That old McGoohan Chestnut
Moor Larkin
because of not wanting to work with Terence Young (possibly) and the
only professional connection between the two being Zarak in 1956 - and
the possibility of a 'feud'.
I've been wondering if the film 'Serious Charge' was the problem from
McGoohan's point of view. McGoohan's theatrical 'West End'
breakthrough was in 1955 in the theatre play, 'Serious Charge':
http://theatrical-mcgoohan.mysite.orange.co.uk/page4.html
- scroll down to the second section.
It may be a mere exercise in Kevin Bacon Theory but how's about this
for a reason why?
1) Zarak was pretty much slated in the British cinema press.
Picturegoer magazine called it 'Absurd'. However, Patrick McGoohan was
picked out in a 'Talent Spot' featurette for his role as Adjutant Moor
Larkin. The critics said his performance was the only good thing in
the movie and if he got a decent role in pictures "he could be really
something". That was in 1956, the year after his theatrical
breakthrough in Serious Charge.
2) In 1959, when McGoohan was at the height of his British theatrical
powers, Terence Young got the job of directing Val Guest's version of
'Serious Charge'. He did he not cast Patrick McGoohan, but chose
Anthony Quayle instead but I wouldn't have expected McGoohan to be
overly bothered about that. What I suspect he might have got really
peeved about was that the film-makers used the film as a launch-pad
for some silly pop-star of the day - and then to rub salt in an open
wound, the film became mainly popular on the back of Cliff Richard
singing a maudlin pop song called 'Living Doll'.
Conclusion: So there was McGoohan's breakthrough play, which he must
have had a soft spot for, not only filmed without him, but traduced
from a serious look at the confusion and possible corruption caused by
British homosexuality laws, into a vehicle for a teenie-bopper idol!!
And all this from a director whose movie 'Zarak' had only been
preserved as 'absurd' rather than 'dreadful' by the performance of one
Patrick J. McGoohan. It could be that he was really ticked off about
the way Show Business worked!!
Anyhow that's my theory. Truth or Trash?
Who Knows......YOU decide.... ;-)))
Nick Xylas
> I've noticed a few Posts referring to McGoohan turning down Bond
> because of not wanting to work with Terence Young (possibly) and the
> only professional connection between the two being Zarak in 1956 - and
> the possibility of a 'feud'.
>
Catholic, he objected to Bond's womanising.
Philip Gerrard
> I'd always heard that McGoohan turned it down because, as a devout
> Catholic, he objected to Bond's womanising.
I believe that was an early publicity story - although one which McGoohan
himself may have played along with for a while. In at least one later
interview (which I can't find right now) he said that he would have objected
to the gunplay and womanising of a Bond-type character on television, where
the whole family could be watching, but was OK with it in the cinema as
there were age restrictions in place. (And indeed, some of his films have
contained nudity and violence.)
In the same interview he confirmed that he didn't want to do 'Dr No' because
there was somebody involved in the production with whom he'd had a bad
experience in the past. He didn't name any names, but Terence Young would
seem a possible candidate.
As a little sideline to the original post, I met a guy whose father had
worked with McGoohan quite frequently in his early career. He said that
McGoohan had after his early successes on stage decided that he was going to
'go after the money' and forego his loftier artistic ambitions, that he had
later become wracked with guilt about having done so and about being reduced
(as he felt) to the status of a cog in the entertainment machine, and that
'The Prisoner' was in part his way of working out these feelings. I don't
know quite how psychologically accurate this might be, but it's an
interesting interpretation.
Best
Phil
Rob.
because
> there was somebody involved in the production with whom he'd had a bad
> experience in the past. He didn't name any names, but Terence Young would
> seem a possible candidate.
I recently read in an intro that IF asked his neighbour Noel Coward to
play Dr No, but he was "too busy". Try to imagine the film that would
have been... .
Mac
Another old chestnut cracked in Robert Sellers' book is the Jimmy Stewart
casting, with Stewart Granger's real name usually explaining the
inexplicable ("inconceivable!") away. Turns out Fleming did, in fact, mean
the beloved Hollywood stutterer after all!
Fleming was prepared to trade off Bond to James Stewart to get Hitchcock
onto the Xanadu Productions "Thunderball" picture.
--
--Mac
Tony Wilson RIP (Thanks for the soundtrack to my life)
Tim Pollard
"Mac" <see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
news:5i6410F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Tony Wilson RIP (Thanks for the soundtrack to my life)
I didn't know he worked with the Village People...
:-)
--
Regards
Tim Pollard
www.timpollard.com
"In Sparta we have no room for the Hacienda!"
Mac
> "Mac" <see...@SPAMLESSvirgin.net> wrote in message
> news:5i6410F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>
>> Tony Wilson RIP (Thanks for the soundtrack to my life)
>
> I didn't know he worked with the Village People...
Bitch. Scratch your eyes out...
