Skip to main content

Courage is no match for an unfriendly shoe, Countess…


For Your Eyes Only
(1981)

You can’t fault Cubby Broccoli’s decision to tighten the purse strings following the enormous expense of Moonraker. That film paid off, but it wouldn’t make economic sense to make a habit of such profligacy. Nor were Michael G. Wilson and John Glen wrong in feeling that the series should put a brake on the fantasy; the science fiction trappings of that entry were pushing it even for a series renowned for excess in plotting and spectacle. But neither of these decisions needed to result in the stodgy, joyless affair that is For Your Eyes Only. Diamonds are Forever, on an obviously limited budget, managed to be one of the most distinctive Bond films, both in terms of script and visuals. No one seemed to realise that a stripped-down, grim-faced Roger Moore Bond is a bland Bond.

Bond: He had no head for heights.

It should be noted that many Bond aficionados hold FYEO in high esteem precisely because of the back-to-basics ethos espoused by Broccoli and Glen. The scene where Bond pushes Locque (in his car) off a cliff is cited as a return to the cold-blooded killer the character should be. But Moore was right; it’s not what his version of Bond would do. It might have worked if Locque had been a sufficiently malevolent premise, building Bond’s motivation up to the point of catharsis; it’s clear that the gratuitous demise of Bond’s one-night stand is supposed to inspire this but, in a film where 007’s revenge for the murder of his wife is reduced to a comedy prologue, it’s rather weak. And Michael Gothard (Loque) stands around diffidently for the first half of the film, not so much exuding malevolence as the air of a member of Kraftwerk patiently waiting to go on stage.

Blofeld: Mr Bond! We can do a deal! I’ll buy you a delicatessen! In stainless steel!

Aesthetically too, there’s a sloppiness to the production that undermines the grittier intensions of Glen. The film is bookended with sequences that not only look cheap, they are also written that way. The disposal of the unnamed Blofeld (we never see his face, only his chrome dome) during a pre-credits sequence involving a remote controlled helicopter is seriously underwhelming, and represents a flagrantly cynical response to the rivalry of Kevin McClory’s imminently competing Bond project. John Hollis (Sondergaard rocks!) plays Blofeld but, as with seemingly every other performer in the movie, is voiced by another actor (Robert Rietti, who also dubs John Wyman and John Moreno).


The final scene, featuring Maggie and Dennis Thatcher impersonators thanking Bond and the former getting a bit flustered as a parrot gives her the come-on, far out-cringes even the laziest of gags in previous movies. One can only speculate as to the root of this misjudged topicality (nations’ political climates tend to be the closest the films veer to current events). While there appears to be a slight-air of piss-taking, it’s more likely that the filmmakers wish to acknowledge their veneration of Maggie and her dubious values. Whatever the reasoning, it’s an embarrassing sequence, one that would have seemed out of place even in the previous two Lewis Gilbert movies, let alone the serious-minded FYEO.


There’s also the music. The only positive thing I can say about surely the worst Bond score is that there are extended passages of the movie where it is entirely absent. Bill Conti’s paceless, listless, disco dirge of a score kills early action sequences stone dead so it’s fortunate that at least one of these (the 2CV chase) is tongue in cheek. In contrast, Sheena Easton’s title song, which Conti also wrote and produced, is a strong one and holds up (it was a hit both in the US and UK). The score serves to add to the sense that this is Bond as a (costly) TV movie, something that would never have previously crossed my mind. Part of the problem is that the filmmaking technique isn’t sufficiently advanced from the previous “It’s all a bit of fun” approach; replace the warmth with an austere tone and you end up with a deflated balloon, exposed in all its lack of finery.

Cinematographer Alan Hume’s wide-ranging career would include both eminent (The Legend of Hell House, Eye of the Needle, Return of the Jedi) and not so eminent (the Carry Ons… a litter of AIP and Amicus productions of varying quality) work. He would go on to lens two further Bond films, but for the most part his contribution here doesn’t particularly stand out; there’s something rather flat about the photography. The results are not helped by John Grover’s editing, which only occasionally snaps into gear. This film needed to be taut if it was to carry the lean, pared-down attitude prescribed by the production. But at more than two hours in length it drags interminably, with little sense of narrative drive or direction.

