Interview with Michael Lonsdale in Cinefantastique Spring 1979 by Frederic Albert Levy
MOONRAKER is the new James Bond thriller, which began filming last August 14, on Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Venice and Guatemala locations for producer Albert Broccoli and director Lewis Gilbert. Roger Moore will return to play James Bond, as will 007’s deadly arch-enemy from THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, “Jaws.” played by Richard Kiel. Screenwriter Christopher Wood has taken liberties with Ian Fleming’s original title and characters (the story was one of the first Bond properties optioned for filming back in the early sixties, and was almost made after FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). Sir Hugo Drax, the villain of MOONRAKER, was described in the book as a former Nazi passing himself off as an Englishman, with a reconstituted face (the tragic result of unsuccessful plastic surgery) covered in grotesque red hair. Drax will in fact be portrayed by distinguished French actor Michael Lonsdale with a simple black beard and foreign accent, a far cry from the repulsive Drax of Fleming’s original novel.
Lonsdale does not seem to share the quasi-religious faith that producer Albert Broccoli and director Lewis Gilbert have in the successful nature of the Bond films. But at the same time Lonsdale feels no contempt for the enterprise. During the interview, he didn’t seem too over-impressed by his “new power” as Bond’s arch¬enemy. His most famous international role was as Commissaire Lebel in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. His other film roles have been limited to European productions little-known in the United States.
We spoke with Lonsdale on the Paris sets of MOONRAKER in late November, while shooting was still in progress. The film is expected to be released by United Artists in July.
CF: Had you been interested in the Bond series before MOONRAKER?
ML: I saw the first three Bond films, but I did not find them amusing. But when I was proposed the part of Drax, I wanted to update my Bondian knowledge, and was very surprised at THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. I thought it was very good.
CF: Could you tell briefly the story of the film?
ML: James Bond is confronted with the case of a certain Dr. Drax, a billionaire who, just like Hitler, wants to select a super-race of men, pure and beautiful, and take them to a planet, have them reproduce there, and in the meantime destroy all that is on this planet Earth - to afterwards bring back here his new perfect human race.
CF: This has very little to do with Moonraker, the novel.
ML: As far as Drax is concerned, the film script is much simpler. Drax is not English in the film - he is just presented as a “foreigner.”
CF: Do you pay attention to the technical aspects of the film?
ML: Oh yes. I was literally moved when I saw Ken Adam’s set for the satellite control room. That was really something! There was magic about it, something fantastic.
CF: You are working with an international crew on MOONRAKER. Does that create a particular atmosphere?
ML: There is no difference, really. Although half the crew is French, including the director of photography Jean Tournier, who replaced an ill Claude Renoir, the whole thing is essentially British.
CF: If, as a spectator, you are interested in the lavish sets, aren't you afraid, as an actor, they might do you harm?
ML: Yes, but every part you play is a risk to take. It can be good or bad for you. But I really have a good time, because I was used to filming in cramped rooms with dingy cameras. The English know how to save the actor from bothering about any technical question. As for my part as such, I was somewhat surprised when Lewis Gilbert told me, “the villain is the villain;” Lewis thinks in Shakesperean terms. When people go to see a James Bond film, they go to see certain elements. After ten films, they don’t want to be confronted with a psychological drama, or something they would normally see in another film— they come to see a James Bond film. But I think there is more to it. In MOONRAKER, the villain Drax represents a whole catagory of paranoid and crazy people, those who believe there is some purity to be kept in this world. For me it’s a change from the minister and president roles I’d been playing for so long. But I will be too pleased to shave off this cruel beard.
CF: Does Drax have any ruthless henchmen?
ML: Of course! I have a Japanese servant, but Bond wipes him out very quickly. When I want a replacement, somebody suggests “Jaws,” and I accept right away.
CF: You are fairly tall, but you have to look up when you talk to Richard Kiel?
ML: Richard Kiel is a very nice guy. He’s a math teacher in California. He is an example of of how the cinema can change somebody’s life. You couldn’t say he is a good actor, but he’s got presence, which is the essential thing.
CF: I had thought "Jaws" came back in this film as a "good guy. "
ML: He becomes a good guy at the end of the film. Bond makes him realize that there will be no place for him in the world conceived by Drax.
CF: How does Drax die?
ML: He is shot by one of those special Bond darts and thrown out of the satellite.
CF: What is your relationship with Lewis Gilbert? Can he pay much attention to the actors, if he is already busy with technical problems?
ML You know, that question reminds me of the time I worked with Joseph Losey. A couple of times I asked him, “How would you like me to play this part?” but he looked so frightened, and I understood I should not ask him such a question, because he had no idea of what the answer was. As for Lewis, some of that applies since he is working almost totally in relation to the film’s technology and set decor. At one point, I suggested to Lewis that I should stand up and get closer to a big globe on the set. And Lewis just said, “Yes, good idea, if you want to do it that way.” One scene in the film shows a gondola flying across Piazza San Marco in Venice. Lewis knows his job, and there are very few ways to shoot a scene like that. We actors have to add something amusing here and there. Lewis asked me to be more of a smiling Drax. I personally would have played the character as more severe, but Lewis pointed out that Drax is a happy character, content with what he’s doing.
CF: And about Bond, the character?
ML: “Mr. Bond, you reappear with the inevitability of an unloved season” is one of the niceties I tell him. The dialogues are fairly short and direct. Roger Moore is a very nice person. I didn’t know him well, but he came to me one day to congratulate me on my performance in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. Originally, he was to have played the jackal, by the way. I think he is one of the rare actors who can afford to do Bond and then do something else. He’s got humor, and always shows that he does not take the part too seriously.
CF: How were you chosen to play Drax ?
ML: An important casting director in France, Margot Capelier, suggested me for the Drax role. And perhaps Roger Moore had me in mind from my performance in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. I think James Mason was offered the part first. But he turned it down. Some actors perhaps do not want to participate in James Bond films.
CF: Do you feel there is always a very strong relationship between Bond and his enemy?
ML: Of course. We’re dealing with archetypes. It all depends on what you think is good, and what you think is not. Is the law, is justice good? There is always a good hero and a bad villain. And although this picture is something of a caricature, symbolically, that good/ evil concept is what is in people’s minds. Bond has the license to destroy, the license to kill, which is one of the great unconscious factors of mankind, killing in the name of Justice. A James Bond film is, I think, seen by one person out of four on earth. The films do not pretend to bring any revolutionary ideas to the cinema, but they are “entertainment.” And they are based on certains notions fundamental in the world, good and evil. Bond is just Judex with another name, or Zorro. He is defender of the Law. I do have a concealed violence, which I’m afraid of, and which I get rid of in parts I play; it really does me good. For even all those people who don’t like violence might be secretly violent. My life as an actor certainly helped me acquire some balance. I think that any artistic activity derives from a need to give the world a new, satisfying balance.
END OF INTERVIEW
While it’s good to see someone not toeing the company line in an interview, I do feel that Lonsdale is up his own backside in some of the stuff he says. Meanwhile, once again, Ken Adam’s sets are praised, concurring that these are the real stars of the movie.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
He also says a number of spoilers. Agree re Ken Adam, of course.
It's been known for a long time that James Mason had been at least considered to play Drax if not actually offered the part as Lonsdale suggests above, and while he was an admirable actor I don't think he could have improved on Lonsdale.
Didn't Mason play a Nazi in some Boys of Brazil type film? Thing is, he'd have lacked the surprise factor, and have been too old. With Moore as Bond, it might have had that North by Northwest feel to it, as the two keep running into each other and so on.
Was that the idea then, at one point, to base it more on Fleming's novel to some extent, as least with the Drax character? I prefer Drax in the film as not German, nor with any Nazi links - the series has hardly ever mentioned the Nazis save from Bond on the golf course in GF and the land mines in FYEO, and talk of Kristatos' wartime activities. It's just a bit close to the bone.
Here's an interesting snippet from an early 1980s edition of Starburst magazine, in which Sean Connery willingly discusses James Bond, in particular the recent For Your Eyes Only, and the chances of his returning to the role. Like on of those interviews where John Lennon doesn't outwardly reject reforming the Beatles, you felt that of course if Connery did return to the role, he's absolutely knock it out the park, especially given the wisdom of the comments below...
Interview with Vic Armstrong - by Alan Jones - Cinefantastique December 1999.
Although Michael Apted was at the helm of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, as so many have before him in the same position, he turned to his second unit director Vic Armstrong to insure the action sequences were the best they could possibly be. The first James Bond adventure stunt man Victor M. Armstrong worked on was YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE back in 1967 and his special touch has since graced ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, LIVE AND LET DIE, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
Armstrong's name is alway somewhere on the credit of the best action movies. From TOTAL RECALL and THE PHANTOM to STARSHIP TROOPERS and ENTRAPMENT, Armstrong professed to a love/hate relationship with the industry he's so much a part of because of the arduous challenges he faces on a daily basis. “The hardest part of my job is trying to be original," he said. "You rack your brains for bigger and better stunts because the one person you can't cheat is yourself. I know what I've done before on other movies and I strive to be different each time. You have no idea how tough that is.”
Nevertheless, Armstrong has faced the gruelling task of bringing Bond into the 21st century with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and credits his close relationship with Michael Apted for that. "Our collaboration has been marvellous and has worked like a dream. I advise him on what looks good within a scene - the little nuances in the physical performances that count - while he tells me what quirks he wants me to include in mine. I hate second unit directing, in truth. I much prefer directing proper. I directed ARMY OF ONE in 1993 and an episode of THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES. The latter featured no stunts because producer George Lucas thought that would be amusing. But if you are going to do a second unit job you might as well work with the best like Apted and Pierce Brosnan. Pierce is fantastic and his dry sense of Irish humor really makes everything go with a sparkle. I sometimes never know if he's joking or not."
Armstrong's work on THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH has mainly split into four basic action sequences. "The first is the boat chase down the River Thames in London," he recounted. "The second is the ski chase in the French Alps. The third is the battle on the walkways of Zukovsky's caviar factory in Azerbaijan. The fourth, which we are sharing half and half with the main unit, is the Russian submarine sinking vertically into the Caspian Sea. The latter has taken us to the Bosphorous and back to Pinewood and includes the submarine tilting, diving and flooding, the fight in the reactor room between Bond, Renard and Christmas, Bond 's escape, and then the whole thing blowing up..,”
Armstrong said the Thames boat chase was the most difficult stunt sequence of all. The chase takes in many London tourist sights - the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge and Docklands -as tuxedoed 007 pursues the mysterious Cigar Girl at 60 mph in a Bentz boat. "Working on water is always hard and time consuming," said Armstrong. "We had a 25-foot tide level to consider and we had to change all the moorings in the afternoons when the water ran in reverse. We photographed the entire sequence with an armada of 35 boats and also used a flying camera from Belgium so we could dive under the bridges along the Thames. We shot for seven days on the river itself and then moved to Docklands so we wouldn't have to contend with the tidal problems. That's where we filmed the jet-powered boat leaping out of the water and zooming along the roads through an East End market. We had warned all the workers on the Thames and the only ones who complained were Members of Parliament in the Houses of Parliament. Typical! The people we are paying to be there and who were going to earn revenue off the film were the only ones to register complaints."
