#may special
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
Today’s Subject, My 6th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Francisco Scaramanga, from The Man With the Golden Gun.
Christopher Lee and James Bond have more ties than you might think: as it turns out, Lee was actually Ian Fleming’s cousin, and at one point, Fleming had actually suggested Lee (who, at that time, was just starting to make a proper name for himself in movies) to play the titular super spy. Lee would have been perfect casting, seeing as how he actually worked in the secret service for England for years, but alas, this never came to pass. Eon Productions made this up to audiences, however, when they decided to cast Lee to play arguably one of the greatest Bond Villains of all time: Francisco Scaramanga, the titular assassin from “The Man With the Golden Gun.”
While “The Man With the Golden Gun” is admittedly one of the more flawed James Bond movies (its tone is all over the place, two major characters are pretty annoying, and the plot is somewhat convoluted, even by Bond film standards), it is, nevertheless, an example of a case where the movie is better than the book. The book, for some strange reason, plays out more like a Spaghetti Western than a James Bond story, and the titular villain of Scaramanga is little more than a black-hatted thug with a fancy weapon. It was the last novel written by Ian Fleming for the series, and you can tell he was sort of strapped for ideas at that point. The movie, for all its own faults, wisely goes in a totally different direction from the novel…and, in deliberately not following the book much at all, it also ends up greatly improving on the character of Scaramanga.
Lee’s gilded dastard was envisioned as “the dark side of Bond;” he is one of a few villains throughout the franchise (Raoul Silva, Janus, and Red Grant are other examples) who are meant to be a dark parallel to Bond himself. Like Bond, Scaramanga is a notorious assassin who has somehow managed to remain secretive while also having a noteworthy reputation. He is a brilliant pistol shot, and enjoys the finer things in life, always wearing excellent suits and enjoying the best wines and foods he can find. However, where they differ are their motivations: Bond has his rough edges, his foibles and flaws, but he ultimately works for a heroic cause, and has a basic moral fiber somewhere under the surface. Scaramanga does not: he lives with practically no purpose but to kill and destroy, and he absolutely LOVES his work. Through death, he has made financial killings of his own; through death, he can live the life he’s always wanted. Shooting people is ultimately the only thing that brings him pleasure in life. (And I mean “pleasure” in more than one sense of the word.) Under his sophisticated and at times rather charming demeanor, he is a literal killing machine, and nothing more.
This was yet another role that gave Lee a chance to break the mold of the horror actor he was stuck in so perpetually at the time. True, Scaramanga is still the villain, but he’s a rather different creature from characters like Dracula or Fu Manchu. Lee brings an enthusiasm and energy to the part that gives Scaramanga an almost boyish quality; his childlike excitement when Bond comes to “visit” him on his island hideaway (because of course he has one of those) is especially wonderful. He doesn’t just RESPECT Bond, he outright seems to IDOLIZE the guy; you almost get the feeling that Scaramanga’s similarities to Bond are self-crafted, that he’s been building up this moment for himself for years, and the chance to finally see his hero, have dinner with him, and show him around his pad is just as delightful to him as the chance to fight said hero in combat and come out the victor. Of course, the relationship is almost tragically one-sided, as Bond is quite disgusted by Scaramanga, which no doubt only heightens his desire to see Bond fall courtesy of one of his own gold bullets. The best comparison I can think of in a more modern film is the relationship between Syndrome and Mr. Incredible from “The Incredibles”: the villain is just as much the hero’s fanboy as their self-proclaimed nemesis.
Bottom line: while “The Man With the Golden Gun” has its problems, the titular villain is not among them. He’s one of my top three favorite Bond Villains, without question, and I actually feel pretty bad for not including him in the Top 5 on this countdown. Hopefully those who rank above him will not disappoint. ;)
The top five starts tomorrow. Not only that, but tomorrow marks the official birthday of our honored actor! Who will be chosen to mark that special occasion? Join me next time to find out.
