facts and not unverifible insider experience that you expect others to take a face value.

Why do I care?

In particular, you dismiss the comments of the director of a film, explaining that really, you just can't trust what you hear on commentaries because these nice folks will simply parrot back to "the production team" what they want to hear. Thus, the reason this particular commentary gets said is because Gilbert must have been prompted by some "commentary director" who just had his or her facts wrong. That was obviouly not what happened here. So you comment insults Gilbert and, I presume, the "commentary director" (a title I've never heard before, but it must look nice on a nameplate).

In your response, you noted that the same thing happens in on-camera interviews that you may or may not have ever participated in (again, your anonymous, so you could also be an eight year-old who can type very well). In your original posting you only mentioned commentaries, which are obviously done with a running film. But Gilbert's wasn't done that way. We know it was audio from an on camera interview presumably done for the DVDs. That means he wasn't watching the scene, he was asked a question. So he couldn't be just filling up space. Now how does Gilbert answer this unheard question? He says, "I don't know" and "I think it was an error." This is not some grand definitive statement of fact from on high. But listening to it just now, it sure sounds like he is giving his honest opinion and I don't think he deserves to be thumped or have his reputation impugned as someone who was just parroting back something.

See, I can fully respect your opinion. You can claim Gilbert's an idiot. But when you map out all-knowing scenarios to justify it, but can cite nothing to back up your claims, then your comments wear thin.

So to wrap this up, two things: 1. Gilbert may not have ever known if the line was intentional or he may have simply forgotten the scene. 2. He wasn't watching the film so he couldn't answer the question in full context.

But in neither case is Gilbert simply "wrong" in his answer. We may interpret the film differently from him. He may re-interpret or recall it differently if he watched the scene. But the reason the scene is talked about is because the response from Connery "perfect" is so dry that reasonable people literate in the world of Bond can see the scene either as sloppiness or Bond being sarcastic (a la, "heaven forbid") or actually enjoying the stirred martini or Gray mucking up the previous line.

You may be totally correct, but just because you may have worked on commentaries for DVDs, doesn't really mean Lewis Gilbert's version of the event was anything less than totally honest and accurate.

keep dancing,
Bonita

[sorking]

Bonita,

I apologise if anything I said came across as an insult to a director I like and admire.

I also apologise if my anonymity is a problem for you. As you can appreciate, there are OTHER filmmakers I like and admire about whom it would be impolitic to make direct reference.

Moreover, I fail to see how your listening to commentaries and doumentaries I've worked on would prove anything either way. Once edited correctly, there should be no way for a member of the public to tell HOW the quote was obtained by an off-cemera interviewer.

Thus the only way to prove my point would be to smuggle out the camera rushes or audio files in their uncut form, including my lead-in questions. Which shoots way past impolitic and all the way to unprofessional!

Still, I hope the arguments I put across in my posts aren't simply insulting or unlikely. You can, I hope, understand that commentaries recorded 'live' have to have someone behind the glass running the show. 'Commentary director' you may not have heard of, mostly because it's not so much a title as a job description, partly because such jobs rarely get full credit, and partly because the person running the commentary is usually also a producer and one credit is enough.

In the case on the Bond commentaries, as you say, much of the earlier stuff - laserdisc commentaries aside - has been culled from to-camera interviews. As I've explained - and, again, you don't have to take this as experience, just common sense - interview subjects are generally asked to repeat the content of the question in the answer.

This is not an insult to anyone. It makes the editing many, many times simpler and is simply standard practice. Look it up. You can cut direct to a subject and the face on-screen will introduce it. It makes it much easier to move from topic to topic.

For the sake of argument, when an interviewer asks "What happened with that 'stirred not shaken' mistake?" WITHOUT the instruction, the response comes back "That was in the script and nobody noticed it."

WITH instruction, the line comes back "The shaken not stirred line was a mistake in the script, I believe".

You can see how easily these things happen. With just bog-standard to-camera interview technique, suddenly the word 'mistake' is in the subject's mouth.

