Shelf Life: On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Filed under: Fandom, Shelf Life

While the majority of Cinematical's "Shelf Life" columns thus far have targeted specific releases that relate to new films, the truth is that we came up with this series so that we could go back and watch movies we wanted to see, whether it was to experience them for the first time after an eon of reactions and expectations, or just to see whether we were the same people we were when we first saw them, or just maybe, to champion an overlooked gem that disappeared into the ether after its initial release. This week's selection, On Her Majesty's Secret Service, falls into the third category, and we're happy to revisit it instead of some completely random movie that most folks already know they like.
The Facts: Directed by Peter Hunt, who previously edited three of the earlier films in the series, On Her Majesty's Secret Service marked the arrival of actor George Lazenby in the already-iconic role of James Bond. Lazenby notably only played the character one time, refunding money he was paid to appear in the next installment, Diamonds Are Forever, and according to the actor, declining to reprise the role because he thought the character was out of touch with modern audiences by the start of the 1970s. Meanwhile, other rumors swirled around his departure, including friction with the producers, but the film nevertheless ranked as another hit for the franchise, pulling in some $87 million worldwide.
Subsequently the film has largely been forgotten by non-Bond fans, one assumes primarily because of Lazenby's single-serving contribution to the franchise. That said, the film currently enjoys an 81 percent fresh rating at Rotten Tomatoes, and Lazenby was nominated for Most Promising Newcomer – Male at the 1970 Golden Globes.
What Still Works: What's really most remarkable about On Her Majesty's Secret Service is how the film sets a stylistic and thematic precedent that would later be the basis for Casino Royale, which was itself a relaunch of the series. While the action scenes were always aggressive and rough-hewn, the ones in this film are particularly violent, showing Bond getting deeper into trouble as often as he gets out of it. Further, while the film is in a way a celebration and a cementing of virtually all of the aspects of the character's mystique – the girls, the gadgets, the action, the intrigue – it shows his vulnerability in a way that few other Bond movies ever has. This is not merely shown by Bond's marriage to Tracy Draco (Diana Rigg), but in the massive chase sequence where Bond is literally cornered with no place to go and no one to help him – until of course his future wife prevails and help him make a speedy escape.
Remarkably, as much as the film completely encapsulates the Bond mythology in one story, it also presages an era in which Bond becomes an antiquated misogynist, his charms fail him, and quite frankly, he proves to just be a mortal man. In one sequence, he tries to escape the machinery room where a giant winch raises and lowers a cable car, and he actually fails the first time he tries, which has got to be a first (and maybe a last) for the ever-unflappable Bond. And finally, the story adapts Ian Fleming's work most completely of almost any film in the series, although it expands the narrative to include several developments that augment the emotional core of the story.What Doesn't Work: At 140 minutes – just four shorter than Casino Royale, the longest in the series' history – the film's dramatic momentum is uneven at best. That's not to say it isn't compelling viewing throughout, but there are a lot of digressions from the central plot, owing largely to its faithfulness to Fleming's novel, where such developments can more easily be expanded and explored. And while the shifting tone of the film seems purposeful, the lightness of the first half of the film (especially John Barry's score) gives the story a superficial quality that only deepens later.
What's The Verdict: On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the best Bond movies in the entire series, and it holds up a lot better than many of the franchise's supposedly bona fide "classics." Whether or not Lazenby would have made a serviceable Bond over the course of many more movies is obviously unknown, but in his first and only performance in the role, he both nails the heroism and the humanity of the character, and could have helped usher the series towards something grittier and more substantive in the 1970s if he'd stayed on. As connective tissue between the golden age of James Bond and his more recent renaissance, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is a terrific, action-packed and highly evocative film.










Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
10-29-2009 @ 10:49PM
Andy Williamson said...
Agree 100%. On Her Majesty's Secret Service is one of the greatest Bond films of all time. Lazenby is the most underrated 007 -- he should have stayed on through the 70s and saved us from Roger Moore's Bond Lite. I grew up on Moore's Bond, and loved him, but even I knew at a young age that he was no Sean Connery. Lazenby came closer to Fleming's original mix of panache and badassery.
