 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think many of you may be confusing *who* plays James Bond with the quality of the films they are in. Peter Hunt (the director of OHMSS, editor and/or supervising editor on its predecessors) probably had more input into shaping *all* of the Bond films up to and including the one he directed (he actually did some uncredited directing on a few of the Terence Young named films as well as being the credited "second unit" director on some as well).
Guy Hamilton, who directed Goldfinger, wanted it to be more satirical but Hunt objected and won out after going to the producers. Still it took him a lot of extra work in the editing room to tone down the lighthearted temperament that Hamilton inserted. After Hunt left the series, Hamilton got his way with Diamonds are Forever (right after OHMSS) and one can easily see (along with the 2 subsequently more satirical Hamilton efforts with Roger Moore) the comedic approach starting to infiltrate (regardless if one likes it or not) the franchise. The main point is, especially for those who agree that it was the wrong way to go like Hunt and myself, Diamonds are Forever starred *Connery*, proving that the actor is not typically responsible for a film's craftsmanship or artistic accomplishments.
More on Hunt here: http://thecinemacafe.com/the-cinema-treasure-hunter/2015/3/23/exploring-the-artifacts-8-the-gem-cutter-capturing-a-golden-moment-10
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peter Hunt was a great picture editor. No doubt.But....
His meddling with the music- constantly inserting the Monty Norman 'Bond theme ' in place of Barry underscore, is not something deserving of praise.
I give him credit for his efforts in shaping the fine script of OHMSS , but the way he directed film with Arty editing and pbotography
worked against the film.
Worst of all, he basically chose Lazenby, who had NO acting experience- because he had a ' man crush' on him
Hamilton was Bergman compared to Lewis Gilbert, who really started the over- the- top, tongue in cheek, set piece formula.with YOLT(he virtually remade that film with SWLM).
Terence Young is the only 007 director who was truly an artistic contributor to the cinematic version of James Bond.
He groomed the rough Connery into the suave James Bond.
The others all have their positive qualities but just didn't ' get' he character like Young.,
Ultimately, Broccoli and Salzman had final creative control.God help us! Lol!
Btw I have read ALOT about the Bond films ( and know folks who work at
EON) and I have never heard that story about Hunt " toning down" the comedic elements of GOLDFINGER!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only things I really don't love about OHMSS are:
- The kilt. If you're not Scottish, it's not a cherished symbol of manhood.
- The fussy, effeminate "Sir Hilary Bray" cover.
- The dubbed voice for Bond impersonating Bray. We know this was a Peter Hunt choice, and to me it's like nails on a chalkboard.
- Telly Savalas was an odd casting choice, and he basically just played himself: a blunt-accented, American tough guy. Kojak goes to Switzerland.
- The sped-up fight scenes, which Peter Hunt created in the editing room by removing frames of film. These scenes look fake because, even if you never studied physics, you know instinctively that (real-world) gravity makes things fall only so fast. In the sped-up fights, gravity pulls men down about twice as fast as it should, which looks ridiculous, like the Keystone Cops or something. Hunt should have known that, but he was apparently too close to the project by that point, and he underestimated what "mere audience members" would be able to detect.
BUT:
The John Barry music, DIANA RIGG, a serious James Bond character, and the complete absence of "cheap laughs" -- still makes OHMSS a top film in the series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mentioned the " arty" editing Zap. It's a technique Hunt also used in previous films, but here it was overdone.
And , don't forget the schmaltz montage set to the Armstrong song!
It could have been a great film instead of very good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right!
What's the big deal, Oman?
Oh, I know it's meant as a lighthearted wink and all, but it just makes me sort of groan.
After all, they were called groan lines! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Btw I have read ALOT about the Bond films ( and know folks who work at
EON) and I have never heard that story about Hunt " toning down" the comedic elements of GOLDFINGER!
Well, I guess it's my idea in part extrapolated from the following evidence:
In an interview with Peter Hunt there was this exchange:
Q: Before we move on to OHMSS, let's backtrack a little more. What was your view on the production of Goldfinger?
A: 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.
Q: Why did you feel it wasn't being made properly?
A: 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. The whole car chase was actually a good lesson in editing. It was cut and edited and made to be entirely different from the way it was shot. It was very interesting, actually, but you wouldn't know, of course. Again, one of my favorite sayings is "Thank goodness the audience hasn't seen the script."
Q: How was it originally staged that was different from what we saw?
A: 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.
Then there is Hunt stating this for the record:
My feeling was always that one should make the films seriously, but never take them seriously, if you see what I mean. The humor of the thing has to come out of the film itself. You can't sit down and say, "How can we make this funny?" In other words, it has to be there and work itself out.
And the questioner immediately responds with:
Q: Unlike what Roger Moore so often did.
And finally when one sees the pattern of forced humour in all of the subsequent Bond films that Hamilton directed (three more which should be enough to notice) and again whether one likes it or not *without the participation of Hunt* who had a big part in guiding the series up until then and setting the tone he spoke of, I believe one could put two and two together and at least say that Hamilton's films began substituting the lack of seriousness for some high concept humorous maketing ploy aimed toward pleasing a whole different target audience. If Hunt had still been around and had as much influence as he described to me personally and in this and other parts of the interview, he would have prevented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for posting that , Arthur!
In all honesty, I think you're interpretation of Hunt's role in GF differs from mine.
I don't think he is referring to comedy elements but the staging of action scenes.
I find his comments a bit self- serving.
I mentioned it before, YOLT , whilst not OVERTLY humourous, is a comic book- total fantasy with numerous plot holes and continuity errors.
DAF is grounded in reality, by comparison ( it COULD have happened in real life)..The first part of the film- through the confrontation scene with the two Blofelds- is quite good! It falls into farce after that  .
Hunt was second unit director AND supervising editor on YOLT.
He had more involvement than any previous film he worked on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
