Skip to main content

As you can see, I am about to inaugurate a little war.


You Only Live Twice
(1967)

Thunderball marked a shift in approach for the Bond series. Plots now appeared to be structured around how much money was available, with the overriding ditctat of putting it all up there on screen. From action sequences to set design, the films relied on being able to announce, “The biggest yet”. Despite this, the jet-setting of the series remained limited. The previous film was located mainly in the Bahamas, and this one would set up shop in Japan.


Connery, quite understandably, had become tired with the series (and, more especially, the press attention he received at every turn). Gaps between releases were slowly but surely lengthening (15 months between Goldfinger and Thunderball, 18 months and two calendar years between Thunderball and this). On screen, the Scotsman can’t hide that his enthusiasm for the role has waned. Reportedly, the actor’s fee was raised to sweeten the YOLT deal, and even though he was contracted for one more outing, the producers released him from this obligation (ironic, as the next would have seen him go out on an all-time high).


Director Lewis Gilbert would go on to call the shots on two of the most self-conscious Moore films, but it’s fair to say he didn’t prove to be the most dynamic of action directors. The spectacle, when it comes, has little momentum or sense of purpose to it. Geography is vague, even though long shots abound. In contrast, as an actor’s director, he was in his element when it came to more intimate dramas on a manageable scale (Alfie and Educating Rita stand out). The approach taken by the Bond producers appeared to be that a unified vision didn’t really matter as the Second Unit (here being handled by editor Peter Hunt) would take care of the action. They may be slowly learning their lesson, following muddled results in more recent years (including The World is Not Enough and Quantum of Solace).


On the plus side the theme song, sung Nancy Sinatra, is one of the most luxuriant of the series (sampled by Robbie Williams on Millennium). YOLT was (very loosely) based on the twelfth Fleming novel, and boasted a screenplay from Roald Dahl. Unfortunately there’s little evidence of Dahl’s fertile imagination on screen (he opined that it was assembled to the producers’ prescribed formula). YOLT is a leaden affair, rarely displaying wit or verve in plotting and characterisation. Where Goldfinger sparkled so brightly, YOLT sinks like a stodgy pudding.


Donald Pleasance pulls a nice turn out of his hat as a little man with a Napoleon complex (his Blofeld follows Largo – who sported an eyepatch – as one of the many Bond villains with physical impediments; here there is facial scarring about his right eye and cheek). Pleasance was a last-minute replacement for Jan Werich (who completed a week of filming before it was decided he wasn’t right for the role). And he is granted Bond-syle observational skills (rather than noting failings in etiquette as 007 does, he spots Bond due to the latter's lack of knowledge of astronaut equipment). But mostly character takes a back seat to dubious commentary on cultural differences (Bond’s first line is “Why do Chinese girls taste different from all other girls?”) and seems to rehearse a fantasy version of the “Instant Japanese” phrase book that Moneypenny offers Bond.


The pre-credits sequence combines a rocket heist by SPECTRE (although the various nations suspect each other; had they not seen From Russia with Love?) with Bond canoodling in Hong Kong and then, apparently, being killed. This has become a curious obsession of the writers/producers; three of the four films featuring a pre-credits sequence have used it to toy with the idea of 007’s mortality.


Mike Myers appears to have borrowed most liberally from YOLT for Austin Powers, both in the appearance and tics of Dr Evil and the rocket heist imagery. The space scenes are well-rendered, even if SPECTRE’s space vehicle of choice looks a bit daft. In contrast, the killing of Bond is turgid stuff. Reportedly it played on the speculation of Connery leaving, although the theme of mortality is in the novel (Fleming having suffered a heart attack prior to writing it).  When we reach the point of Bond’s at sea burial, and retrieval, the elaborate scheme moves beyond the plausible. Particularly since Bond is successfully off SPECTRE’s radar for very limited time (and one wonders if it would have made any difference if he wasn’t).


Indeed, when it comes down to it, the vital key to finding SPECTRE’s base is an off-the-cuff remark from Kissy Suzuki about a big cave. It’s this lack of narrative integrity that makes YOLT seen so slipshod and lazy.

Tiger: For a European, you are exceptionally cultivated.

Tiger, played with some wit by Tetsuro Tamba (the "I... love you" code phrase is unsubtle but amusing) but dubbed by Robert Rietty, is, it seems, impressed by Bond’s cultural awareness. You see, despite being the last bastion of the British Empire, Bond respects other cultures. Why, he took a First in Oriental Languages at Cambridge (this is his first visit to Japan, however) and he knows the precise temperature for serving sake.


If his appreciation of foreigners is a surprise, 007’s eye for the ladies is now being exaggerated with each escapade. Tiger offers him the pick of his “very sexiful” ladies, who “always come second” to the man (“I just might retire here” comments James). It is this film (rather than OHMSS) where Bond, as Mr Fisher, first marries. Much casual conversation occurs about how Bond’s bride to be has a  “face like a pig”.  Charming.


In one of the stupidest sequences seen in a Bond film, 007’s cover is protected by Tiger by turning him Japanese. Tiger runs a ninja training school, naturally.

