Forever On Her Majesty's Secret Service: 60 Years of Bond

Louisa Clarke

May 30

By Matthew Crowther

In 1962 a film came out that was seismic in its effect. At the time it must have seemed insignificant. It was just another film based on another popular book series. James Bond. The genius of Ian Fleming.

Casino Royale, Fleming's first in 1953, had been a success and by 1962, the series had become quite popular. There had been efforts early on to turn the books into film but the first serious attempt was in 1962. Harry Saltzman and his partner Arthur "Cubby" Broccoli (a.k.a Eon Productions) turned Bond into reality.

Bond took off, sparking a mania for spy films including, of course, copies of Bond. Unfortunately, Ian Fleming died in 1964 and did not get to see what followed.

In 1968, a young Australian conned his way into becoming the next Bond. George Lazenby had the unenviable task of becoming the first man to succeed Sean Connery. Released in 1969, it was, and remains, Bond at his most human, involving his frailty and weakness. Something Lazenby captured well. I met him in 2008/ I was nervous but he took to the picture I brought to be signed. Plucked by courage I asked if I could ask him a question and he said sure. "How have you dealt with things since the film, people saying you were bad?"

I realised I had gone too far, Lazenby rocked back laughing, I started to cover myself but he said: "Look, you get on with life and not give a shit what people think."

Lazenby was up against it from the off. The majority were against him. Yet, for the film he acted in was On Her Majesty's Secret Service (OHMSS), the book where Bond marries, Lazenby did his best, capturing Bond's emotion as he holds his dead wife. Yet, Lazenby only did the one. He made the mistake of listening to his agent who believed, in the era of Easy Rider, that Bond was done. Lazenby had been offered a seven-picture deal.

This left Eon in a quandary. They needed someone to do a film. So, Connery returned for Diamonds Are Forever. It's not a bad film but there is no relation to OHMSS. There is no quest for revenge etc.

The camp humour of Moore's era starts with Diamonds Are Forever. Roger Moore becomes Bond in 1973. Sir Roger went on to do seven films until 1985. By the time he finished he was fifty-six. Moore became known for his humour. Yet, his era saw Bond go into space. Fleming's Moonraker, the third Bond novel, involved a missile that would launch from Kent and land on London. As much as it was stupid, being Bond it was offset by John Barry's music and Derek Meddings' music.

Bond hit the ground after this film when John Glen was appointed director. For Your Eyes Only landed Bond in a more natural setting.

In 1986, Timothy Dalton succeeded Moore. He was the first actor to truly appreciate Bond. Dalton, from a classic theatre background, had read Bond and knew what he was about. Dalton's debut was The Living Daylights. After Moore's era this was a sudden breath of fresh air. Dalton did as much stunts as he could, where Moore had done little in comparison.

In 1989 there was Licence to Kill (LTK). At the time the production company behind Bond entered financial trouble. LTK was mostly filmed in Mexico. Yet it's one of the best films. It has one of the most realistic villains in the series.

That's when it all went south. Dalton walks off the set imagining he'll be back, but the behind-the-scenes troubles envelop Bond. It's not until 1995 that Bond returns.

Goldeneye had been intended for Dalton, who quit a few months prior, but it became Pierce Brosnan's debut. Brosnan had been famous for Remmington and Steele which affected his tenure (he would've been Bond in 86 had it not been for the series).

For many he was Bond. The gap was at the time the biggest in Bond history, six years.

Brosnan, like Dalton and Lazenby before him, was unintentionally affected by matters beyond his control. When he finished Die Another Day he expected to return and yet he did not. Four years later Daniel Craig succeeded him. Brosnan was fifty when he finished his tenure. A sprightly kid compared to Moore.

Craig's tenure rebooted Bond. We had to endure him becoming a Double O for example.

In the time between Brosnan and Craig, films had moved on. There was Bourne for example and Bond felt the need to match it whereas in the old days, Bond was the pace setter.

Craig did five films but over almost twenty years. The days of films being every other year were well behind Bond.

Last year No Time to Die happened. It been delayed via the pandemic but it was the longest Bond ever. Folk said it 'fixed' OHMSS. OHMSS did not need fixing. Bond was married, he lost his wife, that was the plot. Bond redeemed himself (in the novel You Only Live Twice), recovered and got on with life. Yet No Time to Die felt the need to involve OHMSS' soundtrack, to do this and that and ultimately, to kill Bond. That is not Bond. The joy of Bond, in a way, was that you saw him get into fixes that made you think "bloody hell, he's gonna die here!" but he pulls out and lives. Yet, an actors' ego meant he died in No Time to Die. The one film, Bond wise, that I've left depressed.

The future of Bond is murky. In theory we await a new actor but what is to come? Technically I guess we reboot. We have to.

As I say that gap between Dalton and Brosnan was the longest between actors. We need to go back to the day where we got films every other year irrespective of budget etc.

Bond, for all the debate and arguments fans have, is escapement. It shadows real life but it's imagination, it's a way of ignoring the world we live in.

Ian Fleming died as Goldfinger was in production. Though he saw the first two films, which sparked Bondmania, he never lived to see what followed. Had he lived, he surely would be bemused. He might even have a few things to say. Yet, sadly, he died in his late fifties. Apart from being quite rich, he would surely look at 1964-2021 and say a few things.

Plus, did you know he wrote Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?

Comment