For Your Eyes Only used the title of Ian Fleming’s 1960 short story connection, borrowing its drug smuggling element from another of the tales therein (Risico). The characters of Kristatos (Julian Glover) and Columbo (Topol) are pretty much as per Risico; Kristatos is set up as an ally of Bond, but it is eventually revealed that he is behind the opium smuggling.  Columbo, whom Kristatos put the blame on, teams with Bond to bring him down. Grafted onto the plot is the standard theft of a top-secret device, in this case the ATAC system (Automatic Targeting Attack Communicator). Kristatos’ objective is its sale, rather than some hare-brained plan for world domination. It doesn’t seem to be a particularly well thought out scheme, as the drug kingpin apparently requires Bond to show up and disarm it before taking possession (if not, why does he leave it in the wreck for 007 to salvage?)


Also added is a sub-par revenge plotline. Melina Havelock (Carole Bouqet), the daughter of a murdered marine archaeologist asked to locate ATAC, is set on evening the score; Locque, the hitman who kills her parents, is employed by Kristatos.

There’s something to be said for attaching a weighty theme to a Bond movie, but not if it only plays lip service to such substance. Melina is a barely-sketched character and Bouqet brings nothing to the part (perhaps the least interesting Bond girl ever?). References to Elektra and Melina’s skill with a crossbow don’t sell the character, nor does Bond’s rather hypocritical advice against following the dubious path of vengeance. The problem is partly that the script and direction fail to emphasise the theme and partly because due to the casting. Moore’s Bond is antithetical to this kind of business, and the result is lukewarm at both ends; the quips aren’t sufficiently broad or memorable and the stern tone saps away the vitality of previous outings.  

Bouquet was dubbed, which isn’t necessarily an obstacle to chemistry between Bond and his leading ladies. But there’s no spark at all between Bouquet and Moore. She mopes her way through the film with all the effervescence of a dead-eyed fun machine. It’s a shallow admission, but at one point I became so disengaged I began trying to work out if she’s slightly boss-eyed. There’s no doubting Bouquet has long, lustrous hair going for her, but that’s about it. She has one moment where she seems disarmingly likable, when Moore causes her to corpse during the 2CV chase. Elsewhere, her afflicted sinuses meant that the underwater close-ups she shares with Moore were filmed on a dry soundstage; Moore in particularly looks very silly in this environment, reminding one of a wet-suited Leslie Nielsen in Naked Gun 2½  (to be fair, the effect isn’t all that bad, but Roger is tellingly as immaculately turned out as ever). Apparently Melina was written with Flash Gordon’s Ornella Muti in mind, and one can see that she’d have brought a sensuality and presence Bouquet lacks.

It’s also an bizarrely chaste relationship. They don’t get it together until they skinny dip at the end of the film. Indeed, it’s this outing that sees Moore suddenly repositioned as an old man. The grave scene at the start was intended for a prospective new Bond actor, indicating this was the same character; when this didn’t happen, they stuck with Rog. But the effect serves to remind you that, if his wife died in ’69, this Bond who is no spring chicken no matter who’s playing him (admittedly, if Lazenby was still playing the role he’d only be in his early 40s, younger than Moore was when he took the part). Beyond that, the film seems to go to amusingly lengths to makes Moore seem past-it (yet the next film, Octopussy, doesn’t have this problem).

Bibi: I know what you want, but you’re too old for me!

The sequence in the Italian Alps is most guilty. Moore dodders around looking comfortably middle-aged in his fashionable pistewear and fends off the advances of a precocious teenage ice skater. In what kind of Bond universe should 007 be reduced to the status of a prudish uncle? And there’s no get-out in having Bibi (real life skating prodigy Lynne-Holly Johnson) accuse mentor Kristatos of being a dirty old man; Moore’s nearly a decade older than Glover! Only a year separates Bouquet from the snub-nosed Johnson, so you could argue that the latter does a good job of portraying an irritating perky teenager (except that there’s a strong impression she’s just playing herself). But her character is completely superfluous to the plot, seemingly added at the behest of Broccoli (his bright ideas were generally hit-and-miss, and in this case her debut acting role in Ice Castles had caught his eye). The presence of her character only adds to the messiness of the scenario, pushing for realism with one hand and pulling back into overt silliness with the other. But it does give Moore one classic line (“Now, put your clothes back on and I’ll buy you an ice-cream”).