--
--Mac
Moor Larkin
> Nick wrote:
> > I'd always heard that McGoohan turned it down because, as a devout
> > Catholic, he objected to Bond's womanising.
>
> I believe that was an early publicity story - although one which McGoohan
> himself may have played along with for a while. In at least one later
> interview (which I can't find right now) he said that he would have objected
> to the gunplay and womanising of a Bond-type character on television, where
> the whole family could be watching, but was OK with it in the cinema as
> there were age restrictions in place. (And indeed, some of his films have
> contained nudity and violence.)
The wierd thing is that in 'All Night Long' (released in the same year
as Dr. No) McGoohan was pushing drugs to a jazz dope fiend :-)))
Not the most Christian thing to be doing!! I guess that hardly anybody
watched that movie though, unike Dr. No.........
> As a little sideline to the original post, I met a guy whose father had
> worked with McGoohan quite frequently in his early career. He said that
> McGoohan had after his early successes on stage decided that he was going to
> 'go after the money' and forego his loftier artistic ambitions, that he had
> later become wracked with guilt about having done so and about being reduced
> (as he felt) to the status of a cog in the entertainment machine, and that
> 'The Prisoner' was in part his way of working out these feelings. I don't
> know quite how psychologically accurate this might be, but it's an
> interesting interpretation.
He regretted signing for Rank Films in 1956-8, so that's probably what
this refers to. However he did his 'Brand' thing after that, in 1959,
so was possibly over his loftier ambitions by 1961. Would he have seen
the early script I've read about on Bond sites, which Wolf Manckiewitz
was involved in? (Wolf was a backer of the theatre group that
facilitated McGoohan's 'Brand' production). The stuff I've read
suggests the script was pretty ropey and involved Dr. No being a
monkey...... (maybe McGoohan's monkey mask in 'Fall-Out' was an
unconscious memory ;-)) ) Terence Young claimed he pretty much
rewrote the Dr. No script as he shot the film didn't he?
Ciao
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
> The wierd thing is that in 'All Night Long' (released in the same year
> as Dr. No) McGoohan was pushing drugs to a jazz dope fiend :-)))
> Not the most Christian thing to be doing!!
True, but he does get his comeuppance at the end. Bond, on the other
hand, is positively *rewarded* for his sins <g>.
> He regretted signing for Rank Films in 1956-8, so that's probably what
> this refers to. However he did his 'Brand' thing after that, in 1959,
> so was possibly over his loftier ambitions by 1961.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I seem to remember that the picture David
Cronenberg has painted of McGoohan during the making of 'Scanners' is
of an unhappy and disappointed man, although how accurate this might
be, and the reasons for it if true, aren't necessarily clear
> Would he have seen
> the early script I've read about on Bond sites, which Wolf Manckiewitz
> was involved in?
It's hard to tell. When it comes to potential Bonds, particularly of
that era, 'considered', 'approached', and 'offered' have all become
terribly muddled, and it can be very hard to discern which is the
truth - which of course would have implications as to whether McGoohan
had seen any kind of script. However, I doubt the early draft in
question would have been shopped around to actors' agents.
> The stuff I've read
> suggests the script was pretty ropey and involved Dr. No being a
> monkey......
Sadly true...
> Terence Young claimed he pretty much
> rewrote the Dr. No script as he shot the film didn't he?
There was definitely some improvising on-set and in the editing room,
as indeed there was during the making of FRWL, but by the time DN
started shooting Cubby Broccoli had already rejected the monkey
business - both literal and figurative - of Mankowitz' draft and got
Richard Maibaum to deliver a straight adaptation of Fleming's novel.
Indeed, considering how closely much of the film follows the book,
Young's 'rewrite' couldn't have been quite as drastic as his claim
might make it sound. However, what he did help to contribute not just
to DN but to the series as a whole was the sardonic humour for which
the Bond character became known. (Even though Young didn't think so,
I'd argue that this is present in the novels as well, but I concede
that it's certainly less pronounced than in the films.)
Best
Phil
(Incidentally, has anyone here seen 'Kings and Desperate Men'
recently? It's been years since I saw it and I was wondering how - or
whether - it holds up.)
Moor Larkin
<phil.gerra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I seem to remember that the picture David
> Cronenberg has painted of McGoohan during the making of 'Scanners' is
> of an unhappy and disappointed man, although how accurate this might
> be, and the reasons for it if true, aren't necessarily clear
Yes, Cronenberg seemed to be a bit scared of McGoohan. On the other
hand he admitted McGoohan had 'written' most of the Dr. Ruth segments
of the movie. So far as his comments about the 'self-hatred' he
perceived: I have wondered why Cronenberg didn't make the intuitive
link between the fatal traffic accident at the beginning of the
Scanners shoot, and McGoohans mood. For an actor who was always
conflicted about the 'importance' of showbiz, being involved in a
movie that had led to the death of two passers-by might have led to
conflicting emotions.
