 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Mar 27, 2015 - 1:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
My thoughts on this film have for the most part been previously encapsulated in my praise for Peter Hunt's remarkable contribution to the series up to and including this film, his first as a director. The article has a link on this board pertaining to Hunt here:
http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2015/3/23/exploring-the-artifacts-8-the-gem-cutter-capturing-a-golden-moment-10
Thanks for that.
Peter Hunt's contribution was indeed remarkable. He was one England's finest film editors and under the guidance of Terence Young he became one of the country's finest film directors. As you know, he directed a number of insert shots and second unit for the Bond films while serving as editor. He understood the finer points, the dramatic requirements as well as the technical approaches to Bond before he started directing episodic television. When ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE finally came along after three years of delays (waiting for the snow) he was more than qualified. He later went on to direct Roger Moore in two of the actor's finest performances, GOLD (1974) and SHOUT AT THE DEVIL (1977); just think what he could have done with Moore in the Bond films. They had a special rapport, and Hunt was a better director than anyone else EON was hiring. He was also involved in the development of THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and FOR YOUR EYES ONLY working with writer Richard Maibaum, and both times, he withdrew on account of Michael Wilson's arrogant interference, despite what he said later.
I had a passing acquaintance with Peter Hunt in the 1990s. He was a gracious man, modest about his career, generous with his time, very giving of his knowledge and expertise. He had a tremendous sense of humor. When Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky broke in the news, Peter would break out into explosive laughter. Every new revelation about the affair brought more laughter from Peter. There was no talking to him that day, he was laughing so hard. When the news reported that she had kept the dress with the President's DNA on it, Peter laughed so hard I thought he was going to burst an artery. You know, he told everyone he had moved to Los Angeles for the mild climate, but really, he moved to L.A. to get work. Financing for the British film industry had dried up, and like everyone else, Peter was having a hard time getting a project financed. He wanted to be at the center of the industry. After he rescued the remake of THE DESPERATE HOURS in the cutting room for MGM and Dino DeLaurentiis, he thought he would be hired as a director. But it didn't happen. He found himself trying to convince studio execs who were only a third of his age, who were not impressed by his reputation or his accomplishments. To the younger crowd running things he was just another old timer who didn't fit in. He never made another film. It was very sad.
.... I think the main reasons for the wide gap between this film's detractors and its supporters lies in how seriously one takes the series in general and the shock of seeing someone other than Connery in the role for the first time. One thing that Hunt said was that he thought the filmmakers should take things seriously but that the audiences shouldn't. It was this distinction that provided this installment a greater fidelity to Fleming's book. But let's face it, the whole Bond franchise is a spoof of what spies really do. (Compare any Bond to say The Spy Who Came In From the Cold). It's what spies would LIKE to do or certainly what we would FANTASIZE they do, but obviously know better.
So I guess I'm asking its detractors to what standard are they holding OHMSS?
I've always thought the Bond films should take themselves a little more seriously than they did. They play best and are at their most memorable when the dramatic aspects are taken seriously by the filmmakers. Certainly OHMSS, despite some lighthearted business, takes the romance between Bond and Tracy seriously, without becoming neurotic about it. That was the perfect balance, I thought. There might be a little too much tongue-in-cheek in the Piz Gloria scenes. When Guy Hamilton took over in 1971 with DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER, he turned the series toward self-ridicule. He was the wrong director and the worst director EON could have chosen at the time. His films always felt out of step with the audience's expectations and with the times. Lewis Gilbert followed suit. Although I've always enjoyed Roger Moore, I can't watch the 1970s Bonds anymore. Sometimes maybe a few scenes in MWTGG, but that's it.
The Craig films take themselves very seriously, but they also have an agenda that is anathema to the very concept of James Bond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to say how much I've enjoyed Richard W.'s informative posts regarding 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' and was wondering if he might be so kind as to copy and paste some of his lengthier posts in the comments section below my article on Hunt. I would be very appreciative and I'm sure the Cinema Cafe readers would too.
Just to add a bit to Hunt's contribution, many may not know about, was his clash with the direction 'Goldfinger' (Bond #3 and many fans favourite) was taking, keeping in mind that the same director secured directing duties and did succeed in changing the film's tone on 'Diamonds are Forever':
Peter Hunt on 'Goldfinger':
"I got a little angry with Goldfinger, because I didn't think it was being made properly. In fact, I did quite a lot of work on that insofar as second unit shooting."
