 |
One of the purposes of "Her Majesty's Secret Servant" is to make both the casual and fanatical fans consider their feelings about the cold secret agent with the "cruel mouth." When looking at the series of films produced by Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and EON Productions, few people fail to be opinionated.There are two very distinct periods in the EON series which are the pervading viewpoints regarding James Bond. Sean Connery's five consecutive films that defined the characterization, plus two more appearances later on, set the performance standard and Roger Moore's seven consecutive appearances expanded the success past what anyone would have thought possible. However, most fans are quite quick to name one of those principals as clearly ahead of the other.
To that suggestion I present my first article for HMSS with a provocative theorem: with but one outstanding exception, the reigns of Roger Moore and Sean Connery were very similar, both in style and direction. That one exception is that Sean Connery declined in the role over time where Roger Moore greatly improved.To prove this assertion I will compare the lead actors' films one at a time. In trying to be accurate, there is but one difficulty, namely that Sean Connery did seven films in three increments. The sixth Bond film starring George Lazenby, "On Her Majesty 's Secret Service," is bordered by Connery films, and the non-EON production of "Never Say Never Again" came along after a twelve year absence. I have decided to compare Connery and Moore on a strict mano a mano basis, though fair parallels could be done with the first seven EON films versus the next. And so, let's take a look.
DR. NO (1962) / LIVE AND LET DIE (1973)
Trying to find similarities can seem trite, but I do find a common parallel to the fact neither Moore or Connery are in the opening scenes of their initial takes as Bond. EON worried about American audiences accepting the Scottish Connery when making "Dr. No" and were very wary after the initial reaction to George Lazenby was less than they had hoped. So as a result events occur before Moore is first seen.
One obvious link is that these are the only two films that give us a view of Bond's home. From Connery checking his mail chute before he "checks out" Sylvia Trench to Moore entertaining Miss Caruso after a mission was completed, we are introduced to Bond, in the actor's persona, as someone who is immediately attractive. The actor is, from the beginning, showing us he "is" Bond, on and off of assignments.
He is also serious. "Dr. No" is dead-serious throughout. While a few negative points can be made about "Live And Let Die," it is fair to say Moore is quite straight-ahead as Bond. Both actors seem to be feeling their way in the respective films; not quite certain how to approach the Ian Fleming creation. Part of this is the newness to the role, but also the fact that Bond spends much of his time out of the formal wear that often typifies the suave killer. Moore never dons a tuxedo in "Live And Let Die" and Connery spends much time in "Dr. No" without shoes.
It always seemed to me that Moore was given a script which was written to emulate the first film. Discarding excellent parts of the novel, EON created the San Monique Island, resembling Jamaica. Both had a character named Quarrel (though explaining Quarrel, Jr. is utterly impossible.) Even the other characters are similar. Solitaire and Honey Rider are both very naive in many facets of life, yet experts in certain areas. Both fend for themselves. Felix Leiter, portrayed by the two best choices for the role in Jack Lord and David Hedison respectively, are seen early and often yet do not enter into the final scenes. Miss Taro and Rosie Carver both are turncoats employed by the government, but working for the villain. And both henchmen employ an animal to kill Bond.All these similarities are striking and create a poor man's image of Moore hawking Connery's role in second-rate ways. It would continue.
FROM RUSSIA, WITH LOVE (1963) / THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN (1974)
It sounds blasphemous to compare the best story of the series with the least successful one. But again, I can draw a distinction where EON attempted to give Roger Moore a rehash of Connery's second attempt. One large difference, though, is that Connery settled into the character and Moore goes through scene after scene with no personality at all. But he is given similar direction.
The wax dummy likeness seen losing its fingers to Scaramanga's bullets in the teaser sequence is reminiscent of the SPECTRE member dressed as Bond who is killed by Red Grant. After all his personal struggles, Bond ends up looking for an inanimate object (the Spektor decoder/the Solex Agitator) and has to drag a woman with him for a climactic battle on a boat.In both cases he is lucky to remain alive, as both main villains, Red Grant and Francisco Scaramanga, have their weapons on him at point blank range while he is defenseless. The downfall of the assassins is a character flaw: in one case greed, and the other ego. Both films manage to have Bond insult the culinary habits of the villain over dinner as well.And neither killer is the original force behind the plot either. In both stories, the person who planned the caper (Kronsteen and Hi Fat) are eliminated. Both films also feature women who use a clever tactic (a golden bullet and a decoding machine) to lure Bond into what M thinks is a trap. M also phones Bond in strange places considering the time of the movie, though looking up the Bentley's number was easier than finding the connection to Scaramanga's junk.
