What am I missing?

I want to be very careful not to turn this thread into a bitch and moan thread on my part, because I genuinely am trying to understand other Bond fans' points of view in regards to OHMSS and Lazenby, and I currently don't. I will explain my problems with both, but I'm really not trying to start an argument here. I want to lay out why neither OHMSS nor Lazenby have ever appealed to me, and hopefully the many fans of both on these boards can help explain what I'm missing. Or, at the very least, I can start to "get" the pro-OHMSS and pro-Lazenby point of view. I understand the views of the pro and anti Craig camps, even though I'm in the anti camp. I understand both Dalton lovers and Dalton haters (I'm somewhere in the middle on that one, as I am in the pro/anti Moore debate). Much as I like Brosnan, I can completely understand why some people loathe him and think him to be at best barely adequate. As boring as I find TB, I understand why some people love it, because I did myself when I was about 14 or so. But I do not understand the adulation Lazenby and his film receive here and on all Bond fan sites. It doesn't help that OHMSS is the only Fleming book (other than CR) that I don't enjoy reading, but that can't be the whole issue. Here are my problems with Lazenby and with OHMSS. I will use bullet points to try to be succient and to avoid my usual verbosity:

Lazenby

• He looks more like an Australian larrikan than a secret agent. Even in the gunbarrel he ambles about ridiculously. He looks overly large and harmless.

• The goofy grin he always seems to have doesn't make him look terribly dangerous. Even Rog could look properly pissed when needed. Lazenby can't really convince as a man in love either. He lacks depth as an actor.

• The lines he is given aren't great, but his delivery is so OTT ["He had lots of guts!!!"], as if he has to make smart-ass comments to show the audience he's as cool as Sean.

OHMSS (the movie, though many of the same problems exist in the book)

• The editing makes many of the fight scenes practically incomprehensible and silly. And why are those men trying to kill Bond in the PTS anyway?

• The movie can't seem to make up it's mind about Tracy. Is she tough and resourceful or insane? One moment, she's inviting Bond up to her room, the next moment she's threatening him with his own gun. The whole Bond/Tracy relationship ends up being foisted on us in a wordless montage, as if the filmmakers knew they couldn't convince us it happened - we are just told to accept it. The relationship just happens, which makes no sense. One moment Bond tells Tracy (after she threatens him) to put her clothes on and get out. The next moment he tells her, "you're the most extraordinary girl". :scratch:

• In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"? Is this meant to make me laugh, because it does. And why would Blofeld go to so much trouble just to get immunity and a pardon? If he has so many resources at his disposal, shouldn't he be shooting higher?

• Why, why oh why in the one movie where Bond is really supposed to fall for a girl do we have Lazenby grinning like a schoolboy over a Playboy centerfold and happily bedding the whole damn bevy of women at Piz Gloria ["you've no idea how the work is piling up!"]? Doesn't this take away from the impact of Tracy's death, later? What are the filmmakers trying to convey?

• The movie not only seems bent on deliberately sabotaging the Bond/Tracy love story, it seems bent on sabotaging Lazenby as well. Having George Baker dub Lazenby for a big chunk of the movie? Having Bond in a kilt? Who thought these were wise choices?

There's a short summary of my problems with Lazenby and OHMSS. I am interested to here why this film (and for many, this actor) are beloved by many of you on these boards, because I just don't get it.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"?

Who says OHMSS is "realistic"? It's fairly outrageous.

Paging Lazenby., come in Lazenby.

Harmsway wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"?

Who says OHMSS is "realistic"? It's fairly outrageous.

True, but its fans often trumpet its realism. I remember several reviewers when CR came out remarking that, "Bond rejoins the real world for the first time since OHMSS". And as outrageous as OHMSS is at points, I can't tell if this is deliberate or accidental by the filmmakers. In YOLT, Bond ridiculously had a pocket sized safe cracker in his suit. But YOLT was obviously and deliberately OTT. In OHMSS, Bond has a huge safe cracker that takes the better part of an hour to do its job. That sure seems more realistic. Also, I recall Peter Hunt in an interview saying that he wanted to get away from the gadgets. That strikes me as placing OHMSS in the tradition of "realistic" Bond films like FRWL and FYEO, but as you've said, it's also outlandish at times. Is this deliberate, or is it the result of severe tonal problems?

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"?

I always understood this being a part of a selective brainwashing procedure in order to unknowingly participate in some serious biological warfare on behalve of SPECTRE, and in those days those recording tapes were considered very modern, perhaps a strange idea for folks from the digital era.

saint mark wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"?

I always understood this being a part of a selective brainwashing procedure in order to unknowingly participate in some serious biological warfare on behalve of SPECTRE, and in those days those recording tapes were considered very modern, perhaps a strange idea for folks from the digital era.

Right, but my problem with the brainwashing scenes doesn't have to do with the technology (which, as you mention, was cutting edge in 1969 - 14 years before CDs would even be invented), it has to do with the tone of the scene. The weird flashing lights and Savalas' voice going on about loving the flesh of chickens strikes me as absurd, and unintentionally humorous. That's my issue. I wonder if the brainwashing scenes were meant to be funny, or if they were meant to be menacing and I just am missing something.

Perhaps I need to qualify the underlying problem behind all of my complaints about OHMSS (though not necessarily those about Lazenby). About ten years ago, John Cox over at CBn did a nice series on the subtext of several of the Bond films. I am confused about the subtext of OHMSS as I am about no other movie. What's the underlying point? I'm not a huge fan of LTK, but that deep sigh Dalton gives after killing Sanchez tells me everything I need to know about the film's subtext about doing your duty to your friends no matter the cost, and that that cost might indeed be very high. I'm also not a huge fan of TSWLM, but I can enjoy it on its own merits as a movie whose subtext is pretty blatant - "nobody does it better". Whether it's saving the world or "keeping the British end up", Bond is a trickster demigod, and we, the viewers, are simultaneously his worshippers and his fellow revelers.

I don't get what the point of OHMSS is at all. What's the subtext?

I've never heard anybody claim OHMSS is realistic; I've heard people claim--and rightly so--that OHMSS is quite faithful to Fleming's novel.

As to the hypnosis sequence, it is not meant to be humorous. It is meant to be menacing in a benignly bizarre sort of a way. And if you've bought into the film up to that point, you buy into the hypnosis sequence. Personally, it may be my favorite sequence in all of Bond.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

In such a supposedly realistic Bond film, what's with Telly Savalas recording tapes talking about loving "the flesh of chickens"?

Who says OHMSS is "realistic"? It's fairly outrageous.

True, but its fans often trumpet its realism.

Judge the movie as the movie. Don't judge the movie other people claim it is.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

That strikes me as placing OHMSS in the tradition of "realistic" Bond films like FRWL and FYEO, but as you've said, it's also outlandish at times. Is this deliberate, or is it the result of severe tonal problems?

I'm not going to argue issues of "tonal" consistency with a fella who counts FOR YOUR EYES ONLY as comparatively "realistic" when weighed against ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Harmsway wrote:

I'm not going to argue issues of "tonal" consistency with a fella who counts FOR YOUR EYES ONLY as comparatively "realistic" when weighed against ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE.

Hmm, let's see, FYEO involves Bond for the one and only time spending an entire movie fighting the Sovets and their agents. The Soviets are an actual, real life enemy of Britain and of Fleming's Bond. The plot in FYEO involves retrieving a cipher machine (a very realistic plot - if you don't believe me, look up "Enigma machine").

OHMSS has Bond indirectly taking orders from the United Nations (as if the UN made government policy for MI6) and fighting a fictional crime syndicate whose plan is to brainwash a hoard of hopelessly attractive women into inadvertantly sterilizing entire species of plants and animals throughout the entire world.

Yeah, my mistake, OHMSS is clearly miles more realistic than FYEO :roll:

On a conceptual level, the plot of FOR YOUR EYES ONLY is more realistic. Nevertheless, FOR YOUR EYES ONLY isn't really any more grounded than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, despite having a more realistic hook; the film is full of silliness.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

There's a short summary of my problems with Lazenby and OHMSS. I am interested to here why this film (and for many, this actor) are beloved by many of you on these boards, because I just don't get it.

I don't see any particular appeal in Lazenby, either. I find him to be weak and insipid, and his sheer inability to act just drags everyone else's performances down around him. He's really a bit of a dandy, which I find to be the antithesis of Bond.

Maybe Lazenby was hurt by the way the core conept of OHMSS - Bond willing to settle down with Tracy - demanded Sean Connery (or at least an actor established in the role; I might be warmer to Lazenby if he had been in YOLT). But every time I see the film, I still think of him as a frilly ponce who only succeeds thanks to the hubris of Blofeld (if Blofeld hadn't demanded recognition as a count, Bond never would have gotten close to him).

[quote="right idea, wrong pussy"]
Lazenby

• The lines he is given aren't great, but his delivery is so OTT ["He had lots of guts!!!"], as if he has to make smart-ass comments to show the audience he's as cool as Sean.

*1

[list][*]The movie can't seem to make up it's mind about Tracy. Is she tough and resourceful or insane? *2[

• Why, why oh why in the one movie where Bond is really supposed to fall for a girl do we have Lazenby...happily bedding the whole damn bevy of women at Piz Gloria ["you've no idea how the work is piling up!"]? Doesn't this take away from the impact of Tracy's death, later? What are the filmmakers trying to convey?

*3
quote]

*1: As you point out, George was given the lines. He didn't write them himself, and he didn't direct the movie. If you don't like George, blame Peter Hunt and Cubby B.

*2: Tracy was depressed. When she wasn't depressed, she was as tough and resourceful as Bond (what else do you do with Diana Rigg, fresh off The Avengers?). That's what he loved about her.

*3: Why does Bond sleep with every girl in sight? Because he's Bond. He didn't fall in love with Tracy until after she rescued him. The filmmakers were trying to convey the same character that appeared in the novel.

One thing that sets OHMSS apart from most of the other films is that it actually tells a story - it isn't just another action-packed episode in the amazing exploits of 007 (only LTK and CR also fit this category).

What also makes OHMSS special to me is that it's George's only entry. I can identify with him more than the others because I can imagine getting the shot and then losing it for whatever reason.

I'm not trying to change your mind, RIWP, and I can't address all your questions, because I don't have the same problems with the film. I'd just rather like it than not. There's room in my heart for more than one interpretation of the character, even one barely better than I could deliver myself. It's done and can't be changed, and I for one wouldn't change a frame of it.

To those points that haven't already been specifically referenced...

Lazenby

• He looks more like an Australian larrikan than a secret agent. Even in the gunbarrel he ambles about ridiculously. He looks overly large and harmless.

I can't sympathise with you here Lazenby moves well and has Connery's cat like grace imo, he is always at his most convicing in the action and has a wicked (if overused) uppercut.

• The goofy grin he always seems to have doesn't make him look terribly dangerous. Even Rog could look properly pissed when needed. Lazenby can't really convince as a man in love either. He lacks depth as an actor.

I think his rookie acting nature shows but in the key scene's he hits the mark for me at least. Regardless, for those 'in love' scenes Rigg is always on hand and sells more than enough for the both of them imo... its far more than we get at any other time in the series and streets ahead of the convese scenario of Casino Royale where Craig hits the required note but the wooden and vacant Eva Green fails to convey anything...at least imho ^^.

• The lines he is given aren't great, but his delivery is so OTT ["He had lots of guts!!!"], as if he has to make smart-ass comments to show the audience he's as cool as Sean.

I'm mostly with you on this, these are Connery lines that no one other than Connery could make work, fortunately the nature of the humour was later better adapted to the incumbent actor. It's also a niggling issue that so many are clearly added post production with no lip sych at all. I think the nature of the ending spooked the production team and led to some hasty overcompensation.

OHMSS (the movie, though many of the same problems exist in the book)

• The editing makes many of the fight scenes practically incomprehensible and silly. And why are those men trying to kill Bond in the PTS anyway?

I don't have a problem with the editing it suits the intense and personal nature of these conflicts and is varied and seperated enough to keep me engaged. The men are Draco's and watching Tracy trying to keep her from yet another damaging relationship with some rich schmo, given their background murder is probably just a routine soulition but in fact we'll never know if they intended to kill him or just teach him a lesson to stay the hell away....he got to the punch first and later battered another thug before he got to sleep with Tracy. Once Draco found out he wasnt just some playboy waster hitting on his girl he decided this 'real man' might be just what Tracy needed and he was really proven right!

Everything else is covered much more concisely and efficiently than I ever could by others above.

But, whether you agree with any of this or not, it has to be remembered the Bond series is diverse like no other, its hardly surprising some folks enjoy one film but don't really rate another particularly where another actor is front and centre.

Even if these were universal faults with the film OHMSS has many other redeeming charms, its beautifully balanced, paced and structured. The plot gives rise to the action, the action stays at a scale that is relevent to that plot and yet is still personal enough to engage the audience (soemthing increasingly rare from here on out). Some of the elements might be considered below par (ie Lazenby for some), but the whole in this case is so much greater than the sum of its parts imo and thats why OHMSS is my favourite Bond even though it does not actually feature my favourite Bond!

Harmsway wrote:

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY isn't really any more grounded than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, despite having a more realistic hook; the film is full of silliness.

Bloody nonsense. I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY isn't really any more grounded than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, despite having a more realistic hook; the film is full of silliness.

Bloody nonsense. I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

FYEO may be more plausible in terms of basic premise, but the story structure and action is actually imo far less plausible and/or grounded.

lachesis wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY isn't really any more grounded than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, despite having a more realistic hook; the film is full of silliness.