"I just didn't feel that it was coming out the way it should have been coming out. We changed the theme a bit, there was a different director...I just felt it wasn't quite right. I must say that from the producers' point of view, they must have thought the same thing too. They really let me have a much freer hand on that in every way, and I was able to bang and boost that about."
"It was very poorly done, in my opinion, but eventually it came out right. As I say, that's all part of filmmaking, I guess. Oh, I remember another reason it was so tough. I had given up smoking, and I was a real bull in a china shop at that time, saying, "No, no, no, no. That's not the way it should be done." I was very autocratic about it all, although in fact it worked in the film. I had to pummel it into the same sort of style that the other two films were; taking what I was given and shaping it like the other two. It was not coming out like them, and my confidence was based on what I had already done. I must say, because it's definitely true, that those two producers always stood behind me very well. They were extremely cooperative and extremely appreciative of all the hard work I did. It is hard work, especially when you consider that the films are ninety percent hard work and ten percent cleverness. They were extremely hard work, and some were more difficult than others. Goldfinger was one of them. But as it worked out, it became one of the better ones."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 27, 2015 - 11:16 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
BobJ
(Member)
|
My thoughts on this film have for the most part been previously encapsulated in my praise for Peter Hunt's remarkable contribution to the series up to and including this film, his first as a director. The article has a link on this board pertaining to Hunt here:
http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2015/3/23/exploring-the-artifacts-8-the-gem-cutter-capturing-a-golden-moment-10
I did enjoy reading Storyteller's critique although I suppose it's the antithesis of mine. I think the main reasons for the wide gap between this film's detractors and its supporters lies in how seriously one takes the series in general and the shock of seeing someone other than Connery in the role for the first time. One thing that Hunt said was that he thought the filmmakers should take things seriously but that the audiences shouldn't. It was this distinction that provided this installment a greater fidelity to Fleming's book. But let's face it, the whole Bond franchise is a spoof of what spies really do. (Compare any Bond to say The Spy Who Came In From the Cold). It's what spies would LIKE to do or certainly what we would FANTASIZE they do, but obviously know better.
So I guess I'm asking its detractors to what standard are they holding OHMSS? Bond #7: Diamonds are Forever? That had Connery and it added so much forced humour it became a spoof of ITSELF, the main plot was marginalized and practically incidental to its oddly arranged set pieces. At least OHMSS had a very clearly defined plot that progressed with that in mind first and foremost. Film critic Pauline Kael wrote that a main disappointment was Hunt's absence.
Yes Lazenby does have that line of "the other fella" in the opening. But please remember, this was Bond 6! One expected Connery. He was Bond. So the filmmakers addressed it. They needed to show some respect to us for not trying to hide it, which they cleverly did there and then carried on. I liked that. Bond is about style. It's not about substance although Hunt provided both with his unique editing technique and action choreography and the manner he handled the relationship between Lazenby and Rigg.
And please let the detractors say one little negative thing about Barry's music who also "upped the ante" so to speak because of Connery's absence. Go ahead. I dare you.
Oh Richard-W, will I ever grow tired of upsetting you? Probably not. 
Arthur, let me say I have enjoyed your treatises on this film as well. One of my favorite things about being a Bond fan is how most Bond fans simply do not agree on everything. While they may come together on one film, they will tear at each other over another. No other series in history has what this series has, and it is glorious.
Now to answer your question about "to what standard are they (detractors) holding OHMSS?" I simply judge it on it's own merits. I did not watch these films in order as I was born in 1970 (so Sean not being Bond has no hold on me). I saw many on VHS and began watching all of the newer entries from, "For Your Eyes Only" on in the theater. My top 5 Bond films are (in no particular order):
1. For Your Eyes Only
2. From Russia With Love
3. The Living Daylights
4. Goldfinger
5. Casino Royale (despite it's flaws)
So that may give you at least a glimpse into my own love of the series which you may agree, or disagree with. But in truth, I love many Bond films and my list of "hated ones is quite small in comparison:
1. Live And Let Die
2. OHMSS
3. Quantum Of Solace
4. Die another Day
5. Thunderball
These are the titles I will simply never watch again unless introducing a friend to the series which I did just 1 year ago. Other than that, they are ones I actively avoid.