More things in common: Bond encounters a gypsy; the enemy has a training facility (the SPECTRE camp and Hi Fat's karate school); both films have the main killer outlived by a physically less imposing figure, Rosa Klebb and Nick-Nack.
Roger Moore earns some blame for not grasping the role of James Bond in "The Man With The Golden Gun." Sean Connery's on-target Cold War thriller has it all over the disappointing ninth entry. But Moore does deliver a straightforward performance, and in a story in which Bond has fewer gadgets than the enemy does. But the series was in trouble after "The Man With The Golden Gun." The result was a mirror effort between the two actors' third film for EON.
GOLDFINGER (1964) / THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (1977)
Charisma. Not only does James Bond have it, but in their third attempt at playing him on screen both Roger Moore and Sean Connery have it. While the surrounding sets and characters are closely related, it was the personal style of the lead actor that carry these films. Moore might have been smug, (but that is James Bond), and certainly the same as the "man-talking" Connery thirteen years before.Both Moore and Connery were in top form.
Both films begin wonderfully. Connery's "shocking" teaser is a prelude to the sly and witty proceedings to follow, and the Union Jack parachute jump in "The Spy Who Loved Me" informs the audience of the spectacular events the film will deliver.
The set pieces and gadgets steal the show. None more so than Bond's cars.Connery's face inside the Aston Martin DB5 IS Bond to many fans, who marveled at the extras it contained, from machine gun headlights to oil slicks to smoke screens to "blow out" devices to the passenger ejector seat. Desmond Llewelyn's "Q", who in both Connery and Moore's reign was not in their first film and added little to the second, in exasperation informs Bond of his wheels. Moore's character gets to use the Lotus Espirit above and below sea level. The other notable set pieces are extraordinary as well, from the interior of Fort Knox to the Atlantis Laboratory and Jonah interior of the Liparus super tanker.
Connery and Moore achieved worldwide success with their Bond films which both improved upon the Ian Fleming novels of the same respective titles. Both films refer to Fleming's work as well, with the mentioning of Bond's late wife in "The Spy Who Loved Me" and references to Leiter's previous whereabouts in "Goldfinger."
Even the filming of the movies mirrored each other.Sean Connery was supposed to work with director Terence Young for the third consecutive time on "Goldfinger," but early in production Young left, after arguing with Broccoli and Saltzman. He was replaced by Guy Hamilton, who injected intelligent humor the previous film did not have. Roger Moore was supposed to work with director Guy Hamilton for the third consecutive time on "The Spy Who Loved Me," but early in production Hamilton left, after leaving to work on the "Superman" project. He was replaced by Lewis Gilbert, who injected intelligent humor the previous film did not have.
Similarities abound in the supporting characters as well. Both main villains, Goldfinger and Stromberg, are older men (Stromberg is the least physically threatening in the entire series) who have an army of men at their bidding, both of which eventually face United States military forces. Stromberg eliminates Bechmann and Markovitz, the nuclear physicists whose assistance he needed. In the same style Goldfinger, kills the gangsters who contribute the materials incorporated for Operation Grand Slam. And of course, both villains have interesting henchmen.I, for one, despise the character of Jaws immensely, a cartoon character which lacked credibility. But, admittedly, he is closer to Oddjob than first glances show. Both are supposedly mute and do not speak in the film. Both are quite impregnable, one who shrugs off gold bars smashing into his chest and the other capable of ripping a van to pieces with his hands. Both engage Bond while their leader's mission is crumbling around them. Their loyalty is a unstated trait. And both have the coup-de-grace of a secret weapon: the bowler hat and the steel teeth. Bond uses these attributes against them, forcing Jaws to bite a shark and killing Oddjob with his own headgear.
The "Bond girls" of the films are hardly wallflowers. Anya Amasova is Russian Agent XXX, the best of the KGB. She falls in love with Bond only after sleeping with him during unexpected events. She captures the fancy of Stromberg, and ends up needing Bond's help to escape from the destruction of Atlantis. Pussy Galore is Goldfinger's personal pilot, the most trusted associate he has. She falls in love with Bond only after sleeping with him during unexpected events. She captures the wrath of Goldfinger, and ends up needing Bond's help to escape from the destruction of the airplane. Both women are fan favorites.
Final points include how Bond gets assistance from another country's resources (Leiter's CIA. and Gogol's KGB); and both men work directly with M. Exotic dancers also flavor the film, as well as pop culture references. And most of all, both films were major box office hits. EON would not allow the next film to slip, would they? Well...
