Skip to main content

I’ll have to find something else to do.


On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
(1969)

The one with the other fellow. You know, whatshisname. George Lazenby is rarely on the receiving end of kind words, even by those who rate OHMSS highly. I have no problem with his performance; indeed, far from viewing him as a plank who got lucky I’m doubtful whether the emotional through line of the film would have been as effective with Connery. His Bond demeanour had been so established by this point, it’s difficult to conceive of him suddenly falling in love and revealing his vulnerable side (which is no slight on Connery’s skill as an actor, just recognition of the baggage he brings to the role).


Lazenby comes on fresh-faced (at 29, he was two years younger than Connery when he was cast) and free to show Bond in love. Since Dalton, there have been various attempts to invest Bond, essentially a two-dimensional caricature, with an emotional journey. This has taken the form of seeking revenge, dealing with injury, brooding about his deeds, feeling his age. Yet the series’ high watermark for the secret agent as a character imbued with real feelings is in a film with an actor many dismiss as being “a bit rubbish”. It may not be because of Lazenby that OHMSS is the best Bond film but he’s in no way an impediment to it holding that status.


As to why he made just the solo 007, various possibilities have been floated. That Lazenby’s agent nixed further appearances, that George himself felt that Bond’s shelf life was limited in the era of Easy Rider, that Cubby Broccoli was irritated by the young pup’s arrogance, that the press had written him off as a failure in comparison to Connery and it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s certainly the case that OHMSS, although cheaper than the previous two movies, made considerably less money than either (Thunderball went through the roof, You Only Live Twice just over half of that, while OHMSS made only half of YOLT’s gross). But it was profitable, and its success were more comparable to the early Moore outings than to Connery’s.  Additionally, how well OHMSS would have done with anyone in the lead is debatable; it had a complete downer of an ending, and compared to previous installments was light on action (this is not meant as a criticism, far from it, but it may have contributed).


One of the reasons OHMSS stands the test of time so well is surely Peter Hunt’s direction. Hunt had initially sworn off Bond when he didn’t get the directing gig for YOLT, but was tempted back into the editing suite and then got the prize this time out. Hunt’s Bond would be his most prestigious directorial effort, and he wouldn’t return to the series (he would work with future Bond Roger Moore on several films during the 1970s, though). Hunt enlisted cinematographer Michael Reed to give the film a more realistic look than previous Bonds (concordantly, Hunt eschewed the gadgetry that had become a staple ingredient). The result is a Bond film that couldn’t feel more different to its predecessor. The fights and chases have a visceral quality where previously they were plodding and static.


Then there’s John Barry’s score, possibly the pinnacle of the series, and the beautiful, haunting We Have All the Time in the World sung by Louis Armstrong. If we needed convincing that the romance between James and Tracy was the real deal, the song sells it to us completely. Strangely, it doesn’t play out with the credits where it would have been more appropriate than the suddenly intrusive Bond theme (we, and our hero, are mourning after all). The opening titles, which showed scenes and characters from previous adventures, were accompanied by an instrumental track (Barry considered it would be difficult to cram the film’s title into a set of lyrics), which is as recognisable as any Bond song in its own right.


There had been much debate on how to introduce a new face; reference to plastic surgery was considered. Ultimately, the Bond theme announces the secret agent before we see Lazenby, and the action on the beach plays out with Bond in silhouette. The improvised dialogue,

James Bond: This never happened to the other fellow.

is followed by Lazenby breaking the fourth wall as he looks at the audience. In that respect it might be seen as a precursor to meta-reference happy late ‘70s Moore period, but it represents an isolated case within the film as a whole. Some fans have experienced difficulty attempting to render coherent the lack of recognition between (the new faces of) Bond and Blofeld, having met in YOLT. Such a mission seems like a hiding to nothing, as continuity is one of the series’ lowest priorities.


As noted, and in contrast to previous two films, OHMSS does not fuel its plot by transitioning from one set piece to the next. Bond begins wooing Tracy, after preventing her suicide, and any concern with mission priorities is clearly taking a back seat (Operation Bedlam only becomes evident when he drops in on M).  While Bond has a fight or two along the way, an equally action-light shift then occurs both in geography and activity. Bond spends the middle section of the film at Blofeld’s allergy institute, which means that Tracy drops out of the plot completely at this point. It’s a peculiar structure, and no doubt symptomatic of following the book so closely, but it is an effective interlude as long as you find Lazenby palatable and aren’t put off by all the talking.


It’s an astonishing coincidence that Tracy’s dad is someone who can reveal Blofeld’s whereabouts. And later that Bond, having escaped the institute, should bump into Tracy at the crucial moment. The scene is one of those moments you just can’t imagine working with Connery. Bond is bereft and frightened, at the prey of the enemy. And then, his salvation appears. It’s unlike anything else we see in the series, and I think much of that is to do with Lazenby.


Diana Rigg deserves significant credit also, lending sophistication and wit to a role that is quite thinly sketched out (spoilt rich girl who just needs a good man to pull her out of her funk). We only really see her potential in the scene where she converses with Blofeld and reveals her education.


Draco: What she needs is a man to dominate her. A man to make love to he enough to make her love him. A man like you!