The ski sequence was shot in the French Alps during avalanche season and, in fact one of the worst bits while the movie was there. " It was tough to keep going when you knew some of the people whose lives were lost," he said. "Working on snow is so scary because you are air-lifting 180 crew members in on helicopters to areas that could shift. We were landing on slopes inches away from a complete vertical drop. One gust of wind and it would have been all over. ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE has a great radical skiing sequence in it and to make our's different, we used these great devices called parahawks - a sort of cross between a parachute and a motorized glider which you steer to land and take-off. Despite the problems such a sequence entails, I do prefer shooting on location rather than in the studio because the latter has such a factory feel. You have to rehearse and rehearse on location, of course, and then try and make it all look spontaneous, but I rise to those occasions more than tackling problems in a studio tank.”
But one of Armstrong's studio-set sequences which he thinks is going to be a major highlight is the caviar factory one. "We shot that on the Pinewood backlot on a set that cost over $1 million," he said. " It's a night-time sequence and has two helicopters with circular saws attached to their under-carriage attacking Bond on wooden walkways and cutting up the whole building. The helicopters are actually used to cut trees back from high tension cables and we've adapted them for this thrilling scene."
Although Sophie Marceau did her own skiing in the Alps, Pierce Brosnan turned out not to be that adept at the sport. So Brosnan did most of the boat chase sequence instead. Armstrong added, "We had to be careful, though, as the waves at those speeds were hitting him in the face like sledgehammers. We must never risk our lead actor or put him in a position where he can black his eyes or lose a tooth. But because Pierce wanted to legitimize the sequence as much as he could we used him a great deal more than expected. Sometimes it is better to use stunt men because all they are thinking about is the stunt in question. An actor is worried about that, and looking good, and remembering his lines. Not a good combination."
Working with the same crew he's had on his last five movies, Armstrong feels he's done his job on THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. "What's the difference between this one and TOMORROW NEVER DIES? We did more traveling to exotic locations on the last. Making the Bond films special is so hard, you know. You want realism within the tongue-in-cheek aspects, yet you can't step outside Bond 's character or that destroys the unique atmosphere. Staying within the Bond rules, yet trying to be fresh and original while he saves the world again is a nightmare."
END OF INTERVIEW
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Not cast or crew but close enough, and interesting enough to include in this thread is an interview with continuation author Raymond Benson with Rich Handley in Cinefantastique December 1999:
For four decades moviegoers have thrilled to James Bond's on-screen adventures, reveling in his world of fast cars, faster women, and deadly assassins. Film fans know Bond as a character larger than life, a man who dispatched attackers without spilling his martini, has a witty rejoinder for any situation, and gets any woman be wants. However, readers know a different version of the character. For them, the true James Bond is not the super-hero of Hollywood, but rather the dark, bitter, vice-ridden assassin Ian Fleming created in the 1953 novel Casino Royale.
Fleming's work had a moderate but devoted following, which rose dramatically when John F. Kennedy announced his fascination with the series. In total, he produced 12 novels and nine short stories about Bond, most of which have been filmed by Eon Productions. Upon his death, Kingsley Amis was hired to write a follow-up tale, Colonel Sun, but no other Bond novels appeared until 1981, when John Gardner brought Bond into the '80 with License Renewed. Though some bristled at changes made to Bond's character (Gardner made him younger than his actual age for credibility's sake and borrowed several film elements, the novel met with success and Gardner went on to write 13 more original novels and two film novelizations before retiring in 1996.
Enter Raymond Benson, a West Texas-born composer, writer, and game designer whose encyclopedic James Bond Bedside Companion I widely regarded as the definitive book on the James Bond phenomenon. His role-playing adventure YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE II: BACK OF BEYOND was published by Victory Games as part of the James Bond 007 Role-Playing Games, and he also wrote text-based interactive video games based on GOLDFINGER and A VIEW TO A KILL.
Benson was hired to continue writing the 007 novels in 1996. His first novel, Zero Minus Ten, appeared the following year and was serialised by Playboy, which also published his short story “Blast From The Past” the same year. He rounded out 1997 with the novelization of TOMORROW NEVER DIES. His second original novel, The Facts of Death, appeared in 1998 {also excerpted in Playboy), followed by a second short story, "Midsummer Night's Doom," a third original novel, High Time to a Kill, and the novelization of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, all in 1999.
Benson's original aspirations involved the theater. After graduating in 1978 from the University of Texas at Austin with a BFA in Directing, he moved to New York City and spent several years directing and composing music in the off-off-Broadway and off- Broadway arenas. Noted Benson, "One day, some friends and I were sitting around and the discussion came to ' What sort of book would you write if you had to?' My answer - a book about James Bond mainly because I was so knowledgeable about the subject.,, His father had taken him to see GOLDFINGER when he was nine years old, he said, which "hooked" him on Bond forever. Quickly devouring Fleming's novels by age 11, Benson kept up with "all things Bond on into adulthood. Thus was born the Companion, which took three years to complete, and established him as a Bond expert worldwide.
While writing the book, and during his six years as Vice President of the American James Bond 007 Fan Club, Benson became friendly with Peter Janson-Smith at Glidrose Publications {the copyright holders to the literary Bond) and the Fleming family. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Ian Fleming Foundation, a not-for-profit organization run by Glidrose, the Fleming family, and Bond/ Fleming enthusiasts, which procure , archives, and restores memorabilia associated with Fleming and Bond, their long- term goal to erect a permanent museum. The connections afforded him the chance to take over from Gardner.
Fleming served in the British Navy and was known to have been a womanizer and drinker like his famous super-spy, but Benson calls himself "a normal guy," adding, "I'll be the first to admit that I don't have some of the experiences in life that Ian Fleming had, but I think I'm able to draw upon the spirit and mood that he created and go my own way from there. A good imagination helps, I suppose. An author doesn't have to be an astronaut to write science fiction." To this end, Benson researches all locations appearing in his novels, and says he attempts to recreate the flavor of Fleming's famous restaurant menus, dining sequences, and detailed gambling scenes."I travel to all the locations in my books that I can and experience a lot of stuff that ends up in the books. My wife read Zero Minus Ten and said, 'Wow, it's our trip to Hong Kong and China... only with danger!"'
This is one reason Benson prefers writing original material over writing film novelizations. "They're the author's work, from conception and storyline to the finished product. That's not to say that novelizations can't be fun. I had a blast doing TOMORROW NEVER DIES...the main dif- ference, of course, is that the storyline, the outline,' so to speak, is given." His original work, he says, is much more involved. Glidrose requires an outline for each novel, which he considers extremely useful though he admits it's the most difficult part of the entire process. " My outlines are 15 pages or so of prose-broken out chapter by chapter - describing everything that happens in the book. Coming up with a plot is extremely difficult because so much has already been done!” Once the outline is finished (which takes him two to three months) he travels, researches his locations, and then comes back to write the novel, which he delivers nearly nine months before publication. The entire process lasts about 18 months for each novel.
Benson has a vast canon to draw upon for his books. Preferring not to reference the role-playing game and comics based on James Bond, or the Christopher Wood novelisations of MOONRAKER and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, he finds the 32 novels and story collections more than enough to remember. "It's harder than one would think, even for someone who knows the books fairly well. There are little mistakes here and there- we've all made them. Even Fieming! '
To illustrate, Benson cites The Facts of Death:"I had the head of the MI6 office in Athens as Stuart Thomas, who had been created by Kingsley Amis in Colonel Sun. What I forgot was that Stuart Thomas is ' missing and presumed dead,' a speculation buried somewhere in the last quarter of that book!"
Luckily, Benson has the freedom to pick and choose what to use or ignore from the previous books, so such minor errors are not a big problem. For instance, though Gardner made Bond a Captain in Win, Lose or Die, Benson felt "Commander Bond" sounded better and demoted him again. "There was an explanation somewhere that indicated that Bond's promotion to Captain was only temporary for that assignment," recalled Benson, "but I think it got edited out from wherever it was.
What has been problematic is Bond's age. Fleming’s Bond served in World War II, and yet Benson is supposed to be writing about the same character! Benson (and Gardner before him) chose to deal with this dilemma the same way Eon has in the films -namely to ignore it altogether.' We're dealing with an ageless Bond now...characters like Bond go through time warps as they continue over the years. Superman and Batman have been going since the 30’s!”
Benson considers himself a "purist." preferring Fleming's original novels to the film versions. He would welcome the chance to write a Bond film and grants,'You can’t argue with success. The films are what made Bond the icon he is today, and they're what initially got me into Bond. I love the films, even the ones that are not-so-great."
Whether or not Benson will get to write a James Bond screenplay, he enjoys being Ian Fleming's successor on the novels. He's satisfied with his financial compensation; he's happy having such artistic freedom; he maintains that none of his ideas have been rejected by Glidrose; and he's grateful for the privilege of chronicling the adventures of a character who has fascinated him his whole life. As such, it's no wonder that he plans to continue to write James Bond books. 'As long as they'll have me!"
END OF INTERVIEW
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Interview with Cubby from the Moonraker Official Magazine (1979):
Albert R Broccoli is a personal filmaker. Unlike many producers, he is almost always on the set, and is ever-willing to pitch in on menial chores to help his film succeed. Without Broccoli’s drive and faith in the Bond character, the series would not be the legend that it has become.
Born in Astoria, Long Island, Broccoli learned early on the value of hard work. He took a job on his uncle’s farm and, by the age of sixteen, was driving huge truckloads of vegetables to various markets. Shortly thereafter, he began to study journalism at nightschool. Then, on a fateful visit to Hollywood in 1933, he fell in love with the industry. He remained behind, landing his first job in the mailroom at 20th Century Fox. After serving in World War II, he became an actor’s agent, and then a producer. His first film was THE RED BERET in 1952, and was followed by such hits as HELL BELOW ZERO, PARATROOPER, COCKLESHELL HEROES, and others. In 1962 he co-produced DR. NO, and the rest is history.
Though Broccoli travels the world over to shoot his motion pictures, he and his author-wife Dana make their home in California.
This interview with Mr. Broccoli was conducted by Richard Meyers while the producer was in New York promoting MOONRAKER.
Q: As everyone no doubt knows, the James Bond of the movies and the James Bond as written by the late Ian Fleming are totally different. How did you make the transition from printed page to celluloid?
A: Well, actually, these films are not created the way Fleming created his books. We tried to be very astute scholars of the Fleming work. I knew him, after all, and he was a lovely man. So we tried to find out what James Bond was all about. When he died it was a great loss to us — especially because he began to like what we were doing. We tried to roll with and learn from the changes. But even Fleming noted he was running out of enthusiasm doing the books. In fact, in the novel THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, he tried to bring himself to kill off James Bond. We decided, as we went on that changes were necessary. As we continued filming and continued writing screenplays, things developed.
Q: Roger Moore was quoted as saying several years ago that he wanted THE SPY WHO LOVED ME to be his last Bond picture. Then he went ahead with MOONRAKER. Are you gearing up to search for another new James Bond?