FYEO was Michael G. Wilson’s first screenplay credit on a Bond film (he would co-write all five of the ‘80s 007s), working with old hand Richard Maibaum. Presumably it’s Wilson’s influence that makes the characters are so unmemorable (how many strong villains – or indeed strong characters – are there in ‘80s Bond?) The issue is not one of the restricting the scale of the movie, but the shortcomings in the writing. Since Maibaum delivered one of the most memorable budget-driven Bonds in From Russia with Love, I’m disinclined to lay the blame at his door.

Kristatos: Oh, leave the legs free. They’ll make appetising bait.

Julian Glover is fine actor, and he’s often been a fine villain (Doctor Who’s City of Death being possibly the best example), but he makes little impression here. He wasn’t too well-served in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade at the other end of the decade either, but at least there he was more than a dirty old hood. Kristatos is boring, and Bond baddies should never be boring.


His henchmen are little better. I’ve mentioned the Kraftwerk guy (who essentially powers all the location-hopping during the first half of the film). At least he is distinctive, I suppose. John Wyman’s blonde KGB beefcake Erich Kriegler has stature on his side and the ability to lob a motorbike, but little else. Wymam appeared as another hulking loon in the Blake’s 7 episode Assassin, the same year as FYEO. Charles Dance, as a henchman of a henchman, glowers charismatically in a couple of scenes; he’d have been better employed in the Kriegler part. A return for Richard Kiel was apparently considered but it was decided he’d conflict with the serious tone; I’m dubious this was ever more than heresay, as Bond had made pals with him and he’d found love at the end of Moonraker.

Columbo: By tomorrow, we’ll be good friends. Let us drink to that.

A further testament to the underpowered writing is that Topol, not known for his restrained performances (see Flash Gordon), goes barely noticed as Columbo. He has a nice scene with Bond early on, as the suspicious spy has to deal with a charm offensive, but soon drifts into the ineffectuality that taints Glover.


Ironically, probably the best-defined character has very brief screen time. Cassandra Harris plays Countess Lisl von Schlaf, Bond’s only proper shag in the movie (it’s 70 minutes before he gets his leg over). She’s Columbo’s mistress, and amusingly drops her airs and graces for a Mancunian accent once 007 has her in the sack. Harris has an obvious rapport with Moore. I said earlier that Bond’s despatch of Locque is scarcely justified, but the starkness of her murder is the film’s only affecting moment. The problem is that Glen et al don’t do enough to make it a central motivator, compounded by the fact that Moore isn’t the sort of actor who can sustain such depth of feeling. Harris, who died very young, was married to Pierce Brosnan, who also visited the set…

The series’ regulars are all creaking along. Bernard Lee did not return as M (he wanted to but was too ill, making Moonraker his last appearance). Lois Maxwell’s flirtations with Moore are now faintly embarrassing. Desmond Llewellyn is still having fun, but seeing the familiar ensemble is now tantamount to wheeling out antique furniture. Because there’s so little fun in the main story, the badinage between Bond and Q seems a bit forced and out-of-place (Q as a priest elicits an amusing exchange, though). The one nod to hi-tech is a laughable photo-fit sequence where Bond and Q burn the midnight oil using a computer with graphics worthy of the Hitch Hiker’s Guide to the Galaxy TV series to find their man.

As noted, the plot drifts along making little impression. Bond usually spends the early stages of a film chasing someone or something before he happens across the main villain, during which time he is aided and abetted by some regulation totty. That’s standard, and you can’t really pick holes in a tried-and-tested formula. But there’s such little interest in making FYEO’s variations stand out or seem purposeful that, in the absence of fun, the plot becomes incoherent. Bond takes in Spain, Italy, Corfu, Albania and Greece but the globetrotting fails to stand out. Each location is an excuse for a further less-than-clearly-motivated set piece as the bad guys attempt to do for 007.