THUNDERBALL (1965) / MOONRAKER (1979)
The concluding image from "The Spy Who Loved Me" said James Bond would return in "For Your Eyes Only." Originally "Goldfinger" was to be followed with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service." But circumstances intervened in both cases and possibly contributed to problems that affected the films that were produced. Seeing the science fiction craze sweep up popular culture "Cubby" Broccoli made an eyes only decision to make "Moonraker." During production of "Goldfinger" Kevin McClory won the rights to one of Ian Fleming's stories. To prevent a rival Bond production, EON cut a deal with McClory and allowed him to produce their next endeavor, "Thunderball."The similar circumstances spilled over to the production values as well. Because of control issues, both films were more heavily influenced by the producer more than the director. This shows up in continuity errors, scripting mistakes and lackadaisical performances by the stars. Sean Connery and Roger Moore do not act in these movies, they merely show up.It is understandable considering Moore stared at a horrible script with no realism, and Connery was beginning to feel the pressure of worldwide acclaim Bond had brought him. But in both cases the film outsold its predecessor, mostly because the last was so spectacular that the buildup was incredible. But both films are disappointing in the long run, despite immediate financial success. EON seems to react badly to incredible success, mistaking frivolous ideas as commercial merit. Connery's film was nearly called "Mr. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang." Broccoli thought the space sequences in "Moonraker" were "science fact" instead of science fiction.
One problem with each film is the drop-off of interesting characters and lack of suspense. Adolfo Celi's Emilio Largo is carried nowhere near the menace of Auric Goldfinger; and no one can miss the restating of Karl Stromberg in the drawing of Hugo Drax, played with pomposity but no villainy by Michael Lonsdale.The movies share similar scenes. Both Largo and Drax give Bond a rifle, and he gives both of them a lesson in sharpshooting. The villains also dispatch with henchman in similar fashion. Largo feeds Quist, the SPECTRE agent who fails to assassinate Bond at his hotel, to the sharks in his pool. Drax sends his Dobermans to devour Corrine Dufour after her affair with Bond.
Both films suffer with pacing. "Moonraker" goes from place to place too quickly with too little explanation. "Thunderball" is slowed down too much by its well shot but badly edited underwater sequences. Each film also features a entertaining sequence with machines gone awry. The "rack" Bond is strapped into provides real tension when Count Lippe turns up the lever. And the Centrifuge sequence provides nearly the only effective Moore scene, though it is ruined by another ridiculous watch, this one firing darts. (Good thing he was not going to another island, since the dart gun is quite visible without a jacket atop it.)
Both leading ladies are attractive but lack screen presence. How someone with Claudine Auger's physique and beauty can come off so unentertaining is testament to her poor acting as Domino. Lois Chiles' icy Holly Goodhead is not someone the audience can come off caring about.
Musically, John Barry helped write two great theme songs, but his scores were a letdown for the film. The "Thunderball" music is atmospheric, but it makes the underwater sequences move even more slowly. Play the "007" recording or the Bond theme when watching them and you will understand.Lastly, both films were given more attention to place instead of person. While Kevin McClory and Ricou Browning did commendable original work shooting below the ocean's depths, the events are not expressed clearly. The hiding of the Vulcan bomber in "Thunderball" is confusing and overly detailed. "Moonraker" was so aimed at being a hip space movie it forgot to be a Bond film. With lasers in space, Bond shooting poisonous globes out of the sky and over the top action of the returning Jaws, "Moonraker" crossed the line for most Bond fans. Instead of asking them to suspend reality like the other films it orders them not to think. Sad.
YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE (1967) / FOR YOUR EYES ONLY (1981)
As I said, with all the similarities in the process by which their films were done, the one difference was how Moore improved while Connery worsened. It is most visible with their fifth films, though technically both stars take a similar approach. Connery, though, was tired of the role and its demands and it shows. He appears uninterested and stuttering. Moore was all but ordered to give a realistic and earnest performance in line with the script and delivers his best characterization as James Bond.
Both films feature solo screenwriting credit. Roald Dahl abandoned most elements of the Fleming novel and creates a bizarre space story for "You Only Live Twice," full of plot inconsistencies and a female role (Kissy Suzuki) who is never referred to by name. Richard Maibaum, who did not work on "Moonraker," grounded "For Your Eyes Only" in reality and took care to incorporate two different Fleming short novellas into a script basis.
Both Sean Connery and Roger Moore had threatened to quit before production. With each coming back to work with a first time Bond director (Lewis Gilbert and John Glen) it was the enthusiasm of the actor that dictated the results. Connery was finished with it all and would not return for the next film in the series. Moore had been upset that other actors had been tested for the role once questions about his age came to the surface, but he worked closely with Glen and the result was a well presented story of espionage, colorful characters and astonishing stuntwork.