A: No, I’m not making any search. If Roger wants to do it, he can. We'll let him do it. But then again, if he doesn’t want to do it we'll find somebody else, only because we're forced to. As we were forced to find somebody to take Sean Connery’s place. We came up with George Lazenby, whose picture was not unsuccessful. It was a very profitable picture (ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.) I have a feeling it would have been more profitable with someone else starring. Like Sean Connery. But now Roger has filled the gap so nicely we go with him. He’s a bigger money maker worldwide than any of the Bonds. People everywhere have accepted him.
Q: Do you think the character of James Bond has changed even between the last film and MOONRAKER?
A: Yes, I think so. It's changed quite a lot over the years.
Q: How so?
A: Well, going back to the Sean Connery Bond ... it was changed because we did not need the Sean Connery type. Bond, as we saw him was a cool type. I have said this before, but it’s true. Roger plays Bond closer to the image Fleming set in his books. Bond is light-hearted, humorous, a bit nasty, or course, and a bit rough; yet, outside that front there's a lot of humor. I mean, we can laugh with him and at him. We can laugh when a man like Jaws picks him up with one hand and throws him across the room. We might feel sorry too, but we can enjoy seeing him getting the crap kicked out of him. But the best comparison I can think of between the two types of Bond is when you see Dick Powell and Humphrey Bogart play the detective character Philip Marlowe in two movies. Dick Powell played Marlowe (in MURDER MY SWEET) the way Roger played Bond. And Marlowe would be played by Bogart (in THE BIG SLEEP) the way Sean Connery played Bond. They're two different types, you take your pick, you pay your four dollars, and you choose which one you want to see. Or maybe both, they’re both very successful.
Q: Getting on to MOONRAKER, did you consciously attempt to emulate STAR WARS?
A: We didn’t at all. We did these space things because of the natural talent of our crew. I’m speaking of Ken Adam's sets and Derek Meddings who is so good with special effects. The departure from Earth-bound action came because of their talents and because as we went on writing these things we saw Bond in space.
Q: And how did that idea develop?
A: We visited places like Rockwell International and NASA. As we talked to these people, the reality of what they were trying to do took shape. We attended a seminar where all these marvelously talented scientists explained space colonies to us. As all these people told us these things, we began to realize we had a story here. These scientists could put up a station like the one we have in our picture but they don’t have the money. Anyway, I am not a scientist, I’m repeating what I heard like a parrot — and maybe not too well. But basically we worked on the space station idea and developed it into a complete story. It’s not science fiction ... it’s science fact we think. We’re closer to science fact in our approach than science fiction.
Q: Your finished Bond scripts are usually wonderful combinations of humor, action, and romance. It hardly seems the work of one man.
A: Well, we're all involved. I am very much involved. I'd like to think that I’m a very important part of this. I have been from the very beginning with my then-partner Harry Saltzman. We said what we wanted to say. And I’d like to think that I’m still a creative producer. I have the ideas and they have to be written, so we employ writers to do that. I don’t think even the greatest writer in the world can just sit down and write a James Bond story to my liking. They need our discussions. And when I say “‘our,” I mean not mine alone. I mean our director, our executive directors, and many others. There are many who come in only for consultation, and then there’s Ken Adam’s set designs. All are important. That’s the way we are. It isa team that does Bond. It isn’t any one of us.
Q: How great a contribution does a director make in the success of a Bond film?
A: I think a big contribution if he’s good. Lewis Gilbert is good. But he’s a Bond director, you see. I think one has to earn your reputation as a director, or a writer, or even a producer for that matter. Especially on a Bond. You can’t just fit in automatically on your first Bond picture. And I think we all learn a lot every time out. Including Lewis. But the great quality Lewis has is his unflappability. The whole ceiling could be falling down and he’s just talking about a way to overcome it, He never gets nervous, he never throws up his hands and says ‘we're in trouble.’ And sometimes we are in trouble! It’s amazing. Whereas other directors I’ve had on Bond get panicky and don’t know what to do, a director has got to find a way out. Lewis always finds his own way out.
Q: How much do you think the music lends to a Bond movie?
A: Now, I don’t think anybody can score a picture like John Barry for suspense. I mean, with all due respect to Marvin Hamlisch (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME), who I like very much, and George Martin (LIVE AND LET DIE), who I like, there’s a certain thing that Barry gives to a picture just at the right moment that helps the action, helps the suspense, helps the nature of the sequence. Whether it’s a love scene or a fight scene or whatever, there's a thing about Barry. I think he is one of the great cinema composers.
Q: You did a rather incredible thing between THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER. You pushed the budget up by over ten million dollars!
A: Well, WE didn’t push the budget up. The forces of nature pushed the budget up. The forces of economy, the forces of inflation, and the incredible cost in Europe, France — England for that matter — and wherever we went! All of the prices are rising and yet we won't diminish the quality of the picture.We cannot ever do that. Otherwise we'd stop making them. We can’t do a dirty deal on the audience. After all these years, the Bond syndrome is getting stronger instead of lessening. So now are we going to say ‘we can afford to pull back and give themless quality?’ That ‘no one will know the difference?’ It’s not true. The audience knows. I give them credit for that. Our public knows. They either like us or hate us, but they know the quality’s there.
Q: I heard that the opening sequence called for something like 600 sky dives in order to get everything filmed.
A: Well, I’m not sure how many exactly but it’s in the neighborhood of that to get it all together. I think one man alone took about 80 sky dives. And it’s for real. For reall! When you see a man go out of a plane without a parchute, it’s really a man falling without a parachute. Its interesting, but the Bond audience is always expecting something spectacular. They are saying, ‘okay, do something you didn’t do last time, better than you did last time.’ And that’s very, very difficult.
Q: What would you consider the most difficult thing you did on MOONRAKER?
A: I think all the various flying sequences, down the waterfall, and all that was very difficult to get. We're always under pressure. At one point we were trying to shoot scenes that would match up with shots done previously in Rio when it was 110 degrees, Right in the middle of ‘pick up’ filming, it started to snow. Just needed one bright day and one good town!
Q: Given the hectic shooting schedule, did you have time for the same sort of outlandish fun that has become familiar to Bond sets?
A: Fun? Yes, we have fun, but I can’t think of any terribly amusing things at the moment. We had torrential rain in Rio, snow in London, and the first night we were ready to shoot 500 extras representing the carnival, Rio had the first bus strike in their entire history! We had no way to move these people onto locations.
Q: Think someone was trying to tell you something?
A: If we got in or out of anywhere we were lucky.
Q: So its been quite a challenge all around. Where do you see Bond going now?
A: I don’t know. We've been almost every place under the sun. Under the ocean, over the waves. Well, I’ve no idea.
Q: Was there anything you wanted to put in MOONRAKER you weren’t able to?
A: Yes, there were a lot of things we wanted to put in but we're not going to talk about that because we want to save those things for the next J.B. They're exciting ideas, but putting them in MOONRAKER would have been a bit too much. We don’t like to run too long. Two hours and ten minutes seems to be sufficient.
Q: Putting together any Bond really seems to be a major task. Would it be safe to say that you're fairly obsessed with James Bond?
A: Close. I’m obsessed, if that’s the word, with continuing to make them because there’s a huge public out there wanting to see them made. If I stop making them and they’re still successful, somebody else has to come along and do them. We're already grooming people to take over, so I wouldn't say it’s an obsession with me, really. I’ve been making Bonds for 18 years and I'd love to make something else. I’m planning to.
Q: One thing you can probably admit about the Bonds: no matter how big your budget, you have an exceedingly loyal crew that doesn’t have to stick with Bond time after time, but they keep coming back.
A: They like it and they're the best. And they are directly responsible for the success of the film.
Q: It shows the kind of dedication and the kind of work you get from them. I’ve noticed that the Lewis Gilbert Bonds even look more opulent than others in the series.
A: Well, he spends money (laughter).
Q: Speaking of money, what kind of business do you hope MOONRAKER will do in the United States?
A: I hope it will break even. I hope we do no less than break even.
Q: So you're not the kind of man who plans or plots or harbors hopes?
A: I dare not. I dare not. I hope the public will make up their minds about it. This is the truth; the public is the one who is going to decide the success or failure of the picture. They're not seeing it because they like me, you know. But if they like the picture, you're home free.
Q: On the other side of the coin, do you think critics have been unjustly cruel to Bond films?
A:I have no complaints. People like Bond, people hate Bond. But as long as they go to see it I don't care one Way or the other. Some of them, not all of them I’m sure, get tired of Bond's success. Their attitude seems to be, ‘Oh hell, must we say something about it?’ Or, ‘Just because it survives another bash by the critics, must we be nice to it?’ Well, I don’t know. They do what they think is right.
Q: So basically, you intend to produce Bond as long as the public enjoys it.
A: Yes. Bond will probably continue even if MOONRAKER doesn’t do as well as expected. But, you know, I will find it disheartening if this picture doesn’t please the public tremendously. I will consider myself a very bad judge because I think it’s the best effort we've made so far. I mean, in my view, it’s not only one hell of a good Bond picture, it’s one hell of a picture, period. Even if the hero were named Joe Smith, I think you'll have found it a good film. And I’ve even stuck out my neck like that. It’s just one hell ofa good film..
Q: It must be frightening to consider leaving the security of the 007 series to do other things.
A: Well, it’s a difficult decision, but I’m not abandoning Bond. I'm not tiring of Bond, but I am anxious to do something else, You know, people think I can only do Bond movies. I want to prove I can do something else.
Q: Anything in particular?
A: Oh, no particular thing at the moment. I have four or five different properties.
Q: Then how about the next Bond movie?
A: I haven't planned a thing yet. I don't plan to plan anything. I don’t even want to think about it! Let’s wait until MOONRAKER is out and flying. Then I’ll think about what’s next.
END OF INTERVIEW
I found this an interesting interview - especially the John Barry comments and how the others didn’t match up to him. Personally I think Hamlisch shook things up and because of the score for TSWLM we got the score that we did for MR from Barry who seemed to have got bored with TMWTGG. It’s also interesting how he says that critics don’t bother him yet he issued an injunction both sides of the Atlantic on John Brosnan for the updated book James Bond In The Cinema, it was granted in the UK but dismissed in the USA where it was published.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Thanks CHB. Apart from the Barry comment, the one that struck me was the comparison of two Bond actors to two Marlowe actors, and I believe Cubby's thought was perfectly correct. He's not the first Bond film maker to compare Connery to Bogart (that would be Terence Young, followed later by John Huston) but I'd never heard Sir Rog compared to Dick Powell before!
Interview with Maud Adams in Octopussy Official Magazine 1983
Maud Adams is the exotic Octopussy — fabulous owner of an international circus and co¬conspirator in a scandalous jewel smuggling scheme. Treated like a princess, she lives in an island palace, protected by a band of magnificent female bodyguards and relaxes on an incredible love barge, “manned” by gorgeous galley girls.This woman travels first class, no doubt about it!
This is the second trip into unknown danger and dark desire for the stately Swedish beauty. She first met Bond as the girlfriend of the evil killer-for-hire Scaramanga, The Man with the Golden Gun, in 1974.