What a charming father! See, what Draco really wanted was Connery. Gabriele Ferzetti played Morton in the previous year’s Once Upon a Time in the West and, despite being the head of a crime syndicate and extolling generally odious views (including offering Bond a bribe to take his daughter), he makes him a warm and welcoming figure. Later he even comments, “Spare the rod and spoil the child, huh?

Draco: She likes you, I can see.
James Bond: Just give me the name of your occulist.


Undercover Bond, posing as Sir Hilary Bray, is highly amusing and plays wittily on the Bond machismo. We’ll never know if Lazenby’s original vocalisation was any good, but George Baker’s dubbing is very pleasing, lending the actor a self-mocking manner (it’s particularly funny given how bland Baker’s roles generally are).

Bond/Bray: Frauline, I should warn you. Guns make me nervous.

And,

Bond/Bray: I’m afraid I’ve never had much to do with young ladies.


And the following exchange, as one of the “harem” writes on his leg under the dining table (Ilse Steppart follows in a line of idiosyncratic henchwomen, Rosa Klebb being the most notable up to this point).

Irma Bunt: Is anything ze matter, Sir Hilary?
Bond/Bray: Just a slight stiffness coming on… in the shoulder.


The “Angels of Death” include Catherine Schell, Julie Ege and Joanna Lumley (“Course, I know what he’s allergic to”). Given the best lines, and the most screen time, is Angela Scoular as Ruby.

Blofeld: Do you remember how when you first came here you hated chickens… I have taught you to love chickens. Their flesh, their voice.

This is the closest the series gets to psychedelia, as lights flash over Bond. Although, it echoes the brainwashing undergone by Harry Saltzman’s working class Bond, Harry Palmer in The Ipcress File.


It’s interesting how willing this film is to reconfigure Blofeld; he becomes almost a cult leader here (under the guise of science). Blofeld’s plan is so bafflingly elaborate that picking away at it could unravel the entire film. It’s hard to say quite why the deficiencies in logic never come into focus as a serious problem (possibly because the love story is foregrounded), but it should be noted that it is this adaptation that hews closest of all the films to the Fleming novel (the 10th in the series).


Why specifically does Blofeld need these women to distribute his virus/chemical warfare agent that can sterilise the world’s food supply? What can they do that no one else can? Do they hold certain key positions? If not, couldn’t he pay henchman to do the same thing? Or wicked attractive ladies who would will do it for a fee, bypassing the brainwashing thing? Of course, then we wouldn’t enjoy the conceit of Bond checking in to Blofeld’s Alpine clinic incognito. As for Blofeld’s demands, that he should be able to retire with an amnesty and be recognised as nobility (a count; he’s had his earlobes removed to “prove” his heredity), perhaps this was Fleming’s assumption that secretly everyone wants to be up to be treated/respected like royalty? Whatever the reason, coming from Blofeld it seems like a battier idea than world domination because it’s so small fry.



When it comes, the escape from Blofeld’s institute is thrillingly shot (as is the preceding cable car sequence), ending in the aforementioned reunion with Tracy. And it’s here that the film makes its individuality most evident.

BondI’ll have to find something else to do.
TracyAre you sure, James?
BondI love you, and I know I’ll never find another girl like you. Will you marry me?


Not only is he opting for a monogamous life, but he’s also prepared to turn in his licence to kill. After that, the concluding action requirements almost seem unnecessary; Tracy is captured, Bond is told that Blofeld’s ransom will be paid and he is forbidden to intervene. Bond and Draco to attack Blofeld and rescue Tracy, culminating in a bobsleigh chase. The occasional trad-Bond bad taste jokes seems unnecessary, dictated by formula and thus less necessary to a film that has followed it’s own path (“He had a lot of guts”, notes 007 as a Blofeld goon is consumed by a threshing machine, “He’s branched off” when Blofeld is caught in a tree branch).


Picking a best Blofeld is not an easy task as the performances of the main trio are all so different (if we exclude Max von Sydow and the voice/hand-only performances in From Russia with Love and Thunderball; and John Hollis’ cameo in For Your Eyes Only). Pleasance is most indelible, but gets limited screentime. Savalas is the most personable, less the arch-villain and more the mob boss aspiring to a higher status. While Savalas is very watchable, I probably don’t think of him first when the character’s name comes up. As for Charles Gray, I shall revisit him shortly.


The marriage scene in Portugal is charming, Moneypenny catching Bond’s hat (instead of the bridal bouquet) and Q making a gadget-free appearance. Peter Hunt prepared the ending in such a way that the credits could roll as Bond and Tracy set off on their honeymoon. Then Diamonds are Forever would begin with Blofeld’s drive-by attempt to kill Bond, but hitting Tracy. As it is, the downbeat choice proves heartbreakingly tragic. It’s a surprisingly brave decision and, beyond the one-off presence of its star, underlines the singular and incomparable status of OHMSS.

Bond: It’s all right, it’s quite all right really. She’s having a rest. We’ll be going on soon. There’s no hurry, you see. We have all the time in the world.

So the ‘60s end on an emotional, if not qualitative, downer for Bond. Before pitching into 12 years of eyebrow-raising, the producers managed to woo Connery back for a last stand that would do a curiously accurate job of predicting the decade’s obsessions and excesses. That’s Vegas for you. OHMSS, meanwhile, is unequalled in the Bond canon. Other films have more impressive action, effects, leading and supporting performances, but none of them can match it for heart.



Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the