Having been a James Bond fan for most of my young life (I just turned 21, in June now I can legally have a martini, shaken, not stirred of course), I was baffled to discover some two years ago of George Lazenby's one-off turn as the charmingly deadly 007. My mother and father had often recollected memories to me of watching Connery, Moore and even Dalton dart across the silver screen saving the world and making love to gorgeous women. Still, even they had never seen or heard of the sixth film in this time-honored franchise. When playing the coveted Goldeneye video game with my older brother back in the day, he never leaned in and said; "You know Bond was married once?" It is criminally ironic that James Bond's most personal film is the one most systematically discarded by history.
The reasons aren't hard to comprehend; however, if one looks closely enough. Bond films often rely on certain key points to guarantee success. This film lacks many of them.
- Lazenby was hardly an award-winning megastar; On the contrary, he was a male model turned actor. He lacked Connery's star power and his distinct style. He does triumph in one imperative department; however, vulnerability. Bond in this film must be more physically and emotionally vulnerable than ever before. Lazenby being less arrogant in his portrayal of the character, manages to evoke this in the necessary scenes.
- Diana Rigg portrays Contessa Teresa "Tracy" di Vicenzo as the films primary "Bond Girl", and she does not inhabit many of the clichés associated with the role. Tracy is fiercely independent, cunning, intelligent and has little interest in following the rules in a male-dominated world. Yes, she falls in love with Bond, but she makes him work for her love and more importantly, her trust. She is sexy on her terms, never to be exploited by Bond or any other man. Even when she is held hostage by Blofeld later in the film, she shows fortitude in place of fear. Tracy's name also has no hidden innuendo, which audience typically enjoys from a Bond Girl. To a true Bond, Fan Tracy is a gem, to the mass audience's she is forgetful and boring.
- The film follows the book on which it is based very closely in plot and because so it retains a rather long run time; many of the scenes being used for character development and plot exposition, not typical for a Bond film. There are action sequences aplenty, but they take time to get to.
- The villain's evil scheme involves brainwashing beautiful young women from all around the world into poisoning food and water supplies of their respected countries. Let's be honest, there are no laser beams, volcanos or spaceships involved, who's really going to be interested in finding out if a bald man petting a cat spoils your potato crops?
- The film has no Bond Theme Song to market to the public, which is a shame. It does, however, have a great instrumental score that has certainly held the test of time.
Does OHMSS Deserve the Ambiguity it Upholds?
Honestly, no, I don't believe it does. This film is well-acted, fun, exciting and even emotionally gratifying at parts. It makes Bond appear as a three-dimensional character with flaws and issues. It puts him at stake's greater than just his life being in danger. We see him debating if this life of sex and death is really the one he wants to live forever. We are also subjected to some pretty exhilarating chase sequences on ice, with ski's and with cars! Many say that if Connery had starred in this film, it would be considered the Best Bond Picture. In my opinion, it doesn't need him to receive this high regard. I doubt if he could've played as well as Lazenby in the more emotionally driven scenes. I can watch this movie repeatedly because I get different things out of it with each viewing. It has much to offer, especially for a franchise that would go on to be riddled with predictability and a worn-out formula.
No comments:
Post a Comment