Not only does Adams enjoy the title role in Octopussy,she is the first person to make a reappearance in a starring role, other than 007 himself, since the big-screen series began in 1962 with Dr. No.How,did,this happen?
“Strangely enough,” says Adams with a subtle smile, “I have recently been speculating on that very subject. Being in the right place at the right time ... I guess. When I performed in my first film, it was very much a minor role in a minor movie [opposite Beau Bridges in the little-known The Christian Licorice Store]."
This role did not enhance her cinematic career.
“In fact, it was Cubby Broccoli who really discovered me—or so he’ll tell you ,” she adds with a lovely sparkle in her eyes. “Cubby first noticed me in the early ’70s, and when casting The Man with the Golden Gun, was convinced that I was perfect for the part of Andrea. Ever since then, he has closely followed my career, and it’s partly thanks to him that I’ve done so well in the past few years. He had commented once that he wanted to bring me back, as a totally different character ,of course .When the Octopussy script was submitted, he was heard to declare. That part is perfect for Maud!”’
Adams agrees with Broccoli’s assessment. She had a great deal of fun playing Octopussy.
“Yes, she’s a wonderfully extravagant character; a fascinating woman involved in anything around her. Octopussy is a very active person and enjoys sword fights or climbing walls,” Adams explains. “But I’m afraid she doesn’t get a chance to drive any fast cars. Her greatest claim to fame, from the point-of-view of transportation, is a huge love barge which she can sail up and down the river.”
Fast cars or not, this film has more action per scene than a documentary chronicling the Apollo space program. Adams describes a typical sequence.
“Octopussy has just gotten to know James Bond, and, although they argue, they finally end up in bed together. During the night, they are awakened by three bandits who break into the bedroom and attack Bond — attempting to kill him. He battles ferociously, valiantly, but ends up falling out of the window into the lake. Octopussy is heartbroken because she believes he’s dead.”
Adams enjoyed working with co-star Roger Moore.
“Roger is sensational,” she says. “He is great fun, always managing to keep everyone cast and crew in such high spirits. He excels joking around the-set ,and it certainly helps to break the ice and make things easier on occasion. Director John Glen is a wonderfully calm person, always in control. He’s a man who never loses his temper. The advantage of having him as director is that he knows exactly the shots he needs because of his early career as a film editor.”
And what kind of acting work will the elegantly graceful actress seek in the future?
“I know what I would like to do,” she says. “I would love, for example, the chance to work with Richard Attenborough. I’ve recently seen Gandhi and thought it was terrific. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And I would certainly like to work with some of the great Swedish directors. I also want to play comedy.”
But what about another encore appearance in the James Bond series?
“I would love to,” say Maud Adams. Then, she adds, pragmatically, “But I don’t really think they would ask me back again.'
END OF INTERVIEW
As much as I like Maud, I feel it was a big mistake to cast her again in a prominent role after TMWTGG. And she may well be overstating her acting ability in wanting to be directed by Richard Attenborough and some great Swedish directors, (presumably Ingmar Bergman was on the list?).
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Interview with Roger Moore in NYT with Maureen Dowd - 26 May 1985
James Bond's hotel room at the Pierre is something of a disappointment. There are no beautiful women with funny names sprawled on the bed. No frosty vodka martinis, stirred or shaken, on the coffee table. And, alas, no Doctor No. There is only a polite, middle-aged British gentleman offering a chair and a glass of Perrier. It is hard to get used to Roger Moore without the usual archvillains and glamorous accouterments.
He seems so alone, so vulnerable, so ready for some really tough questions. But, like his celluloid counterpart, the 57-year-old actor who stars in the 14th Bond movie by the producer Albert (Cubby) Broccoli, ''A View to a Kill,'' is urbane and unflappable.
He is certainly not ruffled by the recent newspaper interview with Pierce Brosnan, star of television's ''Remington Steele,'' saying he likes the notion of being Mr. Moore's successor as Secret Agent 007.
''He'd be splendid, I'm quite sure,'' says Mr. Moore, raising his right eyebrow ever so slightly to indicate that he has no intention of turning over the role that has made him a multimillionaire - yet. The Moore eyebrows, fabled for their expressiveness, often lift when the always courteous actor is curbing his wry wit.
He is equally unfazed by a question about whether he frets about aging. ''I don't worry,'' he says. ''That's why I'm Dorian Gray.''
Did he feel threatened by the comeback of Sean Connery two years ago in a rival Bond film portraying the agent as more human and less a cardboard superhero?
''I think the director, not being English, didn't understand what was happening in development of characters in terms of what is English and what is not English. Sean deserved better than that.'' Mr. Moore says that he and his friend Mr. Connery had dinner several times to compare notes about their respective stunts and villains.
It begins to dawn on one that it may be impossible to pierce this aura of ageless cool. He sits calmly, looking altogether perfect, from his golden tan to his gleaming Gucci loafers.
''Don't you get bored doing this role over and over?'' he was asked.
''Certainly not,'' Mr. Moore replies smoothly. ''You can't be bored. You're up there being somebody else. You're James Bond.''
Certainly there must have been some clashes with Grace Jones, the striking rock singer and New York night club personality who plays the villainess, May Day. She is clearly Mr. Moore's temperamental opposite.
His eyebrow lifts sharply. A good sign.
''Occasionally,'' he confides, ''I would have to unplug her cassette recorder. Such loud music. And that mad, hysterical laughter. Oh, I suppose she was a bit nervous of me because she was giving the odd interview where she was trying to point out that Hans, her boyfriend, would be far more suited to playing the role than myself. So presumably she was waiting for the day to arrive when I would read it and throw an ax at her.''
''I didn't,'' he hastens to assure, smiling. ''But I had that as a sword of Damocles to hold over her head.''
Unlike Mr. Connery, who used to complain about being ''bottled in Bond,'' Mr. Moore says he has suffered no personal or professional identity crisis by associating himself for such a long time with such a popular role.
Asked how he views the role, he says simply: ''I see it the way that Cubby Broccoli wants to see it. He is the fellow in charge, and I'm not going to make waves.''
When he first took over as James Bond in 1973, in ''Live and Let Die,'' he tried to change some characteristics to make the role his own. For instance, he points out, his Bond never orders vodka martinis, as Mr. Connery's did, although over the years other characters have begun ordering them for him.
Mr. Moore, the son of a London policeman, plays the role with more accent on camp and less on sex than Mr. Connery did, and he tries to ''get the fun out of it, let the audience know that if they want to scream hysterically, they can.''
''My attitude is that it's completely unreal,'' he says. ''Here you've got this secret agent who's recognized by every barman in the world and they know that he takes his vodka martinis shaken and not stirred. It's crazy. What sort of secret agent is that? So you know that it is a spoof already before you start.
''I don't like to play him as a true-blue hero,'' he continues. ''There's always a moment of doubt in Bond's mind. I mean, if I save the girl, I may get killed doing it. So I always let that go through my mind and then say, 'Oh, to hell with it, I've read the script. I know I'm going to live.' ''
He enjoys that communion of camp with the audience. Praising Christopher Walken's performance as Max Zorin - a mysterious industrialist who intends to make a killing on the world microchip market by causing an earthquake in California's Silicon Valley - Mr. Moore says he especially loved Mr. Walken's hysterical laugh when he plunges to his death at the end of the movie. ''He knew he'd be back and going to see it at the premiere,'' Mr. Moore says.
And he revels in the immutable Bond universe of good and evil. He recalls a love scene early in the movie with Grace Jones, who, according to the movie's production notes, ''commits herself to murder and love-making with equal amounts of passion.''
'If they get in between the sheets with Bond in the first two reels,'' Mr. Moore explains, ''then you know they'll have to pay for their sins. There's a little justice being meted out by Cubby Broccoli.''
The predictability, he says, is what the audience likes. ''It's exactly the same as a child wanting to hear a bedtime story and if you change a word or leave out a few lines because you think he's fallen asleep or you're bored and you want to get off to bed yourself, look out. We want the comfort of the sameness.''
The biggest change in Bond has been the costly cinematic ''can you top this?'' game the producers play with the opening titles and the stunts. Mr. Moore points out that the opening sequence of ''A View to a Kill,'' an acrobatic and aerial ski shootout on a glacier, cost $1.5 million - half a million more than the entire budget of the first Bond movie, ''Doctor No,'' in 1962.
Asked about the diminishing sex scenes, Mr. Moore says, ''There's always been less sex in Bond than people think there is. Cubby said years ago that Bond was sadism for the family. The notion of sexuality in Bond stems from Ursula Andress coming out of the water in 'Dr. No' wearing a bikini which by today's standards would be a golfing outfit. Sex in Bond is suggested but never suggestive.''
Doing love scenes with the world's most exotic women, he says, is an overrated pastime. ''They always pick the coldest day of the year,'' he says, ''and usually a Monday morning when the studio's been shut all weekend, and the heat's been turned off, so you're freezing cold. And you've got 60 to a hundred people standing around and electricians up on the rail staring down. There's very little romance. If you can get really excited about doing that, you should be starring in blue movies.''
Mr. Moore says he has no ambitions to play such roles as Hamlet or Lear. ''But I wouldn't mind playing Richard,'' he jokes, curling his lithe body into a humpback. He says that he played a ''loser'' in a movie he did between the last two Bond films, which has been put in limbo, pending a distribution fight, but that he has to be careful not to stray too far from his heroic image.
He never worries about the role going stale. ''I don't have to hype myself up,'' he says. ''It's not like sort of being a singer and having to stretch your vocal cords in the dressing room before you go on so that you can reach a high C. If I haven't learned the lines, then I make 'em up.''
While Mr. Moore likes to project a blase attitude, it is clear as he talks that he regards each new Bond as a challenge and works hard to bring fresh touches.
''Acting is like playing tennis, a line or a ball is served and hopefully you don't double-fault. Sometimes you work with people and it's rather like playing squash against an absorbent wall. That ball is not bouncing back at you. Then you have to play around with it. You have to invent other things.''
If he does tire of Bond one day and pass the role along to someone else, what traits will his successor need?
''Well, you have to be prepared to get up early and say your lines and not trip over the furniture,'' says Mr. Moore, his eyebrow starting to rise. ''And you have to be prepared to answer questions with a smile on your face when you're asked how your Bond compares to Roger Moore's.''
END OF INTERVIEW
Roger is in unflappable form here, lots of good stuff including Brosnan, Connery, Jones.
Yeah, well, sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand.
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 26,584Chief of Staff
Lovely stuff from Roger…the man, in interviews, truly was a saint ☺️
I like the comment from the interviewer that Moore projects a blase attitude - IMO I think by AVTAK that had eked into his attitude towards acting as well.
Comments
Interview with Michael Lonsdale in Cinefantastique Spring 1979 by Frederic Albert Levy
MOONRAKER is the new James Bond thriller, which began filming last August 14, on Paris, Rio de Janeiro, Venice and Guatemala locations for producer Albert Broccoli and director Lewis Gilbert. Roger Moore will return to play James Bond, as will 007’s deadly arch-enemy from THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, “Jaws.” played by Richard Kiel. Screenwriter Christopher Wood has taken liberties with Ian Fleming’s original title and characters (the story was one of the first Bond properties optioned for filming back in the early sixties, and was almost made after FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE). Sir Hugo Drax, the villain of MOONRAKER, was described in the book as a former Nazi passing himself off as an Englishman, with a reconstituted face (the tragic result of unsuccessful plastic surgery) covered in grotesque red hair. Drax will in fact be portrayed by distinguished French actor Michael Lonsdale with a simple black beard and foreign accent, a far cry from the repulsive Drax of Fleming’s original novel.