Reply
10-29-2009 @ 10:49PM
Brian said...
OHMSS is my favorite of the Bond films. Lazenby is far better than people give him credit, and the end of the film is stunning and surprising given the Bond films that had come before.
Reply
10-29-2009 @ 8:38PM
Alex Bledsoe said...
Yep. What you said.
Reply
10-29-2009 @ 10:48PM
jackmurphy1969 jac said...
The movie is also hurt by being made out of sequence with the novels. You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun both deal with the emotional impact of Tracy's murder on Bond. I'd like to see all three remade with Craig, in order.
Reply
10-29-2009 @ 10:48PM
harshman Grevelis said...
Absolutely! OHMSS has always been a favorite of mine. The first time Bond skies. Diana Rigg. And as true to the novel as a Bond film could ever be.
Reply
10-29-2009 @ 11:56PM
Radagast83 said...
OHMSS has always been in my top 3 favorite James Bond films. I was worried at first when I saw that this was going to be reviewed, as there are quite a few people that don't seem to 'get' the film.
Many explain it away as being lesser than other Bond films because Lazenby only appeared in one film (the same goes for Dalton - which was due to financial problems with the studio but I digress).
Having read the book, there's only slight differences between the two (The film starts around chapter 2-3 I believe, skipping Bond following Tracy). In all it's surprising that just about every single Bond film doesn't resemble the book it is based on, yet this one is extremely faithful. And it works.
Why they abandoned this and went to the campy 70s Moore era I don't know. So many of those films weren't good when they were released and are only worse today.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 1:33PM
lw said...
Dalton was in 2 bond films, The Living Daylights and License To Kill. I thought Dalton personified the "human" Bond better than anyone. Craig now channels that same "realness".
10-30-2009 @ 1:57AM
JackGonzo said...
I was one of those folks who refused to watch it because it wasn't Connery...but when I bought the boxed sets I finally watched and was surprised by how much I loved it. I thought he was a better bond then all other than Connery and Craig. This movie I also think has the best song of any Bond film. All The Time In The World is an absolutely gorgeous and touching song. I also think it has been then only Bond movie where you actually bought the romance, I think I actually cried at the end of the film.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 9:24AM
JrodLiebs said...
Thank you for this! I too feel this is a severely underrated Bond film and let's not forget how good the always twisted Telly Savalas was as Blofeld. Great style throughout and not too much silliness.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 1:31PM
James Cramer said...
"a superficial quality that only deepens later?" That's quite an interesting quality.
Deep down, it's really quite shallow.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 1:30PM
John Lovett said...
I've always been totally captivated by this Bond film - It's just fantastic. I remember seeing this film as a child during the Roger Moore era on TV. It was quite a novelty seeing someone other than Connery or Moore play a 'human' Bond. The ending also left me shocked and stunned at the time - A great story with some emotional depth. Lazenby's definitely underrated as Bond.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 1:30PM
Paul Baack said...
Thank you for championing this still largely-forgotten James Bond movie. Most knowledgeable Bond fans agree that OHMSS ranks among the best, if not at the top, of the series, but casual fans and the general viewing audience have missed out on a great treat. So many elements of the film are superlative: Richard Maibaum's greatest screenplay; John Barry's greatest 007 music score; cinematography (by Michael Reed) is best of the series; John Glen's brilliant editing; and the uniform excellence of the cast, with Diana Rigg as one of the best Bond girls ever, and Telly Savalas gleefully tearing up the screen as Blofeld.
In my opinion, the series never reached these heights again, until -- arguably -- 2006's CASINO ROYALE.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 3:19PM
OsLord said...
Not to knock anybody who enjoys this movie, but I'm currently going through all of the Bond movies, many for the first time, and I must say that I was really looking forward to this one, but ended up not liking it that much. I thought Lazenby was a terrible Bond. Everything he said came off as jokey and none of his emotional scenes packed any real punch. Also there was a lot of bizzare editing techniques going on, besides just the choppy-looking fight scenes.
I was wary after the first scene, where he looks at the camera and says something like, "I bet this never happened to the other guy." Too goofy and self-aware for me. Just my opinion though.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 5:28PM
IA said...