Tiger: First, you become a Japanese. Second, you train hard and quickly to become a ninja like us. And third, to give you extra special cover, you take a wife.

Connery looks patently ridiculous “made up” as Japanese. But he might successfully audition as The Wolfman. Bond also learns ninja techniques in double quick time. Maybe this is what you get for employing a children’s author to thrash out your plot. I could quite see Moore making this palatable with a quizzically raised eyebrow, but there’s no self-consciousness on display.


As with Thunderball, ‘60s gadgetry is shoehorned into the story on the whim of whoever saw it and thought it to be neat and sufficiently Bondian. So, Little Nellie, a micro-helicopter, is Bond’s vehicle of choice (or Q’s choice) to investigate the SPECTRE lair. Apparently this is the only Bond film where 007 doesn’t drive. I’m unsure whether this indicates anything about the film as a whole, except that something is always left off a shopping list.


Whenever anyone discusses YOLT mention of the $1m volcano set is inevitable, as if this is somehow evidence of the film’s quality. But, as with the climax of Thunderball, the overall effect of the barrage of explosions and fighting is deathly dull. There’s a limited relief from finally getting to see Blofeld, and Bond’s exploding cigarettes, but the villain’s nefariousness was better illustrated earlier when he fed Helga Brandt to his vicious mutated sea trout. Sorry, piranhas. Which in itself is an obvious steal from the sharks in Thunderball. The grand climax is flabby and excitement-free until the point Bond presses the button and blows up the enemy spacecraft. And if you’re left wondering what the point of it all was, it’s been lost in lumpen, lazy plotting by that point.


Aficionados long nostalgically for the halcyon days of Connery, when Bond films were made with care and the result was always classy. But this is only really true of the second and third entries in the series. There is much that is positive to say about Connery’s return in Diamonds are Forever, but wherever you stand on that one it’s a very different beast. As it is, You Only Live Twice is one of the low points in the canon, iconic for a number of reasons (Blofeld, the space snatches) but bloated and charmless in the cold light of day.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

Schnell, you stinkers! Come on, raus!

Private’s Progress (1956) (SPOILERS) Truth be told, there’s good reason sequel I’m Alright Jack reaps the raves – it is, after all, razor sharp and entirely focussed in its satire – but Private’s Progress is no slouch either. In some respects, it makes for an easy bedfellow with such wartime larks as Norman Wisdom’s The Square Peg (one of the slapstick funny man’s better vehicles). But it’s also, typically of the Boulting Brothers’ unsentimental disposition, utterly remorseless in rebuffing any notions of romantic wartime heroism, nobility and fighting the good fight. Everyone in the British Army is entirely cynical, or terrified, or an idiot.

Isn’t it true, it’s easier to be a holy man on the top of a mountain?

The Razor’s Edge (1984) (SPOILERS) I’d hadn’t so much a hankering as an idle interest in finally getting round to seeing Bill Murray’s passion project. Partly because it seemed like such an odd fit. And partly because passion isn’t something you tend to associate with any Murray movie project, involving as it usually does laidback deadpan. Murray, at nigh-on peak fame – only cemented by the movie he agreed to make to make this movie – embarks on a serious-acting-chops dramatic project, an adaptation of W Somerset Maugham’s story of one man’s journey of spiritual self-discovery. It should at least be interesting, shouldn’t it? A real curio? Alas, not. The Razor’s Edge is desperately turgid.

It’s not as if she were a… maniac, a raving thing.

Psycho (1960) (SPOILERS) One of cinema’s most feted and most studied texts, and for good reason. Even if the worthier and more literate psycho movie of that year is Michael Powell’s Peeping Tom . One effectively ended a prolific director’s career and the other made its maker more in demand than ever, even if he too would discover he had peaked with his populist fear flick. Pretty much all the criticism and praise of Psycho is entirely valid. It remains a marvellously effective low-budget shocker, one peppered with superb performances and masterful staging. It’s also fairly rudimentary in tone, character and psychology. But those negative elements remain irrelevant to its overall power.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

I don't like the way Teddy Roosevelt is looking at me.

North by Northwest (1959) (SPOILERS) North by Northwest gets a lot of attention as a progenitor of the Bond formula, but that’s giving it far too little credit. Really, it’s the first modern blockbuster, paving the way for hundreds of slipshod, loosely plotted action movies built around set pieces rather than expertly devised narratives. That it delivers, and delivers so effortlessly, is a testament to Hitchcock, to writer Ernest Lehmann, and to a cast who make the entire implausible exercise such a delight.

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Look out the window. Eden’s not burning, it’s burnt.

Reign of Fire (2002) (SPOILERS) There was good reason to believe Rob Bowman would make a successful transition from top-notch TV director to top-notch film one. He had, after all, attracted attention and plaudits for Star Trek: The Next Generation and become such an integral part of The X-File s that he was trusted with the 1998 leap to the big screen. That movie wasn’t the hit it might have been – I suspect because, such was Chris Carter’s inability to hone a coherent arc, it continued to hedge its bets – but Bowman showed he had the goods. And then came Reign of Fire . And then Elektra . And that was it. Reign of Fire is entirely competently directed, but that doesn’t prevent it from being entirely lousy.