Lonsdale does not seem to share the quasi-religious faith that producer Albert Broccoli and director Lewis Gilbert have in the successful nature of the Bond films. But at the same time Lonsdale feels no contempt for the enterprise. During the interview, he didn’t seem too over-impressed by his “new power” as Bond’s arch¬enemy. His most famous international role was as Commissaire Lebel in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. His other film roles have been limited to European productions little-known in the United States.
We spoke with Lonsdale on the Paris sets of MOONRAKER in late November, while shooting was still in progress. The film is expected to be released by United Artists in July.
CF: Had you been interested in the Bond series before MOONRAKER?
ML: I saw the first three Bond films, but I did not find them amusing. But when I was proposed the part of Drax, I wanted to update my Bondian knowledge, and was very surprised at THE SPY WHO LOVED ME. I thought it was very good.
CF: Could you tell briefly the story of the film?
ML: James Bond is confronted with the case of a certain Dr. Drax, a billionaire who, just like Hitler, wants to select a super-race of men, pure and beautiful, and take them to a planet, have them reproduce there, and in the meantime destroy all that is on this planet Earth - to afterwards bring back here his new perfect human race.
CF: This has very little to do with Moonraker, the novel.
ML: As far as Drax is concerned, the film script is much simpler. Drax is not English in the film - he is just presented as a “foreigner.”
CF: Do you pay attention to the technical aspects of the film?
ML: Oh yes. I was literally moved when I saw Ken Adam’s set for the satellite control room. That was really something! There was magic about it, something fantastic.
CF: You are working with an international crew on MOONRAKER. Does that create a particular atmosphere?
ML: There is no difference, really. Although half the crew is French, including the director of photography Jean Tournier, who replaced an ill Claude Renoir, the whole thing is essentially British.
CF: If, as a spectator, you are interested in the lavish sets, aren't you afraid, as an actor, they might do you harm?
ML: Yes, but every part you play is a risk to take. It can be good or bad for you. But I really have a good time, because I was used to filming in cramped rooms with dingy cameras. The English know how to save the actor from bothering about any technical question. As for my part as such, I was somewhat surprised when Lewis Gilbert told me, “the villain is the villain;” Lewis thinks in Shakesperean terms. When people go to see a James Bond film, they go to see certain elements. After ten films, they don’t want to be confronted with a psychological drama, or something they would normally see in another film— they come to see a James Bond film. But I think there is more to it. In MOONRAKER, the villain Drax represents a whole catagory of paranoid and crazy people, those who believe there is some purity to be kept in this world. For me it’s a change from the minister and president roles I’d been playing for so long. But I will be too pleased to shave off this cruel beard.
CF: Does Drax have any ruthless henchmen?
ML: Of course! I have a Japanese servant, but Bond wipes him out very quickly. When I want a replacement, somebody suggests “Jaws,” and I accept right away.
CF: You are fairly tall, but you have to look up when you talk to Richard Kiel?
ML: Richard Kiel is a very nice guy. He’s a math teacher in California. He is an example of of how the cinema can change somebody’s life. You couldn’t say he is a good actor, but he’s got presence, which is the essential thing.
CF: I had thought "Jaws" came back in this film as a "good guy. "
ML: He becomes a good guy at the end of the film. Bond makes him realize that there will be no place for him in the world conceived by Drax.
CF: How does Drax die?
ML: He is shot by one of those special Bond darts and thrown out of the satellite.
CF: What is your relationship with Lewis Gilbert? Can he pay much attention to the actors, if he is already busy with technical problems?
ML You know, that question reminds me of the time I worked with Joseph Losey. A couple of times I asked him, “How would you like me to play this part?” but he looked so frightened, and I understood I should not ask him such a question, because he had no idea of what the answer was. As for Lewis, some of that applies since he is working almost totally in relation to the film’s technology and set decor. At one point, I suggested to Lewis that I should stand up and get closer to a big globe on the set. And Lewis just said, “Yes, good idea, if you want to do it that way.” One scene in the film shows a gondola flying across Piazza San Marco in Venice. Lewis knows his job, and there are very few ways to shoot a scene like that. We actors have to add something amusing here and there. Lewis asked me to be more of a smiling Drax. I personally would have played the character as more severe, but Lewis pointed out that Drax is a happy character, content with what he’s doing.
CF: And about Bond, the character?
ML: “Mr. Bond, you reappear with the inevitability of an unloved season” is one of the niceties I tell him. The dialogues are fairly short and direct. Roger Moore is a very nice person. I didn’t know him well, but he came to me one day to congratulate me on my performance in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. Originally, he was to have played the jackal, by the way. I think he is one of the rare actors who can afford to do Bond and then do something else. He’s got humor, and always shows that he does not take the part too seriously.
CF: How were you chosen to play Drax ?
ML: An important casting director in France, Margot Capelier, suggested me for the Drax role. And perhaps Roger Moore had me in mind from my performance in THE DAY OF THE JACKAL. I think James Mason was offered the part first. But he turned it down. Some actors perhaps do not want to participate in James Bond films.
CF: Do you feel there is always a very strong relationship between Bond and his enemy?
ML: Of course. We’re dealing with archetypes. It all depends on what you think is good, and what you think is not. Is the law, is justice good? There is always a good hero and a bad villain. And although this picture is something of a caricature, symbolically, that good/ evil concept is what is in people’s minds. Bond has the license to destroy, the license to kill, which is one of the great unconscious factors of mankind, killing in the name of Justice. A James Bond film is, I think, seen by one person out of four on earth. The films do not pretend to bring any revolutionary ideas to the cinema, but they are “entertainment.” And they are based on certains notions fundamental in the world, good and evil. Bond is just Judex with another name, or Zorro. He is defender of the Law. I do have a concealed violence, which I’m afraid of, and which I get rid of in parts I play; it really does me good. For even all those people who don’t like violence might be secretly violent. My life as an actor certainly helped me acquire some balance. I think that any artistic activity derives from a need to give the world a new, satisfying balance.
END OF INTERVIEW
While it’s good to see someone not toeing the company line in an interview, I do feel that Lonsdale is up his own backside in some of the stuff he says. Meanwhile, once again, Ken Adam’s sets are praised, concurring that these are the real stars of the movie.
He also says a number of spoilers. Agree re Ken Adam, of course.
It's been known for a long time that James Mason had been at least considered to play Drax if not actually offered the part as Lonsdale suggests above, and while he was an admirable actor I don't think he could have improved on Lonsdale.
Didn't Mason play a Nazi in some Boys of Brazil type film? Thing is, he'd have lacked the surprise factor, and have been too old. With Moore as Bond, it might have had that North by Northwest feel to it, as the two keep running into each other and so on.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Mason gained much acclaim portraying Erwin Rommel in two movies in the 50s-
He'd have been the right age (70) to portray Drax as a former Nazi in 1979, keeping the character closer to Fleming.
Was that the idea then, at one point, to base it more on Fleming's novel to some extent, as least with the Drax character? I prefer Drax in the film as not German, nor with any Nazi links - the series has hardly ever mentioned the Nazis save from Bond on the golf course in GF and the land mines in FYEO, and talk of Kristatos' wartime activities. It's just a bit close to the bone.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
No idea, sorry.
Here's an interesting snippet from an early 1980s edition of Starburst magazine, in which Sean Connery willingly discusses James Bond, in particular the recent For Your Eyes Only, and the chances of his returning to the role. Like on of those interviews where John Lennon doesn't outwardly reject reforming the Beatles, you felt that of course if Connery did return to the role, he's absolutely knock it out the park, especially given the wisdom of the comments below...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Interview with Vic Armstrong - by Alan Jones - Cinefantastique December 1999.
Although Michael Apted was at the helm of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, as so many have before him in the same position, he turned to his second unit director Vic Armstrong to insure the action sequences were the best they could possibly be. The first James Bond adventure stunt man Victor M. Armstrong worked on was YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE back in 1967 and his special touch has since graced ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, LIVE AND LET DIE, NEVER SAY NEVER AGAIN and TOMORROW NEVER DIES.
Armstrong's name is alway somewhere on the credit of the best action movies. From TOTAL RECALL and THE PHANTOM to STARSHIP TROOPERS and ENTRAPMENT, Armstrong professed to a love/hate relationship with the industry he's so much a part of because of the arduous challenges he faces on a daily basis. “The hardest part of my job is trying to be original," he said. "You rack your brains for bigger and better stunts because the one person you can't cheat is yourself. I know what I've done before on other movies and I strive to be different each time. You have no idea how tough that is.”
Nevertheless, Armstrong has faced the gruelling task of bringing Bond into the 21st century with THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH and credits his close relationship with Michael Apted for that. "Our collaboration has been marvellous and has worked like a dream. I advise him on what looks good within a scene - the little nuances in the physical performances that count - while he tells me what quirks he wants me to include in mine. I hate second unit directing, in truth. I much prefer directing proper. I directed ARMY OF ONE in 1993 and an episode of THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES. The latter featured no stunts because producer George Lucas thought that would be amusing. But if you are going to do a second unit job you might as well work with the best like Apted and Pierce Brosnan. Pierce is fantastic and his dry sense of Irish humor really makes everything go with a sparkle. I sometimes never know if he's joking or not."
Armstrong's work on THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH has mainly split into four basic action sequences. "The first is the boat chase down the River Thames in London," he recounted. "The second is the ski chase in the French Alps. The third is the battle on the walkways of Zukovsky's caviar factory in Azerbaijan. The fourth, which we are sharing half and half with the main unit, is the Russian submarine sinking vertically into the Caspian Sea. The latter has taken us to the Bosphorous and back to Pinewood and includes the submarine tilting, diving and flooding, the fight in the reactor room between Bond, Renard and Christmas, Bond 's escape, and then the whole thing blowing up..,”
Armstrong said the Thames boat chase was the most difficult stunt sequence of all. The chase takes in many London tourist sights - the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge and Docklands -as tuxedoed 007 pursues the mysterious Cigar Girl at 60 mph in a Bentz boat. "Working on water is always hard and time consuming," said Armstrong. "We had a 25-foot tide level to consider and we had to change all the moorings in the afternoons when the water ran in reverse. We photographed the entire sequence with an armada of 35 boats and also used a flying camera from Belgium so we could dive under the bridges along the Thames. We shot for seven days on the river itself and then moved to Docklands so we wouldn't have to contend with the tidal problems. That's where we filmed the jet-powered boat leaping out of the water and zooming along the roads through an East End market. We had warned all the workers on the Thames and the only ones who complained were Members of Parliament in the Houses of Parliament. Typical! The people we are paying to be there and who were going to earn revenue off the film were the only ones to register complaints."
