| On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) | |
|---|---|
 |
Rating: 6.7/10 (99,191 votes) Director: Peter R. Hunt Writer: Simon Raven, Richard Maibaum, Ian Fleming Stars: George Lazenby, Diana Rigg, Telly Savalas Runtime: 142 min Rated: PG Genre: Action, Adventure, Thriller Released: 19 Dec 1969 |
| Plot: British agent James Bond goes undercover to pursue the villainous Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who is planning to hold the world to ransom. | |
So, we come to the first non-Connery film. When Connery resigned during You Only Live Twice, it left quite a void to be filled. First choice, Roger Moore, was tied up with a TV series called The Saint, so after scouting around the production stumbled on George Lazenby. He was offered a seven-film deal, but his agent convinced him to only make one, feeling that the 70s would see the films fall out of favour and so ruin his career. But how would audiences, who had seen five films with Connery in, accept this new face? Well, a throwaway line in the pre-credit sequence comments, “This never happened to the other fellow!” Intended as a sly joke to let the audience know that they were not trying to sneak someone else in as though nothing was different, it has also come to possibly suggest that the name and 007 license are assigned to different agents whenever one is retired or out of action. Indeed, another oversight of production has Bond and Blofeld meet in this film, with Blofeld not recognising the man he encountered in the volcano lair in the previous film. Whilst this was an error caused by adapting a novel out of sequence, it still reinforces the idea that this is a different agent.
Anyway, the film, which was the longest until Casino Royale, sees Bond find love, and go undercover in order to lure Blofeld out of hiding. Blofeld himself is planning to hold the world to ransom in order to be pardoned for his crimes of the past few films, and regain his title. So, we have a film low on gadgets, and high on plot and intrigue. Possibly the first ‘true’ Bond adaptation to film, it garnered criticism on release from an audience raised on girls, gadgets, and gung-ho. A lot of the negativity was levied at Lazenby, rather unfairly I may add. He played the role completely differently to Connery, which was maybe too sharp a contrast in such a short time. Whilst recent years have seen an audience accept a totally different tone of Bond, back in the late 60s the films were churned out every year or so, giving less time to adjust to a new portrayal.
Lazenby, it must be said, was not as strong in the role as Connery, but he certainly wasn’t bad. For a first-time actor, he plays the role as cool, suave, and calmly sure. Action sequences seem more convincing than Connery’s were, with Lazenby throwing himself (sometimes literally) into the task. As for his romancing and portrayal of a Bond who turns his back on the service in order to marry, he convinces strongly right through that final, heart-breaking ending.
This is a great entry into the series, and whilst it was a shame we never got to see Lazenby in the role again, it does mean that he impacted on the franchise well and never lowered the standards in the way that Moore would later in the series.