Bond: I love a drive in the country. Don’t you…?

Nevertheless, as an editor and second unit director on Bond for more than a decade, first time helmer Glen has a good sense of what does and doesn’t work in terms of action sequences. He eschews the gadget overload of previous installments. Bond’s Lotus is blown up almost as soon as we set eyes on it, and as a mission statement you can’t get much clearer. The decision to fashion a car chase with the least fancy make imaginable, a 2 CV, is positively inspired. And setting it across sloping roads and hillside olive trees also makes it scenically distinct. The only downside is that dreadful Conti score.


The Alps scenes feature a succession of action set pieces that serve as a reminder of the far superior On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Bond fends of spikey-wheeled motorbikes across a series of locations; in the town, on skis, down a bobsleigh track, over a ski jump. Later he has a scrap in an ice hockey court, with a band of hockey-masked hoodlums, and it becomes clear there’s little rhyme or reason to where thugs will show up next.

Déjà vu also strikes during the salvage scenes, this time suggesting Thunderball on a budget. The submerged temple set looks like a rather pristine set in a water tank (although, it was built underwater in the Bahamas).


In contrast, the keelhauling sequence (inspired by a scene from the Live and Let Die novel) works extremely well, complete with sharks (cue the Jaws theme – so much for treating the film seriously) and flesh-tearing coral. It’s here, and during the climbing sequence where a lackey pulls out pitons as Bond desperately attempts to climb back to the summit, that Glen really comes into his own. There’s a glimpse of how good the film might have been if he had held such a sure command of tension (both in terms of editing and narrative) throughout.

Bond: Détente, comrade. You don’t have it; I don’t have it.

But the final standoff lacks bite; there’s no big showdown as Columbo kills Kristatos and Gogol sees the funny side of flying away empty-handed (nice to see the now regular cameo from Walter Gotell, though). And Columbo becoming a not-quite-as-old dirty old mentor to Bibi makes for a somewhat queasy celebratory moment.

John Glen’s promotion had precedence; Peter Hunt was allowed to helm OHMSS as his debut. But Hunt showed a crispy clarity and precision that Glen lacks. Eon was much more comfortable with a reliable journeyman, rather than having to deal with some upstart full of panache and vision. Surely this was the real reason Broccoli turned down Spielberg; this was the Bond film he was in the running for, when it was planned for production post-The Spy Who Loved Me).  Apparently Hunt was offered FYEO before Glen got the gig, but was unavailable (he was filming Death Hunt). Glen’s contribution is solid but the ‘80s Bonds rarely take-off, probably because he’s so safe and uninspired. His limited post-Bond credits only go to confirm his non-wunderkind status. It wouldn’t be until Brosnan arrived that a few chances were taken with the choice of director, and not until the most recent film that a bona fide prestige figure would be asked.


Although FYEO is cited as coming in much cheaper than Moonraker, the (not always reliable) Wikipedia puts its budget at only about $6m less. It proved a comparable hit with the non-Moonraker Moore films, suggesting that either this incarnation of Bond was a sure thing or that they were doing something right.

Certainly, the formula of Moore probably seemed unbroken to the less discerning eye. The film poster encouraged more than ever the idea of Bond as a fantasy surrogate for male viewers, belying his onscreen reserve. A woman clad in a buttocks-enhancing backwards bikini stands astride tiny Roger Moore, his weapon cocked. There was also a memorable Marvel comic adaptation, which made the film seem far more invigorating than it actually was, blessed with stylised framing and a youthful Bond.


It’s ironic that FYEO is such a washout, because it was commendably trying something different. Perhaps this was a case of the right attitude at the wrong time (i.e. the wrong Bond). Then again, a not dissimilar attempt to put the seriousness and edge back into the series saw the floundering of Licence to Kill. And on that occasion no one even bothered going to see it. It would take Daniel Craig and the Bourneisation of audiences to embrace a mean and moody 007. FYEO is afflicted by a slipshod quality, tarnished by uninspiring production choices (costumes, haircuts, music, lighting; you name it) and indistinct writing. It’s easily the weakest Bond film since You Only Live Twice, but unlike YOLT at least it wasn’t playing it all oh-so safe.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

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 is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.