On a side note, I did recall one other thing in OHMSS I did enjoy... the invasion of the lodge at the end. That was a lot of fun and cracker jack action. In honesty, I think it makes the ski chase and toboggan fight look even worse by comparison.
Again, my opinion on this film is not to upset anyone (except Richard), but to simply state what I honestly feel about the film. I cannot make myself like the ski chase, or enjoy the boring moments of Bond going from room to room to talk to the girls who end up serving no purpose to the plot in the end. I will always find it a rubbish film and that's just me. I stand with no one else who hates the film, and against no one who loves it (except Richard of course). It's just a movie, and a poorly made one in my view.
I think of all the points you made, the one that speaks the loudest to this is how you liked the opening moment where Bond breaks the fourth wall to acknowledge Connery's departure, where-as I would have preferred it stood on it's own with no reference. We both look at the scene differently, and no one can alter our perceptions of it...
... And I for one, think that is awesome. Welcome to the fold my Bondian brother.
*Oh, and I love the score to the film as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2015 - 2:34 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
Mike_J misrepresents. "Do You Know How Christmas Trees Are Grown" is only heard as a fragment of source music in the background during a suspense scene. It is appropriately festive and is used wisely, to add counterpoint to the trouble Bond is in, but it's not a main title song. You'd have to listen to the OST to hear the whole thing. It is nothing compared to the main title songs of Bond 21 and Bond 22, which are unnatural noise, truly hideous cat stranglers and the signature sound of the betrayal of the franchise.
Most people I think probably worked out my post was tongue in cheek, hence the little icon I included. But I also knew that there would be a few who would leap to King Barry's defence (hence "all too easy") and to be honest I'm suprised I didn't get a longer post extolling the virtues of the song, pointing out the subtext of the lyrics and showing me how, if I play it backwards at a certain speed, you can actually make out Cubby Brocolli giving out a recipe for his secret spaghetti sauce.
I do genuinely hate the song, and honestly feel it is out of place in the film (sorry, it's too prominant to just be dismissed as source music) but I like most of the score (the main theme is brilliant) although I'm not a big fan of the action music, for example at the start on the beach which seems to "big" a cue for what is just a little punch up.
But yea, I like the OHMSS score. its just not on par with my favourite Barry score, his true magnum opus, Howard The Duck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2015 - 4:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Mike_J
(Member)
|
I'll probably get hammered for this, but not only do I think OHMSS is a terrible Bond movie, I don't actually think it is a good movie, period. To me, a lot of the film looks like a cheap Bond knock off.
That isn't to say the film doesn't have some good points - The raid on Piz Gloria, the score, Diana Rigg, Diana Rigg's chest. Oh and I love Binder's credit sequence.
But the rest of the film I find incredibly poor. Leaving aside the easy target of Lazenby, you also have a totally miscast Telly Savalas as a thoroughly unthreatening Blofeld, some stomach-churning romantic montages that look like they belong in a 60s TV movie, some astonishingly poor dubbing (some of Draco's lip synch is terrible) and, astonishingly, some really, really bad editing choices.
The film even manages to botch what should be some real Bondian action - for example the stock car chase which makes the puzzling mistake of having Tracy, rather than Bond, drive the car and everything all unfolds in a predictable and unspectacular fashion.
As for Hunt's directing, let's just say he was a great editor and in my view he should have stayed in the editing room.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2015 - 4:15 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
Storyteller doesn't upset me. Amuses me sometimes like a child asking dumb questions, but he is not upsetting. Mike_J, on the other hand, is a vicious troll, and I've just put him on the ignore.
Arthur Grant:
Just to add a bit to Hunt's contribution, many may not know about, was his clash with the direction 'Goldfinger' (Bond #3 and many fans favourite) was taking, keeping in mind that the same director secured directing duties and did succeed in changing the film's tone on 'Diamonds are Forever':
Peter Hunt on 'Goldfinger':
"I got a little angry with Goldfinger, because I didn't think it was being made properly. In fact, I did quite a lot of work on that insofar as second unit shooting."
"I just didn't feel that it was coming out the way it should have been coming out. We changed the theme a bit, there was a different director...I just felt it wasn't quite right. I must say that from the producers' point of view, they must have thought the same thing too. They really let me have a much freer hand on that in every way, and I was able to bang and boost that about."