More subtle changes arose. After the many female conquests of their predecessors, Bond does not end up with his girl until the end of the film. Both times he is in the water when doing so. And the "Bond girls" of these films were all quite good. Actresses Akiko Wakabayashi, Mia Hama and Carole Bouquet held their own and were allowed to carry some scenes. With Bond being written in a serious fashion, the women were allowed to act instead of looking distressed and pretty.
Both "For Your Eyes Only" and "You Only Live Twice" were touched by tragedy during filming. The Little Nellie sequence went wrong and a photographer lost a leg. Worse, the astounding bobsled chase in "For Your Eyes Only," with a four-man bobsled, skier and motorcycle rider all on the chute saw a stuntman die during filming.
Coming off the carefree attitude of the previous entries, these films feature tightened boundaries. Yet there are spectacular spectacles and amazing sights. The climb to St. Cyril's is enveloping and troublesome. It is reminiscent of a similar secret base hidden among a natural structure, the volcano rocket base in Japan.The villains also keep Bond off guard but using the same tactic of convincing him a different force is behind the plot. The Americans are played against the Russians during Bond's Japanese adventure. Milos Columbo is painted to Bond and to us as the enemy. The strong acting of Topol entrusts us to believe Kristatos is the true culprit. And once the real villains are exposed we find both Blofeld and Kristatos employ henchmen who never speak on camera. Bond forcefully and darkly disposes of them. Hans is fed to piranhas without a second thought showing in Connery's eyes. Roger Moore finally removes all doubt of his ability to portray Bond as he mercilessly kicks Emile Locque's auto over a cliff.Both of these films, while garnering different results over time, were explicitly completed with a certain frame of mind and particular interest. Things were done in the same way.
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER (1971) / OCTOPUSSY (1983)
With both Connery and Moore returning following films that were to become artistic successes, but at the time were financially below the astronomical figures of earlier efforts, EON attempted to inject a mixture of humor and action into the all-important "next" Bond film. This lead to many repeated ideas in the final product.
Both films open with a teaser that does not further the main body of the film. Both films will feature pairs of things. Two Faberge eggs. Two agents dressed as clowns. Two white cats. Two Blofelds in one scene. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Mischka and Grischka. And both films feature a disguised cache of jewels. Diamonds are smuggled in a dead body and a stuffed doll in one film, while rare jewels are hidden amongst a train compartment. As it turns out, neither the eggs nor the diamonds are needed for the climactic moments.In fact the real plot is not divulged until late in both cases. What appears to be a very convoluted diamond smuggling operation turns into a satellite based laser weapon used to hold the United States for ransom. Then what seems to be a jewel smuggling scheme makes its way into a Russian general's cabal to disarm the border of European countries by making at atomic explosion appear to be an American accident. The lack of cohesion in explaining the proceedings hurts both films.
The cast of villains sound the same tones as well. Bond does not meet the real enemies, Blofeld and Orloff, until late in the film. Both of these fiends need assistance to pull off their scheme. Jewel forger Dr. Lenkin and Professor-Dr. Metz, the expert in laser retraction, are both worrisome accomplices. The always useful henchmen abound. Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd cause death all about them. Gobinda and Kamal Khan are a dangerous combination.
The people around Bond are analogous if not equivalent. The sidekicks, Willard Whyte and Vijay, are brassy but absurd. (At least we know Jimmy Dean and Vijay Amritraj used their real voices!) The lead women, Octopussy and Tiffany Case, are both criminals. However, they side with Bond and earn his trust while facing peril of their own. Tiffany was part of the smuggling pipeline but chooses to run with Peter "Bond" Franks on her own. Octopussy runs her own smuggling operation but was in cahoots with Khan and Orloff. Bond wins her over after it is clear she has no friends among her partners.Playfulness is incorporated through bright lights. Octopussy's traveling circus serves to assist her smuggling. Tiffany, among the glitz of Las Vegas, receives the diamonds at the Circus Circus Casino. Once the adventures end Bond goes out with them alone, on a boat.
As their careers progressed, these entries showed Moore and Connery to appear too old to be totally believable. Playful charm is used ahead of physical prowess. Moore's facial wrinkles got as much press as his action scenes. Connery's obvious weight gain and toupee was a noticeable difference from the svelte man in "Thunderball." EON replaces the action with comic relief, and stuntmen when necessary. Bond has things happen to him without really doing much spying. The costume department upset many fans with the clown disguise (which I thought was used very well) and the laughable pink tie so short it could fit a Ken doll.The immediate results were encouraging at the time. "Diamonds Are Forever" was a huge story for its time, bringing Bond back to mega-star status. "Octopussy" was the most successful film of the series until "GoldenEye." While flawed, both films deliver fun rides of fantasy. Had the leading actors ended their association with James Bond after them it would have been leaving on top. One even said, "Never again," to the idea of returning. But they each staged one final act.
NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN (1983) / A VIEW TO A KILL (1985)
That final act turned into a swan song - in a polluted lake. Sean Connery should be credited with a fair amount of charm and presence in the renegade production of "Never Say Never Again," which was not produced by EON. But the truth was it was nostalgia that lead this film to success. Sean was back. Never mind he was laughably old, the film was terribly boring, the girl could have been his daughter and his appearance was anticlimactic. That last applies to Roger Moore and "A View To A Kill" as well.Moore had threatened to quit after "Moonraker" and meant to quit after "Octopussy," only to be lured back. After "Octopussy" defeated "Never Say Never Again" at the box office recognizing Roger Moore as James Bond became more palatable to fans still wary of his characterization. Leaving after 1983 would have been befitting to Moore, going out on top, popular to young and old, but already in his mid fifties. But he also chose one project too many and ended on too much of an undeserved whimper.
At least both actors went out playing James Bond seriously. The scripts did not.Both of these films are remakes, upon further review. "Never Say Never Again" is a remake of "Thunderball." It had to be, as that was all Kevin McClory had rights to do. And "A View To A Kill" is a veritable remake of "Goldfinger," about a megalomaniac looking to strengthen his line of obsession by eradicating the most popular source of that line at an American attraction.
The portrayals of Maximillian Largo and Max Zorin (both named Max) are similar. Both are the untenable mixture of socially prominent and psychotic. Both brought out the quirkiness of their characters well, but neither Christopher Walken's cackling laugh or Klaus Maria Brandauer's momentary flash of a smile was believable for someone who has to be seen publicly by the upper crust. The actors are terrific, the Austrian Brandauer widely respected by all who have worked with him and Walken being the Academy Award winner of "The Deer Hunter." But they are forced to bring to life badly-drawn blubberers who are controlled by someone else (Blofeld and the KGB), yet are not people who would ever be controlled.
The female villain of each film is a love or hate femme fatale. Grace Jones is, well, out of the ordinary. Whether one allows her the show of strength when raising Bond out of the mine or cringes when she copulates with him is a personal choice. Barbara Carerra can be seen as a fetching psycho who fills up the screen or a buffoon who uses the same shocked expression when failing to kill Bond three times.There is little affection for the "Bond girls." Kim Basinger was more of a personality in the pages of the Playboy pictorial that helped get her the job. It is hard to feel much heat for her Domino when she comes off as a naive child who survives on a rich boyfriend, bad dancing and playing video games. Tanya Roberts may be worse as Stacey Sutton, a geologist (!) with the vocabulary of a child, gorgeous but insipid. At least both shower with Bond in the film.
Lastly, both films suffer from attempts to "modernize" James Bond. Video game fever? Happening. Microchips? Cutting edge, dude. In trying to put Bond in the modern world (something that usually hurts the aging of a film) both "A View To A Kill" and "Never Say Never Again" manage to make James Bond look like an aged relic who functions in a fantasy world without believability.
In summation, save for Moore's last performance, Connery and Moore were offered the same progression of character, with Moore increasingly excelling and Connery losing bit after bit. By his sixth film, "Diamonds Are Forever," Connery showed he had lost the subtleties which had made the celluloid Bond a real character as opposed to a cartoon action figure. Moore's sixth film proved he had finally harnessed that delicate balance.The same ideas hit EON again and again:
Film 1 - hide new actor among set pieces and other actorsFilm 2 - promote Bond in an unbeatable mission
Film 3 - let actor's natural presence dominate over weak plot
Film 4 - forget about "little things" and let star go on autopilot
Film 5 - changed writers and pulled in the reigns, actor clashes with producers
Film 6 - actor returns to fanfare and success
Film 7 - had he had it to do over...
It is ironic that the films of George Lazenby and Timothy Dalton are so strenuously regarded as high points by many fanatical Bond fans, and Pierce Brosnan has had the most successful entry. But the series has survived for thirty-five years on screen mostly because of Roger Moore and Sean Connery. They kept the public interested in one type of film for years. They advanced portrayals of sex, action, stuntwork, mass appeal and marketing. They kept Ian Fleming's creation alive (if sometimes barely breathing). They kept the interest in the English secret agent from dying. And the pattern they followed was their...Bond.