This is NOT to say that all responses are simple parrot answers. Again, I never suggested any such thing.

But interview sessions cost money. They also put significant pressure on the subjects. (Again, if you don't wish to take my word, please just give it due consideration as being likely.) Under the lights, with time pressing, the subject becomes aware that an answer is required. Because the crew need footage they can use. It's rare for the subject to say "I don't know, I don't remember", except at the end of the answer.

(As in "That line was, I think, a mistake. I don't remember noticing it or anyone mentioning it. I don't really recall." The last bit is snipped off, the rest is used; and suddenly some posters here are saying 'Gilbert SAYS it was a mistake, so you're wrong for claiming otherwise'.)

You'd be amazed how many times I've mentioned an actor's name and, rather than get a personal memory, a subject has just named other things that actor was in, and how great they were in them. Is this useful documentary footage? Probably not, not when we're talking about one specific production; but the subjects want to give AN answer because they know - especially well, in the case of directors - that time is running out, and they've been paid for responses.

Even if you, again, refute the experience, it's surely common sense. It's not at all insulting to suggest a person would do this when interviewed. Quite the opposite, in fact - it suggests they're doing all they can to help. That they want to assist as well as they can.

So when you say:

Thus, the reason this particular commentary gets said is because Gilbert must have been prompted by some "commentary director" who just had his or her facts wrong. That was obviouly not what happened here. So you comment insults Gilbert and, I presume, the "commentary director" (a title I've never heard before, but it must look nice on a nameplate).

I can't help but be offended. I'm in no way insulting Gilbert, whose response - as I've already noted - doesn't actually include any further facts. He doesn't state who spotted the error, or when, or what was attempted to fix it. Possibly because those things simply did not happen.

And while I DO believe whoever ran that interview - and the edit - made a mistake in letting the idea of an 'error in the script' go unchallenged, again I hope it's clear that I'm painfully aware of just how often that mistake has been made in the past. It has become Bond lore, as many rumours become truth for little good reason. (My favourite? The 'hanging munchkin' that clearly ISN'T in Wizard of Oz.) The interviewer found the myth in their research and used it.

Why not, if you've not found a reason to question its validity? Nobody knows everything about anything!

As to whether it IS a mistake or not...well, if you suggest it is, I'd call that an insult to many more people than my own opinion. You're saying that not one member of the cast or crew noticed, including the writer. You're saying Dahl was too lazy to check the previous movies before writing his drafts. Surely that's more offensive that suggesting a director's memory might fail after 35 years and that he'd do his best to help another production?

Now how does Gilbert answer this unheard question? He says, "I don't know" and "I think it was an error." This is not some grand definitive statement of fact from on high. But listening to it just now, it sure sounds like he is giving his honest opinion and I don't think he deserves to be thumped or have his reputation impugned as someone who was just parroting back something.

Very well. But please have a look at the previous posts - I only mentioned Gilbert when it was suggested that his word WAS definitive. I'm simply making a case that it isn't. I never thumped anyone, nor insulted them - just explaining how such things can happen.

My original point was simply that the line is a deliberate joke. That seems clear from other examples in the film, and the status of Bond at the time. And any suggestion that this cannot be the case simply because of Gilbert's commentary interview quote is easy to refute given the natures or memory and production.

Again, you don't have to believe that's based on experience. You can look at it from a perspective of common sense and how these things are made. Either way, I think it's resonable to come to the same conclusion - that maybe Gilbert didn't remember clearly.

So to wrap this up, two things: 1. Gilbert may not have ever known if the line was intentional or he may have simply forgotten the scene. 2. He wasn't watching the film so he couldn't answer the question in full context.

But in neither case is Gilbert simply "wrong" in his answer.

...

You may be totally correct, but just because you may have worked on commentaries for DVDs, doesn't really mean Lewis Gilbert's version of the event was anything less than totally honest and accurate.

Nor am I suggesting any such thing!

