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.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …