Why Connery could never have done OHMSS

Spare us. I'm as big a Bond fan as the rest of you but On Her Majesty's Secret Service is not Shakespeare. It's a standard Bond caper with a bit of emotional weight at the end. Audiences would have lapped it up in the 60s whether the role was played by Connery, Lazenby or a broomstick.

And I suspect the broomstick would've been better than Lazenby.

Lazenby. wrote:

A smugness had set in arguably even before his ultimate smug-Bond performance in GF. Even by the end of FRWL he was comfortable and too assured in the role. Lazenby brought a rawness, a vulnerability, and importantly a non-smug demeanour which endeared us to Bond and his romance in the film.

You give Peter Hunt and John Glenn too much credit. I don't know what film you watched but to say Lazenby was anything short of smug, on screen and off, is ridiculous. His mugging to the camera throughout the film is utterly cringe inducing and the trend for hardcore Bond fans to somehow interpret his performance as anything more than a string of brain-dead line readings is beguiling to say the least. As for 'non-smug', might I suggest the words unpretentious, unassuming, modest... none of which come to mind as character traits of James Bond. First time I've seen Connery's undisputed ease, self-assurance and confidence in the role described as 'smug', too.

In any event, were I to accept your interpretation (I don't), I think an argument could be made that to see Connery's Bond off-ease, emotionally hurt, after four or five films of him being unflappable would have had far more emotional impact to an audience than seeing an ad man's mannequin break down after a long day's shoot. Seeing a stranger breakdown means nothing, seeing the person you know to be strong and unshakeable break down is certainly more impactful, in life and in drama.

I get where you're coming from Vesper, but Connery had five films to make us care for him, the fifth of which proved that not only did we not care for him in an emotional and identifiable way as Bond, but he also clearly didn't care for us either by this point. His was, like you said, an unflappable Bond, a superman with self assurance so sky-high it made him completely aloof. Look at other heroes whose scripts have demanded attempts at proper relationships, there is always something there in the character to make the possibility of a relationship and vulnerability believable; With Batman, he's at heart an emo outsider gutted at having lost his parents, with Superman we all know he has a strong sense of purpose to care for and protect people and also has the desire to fit in and live normally as a decent yet fallible human whenever the cape isn't on. There are probably loads more examples, but my point is that Connery's Bond as a character just never gave us a way in. It would have felt completely out of character for him to go where Lazenby's Bond went, it would have just felt like the latest notch on the bedpost. Lazenby's youthful impatience, vulnerability and relatable humanity are all established very quickly in OHMSS, which allows for the possibility of Bond falling in love in a believable way.

Swings and roundabouts perhaps but I think Connery would have been as good as Lazenby in the film but for different reasons. The audience would certainly have invested more in the climactic moment because of the history they shared with the Connery Bond.

I'm not at all sure I see this smug Bond in Connery's performance, it seems trendy to criticise the likes of GF but for me GF and TB are Connery at his absolute best and DAF is probably the very next rung below them.....he had all he needed to make OHMSS work and work well. But Lazenby did make the film and I think does hit all the key spots well, has tremendous support in cast and crew and brings a renewed and refreshed energy to the role.

That said the value of discussing a film that never came to be is rather limited, OHMSS is my favourite Bond for all sorts of reasons it doesn't need excusing or bigging up imo.

Though I disagree with you, Vesper, your post was enjoyable to read. :D

In what sense?

lachesis wrote:

[T]he value of discussing a film that never came to be is rather limited.

Agreed completely. See exhibit b: "Lazenby in Diamonds Are Forever"

Lazenby. wrote:

Connery had five films to make us care for him, the fifth of which proved that not only did we not care for him in an emotional and identifiable way as Bond, but he also clearly didn't care for us either by this point. His was, like you said, an unflappable Bond, a superman with self assurance so sky-high it made him completely aloof... my point is that Connery's Bond as a character just never gave us a way in. It would have felt completely out of character for him to go where Lazenby's Bond went, it would have just felt like the latest notch on the bedpost. Lazenby's youthful impatience, vulnerability and relatable humanity are all established very quickly in OHMSS, which allows for the possibility of Bond falling in love in a believable way.

Connery had five films to play a smooth talking, epicurean assassin. He did so brilliantly. It wasn't the job for the previous films to establish the drama of On Her Majesty's Secret Service. That was neither the intent of the producers or the actors and to somehow blame them for that is facile. They were making standalone adventures.

As both the producers, writers, and (at least in your point of view) Lazenby managed to create and establish all the necessary situations for the drama to be believable to you in one film, it's a bit of a disservice to Connery's ability as an actor to argue that the same team with the addition of him would not have. Especially given the script does not in anyway aim for a 'reboot' but rather insists upon it being the same character, with the same experience, at the same point in life. Which again, makes your 'youthful impatience' comment yet more evidence of Lazenby's poor acting skills.

Retrokitty wrote:

and I simply cannot see Tracy falling for old Connery. He'd have been Draco's peer, not his son-in-law

Another very valid point. The Draco/Lazenby relationship is perfect, indeed it's one of the film's most oft-overlooked charms. That relationship wouldn't have had much of a "father-in-law" vibe at all with Connery.

Reminds me a little of how CR would've likely struggled with Brozza in it ... when the lead actor has played Bond as the seasoned veteran agent for the last 4 films, would've been tricky for us to then accept him as a 'learning-the-ropes' rookie one in the next.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Reminds me a little of how CR would've likely struggled with Brozza in it ... when the lead actor has played Bond as the seasoned veteran agent for the last 4 films, would've been tricky for us to then accept him as a 'learning-the-ropes' rookie one in the next.

I'm not so sure, the conceit of the film-makers is in pitching Casino Royale as Bond's beginning but Fleming wrote Royale clearly painting Bond as an experienced 00 I seem to recall he was even contemplating hanging up his gun before Vesper arrives on the scene. Lose that, imo rather stupid, alteration of the novel and cast a more mature female in the lead and I think Brosnan's history with the character could have been made a positive...probably the same is true of Connery for OHMSS, indeed the title credits do really drive that aspect.

There´s a scene in DAF with Connery and Tyffany discussing where Bond has hidden the diamonds, which by itself is already proof that Connery would have been a good choice for OHMSS. Not that Lazenby wasn´t. But Connery is so different from his previous offerings, and replaces the boredom he displayed in YOLT with a calm naturality that would have been ideal for OHMSS. I´m sure Connery would have been happy to do something new with the character.

boldfinger wrote:

There´s a scene in DAF with Connery and Tyffany discussing where Bond has hidden the diamonds, which by itself is already proof that Connery would have been a good choice for OHMSS. Not that Lazenby wasn´t. But Connery is so different from his previous offerings, and replaces the boredom he displayed in YOLT with a calm naturality that would have been ideal for OHMSS. I´m sure Connery would have been happy to do something new with the character.

This.

This was going to be my next what if post.

After much thought it would have been possible had Connery been invested in the role and had worked with Peter Hunt well as a director. But those are real unknowns. For some reason I can't picture a Connery OHMSS in my mind. The only real way I could see it being done would be as the follow up to GF as originally intended-and they likely would have made great concessions in adapting the novel.

In many ways the film we received is honestly something to be cherished. It only gets better with each successive viewing and with age. Hunt proves just how well he understood the character by making Laz work in every single shot-and I mean that. Nowadays I find myself marveling at how well Bond is Bond in the film and afterwards at how I never once thought about George's inexperience.

If Sean could have channeled his angst into the role for this last go round and gotten on well with Peter Hunt in the director's chair, it likely would have worked but I do think the overall film wouldn't have the same fragile and honest quality to it that slots in well with the other darker leaning films of 1969. OHMSS as released really belongs with the rest of the films from that year that get over-analyzed as American New Wave etc.
In many ways the new qualities of the very green George work for this straighter adaptation. it is only in the deeper nuances that one wishes to see what Connery would have done with it-particularly in Bond's malaise with both his job and himself uselessly chasing Blofeld around to no avail. Imagine DN/FRWL era Connery doing those scenes and first encountering Tracy--that is the only thing I could see being better done--but of course that character really didn't exist in the late 60's.
DAF's comedic tone lights up Sean's performance to make it far more energized than YOLT but I don't quite know if OHMSS and its darker tale would have energized him in a similar manner.

The reason why Connery grew bored with the role was because of the growing dependence on gadgets and the campy take on the character started with YOLT (as well as the Jap paparazzi stalking him). I have no doubt Connery would have enjoyed OHMSS with its strong return to the source material, a director more interested in character than spectacle and an excellent supporting cast. 

Not to mention, had Connery known about the Angels of Death, I highly doubt he'd give up the opportunity to be locked away on a mountain with a bevy of beautiful women.

Arguably, the campy/jokey take on the character probably started even earlier than YOLT ... Guy Hamilton said that he saw Bond as a 'kind of joke Superman', and one thinks of the likes of the seagull-disguise headgear at the start of GF.

Hey, don't have a go at seagulls. They're always there when the chips are down.

Although I grew up in the Moore era and was most influenced by his style, Lazenby is the Bond I identify with the most personally.

I could see myself getting a shot like that, putting my (admittedly limited) all into it and then being ravaged by the critics for the heinous crime of not being somebody else.

Face it: it wouldn't matter who played Bond in '69 - Richard Johnson, Hans deVries, Timothy Dalton, Roger Moore, Laurence Olivier - none of them were the 'real' James Bond and they would have been panned just as badly.

I enjoy Laz's freshness, especially when he's sauntering into the casino or down the halls of the clinic between the girls' rooms. Here's a guy enjoying what he's doing - both as a character and as an actor. Those who see Connery as unengaged in DAF aren't watching closely; Connery is more interested in and amused by what's going on around him than he was in either TB or YOLT (being paid $1.25 m for 8 weeks work probably contributed greatly to that).

I save OHMSS for December, when I lay on the champagne, caviar, foie gras etc, and make an evening of it. It is the only film in the canon that - IMCO - deserves that kind of treatment.

It's an annual near-Christmas watch for me too, due to being the superior Bond film set during the festive season (sorry FM, I'm sure that's TWINE in your opinion. You loon ) .

Love it AMC. Though I'd say that Connery is more interested in TB (who epitomises 'cool') than DAF. Perhaps I see more focus in the performance. But I've never seen a bored Connery in DAF, simply because of a very visible amused lead actor. 
Ha, BI, it's actually OHMSS for me too. Just. 

Actually I can see fatigue even in TB. Connery to my eyes lights up in specific moments but this may be more in line with the "and the kitchen sink" mentality of the film and its various overdone qualities that drag down the pacing.

What drags down the pacing for TB is the underwater scenes at the beginning. But even then, if the viewer watches closely, it's a marvel to watch. 

Everything else moves breezily.

Still, there was a greater emphasis on gadgets in TB, so again, had the character focused screenplay of OHMSS fell on Connery's lap, with the knowledge that they'd approach the Ferzetti's, the Rigg's and the Savalas', I'm sure Connery would have upped his game.

All that bothers me in TB is that it doesn't feel like they were able to get the pacing right. Well...that and the one shot of the Vulcan model sinking where it's obviously a model for a brief moment.

If they hadn't rushed it so hard to have a good date I think Peter Hunt would have gotten it down to two hours. Plus he admits in the commentary they made him keep the underwater battle much longer than he originally cut it.

I think Connery could be a more emotional and flawed Bond, if directed that way.  I mean if you watch Connery in other non-Bond movies, he has played the emotional flawed hero.  Just look at Robin and Marian for example.

However, Connery was angry and tired while doing YOLT, so even if he did agree to do OHMSS, it would have been too risk, and he most likely would have brought that to his performance and upped it at the time. Lazenby is okay, but he is still the least best Bone actor and not as good as the others. He is a lot better than a tired ticked off Connery though, coming off of YOLT though.

Connery is a good actor and might have been able to play Bond flawed. He played Robin Hood flawed and vulnerable in Robin and Marian, so I think he could have pulled it off with Bond.

However, Connery gave a very tired and angry performance in YOLT, and lost the passion for Bond, so if he had brought that into OHMSS it would have ruined it, and it would have been too big of a risk on the filmmakers to try to bring him back therefore.

Wouldn't it have been easier to quote your previous post above your new one?

ironpony wrote:

Connery is a good actor and might have been able to play Bond flawed...

However, Connery gave a very tired and angry performance in YOLT, and lost the passion for Bond, so if he had brought that into OHMSS it would have ruined it, and it would have been too big of a risk on the filmmakers to try to bring him back therefore.

Connery grew tired of the role because YOLT focused too heavily on gadgetry and less on story and character. Plus the Japanese paparazzi gave him hell during the shoot. 

Connery would have worked tremendously well with the final script and cast of OHMSS. With something different for him to do with a Bond girl (genuinely fall in love), be isolated at Piz Gloria (which would have restricted paparazzi) with a gallery of women, work with stronger material for his character than YOLT and work with a cast of excellent actors (Rigg, Ferzetti, Savalas, particularly) - I'm sure his passion would have reignited.

I don't know, it could have for sure, but it still seems like a risk to me. When an actor becomes difficult to work with, and turns in a not so good performance, and then quits, is it worth risking hiring him back for another movie, hoping he will like it and do good...