Once again, I apologise. Mentioning what I do has obviously offended you. And yes, in that case, maybe I should simply have said "I believe his statement to be not entirely accurate" and given no reason why I blieve that to be the case. But that's hardly the shape of reasoned debate.

I could post "I hate the new Bond film" without having seen it, I guess. The same problems remain. You can never trust me online - and, as I say, fair enough. In which case, ignore the experience I've mentioned and look back at the - not unreasonable - point I've tried to make. Even with zero experience, I don't think it's at all unfair to anyone- except, maybe one or two production team members whose research could have gone further.

Regardless, I never said Gilbert was simply 'wrong', I qualified my opinion with analysis and my own experience. Which is all any of can do. I certainly never meant to suggest he was lying!

Edited by sorking, 28 December 2006 - 03:16 PM.

[dodge]

Anonymity deserves respect as well as skepticism. In fact, we're mostly anonymous here, except for the lucky few who've got to know each other.

Anonymity does have a down side: some will abuse it and find that it's easy to be a long-distance toughie. No danger of having their ears boxed. No danger of being disgraced or found out.

But anonymity does have an upside as well. We're forced to read, really read, carefuly the postings. To study the logic, the tone and the style. To draw a bead of some sort on the spirit of the poster: Is s/he a mischievous eight-year-old...or is s/he someone I may not agree with but really should get to know better?

Finally: anonymity offers pros the freedom to speak freely without fear of reprisal. I'm especially interested in hearing from those involved in film--but I also understand why they must be prudent. It's a jungle out there.

[sorking]

Finally: anonymity offers pros the freedom to speak freely without fear of reprisal. I'm especially interested in hearing from those involved in film--but I also understand why they must be prudent. It's a jungle out there.

Thanks for understanding. I get the feeling this has turned a mountain out of a molehill!

I certainly never wanted to suggest that my job is a big deal, or automatically makes me somehow 'right' on a given subject. It\s not something I'd mentioned in my posts elsewhere, and it seems I'd be best off never doing so again! Still, on this topic it felt pertinent.

Regardless, I should probably say that thousands of people now work in this part of the industry - compiling documentaries, commentaries, putting together EPKs and broadcast promotionals. It's not at all exclusive or boast-worthy. Which is to say - I'm not sure why I'd make up a job that's stressful, often uncredited and certainly not glamorous!

Next time you see me post, I'll be a Vegas showgirl. I think we'd all be a lot happier. :-)

[Bonita]

Not that anyone cares at this point, but as I was away blissfully for a while, I thought I'd check on the responses to this.

Here's the rub: Sorking's point is now that Gilbert was prompted to say that the "stirred, not shaken" line was a mistake by some "commentary director" or interviewer.

But he offers no evidence except a now very long explanation of how Gilbert must have wanted to answer because he was being paid to give answers (and were deductions made for all incomplete or incoherent answers?).

It's all way off topic, but all this seem the stuff of foolishness. Yes, someone interviewed Gilbert. But do you know their question? If you don't, then let's not speculate about it. It doesn't mater to me if you direct commentaries or clean cow barns, the fact is unless you did the interview with Gilbert, you don't know what question was asked. But you are happy to blame the interviewer (and previously Gilbert) for the comment.

You also seem to think his memory or opinion should never have been shared because it conflicts with yours.

But what leads you to believe he wasn't asked something like this: "In YOLT, there is a scene where Henderson makes Bond a martini and serves it to 007 "stirred, not shaken". Can you talk about why the line was said that way?

And is not his answer, even all these years later legitimate? It could be wrong, but it is legit. It is what his opinion is about the event (or was when the interview happened). I've never read any contradiction to his account from anyone involved in the film.

So the line may be intentional. Go ask Connery. But the director says he doesn't know. Looking back on it, he thinks it is a script mistake. Fair enough. You can disagree, but it is unfair to slag Gilbert or the "COMMENTARY DIRECTOR" for his honest opinion. And I think to have had a commentary on that film and to DELETE what Gilbert had to say about it because he couldn't be definitive would have been a bit much.

Keep dancing,
Bonita