The ski sequence was shot in the French Alps during avalanche season and, in fact one of the worst bits while the movie was there. " It was tough to keep going when you knew some of the people whose lives were lost," he said. "Working on snow is so scary because you are air-lifting 180 crew members in on helicopters to areas that could shift. We were landing on slopes inches away from a complete vertical drop. One gust of wind and it would have been all over. ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE has a great radical skiing sequence in it and to make our's different, we used these great devices called parahawks - a sort of cross between a parachute and a motorized glider which you steer to land and take-off. Despite the problems such a sequence entails, I do prefer shooting on location rather than in the studio because the latter has such a factory feel. You have to rehearse and rehearse on location, of course, and then try and make it all look spontaneous, but I rise to those occasions more than tackling problems in a studio tank.”
But one of Armstrong's studio-set sequences which he thinks is going to be a major highlight is the caviar factory one. "We shot that on the Pinewood backlot on a set that cost over $1 million," he said. " It's a night-time sequence and has two helicopters with circular saws attached to their under-carriage attacking Bond on wooden walkways and cutting up the whole building. The helicopters are actually used to cut trees back from high tension cables and we've adapted them for this thrilling scene."
Although Sophie Marceau did her own skiing in the Alps, Pierce Brosnan turned out not to be that adept at the sport. So Brosnan did most of the boat chase sequence instead. Armstrong added, "We had to be careful, though, as the waves at those speeds were hitting him in the face like sledgehammers. We must never risk our lead actor or put him in a position where he can black his eyes or lose a tooth. But because Pierce wanted to legitimize the sequence as much as he could we used him a great deal more than expected. Sometimes it is better to use stunt men because all they are thinking about is the stunt in question. An actor is worried about that, and looking good, and remembering his lines. Not a good combination."
Working with the same crew he's had on his last five movies, Armstrong feels he's done his job on THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH. "What's the difference between this one and TOMORROW NEVER DIES? We did more traveling to exotic locations on the last. Making the Bond films special is so hard, you know. You want realism within the tongue-in-cheek aspects, yet you can't step outside Bond 's character or that destroys the unique atmosphere. Staying within the Bond rules, yet trying to be fresh and original while he saves the world again is a nightmare."
END OF INTERVIEW
Not cast or crew but close enough, and interesting enough to include in this thread is an interview with continuation author Raymond Benson with Rich Handley in Cinefantastique December 1999:
For four decades moviegoers have thrilled to James Bond's on-screen adventures, reveling in his world of fast cars, faster women, and deadly assassins. Film fans know Bond as a character larger than life, a man who dispatched attackers without spilling his martini, has a witty rejoinder for any situation, and gets any woman be wants. However, readers know a different version of the character. For them, the true James Bond is not the super-hero of Hollywood, but rather the dark, bitter, vice-ridden assassin Ian Fleming created in the 1953 novel Casino Royale.
Fleming's work had a moderate but devoted following, which rose dramatically when John F. Kennedy announced his fascination with the series. In total, he produced 12 novels and nine short stories about Bond, most of which have been filmed by Eon Productions. Upon his death, Kingsley Amis was hired to write a follow-up tale, Colonel Sun, but no other Bond novels appeared until 1981, when John Gardner brought Bond into the '80 with License Renewed. Though some bristled at changes made to Bond's character (Gardner made him younger than his actual age for credibility's sake and borrowed several film elements, the novel met with success and Gardner went on to write 13 more original novels and two film novelizations before retiring in 1996.
Enter Raymond Benson, a West Texas-born composer, writer, and game designer whose encyclopedic James Bond Bedside Companion I widely regarded as the definitive book on the James Bond phenomenon. His role-playing adventure YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE II: BACK OF BEYOND was published by Victory Games as part of the James Bond 007 Role-Playing Games, and he also wrote text-based interactive video games based on GOLDFINGER and A VIEW TO A KILL.
Benson was hired to continue writing the 007 novels in 1996. His first novel, Zero Minus Ten, appeared the following year and was serialised by Playboy, which also published his short story “Blast From The Past” the same year. He rounded out 1997 with the novelization of TOMORROW NEVER DIES. His second original novel, The Facts of Death, appeared in 1998 {also excerpted in Playboy), followed by a second short story, "Midsummer Night's Doom," a third original novel, High Time to a Kill, and the novelization of THE WORLD IS NOT ENOUGH, all in 1999.
Benson's original aspirations involved the theater. After graduating in 1978 from the University of Texas at Austin with a BFA in Directing, he moved to New York City and spent several years directing and composing music in the off-off-Broadway and off- Broadway arenas. Noted Benson, "One day, some friends and I were sitting around and the discussion came to ' What sort of book would you write if you had to?' My answer - a book about James Bond mainly because I was so knowledgeable about the subject.,, His father had taken him to see GOLDFINGER when he was nine years old, he said, which "hooked" him on Bond forever. Quickly devouring Fleming's novels by age 11, Benson kept up with "all things Bond on into adulthood. Thus was born the Companion, which took three years to complete, and established him as a Bond expert worldwide.
While writing the book, and during his six years as Vice President of the American James Bond 007 Fan Club, Benson became friendly with Peter Janson-Smith at Glidrose Publications {the copyright holders to the literary Bond) and the Fleming family. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Ian Fleming Foundation, a not-for-profit organization run by Glidrose, the Fleming family, and Bond/ Fleming enthusiasts, which procure , archives, and restores memorabilia associated with Fleming and Bond, their long- term goal to erect a permanent museum. The connections afforded him the chance to take over from Gardner.
Fleming served in the British Navy and was known to have been a womanizer and drinker like his famous super-spy, but Benson calls himself "a normal guy," adding, "I'll be the first to admit that I don't have some of the experiences in life that Ian Fleming had, but I think I'm able to draw upon the spirit and mood that he created and go my own way from there. A good imagination helps, I suppose. An author doesn't have to be an astronaut to write science fiction." To this end, Benson researches all locations appearing in his novels, and says he attempts to recreate the flavor of Fleming's famous restaurant menus, dining sequences, and detailed gambling scenes."I travel to all the locations in my books that I can and experience a lot of stuff that ends up in the books. My wife read Zero Minus Ten and said, 'Wow, it's our trip to Hong Kong and China... only with danger!"'
This is one reason Benson prefers writing original material over writing film novelizations. "They're the author's work, from conception and storyline to the finished product. That's not to say that novelizations can't be fun. I had a blast doing TOMORROW NEVER DIES...the main dif- ference, of course, is that the storyline, the outline,' so to speak, is given." His original work, he says, is much more involved. Glidrose requires an outline for each novel, which he considers extremely useful though he admits it's the most difficult part of the entire process. " My outlines are 15 pages or so of prose-broken out chapter by chapter - describing everything that happens in the book. Coming up with a plot is extremely difficult because so much has already been done!” Once the outline is finished (which takes him two to three months) he travels, researches his locations, and then comes back to write the novel, which he delivers nearly nine months before publication. The entire process lasts about 18 months for each novel.
Benson has a vast canon to draw upon for his books. Preferring not to reference the role-playing game and comics based on James Bond, or the Christopher Wood novelisations of MOONRAKER and THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, he finds the 32 novels and story collections more than enough to remember. "It's harder than one would think, even for someone who knows the books fairly well. There are little mistakes here and there- we've all made them. Even Fieming! '
To illustrate, Benson cites The Facts of Death:"I had the head of the MI6 office in Athens as Stuart Thomas, who had been created by Kingsley Amis in Colonel Sun. What I forgot was that Stuart Thomas is ' missing and presumed dead,' a speculation buried somewhere in the last quarter of that book!"
Luckily, Benson has the freedom to pick and choose what to use or ignore from the previous books, so such minor errors are not a big problem. For instance, though Gardner made Bond a Captain in Win, Lose or Die, Benson felt "Commander Bond" sounded better and demoted him again. "There was an explanation somewhere that indicated that Bond's promotion to Captain was only temporary for that assignment," recalled Benson, "but I think it got edited out from wherever it was.
What has been problematic is Bond's age. Fleming’s Bond served in World War II, and yet Benson is supposed to be writing about the same character! Benson (and Gardner before him) chose to deal with this dilemma the same way Eon has in the films -namely to ignore it altogether.' We're dealing with an ageless Bond now...characters like Bond go through time warps as they continue over the years. Superman and Batman have been going since the 30’s!”
Benson considers himself a "purist." preferring Fleming's original novels to the film versions. He would welcome the chance to write a Bond film and grants,'You can’t argue with success. The films are what made Bond the icon he is today, and they're what initially got me into Bond. I love the films, even the ones that are not-so-great."
Whether or not Benson will get to write a James Bond screenplay, he enjoys being Ian Fleming's successor on the novels. He's satisfied with his financial compensation; he's happy having such artistic freedom; he maintains that none of his ideas have been rejected by Glidrose; and he's grateful for the privilege of chronicling the adventures of a character who has fascinated him his whole life. As such, it's no wonder that he plans to continue to write James Bond books. 'As long as they'll have me!"
END OF INTERVIEW
Many thanks, CHB.
AJB's own interview with Mr Benson can be found at https://www.ajb007.co.uk/discussion/51724/ajb-interview-with-raymond-benson#Comment_955610
Apologies, Barbel, I’d completely forgotten about your interview with Raymond Benson which is much better than what’s published above.
No apologies necessary! 🙂
These are interesting, CHB…please keep them coming..👏🏻
There’s a few more waiting in the wings, Sir Miles 🙂
Excellent 👏🏻
It’s good looking back to see what was said/written at the time….
Interview with Cubby from the Moonraker Official Magazine (1979):
Albert R Broccoli is a personal filmaker. Unlike many producers, he is almost always on the set, and is ever-willing to pitch in on menial chores to help his film succeed. Without Broccoli’s drive and faith in the Bond character, the series would not be the legend that it has become.
Born in Astoria, Long Island, Broccoli learned early on the value of hard work. He took a job on his uncle’s farm and, by the age of sixteen, was driving huge truckloads of vegetables to various markets. Shortly thereafter, he began to study journalism at nightschool. Then, on a fateful visit to Hollywood in 1933, he fell in love with the industry. He remained behind, landing his first job in the mailroom at 20th Century Fox. After serving in World War II, he became an actor’s agent, and then a producer. His first film was THE RED BERET in 1952, and was followed by such hits as HELL BELOW ZERO, PARATROOPER, COCKLESHELL HEROES, and others. In 1962 he co-produced DR. NO, and the rest is history.
Though Broccoli travels the world over to shoot his motion pictures, he and his author-wife Dana make their home in California.
This interview with Mr. Broccoli was conducted by Richard Meyers while the producer was in New York promoting MOONRAKER.
Q: As everyone no doubt knows, the James Bond of the movies and the James Bond as written by the late Ian Fleming are totally different. How did you make the transition from printed page to celluloid?
A: Well, actually, these films are not created the way Fleming created his books. We tried to be very astute scholars of the Fleming work. I knew him, after all, and he was a lovely man. So we tried to find out what James Bond was all about. When he died it was a great loss to us — especially because he began to like what we were doing. We tried to roll with and learn from the changes. But even Fleming noted he was running out of enthusiasm doing the books. In fact, in the novel THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN GUN, he tried to bring himself to kill off James Bond. We decided, as we went on that changes were necessary. As we continued filming and continued writing screenplays, things developed.
Q: Roger Moore was quoted as saying several years ago that he wanted THE SPY WHO LOVED ME to be his last Bond picture. Then he went ahead with MOONRAKER. Are you gearing up to search for another new James Bond?
A: No, I’m not making any search. If Roger wants to do it, he can. We'll let him do it. But then again, if he doesn’t want to do it we'll find somebody else, only because we're forced to. As we were forced to find somebody to take Sean Connery’s place. We came up with George Lazenby, whose picture was not unsuccessful. It was a very profitable picture (ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE.) I have a feeling it would have been more profitable with someone else starring. Like Sean Connery. But now Roger has filled the gap so nicely we go with him. He’s a bigger money maker worldwide than any of the Bonds. People everywhere have accepted him.
Q: Do you think the character of James Bond has changed even between the last film and MOONRAKER?
A: Yes, I think so. It's changed quite a lot over the years.
Q: How so?
A: Well, going back to the Sean Connery Bond ... it was changed because we did not need the Sean Connery type. Bond, as we saw him was a cool type. I have said this before, but it’s true. Roger plays Bond closer to the image Fleming set in his books. Bond is light-hearted, humorous, a bit nasty, or course, and a bit rough; yet, outside that front there's a lot of humor. I mean, we can laugh with him and at him. We can laugh when a man like Jaws picks him up with one hand and throws him across the room. We might feel sorry too, but we can enjoy seeing him getting the crap kicked out of him. But the best comparison I can think of between the two types of Bond is when you see Dick Powell and Humphrey Bogart play the detective character Philip Marlowe in two movies. Dick Powell played Marlowe (in MURDER MY SWEET) the way Roger played Bond. And Marlowe would be played by Bogart (in THE BIG SLEEP) the way Sean Connery played Bond. They're two different types, you take your pick, you pay your four dollars, and you choose which one you want to see. Or maybe both, they’re both very successful.
Q: Getting on to MOONRAKER, did you consciously attempt to emulate STAR WARS?
A: We didn’t at all. We did these space things because of the natural talent of our crew. I’m speaking of Ken Adam's sets and Derek Meddings who is so good with special effects. The departure from Earth-bound action came because of their talents and because as we went on writing these things we saw Bond in space.
Q: And how did that idea develop?
A: We visited places like Rockwell International and NASA. As we talked to these people, the reality of what they were trying to do took shape. We attended a seminar where all these marvelously talented scientists explained space colonies to us. As all these people told us these things, we began to realize we had a story here. These scientists could put up a station like the one we have in our picture but they don’t have the money. Anyway, I am not a scientist, I’m repeating what I heard like a parrot — and maybe not too well. But basically we worked on the space station idea and developed it into a complete story. It’s not science fiction ... it’s science fact we think. We’re closer to science fact in our approach than science fiction.
Q: Your finished Bond scripts are usually wonderful combinations of humor, action, and romance. It hardly seems the work of one man.
A: Well, we're all involved. I am very much involved. I'd like to think that I’m a very important part of this. I have been from the very beginning with my then-partner Harry Saltzman. We said what we wanted to say. And I’d like to think that I’m still a creative producer. I have the ideas and they have to be written, so we employ writers to do that. I don’t think even the greatest writer in the world can just sit down and write a James Bond story to my liking. They need our discussions. And when I say “‘our,” I mean not mine alone. I mean our director, our executive directors, and many others. There are many who come in only for consultation, and then there’s Ken Adam’s set designs. All are important. That’s the way we are. It isa team that does Bond. It isn’t any one of us.
Q: How great a contribution does a director make in the success of a Bond film?
A: I think a big contribution if he’s good. Lewis Gilbert is good. But he’s a Bond director, you see. I think one has to earn your reputation as a director, or a writer, or even a producer for that matter. Especially on a Bond. You can’t just fit in automatically on your first Bond picture. And I think we all learn a lot every time out. Including Lewis. But the great quality Lewis has is his unflappability. The whole ceiling could be falling down and he’s just talking about a way to overcome it, He never gets nervous, he never throws up his hands and says ‘we're in trouble.’ And sometimes we are in trouble! It’s amazing. Whereas other directors I’ve had on Bond get panicky and don’t know what to do, a director has got to find a way out. Lewis always finds his own way out.
Q: How much do you think the music lends to a Bond movie?
A: Now, I don’t think anybody can score a picture like John Barry for suspense. I mean, with all due respect to Marvin Hamlisch (THE SPY WHO LOVED ME), who I like very much, and George Martin (LIVE AND LET DIE), who I like, there’s a certain thing that Barry gives to a picture just at the right moment that helps the action, helps the suspense, helps the nature of the sequence. Whether it’s a love scene or a fight scene or whatever, there's a thing about Barry. I think he is one of the great cinema composers.
Q: You did a rather incredible thing between THE SPY WHO LOVED ME and MOONRAKER. You pushed the budget up by over ten million dollars!
A: Well, WE didn’t push the budget up. The forces of nature pushed the budget up. The forces of economy, the forces of inflation, and the incredible cost in Europe, France — England for that matter — and wherever we went! All of the prices are rising and yet we won't diminish the quality of the picture.We cannot ever do that. Otherwise we'd stop making them. We can’t do a dirty deal on the audience. After all these years, the Bond syndrome is getting stronger instead of lessening. So now are we going to say ‘we can afford to pull back and give themless quality?’ That ‘no one will know the difference?’ It’s not true. The audience knows. I give them credit for that. Our public knows. They either like us or hate us, but they know the quality’s there.
Q: I heard that the opening sequence called for something like 600 sky dives in order to get everything filmed.
A: Well, I’m not sure how many exactly but it’s in the neighborhood of that to get it all together. I think one man alone took about 80 sky dives. And it’s for real. For reall! When you see a man go out of a plane without a parchute, it’s really a man falling without a parachute. Its interesting, but the Bond audience is always expecting something spectacular. They are saying, ‘okay, do something you didn’t do last time, better than you did last time.’ And that’s very, very difficult.
Q: What would you consider the most difficult thing you did on MOONRAKER?
A: I think all the various flying sequences, down the waterfall, and all that was very difficult to get. We're always under pressure. At one point we were trying to shoot scenes that would match up with shots done previously in Rio when it was 110 degrees, Right in the middle of ‘pick up’ filming, it started to snow. Just needed one bright day and one good town!
Q: Given the hectic shooting schedule, did you have time for the same sort of outlandish fun that has become familiar to Bond sets?
A: Fun? Yes, we have fun, but I can’t think of any terribly amusing things at the moment. We had torrential rain in Rio, snow in London, and the first night we were ready to shoot 500 extras representing the carnival, Rio had the first bus strike in their entire history! We had no way to move these people onto locations.
Q: Think someone was trying to tell you something?
A: If we got in or out of anywhere we were lucky.
Q: So its been quite a challenge all around. Where do you see Bond going now?
A: I don’t know. We've been almost every place under the sun. Under the ocean, over the waves. Well, I’ve no idea.
Q: Was there anything you wanted to put in MOONRAKER you weren’t able to?
A: Yes, there were a lot of things we wanted to put in but we're not going to talk about that because we want to save those things for the next J.B. They're exciting ideas, but putting them in MOONRAKER would have been a bit too much. We don’t like to run too long. Two hours and ten minutes seems to be sufficient.
Q: Putting together any Bond really seems to be a major task. Would it be safe to say that you're fairly obsessed with James Bond?
A: Close. I’m obsessed, if that’s the word, with continuing to make them because there’s a huge public out there wanting to see them made. If I stop making them and they’re still successful, somebody else has to come along and do them. We're already grooming people to take over, so I wouldn't say it’s an obsession with me, really. I’ve been making Bonds for 18 years and I'd love to make something else. I’m planning to.
Q: One thing you can probably admit about the Bonds: no matter how big your budget, you have an exceedingly loyal crew that doesn’t have to stick with Bond time after time, but they keep coming back.
A: They like it and they're the best. And they are directly responsible for the success of the film.
Q: It shows the kind of dedication and the kind of work you get from them. I’ve noticed that the Lewis Gilbert Bonds even look more opulent than others in the series.
A: Well, he spends money (laughter).
Q: Speaking of money, what kind of business do you hope MOONRAKER will do in the United States?
A: I hope it will break even. I hope we do no less than break even.
Q: So you're not the kind of man who plans or plots or harbors hopes?
A: I dare not. I dare not. I hope the public will make up their minds about it. This is the truth; the public is the one who is going to decide the success or failure of the picture. They're not seeing it because they like me, you know. But if they like the picture, you're home free.
Q: On the other side of the coin, do you think critics have been unjustly cruel to Bond films?
A:I have no complaints. People like Bond, people hate Bond. But as long as they go to see it I don't care one Way or the other. Some of them, not all of them I’m sure, get tired of Bond's success. Their attitude seems to be, ‘Oh hell, must we say something about it?’ Or, ‘Just because it survives another bash by the critics, must we be nice to it?’ Well, I don’t know. They do what they think is right.
Q: So basically, you intend to produce Bond as long as the public enjoys it.
A: Yes. Bond will probably continue even if MOONRAKER doesn’t do as well as expected. But, you know, I will find it disheartening if this picture doesn’t please the public tremendously. I will consider myself a very bad judge because I think it’s the best effort we've made so far. I mean, in my view, it’s not only one hell of a good Bond picture, it’s one hell of a picture, period. Even if the hero were named Joe Smith, I think you'll have found it a good film. And I’ve even stuck out my neck like that. It’s just one hell ofa good film..
Q: It must be frightening to consider leaving the security of the 007 series to do other things.
A: Well, it’s a difficult decision, but I’m not abandoning Bond. I'm not tiring of Bond, but I am anxious to do something else, You know, people think I can only do Bond movies. I want to prove I can do something else.
Q: Anything in particular?
A: Oh, no particular thing at the moment. I have four or five different properties.
Q: Then how about the next Bond movie?
A: I haven't planned a thing yet. I don't plan to plan anything. I don’t even want to think about it! Let’s wait until MOONRAKER is out and flying. Then I’ll think about what’s next.
END OF INTERVIEW
I found this an interesting interview - especially the John Barry comments and how the others didn’t match up to him. Personally I think Hamlisch shook things up and because of the score for TSWLM we got the score that we did for MR from Barry who seemed to have got bored with TMWTGG. It’s also interesting how he says that critics don’t bother him yet he issued an injunction both sides of the Atlantic on John Brosnan for the updated book James Bond In The Cinema, it was granted in the UK but dismissed in the USA where it was published.
Thanks CHB. Apart from the Barry comment, the one that struck me was the comparison of two Bond actors to two Marlowe actors, and I believe Cubby's thought was perfectly correct. He's not the first Bond film maker to compare Connery to Bogart (that would be Terence Young, followed later by John Huston) but I'd never heard Sir Rog compared to Dick Powell before!
Interview with Maud Adams in Octopussy Official Magazine 1983
Maud Adams is the exotic Octopussy — fabulous owner of an international circus and co¬conspirator in a scandalous jewel smuggling scheme. Treated like a princess, she lives in an island palace, protected by a band of magnificent female bodyguards and relaxes on an incredible love barge, “manned” by gorgeous galley girls.This woman travels first class, no doubt about it!
This is the second trip into unknown danger and dark desire for the stately Swedish beauty. She first met Bond as the girlfriend of the evil killer-for-hire Scaramanga, The Man with the Golden Gun, in 1974.
Not only does Adams enjoy the title role in Octopussy,she is the first person to make a reappearance in a starring role, other than 007 himself, since the big-screen series began in 1962 with Dr. No.How,did,this happen?
“Strangely enough,” says Adams with a subtle smile, “I have recently been speculating on that very subject. Being in the right place at the right time ... I guess. When I performed in my first film, it was very much a minor role in a minor movie [opposite Beau Bridges in the little-known The Christian Licorice Store]."
This role did not enhance her cinematic career.
“In fact, it was Cubby Broccoli who really discovered me—or so he’ll tell you ,” she adds with a lovely sparkle in her eyes. “Cubby first noticed me in the early ’70s, and when casting The Man with the Golden Gun, was convinced that I was perfect for the part of Andrea. Ever since then, he has closely followed my career, and it’s partly thanks to him that I’ve done so well in the past few years. He had commented once that he wanted to bring me back, as a totally different character ,of course .When the Octopussy script was submitted, he was heard to declare. That part is perfect for Maud!”’
Adams agrees with Broccoli’s assessment. She had a great deal of fun playing Octopussy.
“Yes, she’s a wonderfully extravagant character; a fascinating woman involved in anything around her. Octopussy is a very active person and enjoys sword fights or climbing walls,” Adams explains. “But I’m afraid she doesn’t get a chance to drive any fast cars. Her greatest claim to fame, from the point-of-view of transportation, is a huge love barge which she can sail up and down the river.”
Fast cars or not, this film has more action per scene than a documentary chronicling the Apollo space program. Adams describes a typical sequence.
“Octopussy has just gotten to know James Bond, and, although they argue, they finally end up in bed together. During the night, they are awakened by three bandits who break into the bedroom and attack Bond — attempting to kill him. He battles ferociously, valiantly, but ends up falling out of the window into the lake. Octopussy is heartbroken because she believes he’s dead.”
Adams enjoyed working with co-star Roger Moore.
“Roger is sensational,” she says. “He is great fun, always managing to keep everyone cast and crew in such high spirits. He excels joking around the-set ,and it certainly helps to break the ice and make things easier on occasion. Director John Glen is a wonderfully calm person, always in control. He’s a man who never loses his temper. The advantage of having him as director is that he knows exactly the shots he needs because of his early career as a film editor.”
And what kind of acting work will the elegantly graceful actress seek in the future?
“I know what I would like to do,” she says. “I would love, for example, the chance to work with Richard Attenborough. I’ve recently seen Gandhi and thought it was terrific. It’s an extraordinary achievement. And I would certainly like to work with some of the great Swedish directors. I also want to play comedy.”
But what about another encore appearance in the James Bond series?
“I would love to,” say Maud Adams. Then, she adds, pragmatically, “But I don’t really think they would ask me back again.'
END OF INTERVIEW
As much as I like Maud, I feel it was a big mistake to cast her again in a prominent role after TMWTGG. And she may well be overstating her acting ability in wanting to be directed by Richard Attenborough and some great Swedish directors, (presumably Ingmar Bergman was on the list?).
Interview with Roger Moore in NYT with Maureen Dowd - 26 May 1985
James Bond's hotel room at the Pierre is something of a disappointment. There are no beautiful women with funny names sprawled on the bed. No frosty vodka martinis, stirred or shaken, on the coffee table. And, alas, no Doctor No. There is only a polite, middle-aged British gentleman offering a chair and a glass of Perrier. It is hard to get used to Roger Moore without the usual archvillains and glamorous accouterments.
He seems so alone, so vulnerable, so ready for some really tough questions. But, like his celluloid counterpart, the 57-year-old actor who stars in the 14th Bond movie by the producer Albert (Cubby) Broccoli, ''A View to a Kill,'' is urbane and unflappable.
He is certainly not ruffled by the recent newspaper interview with Pierce Brosnan, star of television's ''Remington Steele,'' saying he likes the notion of being Mr. Moore's successor as Secret Agent 007.
''He'd be splendid, I'm quite sure,'' says Mr. Moore, raising his right eyebrow ever so slightly to indicate that he has no intention of turning over the role that has made him a multimillionaire - yet. The Moore eyebrows, fabled for their expressiveness, often lift when the always courteous actor is curbing his wry wit.
He is equally unfazed by a question about whether he frets about aging. ''I don't worry,'' he says. ''That's why I'm Dorian Gray.''
Did he feel threatened by the comeback of Sean Connery two years ago in a rival Bond film portraying the agent as more human and less a cardboard superhero?
''I think the director, not being English, didn't understand what was happening in development of characters in terms of what is English and what is not English. Sean deserved better than that.'' Mr. Moore says that he and his friend Mr. Connery had dinner several times to compare notes about their respective stunts and villains.
It begins to dawn on one that it may be impossible to pierce this aura of ageless cool. He sits calmly, looking altogether perfect, from his golden tan to his gleaming Gucci loafers.
''Don't you get bored doing this role over and over?'' he was asked.
''Certainly not,'' Mr. Moore replies smoothly. ''You can't be bored. You're up there being somebody else. You're James Bond.''
Certainly there must have been some clashes with Grace Jones, the striking rock singer and New York night club personality who plays the villainess, May Day. She is clearly Mr. Moore's temperamental opposite.
His eyebrow lifts sharply. A good sign.
''Occasionally,'' he confides, ''I would have to unplug her cassette recorder. Such loud music. And that mad, hysterical laughter. Oh, I suppose she was a bit nervous of me because she was giving the odd interview where she was trying to point out that Hans, her boyfriend, would be far more suited to playing the role than myself. So presumably she was waiting for the day to arrive when I would read it and throw an ax at her.''
''I didn't,'' he hastens to assure, smiling. ''But I had that as a sword of Damocles to hold over her head.''
Unlike Mr. Connery, who used to complain about being ''bottled in Bond,'' Mr. Moore says he has suffered no personal or professional identity crisis by associating himself for such a long time with such a popular role.
Asked how he views the role, he says simply: ''I see it the way that Cubby Broccoli wants to see it. He is the fellow in charge, and I'm not going to make waves.''
When he first took over as James Bond in 1973, in ''Live and Let Die,'' he tried to change some characteristics to make the role his own. For instance, he points out, his Bond never orders vodka martinis, as Mr. Connery's did, although over the years other characters have begun ordering them for him.
Mr. Moore, the son of a London policeman, plays the role with more accent on camp and less on sex than Mr. Connery did, and he tries to ''get the fun out of it, let the audience know that if they want to scream hysterically, they can.''
''My attitude is that it's completely unreal,'' he says. ''Here you've got this secret agent who's recognized by every barman in the world and they know that he takes his vodka martinis shaken and not stirred. It's crazy. What sort of secret agent is that? So you know that it is a spoof already before you start.
''I don't like to play him as a true-blue hero,'' he continues. ''There's always a moment of doubt in Bond's mind. I mean, if I save the girl, I may get killed doing it. So I always let that go through my mind and then say, 'Oh, to hell with it, I've read the script. I know I'm going to live.' ''
He enjoys that communion of camp with the audience. Praising Christopher Walken's performance as Max Zorin - a mysterious industrialist who intends to make a killing on the world microchip market by causing an earthquake in California's Silicon Valley - Mr. Moore says he especially loved Mr. Walken's hysterical laugh when he plunges to his death at the end of the movie. ''He knew he'd be back and going to see it at the premiere,'' Mr. Moore says.
And he revels in the immutable Bond universe of good and evil. He recalls a love scene early in the movie with Grace Jones, who, according to the movie's production notes, ''commits herself to murder and love-making with equal amounts of passion.''
'If they get in between the sheets with Bond in the first two reels,'' Mr. Moore explains, ''then you know they'll have to pay for their sins. There's a little justice being meted out by Cubby Broccoli.''
The predictability, he says, is what the audience likes. ''It's exactly the same as a child wanting to hear a bedtime story and if you change a word or leave out a few lines because you think he's fallen asleep or you're bored and you want to get off to bed yourself, look out. We want the comfort of the sameness.''
The biggest change in Bond has been the costly cinematic ''can you top this?'' game the producers play with the opening titles and the stunts. Mr. Moore points out that the opening sequence of ''A View to a Kill,'' an acrobatic and aerial ski shootout on a glacier, cost $1.5 million - half a million more than the entire budget of the first Bond movie, ''Doctor No,'' in 1962.
Asked about the diminishing sex scenes, Mr. Moore says, ''There's always been less sex in Bond than people think there is. Cubby said years ago that Bond was sadism for the family. The notion of sexuality in Bond stems from Ursula Andress coming out of the water in 'Dr. No' wearing a bikini which by today's standards would be a golfing outfit. Sex in Bond is suggested but never suggestive.''
Doing love scenes with the world's most exotic women, he says, is an overrated pastime. ''They always pick the coldest day of the year,'' he says, ''and usually a Monday morning when the studio's been shut all weekend, and the heat's been turned off, so you're freezing cold. And you've got 60 to a hundred people standing around and electricians up on the rail staring down. There's very little romance. If you can get really excited about doing that, you should be starring in blue movies.''
Mr. Moore says he has no ambitions to play such roles as Hamlet or Lear. ''But I wouldn't mind playing Richard,'' he jokes, curling his lithe body into a humpback. He says that he played a ''loser'' in a movie he did between the last two Bond films, which has been put in limbo, pending a distribution fight, but that he has to be careful not to stray too far from his heroic image.
He never worries about the role going stale. ''I don't have to hype myself up,'' he says. ''It's not like sort of being a singer and having to stretch your vocal cords in the dressing room before you go on so that you can reach a high C. If I haven't learned the lines, then I make 'em up.''
While Mr. Moore likes to project a blase attitude, it is clear as he talks that he regards each new Bond as a challenge and works hard to bring fresh touches.
''Acting is like playing tennis, a line or a ball is served and hopefully you don't double-fault. Sometimes you work with people and it's rather like playing squash against an absorbent wall. That ball is not bouncing back at you. Then you have to play around with it. You have to invent other things.''
If he does tire of Bond one day and pass the role along to someone else, what traits will his successor need?
''Well, you have to be prepared to get up early and say your lines and not trip over the furniture,'' says Mr. Moore, his eyebrow starting to rise. ''And you have to be prepared to answer questions with a smile on your face when you're asked how your Bond compares to Roger Moore's.''
END OF INTERVIEW
Roger is in unflappable form here, lots of good stuff including Brosnan, Connery, Jones.
Lovely stuff from Roger…the man, in interviews, truly was a saint ☺️
I like the comment from the interviewer that Moore projects a blase attitude - IMO I think by AVTAK that had eked into his attitude towards acting as well.