Still the best Bond film ever made--Lazenby's physical assurance and cocky manners mask some surprisingly sensitive acting, as in the film's still affecting ending, which the actor nails.
As Charles Taylor once pointed out OHMSS also marks the end of the original cycle of Bond films--many of the familiar conventions of the series are both celebrated and confronted. The film's ending implicitly says that while Bond has now become a human being, he is trapped within his own film series and must be denied happiness.
Reply
10-30-2009 @ 6:15PM
DAVID F said...
I totally agree. This movie is a gem for all the reasons you mentioned. Great soundtrack too. Do you know where Christmas Trees are From? and We Have All the Time in The World in particular.
Reply
10-31-2009 @ 9:48PM
Carlton Merlin said...
He quit after movie release. Over the years I thought he ditch from role. But he had a reason. I was glad Sean Connery came back for 1 more. He was so close play Bond in The Return of The Man From UNCLE & a remake Hitchock episode. There 1 rubbish I'm sure off, he never had anything of the officail Bond which Sean Connery play Bond for the Final time "Never Say Never Again". That offical Bond moive was for Sean Connery which I was glad again he play for the Final time. At that time Roger Moore Played his 6th Bond role in "Octorpussy". Now he regrets he should stay on the role for few more. I don't understand him.
Reply
10-31-2009 @ 4:47AM
Rob Green said...
Great review.
I've always loved OHMSS in fact it was the very first Bond film I ever saw. I was 6 years old and it was the big film at Butlins Holiday-camp in 1970 (those were the days.) Lazenby WAS Bond as far as I was concerned - I'd only heard about the "other fella", Sean Connery.
I loved the film then - just loved it. The action. The music and the shocking ending stayed with me and this is where my love of all things Bond began.
It's a terrific film in its own right, and as most Bond fans agree, one of the best if not the best of the series.
As said here already, Lazenby is very under-rated by some critics and public. He has the physical presence, the attitude, swagger and confidence - and he's brilliant in the fight scenes - but he also effortlessly shows the human-being underneath, more so than Connery ever did. I truly believe if Connery had played Bond in OHMSS it would not have had the emotional impact and the more sensitive moments that the film has with Lazenby.
Along wiht Connery and Craig, George Lazenby is my favourite Bond. I wished he'd stayed on and done a few more films, but alas it wasn't to be.
Reply
11-03-2009 @ 8:32PM
Diabolik said...
A great film, very ahead of it's time in regards to being a more complex and more emotionally-based Bond film. But I must say, that Lazenby is a pretty wooden actor and seems totally out of his depth.
I only wish that OHMSS was the next in the series after Goldfinger, as it was originally planned. What a magnificent film this would have been with Connery and how it could have changed the direction of the series. Damn Kevin McClory for mudding the waters and forcing Brocolli and Saltzman to make Thunderball after GF.
Reply
11-08-2009 @ 7:18AM
Martin said...
If OHMSS had been made after GF, either Guy Hamilton or Terence Young would have directed it. What makes OHMSS such a wonderful entry in the Bond series, is the touch of its director Peter Hunt. Only he could have made it the way it is.
11-19-2009 @ 9:28AM
BarryC said...
Well, for me OHMSS is on the top spot of all Bond Films alongside Goldfinger and the new Casino Royale. In fact, it's one of my favourite all-time films - it's got Diana Rigg; John Barry's score; great scenery and George Lazenby for me *is* Bond - I can see his 'woodeness' in one scene where he meets Teresa's Father but I was looking for it. But Sean Connery is hardly a great actor, is he? Yes, he is still my favouriet Bond with Daniel Craig; George Lazenby & Timothy Dalton coming next in order...
It's a pity Georg didn't stay on to do more films but his stupid manager/ friend said that James Bond was dead in the water and would never carry on - he couldn't have been more wrong.
As much as love Roger Moore I will never think of him as James Bond - they are just silly action films - maybe if John Barry had stayed on it might have helped.
I don't think Sean Connery could have given us the emotional depth that George did either and thank goodness this film wasn't made straight after Goldfinger - no Diana Rigg, no 'We Have All The Time In The World', no Piz Gloria no....- not worth thinking about! Phew!
Reply