I‘d also add the Michael Scheingraber book on all the films up to MR (which he loved) which I found after seeing the film and which became my go to-book on Bond (at that time).
Very telling, the unflattering pics of Connery and Lazenby, while Moore is in the center…
P.S. There was one updated edition after FYEO was released (he loved it, too).
The idea that Bond had strayed too far from the early beginnings of Dr. No and From Russia With Love and thus can be easily dismissed. Connery himself said MR “departed so much from any sort of credence from the reality that we had.” I admit the space station especially strains reality, but you can’t exactly call GF a documentary with Oddjob’s hat and the Fort Knox raid. The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker follow a natural evolution that took much stronger hold with YOLT, skipped OHMSS and continued full force with DAF.
Yes, I bought that too, the last years I quenched my thirst, but since I discovered Ebay around 2008 I bought a lot. This book I have in two versions, there is also one with a green cover, but I think the inside is the same. It has a lot of black and white photo’s and is great to have.
The Cinema book is just a translation of the Steven Rubin book if I’m remember right.
I hadn’t recalled anyone singling out Jaws’ defection as a key issue. If anything, I’d expect them to go after the goofy romance with Dolly. It makes sense to me that Jaws could be swayed to Bond’s side, and here the Dolly angle helps as he’d be as concerned for her, or more so, than himself. That said, I would agree that Jaws is more fun as a villain than a hero, and the bits that follow his “rehabilitation” – like the thumbs up through the window when he helps free the shuttle for departure, or the bit where he and Dolly sit down to share a glass of bubbly – pretty much completely neuter a once imposing figure. (I guess it’s funny when he says, “Well, here’s to us,” but my first – and continuing – thought was “Wait, isn’t he mute?” There is a certain power to the “mute giant” routine that’s torpedoed if we think, “Oh, I guess he’s not mute; he just never felt like talking until now.”)
This was my takeaway as well. Growing up, I had to listen to constant refrains of “We need Connery back,” and when I finally saw Connery in his then-current state – fat and bald – I could only think, “Seriously? That guy?” I grew to adore Big Tam, but his fans stacked the deck against him for sure.
Incidentally these were some of the same “experts” who fell all over themselves praising NSNA for one reason and one reason only: Connery was back. They lauded the film as the best since FRWL because they were so cow-eyed over their man-crush returning, and it was only later that many of them looked back more objectively and decided maybe it wasn’t such a masterpiece after all. The “Battle of the Bonds” pretty much confirmed that all Bond fan reviews and commentary are necessarily colored by biases and preferences and that fans by definition are incapable of true objectivity.
Those hardcore Connery fans had a hard time after TSWLM - and must have realised with MOONRAKER that the ‘new’ guy was likely going to stay.
I think part of it was the realization that Roger’s success meant he was sticking around, but equally it seemed you could draw a fairly straight line through the series that showed it constantly getting bigger and wilder, more outlandish and comical. Things only seemed to be heading in one possible direction, and that was threatening to old-timers. “Spy” took things about as far as anyone was willing to go into OTT territory, and MR was a bridge too far. However, that only explains why fans would so hate the movie in 1979. Immediately afterwards, FYEO brought a reduction in scale and budget, a return to a more earthbound plot and even a couple of callbacks to OHMSS. And over the ensuing decades, we’ve seen that the series can go in all sorts of different directions; it’s not locked into the MR mold of “ever bigger, ever crazier.” Which is to say, MR no longer represents a milepost on the inescapable highway to Hell, but rather a temporary, interesting side-trip on a longer and more varied journey. It should be possible to enjoy it now for its better qualities without the fear and loathing that comes from thinking it’s some kind of irreversible shark-jump.
I think what bothers me more than the criticisms though (everyone’s entitled to an opinion) is the tendency of many to fall lock-step into the “prevailing wisdom” about the film. I feel like too many detractors can’t actually express what exactly makes it worse for them than any other Bond; their “analysis” goes no further than “Oh, everyone knows it’s the worst one.” MR hate seems powered by a sort of groupthink and the fear of not fitting in. Similarly, I’m okay with people not liking OP, but not if the only reason they can offer is “Bond dresses like a clown,” which always makes me wonder if they’ve seen the film at all, or merely a publicity photo.
I think I’ve seen that interview, which was contemporary to the film. Which means at the time he would have been promoting “Meteor,” arguably the schlockiest, most poorly produced and scientifically inaccurate SF film since “Plan 9 From Outer Space.” Pot, meet kettle.
Here in Germany, there was a second reason why many critics and “experts” praised (and still praise) it: Brandauer. He was hugely popular due to Mephisto winning the Oscar, and there are enough people (including himself) who still think he’s God’s gift to humanity. Some reviews were surely written after a quick glance at the lobby cards…
I just say…
Which was probably also what made Connery suggest Brandauer for the Largo part. Bizarrely.
But we can forgive him since he gave us this:
“The gun is good. The penis is evil.”
Sounds like politics these days.
A similar thing I’ve seen with people citing Lazenby’s apparent inappropriateness for Bond because he wore a kilt, while undercover as Sir Hilary Bray. Bond would never wear that, they say.
I’m sure the same will eventually be true of NTTD. It may be at the other end of the spectrum, but I like that film for a similar reason why I like MR: it goes all in with its chosen tone to the point all key CR cast members end up dead. That won’t be the ruination of Bond either, but rather a side trip with qualities I can still enjoy. If I want tormented, tragic Bond it’s always going to be there.
I find a lot of appreciation from MR being the last of its kind - like NTTD being the end of the Craig era. Future Bond movies may lean in to more fantasy but I don’t see them going to the heavens with laser guns again. The same thing applies with Bond’s mortality. I’m glad these types of polar opposite stories have been told and get to stand alone in a sense while business as usual more or less continues afterwards. That’s what makes them unique entries in the canon.