Good taste hasn't totally vanished from the landscape even in the era of
Paris Hilton and Simon Cowell. On May 12, Cinema Retro was invited to attend
the Film Forum's New York screenings of the 1969 James Bond film On Her Majesty's
Secret Service. The fact that there were impressive lines of ticket buyers
should not surprise true 007 fans. They have known since the film's original
release that this is one of, if not arguably, the best in the series. The superb
35mm print (the best this writer has seen) added to the afternoon's pleasures
as an appreciative audience enjoyed the many pleasures of George Lazenby's one
and only appearance as James Bond. At the end of the film, the audience applauded.
When was the last time you saw a contemporary film that elicited such
emotion from the audience?
I
address these issues only because of the fact that for many years OHMSS was
the Rodney Dangerfield of spy movies. It got no respect, at least from the lifted
pinky types in the critical establishment. A number of wild rumors entered popular
folklore, the most notorious being that Lazenby- an Australian model with no
previous acting experience- had proven to be such a poor successor to Sean Connery
that he was fired after his only Bond film. In fact, producers Cubby Broccoli
and Harry Saltzman did indeed have personality clashes with their often brash
young star, but in the end they tried to persuade him to sign a multi-picture
deal. Lazenby, who erroneously believed Bond was a relic of the sixties whose
popularity was waning, opted to leave the series instead. This may make him
guilty of having shown poor business judgment, but the fact is he did indeed
click with the public. That brings us to dispelling myth #2: that OHMSS was
a box-office failure. The truth is that the film was a substantial financial
success, particularly in Europe. However, the difficulty of marketing a one-shot
Bond did take a toll on the grosses and the film did not perform as well as
the Connery entries in the series.
Most
of those who dismiss the film haven't actually seen it, at least in recent years.
In watching it again on the big screen with the ideal audience, the movie's
many strengths only become more apparent: Lazenby's young, energetic portrayal
of Bond, the stunning cinematography, the outstanding supporting cast, the literate
and intelligent script, Syd Cain's creative production design and John Barry's
score, undoubtedly the best of the series. In recent years, public opinion about
OHMSS has largely been reversed, probably due to a generation of people
seeing it for the first time through home video. Most movie fans now agree it
is a film with considerable merits, but the familiar refrain is "it could
have been a classic if only Connery had starred in it." I humbly disagree.
What makes OHMSS so unique is the fact that it is an oddball entry
in the series and there is no doubt that it's merits are largely due to Connery's
absence. By the time Connery had starred in You Only Live Twice two
years previously, the series had basically discarded virtually all elements
of realism and any major link to Ian Fleming's source novels. Although there
is no greater fan of Thunderball and You Only Live Twice than
yours truly, I make the arguement that had Connery starred in OHMSS (as
was originally intended when the film was to follow Thunderball), all
of the elements that fans praise about the movie would probably not have come
to fruition. Chances are that the producers would have kept a good formula going
and, in the style of Twice, would have dispensed with many of the realistic
and somber elements of the novel. It would have been too jolting for audiences
to be asked to accept the jokey, cynical Bond of the previous two films as a
sensitive and vulnerable soul. Instead, the title and probably only a few other
elements would have been retained. This is all theorizing, of course, but it
would seem unlikely that Broccoli and Saltzman would have had the incentive
to toy with a formula that was still paying huge dividends at the box-office.
It's often been said that the era of slapstick and broad comedy in the Bond
films began with Roger Moore's debut in the role in 1973. However, any objective
assessment of the franchise clearly proves that these traits began with Connery's
last Bond film for Eon Productions, Diamonds Are Forever (1971). Connery
was lured back into the role after Lazenby's departure, thus giving both men
the unique pop culture status of having succeeded each other in the role of
Bond. Immediately, the formula reverted to what had been expected of a Connery
Bond epic- only this time the humor was even more outrageous, with many of the
key roles miscast and a script that more holes than a Swiss cheese. The real
parlor game debate is not how good OHMSS would have been had Connery
starred in it, but how good Diamonds Are Forever would have been if Lazenby
had starred in it.
There's no reason to pity or pass a tin cup for George Lazenby. He's not only
lived to see his one Bond film rise in stature in the fan community, but also
among the more insightful critics. Additionally, although he still dabbles in
acting, his wise business investments have made him a very rich man whose lifestyle
would be the envy of Mr. Bond himself. However, his dubious decision to quit
the role of a lifetime has left Bond fans with an eternal debate: how would
the series have evolved had Lazenby stayed aboard for even one more film. It's
a mystery no one can ever answer, but chances are it will be debated in pubs
among 007 aficionados for decades to come. -Lee Pfeiffer
LEE PFEIFFER'S LIST OF THINGS THAT ANNOY HIM ABOUT OHMSS
No movie is perfect, not even OHMSS. Here are a few pet peeves about the film:
- Bond poses as Sir Hilary Bray of the College of Arms in order to deceive Blofeld. While altering his appearance to resemble a dowdy, bookish scholar might have made sense, why was it necessary for Bond to imitate the voice or the real Sir Hilary when Blofeld never met or spoke to the man?
- Blofeld makes a major issue of the fact that he- like his ancestors- does not have earlobes and that this trait is evidence of his claim to a royal title. Yet, there is no attempt to give Telly Savalas (who plays the SPECTRE chieftain) this physical trait. His ears are quite normal, thus rendering his reference to the lack of earlobes meaningless. (Couldn't the script have indicated the Blofelds have a not very visible unique trait- (i.e webbed toes!)
- Am I the only one who notices that when Blofeld becomes virtually impaled on a tree branch after being tossed from the bobsled, the far shot shows him suspended by his midsection while the following closeup shows him with the branch around his neck?
- Bond is exposed as a spy when Blofeld confronts him with the fact that he could not be from the College of Arms because he mistakenly gave the wrong location for the Blofeld ancestral tombs. In fact, Bond got the information from the College of Arms itself, meaning that had a real representative shown up he,too would have been targeted for death as an infiltrator.
- Lastly, I always thought the least observant person in the world was Lois Lane. Despite being an ace reporter, she can never quite prove her suspicion that Clark Kent is Superman because- wait for it!- he's wearing a pair of eyeglasses! Compared to Blofeld, however, Lois Lane is a virtual Sherlock Holmes. The criminal mastermind of SPECTRE does not recognize Bond despite having come face-to-face with him in the previous film because- yes, you guessed it- he's wearing eyeglasses! The message is clear for deceivers ranging from MI6 agents to cheating spouses- if you don't want to be recognized by even the most perceptive people in society, invest in a pair of eyeglasses- and for added security, make sure they have a Groucho nose attached.
ORDER OHMSS
DOUBLE DISC DVD SPECIAL EDITION DVD FROM AMAZON!
PHOTO HIGHLIGHTS FROM CINEMA RETRO'S ARCHIVES