The James Bond movie that broke Sean Connery: “All the gimmicks now have been done”
Sean Connery had a famously mercurial relationship with the James Bond franchise. He originated the character and made a fortune off of it, but like many future 007s, he chafed under the constraints of the role and fought hard to make changes. He even left the franchise entirely two times, only to come back twice, once under a different production company.
Connery was not author Ian Fleming’s first choice to play Bond, but he did become many people’s platonic ideal of the character. He was suave, handsome, and young enough to pull off the kind of womanising and laser work that those original Eon productions required. The first instalment, 1962’s Dr No, wasn’t expected to be a dynasty-starter. It was made for just over $1million, and Connery was paid just $17,000. However, it was a bigger hit than expected, paving the way for one of the most lucrative and recognisable franchises in cinema history.
There are certain stereotypes that developed almost from the beginning. The ‘Bond girls’ with their sexually suggestive names were one, as were all the ridiculous gadgets, cars, and action sequences. Each movie doubled down on these tropes while attempting to outdo the previous film. This is the trajectory of pretty much every franchise, but there were so many Bond movies in such a short span of time (six in the 1960s and five in the 1970s) that the feverish one-upmanship was all the more glaring.
This might have worked if the first movie had set the bar low, but it did not. Tarantulas, flame tanks, radioactive swamps, and a fight in a nuclear reactor forced the filmmakers to make the second movie even more outlandish and the third even more outlandish than the second. So by the time Thunderball rolled around in 1965, the writers and producers were running low on flamboyant set pieces.
Connery was all too aware of this fact. In an interview with Playboy shortly before the film was released, he was remarkably candid. “It’s a healthy market and it has been maintained because each succeeding film has got bigger and the gimmicks trickier,” he said. “But we have to be careful where we go next, because I think with Thunderball we’ve reached the limit as far as size and gimmicks are concerned.”
He pointed out that the upcoming film put 007 underwater for a full 10% of its runtime. “There is a love scene underwater,” he said, “And attacks by aquaparas from the sky, and two-man submarines under the sea, and Bond is menaced by sharks.” Even the cars and gadgets were getting out of control. “Instead of the Aston Martin, we have a hydrofoil disguised as a cabin cruiser,” he said. “And Bond escapes with a self-propelling jet set attached to his back.”
As things stood, he concluded, “All the gimmicks now have been done. And they are expected. What is needed now is a change of course, more attention to character, and better dialogue.”
It’s rare to hear an actor criticise a soon-to-be-released film, and even rarer for them to provide specific and actionable insights about it. Unfortunately, 1967’s You Only Live Twice did very little to follow up on Connery’s valid criticism, presenting the most outlandish and messy plot yet. During filming, the star announced that he’d be exiting the franchise after that instalment, leaving the producers scrambling to find a replacement. After George Lazenby turned out to be a surprisingly excellent one-hit wonder in the role, Connery returned.