"It was very poorly done, in my opinion, but eventually it came out right. As I say, that's all part of filmmaking, I guess. Oh, I remember another reason it was so tough. I had given up smoking, and I was a real bull in a china shop at that time, saying, "No, no, no, no. That's not the way it should be done." I was very autocratic about it all, although in fact it worked in the film. I had to pummel it into the same sort of style that the other two films were; taking what I was given and shaping it like the other two. It was not coming out like them, and my confidence was based on what I had already done. I must say, because it's definitely true, that those two producers always stood behind me very well. They were extremely cooperative and extremely appreciative of all the hard work I did. It is hard work, especially when you consider that the films are ninety percent hard work and ten percent cleverness. They were extremely hard work, and some were more difficult than others. Goldfinger was one of them. But as it worked out, it became one of the better ones."
Thanks for these quotes. I wish Hunt had been more specific about what he banged and boosted about.
One can tell by watching Goldfinger that Hamilton pretty much ignored the choreography and tone that Terence Young, Richard Maibaum, Ted Moore, Hunt and Connery worked so hard to make. Connery's scenes in Dr. No and From Russia With Love were carefully choreographed and set-up, even when he was standing still. Hunt called it "the dance." We talked about this. It comes back in Thunderball and in OHMSS, that careful choreography of how Bond moves and is photographed. Hamilton threw that out. He preferred light comedy with all the lights on, and made sure all the dark subtleties were hammered out. Ted Moore did not like working with Hamilton, either; he walked off the set of Man With the Gold Gun. Broccoli and Saltzman agreed with Hunt when he was the editor and director, then they turned around and agreed with Hamilton when he was the director. In the end the producers preferred Hamilton, and gave him three more films to direct. I think Hamilton went off the rails with Diamonds Are Forever; it was like a complete repudiation of OHMSS.
I wish Hunt had stuck with Ted Moore for cameraman, but he preferred working with his friend Michael Reed. Reed's approach is very different in OHMSS from the other Bond films. Reed photographed Hunt's other films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R.W.: Sorry, I'm sure you meant Guy Hamilton (instead of Lewis Gilbert) who directed Goldfinger, Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die, and The Man with the Golden Gun.
Even those who preferred the approach and tone of these Bond films Hamilton directed after Goldfinger, would have to admit that there was one: Namely a drastic departure from what Hunt overruled when Hamilton was first assigned to Goldfinger as he stated in that interview I quoted and showing some class, without actually naming him. As Richard W. has accurately pointed out, when Hunt left after O.H.M.S.S. Hamilton and Tom Mankiewicz got their way with Diamonds and for myself, it was a crying shame to watch Bond slip into self parody and forced humor (remember the Las Vegas Sheriff who also shows up in Louisiana in Live and Let Die?) especially because Connery WAS THERE!
Up to and including O.H.M.S.S. there is a storytelling style and balance between fantasy and reality that recognized certain parameters and kept the little spoof surprises in check, never allowing them to take over and blow the seriousness of the basic plot to hell, which is what happened after Hunt left.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Mar 28, 2015 - 10:05 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Richard-W
(Member)
|
Freudian slip, now corrected.
... Even those who preferred the approach and tone of these Bond films Hamilton directed after Goldfinger, would have to admit that there was one: Namely a drastic departure from what Hunt overruled when Hamilton was first assigned to Goldfinger as he stated in that interview I quoted and showing some class, without actually naming him. As Richard W. has accurately pointed out, when Hunt left after O.H.M.S.S. Hamilton got his way with Diamonds and for myself, it was a crying shame to watch Bond slip into self parody and forced humor (remember the Las Vegas Sheriff who also shows up in Louisiana in Live and Let Die?) especially because Connery WAS THERE!
Up to and including O.H.M.S.S. there is a storytelling style and balance between fantasy and reality that recognized certain parameters and kept the little spoof surprises in check, never allowing them to take over and blow the seriousness of the basic plot to hell, which is what happened after Hunt left.
The mind-set of self-parody and self-ridicule is easy to fall into when you have no talent or no dramatic inspiration. It's also lazy. It's much harder to tell a dramatic story, and even harder to sustain a dramatic story. The EON directors had everything they needed, but only two of them -- Terence Young and Peter Hunt -- even tried to engage the audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