On 15 Aug, 15:26, "phil.gerr...@ntlworld.com"
<phil.gerra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> When it comes to potential Bonds, particularly of
> that era, 'considered', 'approached', and 'offered' have all become
> terribly muddled, and it can be very hard to discern which is the
> truth - which of course would have implications as to whether McGoohan
> had seen any kind of script. However, I doubt the early draft in
> question would have been shopped around to actors' agents.
I suppose I was mentally speculating that McGoohan's recent dealings
with Mankowitz in the theatre, in the Fifties, may have given him more
of a inside track, as in picking up the 'phone and saying, "Hey Wolf.
They tell me you're involved in this secret agent thing.... what's the
juice man?" ;-)) Very hard to discern the truth there either ;-))
On 15 Aug, 15:26, "phil.gerr...@ntlworld.com"
<phil.gerra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> (Incidentally, has anyone here seen 'Kings and Desperate Men'
> recently? It's been years since I saw it and I was wondering how - or
> whether - it holds up.)
As you might guess, I have. I actually have a spare video if you want
it. The technical quality is poor and I found a better edition but I
couldn't bring myself to chuck it out. If you want it, give me an E. :)
Matt Sherman, Bondologist www.omnibilia.com
> with Mankowitz in the theatre, in the Fifties>>
McGoohan is fascinating to me as someone who would have brought major
acting chops to Bond, not that Connery was lacking experience by '62.
McGoohan was powerful in A Time To Kill and Braveheart, for more
recent offerings. It was sad that he fell ill some years ago,
remember, this is the fellow who turned down Gandalf and Dumbledore,
to name two roles.
Philip Gerrard
> So far as his comments about the 'self-hatred' he
> perceived: I have wondered why Cronenberg didn't make the intuitive
> link between the fatal traffic accident at the beginning of the
> Scanners shoot, and McGoohans mood.
Doesn't do much to dispel the popular (if maybe mistaken) image of
Cronenberg as a somewhat remote and clinical type, does it? :-)
> As you might guess, I have. I actually have a spare video if you want
> it. The technical quality is poor and I found a better edition but I
> couldn't bring myself to chuck it out. If you want it, give me an E. :)
Once again this NG turns up a star. Will drop you a line off-list and many
thanks for the offer...
Best
Phil
Larry
"Nick Xylas" <nick...@wmconnect.com> wrote in message
news:1186844347.7...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Moor Larkin
> or was it Dangermouse!
That's another looney toon as well. The makers of that cartoon made
some reference to it being based on Danger Man..... How so? Danger Man
always worked alone (except for the pesky women that followed him
around). He was never a pompous ass. He certainly never had a 'helper'
like Penfold. Whilst he was often in disguise John Drake certainly
would never wear a jump-suit and rarely an eye-patch.
Basically the title had the word Danger in it.... That's about the
limit of the similarity. People just pluck cliches out of the ether
sometimes and attach themselves to legends.........
Mac
Yep. DANGER MOUSE is a legend. The makers only used the name as
a fun spin on the original McGoohan series' title, but didn't base the
actual cartoon series on one specific spy.
--
--Mac (weaned on DM)
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks Penfold would have taken Nick-Nack."
Moor Larkin
> --Mac (weaned on DM)
Misleading small children only makes it more iniquitous than it was
before!!
Nick Xylas
Given that it started in the 80's, would any small children watching
have even heard of Danger Man?
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
> Given that it started in the 80's, would any small children watching
> have even heard of Danger Man?
I would guess that some of their parents would have clued them in on
the reference.
Oddly, one of the main things which sticks in my memory about 'Danger
Mouse' is that it was what was due to come on air when ITN broadcast
the newsflash that Anwar Sadat had been assassinated. (Or that's
probably just another childhood memory I've Googled.)
Best
Phil
Mac
BURN HIM!!!!
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas had to Google himself. Wasn't pretty..."
Moor Larkin
> BURN HIM!!!!
No need. Turns out I was wrong anyhow ;-)))
"Danger Mouse, as a government agent who took on missions involving
super villains like Baron Silas Greenback as they sought to dominate
the world. The hero was patterned largely after James Bond "
http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review.php?ID=30074
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
> "Danger Mouse, as a government agent who took on missions involving
> super villains like Baron Silas Greenback as they sought to dominate
> the world. The hero was patterned largely after James Bond "http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/review.php?ID=30074
I don't know: DM always struck me as a more old-fashioned and
conventionally virtuous sort of hero than Bond (in the very best
Richard Hannay sense, of course). He's more of a fair-play, stiff-
upper-lip British gent than Bond is.
However, I think Greenback *definitely* owes a lot to the Bond series.
Best
Phil
Nick Xylas
<phil.gerra...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> upper-lip British gent than Bond is.
>
> However, I think Greenback *definitely* owes a lot to the Bond series.
>