Welcome to Christopher Lee: A Sinister Centenary! Over the course of May, I will be counting down My Top 31 Favorite Performances by my favorite actor, the late, great Sir Christopher Lee, in honor of his 100th Birthday. Although this fine actor left us a few years ago, his legacy endures, and this countdown is a tribute to said legacy!
It’s the final week of the countdown, guys and gals! Today’s Subject, My 7th Favorite Christopher Lee Performance: Captain Rochefort, from Richard Lester’s Three Musketeers Trilogy.
There have been numerous adaptations of Alexandre Dumas’ classic swashbuckling novel “The Three Musketeers,” some more well-known or popular than others. For many cinemagoers, however, if there is a definitive version of the story in film form, it is most likely the trilogy of films directed by Richard Lester. Lester’s movies were actually produced by the same company behind the Christopher Reeve Superman films; in fact, Lester’s first two movies were actually an inspiration for some behind-the-scenes techniques in the first two Superman movies, and Lester was the man who directed Superman II AND Superman III.
Let’s get this straight…the team behind the classic Superman movies…working on a famous action-adventure classic…with CHRISTOPHER LEE as one of the main villains?! Honestly, is it any wonder these movies are considered the definitive takes on the Musketeer story?
The first two films (“The Three Musketeers” and “The Four Musketeers”) are basically a straightforward adaptation of the novel, each movie taking approximately one half of the original story – think along the lines of two-part features such as “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” or “Batman: The Dark Knight Returns.” The third film, “Return of the Musketeers,” is an original piece, evidently produced by popular demand. Throughout these three pictures, there are, fittingly three key villains who bedevil our heroes: the main antagonist of the first two movies is Cardinal Richelieu, played by Charlton Heston. Milady De Winter, a former lover of Athos and one of the first femme fatales of fiction, is the secondary antagonist of the first two films, and takes the lead as the main villain in “Return.” Throughout all these movies, Christopher Lee appears as a supporting rogue: he is the evil nobleman and soldier Rochefort, a scoundrel who follows the orders of both of the other baddies.
Despite being subservient to Richelieu and De Winter, Rochefort is by no means a minor character, nor a mere pawn. In fact, he has a rather substantial role, as he becomes the true nemesis of the main protagonist of the series, D’Artagnan. Throughout the series, they battle with each other, steel and wit matching constantly, and their story arc ends up being one of the most powerful and intense parts of the whole trilogy. In point of fact, the portrayal of Rochefort created by Lee and Lester has been highly influential: in the books, Rochefort is a somewhat more minor character, and also more sympathetic, as he ends up becoming a sort of friendly rival of D’Artagnan, rather than a true nemesis. Ever since these movies, however, Rochefort has become a much more prominent, as well as much more sinister, character: portrayals by actors such as Michael Wincott, Mads Mikkelsen, and Marc Warren often owe more to Lee’s version than the actual Dumas novel.
The Lester Trilogy is noteworthy for its sense of tone, and how it changes, especially between the first two movies. The first movie is largely a comedic adventure film, but with a slight edge; in the second film, however, the stakes are raised significantly, and while there are still funny moments, we learn more about the characters and see them go through tougher trials, leading to a darker tone. Think of it as being along the lines of “A New Hope” versus “Empire Strikes Back”: one is more cut-and-dry in its approach, more superficial, and with a slightly lighter tone, while the other really gets into the proverbial nitty-gritty of these characters and puts them through Hell and back by the time its over. (If only “Return” could in any way be likened to Star Wars’ own third pillar, but that’s another story.) Lee does a brilliant job balancing these elements as the nasty Rochefort: he is a menacing opponent for D’Artagnan and the rest, but there’s a certain grandiosity to him at times that gives him some humorous moments, especially in the first movie. He actually reminds me a little bit of Captain Hook; sort of part-fop, part-true threat. Actually, come to think of it, Christopher Lee would have made an amazing Captain Hook…as far as I’m aware, though, that never happened…oh, the lost opportunities of history…
Tomorrow, I present my choice for Number 6!