Bloody nonsense. I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

FYEO may be more plausible in terms of basic premise, but the story structure and action is actually imo far less plausible and/or grounded.

Really? You have two ski chase scenes, of which, FYEO's strikes me as more down to earth. You have the assault on Piz Gloria and the battle between Kristatos' and Colombo's men, the latter of which seems more likely to me. You have Bond scaling a cliff in FYEO versus getting stuck in a Swiss stock car race in OHMSS--no contest there. And there is Bond fighting the beach thugs in OHMSS versus Locque mowing down Lisl in FYEO...a push. The only action sequences in FYEO that are a bit silly are Bond taking out the hockey goons on the ice rink and the PTS.

Plausible Schmausible - they're both Bond movies.

If I wanted plausible I'd stick to The Third Man, The Spy Who Cam In From the Cold, The Ipcress File and Funeral in Berlin.

B & S set out to prove that Bond was bigger than Connery, and as far as I'm concerned they proved their point. A ringmaster alone does not a circus make.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

lachesis wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

FOR YOUR EYES ONLY isn't really any more grounded than ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, despite having a more realistic hook; the film is full of silliness.

Bloody nonsense. I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

FYEO may be more plausible in terms of basic premise, but the story structure and action is actually imo far less plausible and/or grounded.

Really? You have two ski chase scenes, of which, FYEO's strikes me as more down to earth. You have the assault on Piz Gloria and the battle between Kristatos' and Colombo's men, the latter of which seems more likely to me. You have Bond scaling a cliff in FYEO versus getting stuck in a Swiss stock car race in OHMSS--no contest there. And there is Bond fighting the beach thugs in OHMSS versus Locque mowing down Lisl in FYEO...a push. The only action sequences in FYEO that are a bit silly are Bond taking out the hockey goons on the ice rink and the PTS.

I'll grant the stock car chase is more than faintly ludicrous (so set that against the ice hockey scene) but FYEO ski chase is anything but down to earth! In one extended and OTT sequence we cram a ski jump, a bobsleigh run, a triathlon event, motor cycle chase.. The assault on Piz Gloria is really the clmax of the plot and as such warrants imo a bit more time but is no more ott than the pirate gun battle with with Kristatos' men wedged into the middle of FYEO and although it leads to a great moment Locques presence and death is overtly contrived and more than faintly ridiculous likewise I find the underwater footage arbitrary in the sudden need for more action.

But it's all relative of course, in neither case do we actually have genuinely plausible or grounded action, but then why should we? For myself it is more important how it all slots together whether I 'buy' it or not and thats where OHMSS scores imo. The manner in which the various action set pieces are integrated and the scale of the action as a proportion of the immediacy of the threat that is very different between the films imo, OHMSS has a pretty coherent journey that gives rise to certain types of action sequences which therefore feel pretty fluid and appropriate whereas FYEO feels like a series of arbitrary action set pieces have been tossed together and somehow the plot has to desperately weave its way to encompass them all.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

There's a short summary of my problems with Lazenby and OHMSS. I am interested to here why this film (and for many, this actor) are beloved by many of you on these boards, because I just don't get it.

I don't see any particular appeal in Lazenby, either. I find him to be weak and insipid, and his sheer inability to act just drags everyone else's performances down around him. He's really a bit of a dandy, which I find to be the antithesis of Bond.

Maybe Lazenby was hurt by the way the core conept of OHMSS - Bond willing to settle down with Tracy - demanded Sean Connery (or at least an actor established in the role; I might be warmer to Lazenby if he had been in YOLT). But every time I see the film, I still think of him as a frilly ponce who only succeeds thanks to the hubris of Blofeld (if Blofeld hadn't demanded recognition as a count, Bond never would have gotten close to him).

Dandy & frilly ponce?

Bloody firm handshake to boot.

Lazenby broke a stuntman's nose during fight training for OHMSS. That doesn't sound much like a frilly ponce to me.

Hilly wrote:

Bloody firm handshake to boot.

"If that's what one does with a handshake..."

But seriously, PM, everyone - Roger Moore included (see 'Crosspolt') - was wearing ruffled evening shirts in 1969. And when Sir Sean Connery wears a pleated dublet with his kilt, who calls him a 'frilly ponce'?

Get with the times - in this case, the late 1960s - and stop imposing 21st C sensibilities on such an insensible time.

Lazenby is quite cheeky and youthful. He seems like a breezy playboy. I think it's fair to say he's the most dandy Bond apart from Brosnan and Moore.