Did Sean Connery really sabotage his own movie? That's the claim surrounding the 1964 thriller "Woman of Straw," where the iconic James Bond actor reportedly felt responsible for its critical failure. But was he being too hard on himself? Let's dive into the behind-the-scenes drama of this forgotten film and see if Connery truly deserved the blame.
In 1964, Sean Connery was riding high. Fresh off his explosive debut as James Bond in "Dr. No," the film that launched one of cinema's most enduring franchises, he was about to solidify his 007 status with the legendary "Goldfinger." But before Bond mania truly took hold, Connery starred in "Woman of Straw," a crime drama that, unlike its soon-to-be-iconic counterpart, was met with a resounding thud by critics.
Almost immediately after its release, Connery publicly shouldered the blame for the movie's shortcomings. But here's where it gets controversial... was his assessment entirely fair? Was he being overly critical of himself, or were there other factors at play that contributed to the film's less-than-stellar reception?
The film was helmed by director Basil Dearden, a name synonymous with quality thrillers. Just four years prior, Dearden had directed the critically acclaimed "The League of Gentlemen," often hailed as one of the best heist movies ever made. "Woman of Straw" marked one of two collaborations between Dearden and his longtime producing partner Michael Relph for United Artists. However, it failed to replicate the success of their earlier heist masterpiece. That said, in the world of film, is it fair to compare every film a director makes to their most successful one?
In "Woman of Straw," Connery plays Anthony Richmond, the scheming nephew of the ailing millionaire Charles Richmond, portrayed by Ralph Richardson. Charles, on the verge of death, intends to leave his vast fortune to charity. Anthony, however, has other, more selfish, plans. He concocts a devious scheme, hiring an Italian nurse, Maria Marcello (played by Gina Lollobrigida), and convincing her to marry Charles. The plan? Maria inherits the fortune upon Charles's death, and Anthony gets the lion's share, with Maria receiving a cool $1 million for her troubles. Of course, as with all good crime thrillers, things don't go according to plan. Anthony double-crosses Maria, poisoning Charles and then attempting to frame her for the murder.
This melodramatic thriller, however, failed to resonate with critics. Connery, seemingly anticipating the film's fate, confessed in a 1965 Playboy interview, "When 'Woman of Straw' was shot down, I wasn't entirely surprised." But why? According to the actor himself, the film's failure was entirely his fault.
Connery attributed the film's failure to a grueling schedule and disastrous rewrites. "Woman of Straw" was intended to showcase Connery's versatility, proving that he was more than just James Bond – a crucial goal for the actor in the early years of his 007 fame. Bond, while catapulting him to superstardom, also presented a challenge: escaping typecasting. In "Woman of Straw," Connery played a villainous character, a stark contrast to the suave and heroic Bond, which seemed like the perfect opportunity to shatter public perception.
Unfortunately, Basil Dearden's thriller, adapted from Catherine Arley's French novel "La Femme de paille," was widely regarded as a step backward. Critics deemed it outdated and uninspired. And this is the part most people miss... the weight of expectation. Connery was already a global phenomenon. Could any film, regardless of quality, truly satisfy audiences who were already clamoring for more Bond?
Eugene Archer of The New York Times, for example, lamented, "What could be more archaic than the sight of James Bond himself, Sean Connery, stalking glumly through the very type of old-fashioned thriller he usually mocks?" Archer, who attended the film's premiere at the Criterion Theatre, noted that Connery "did not look one bit more unhappy" during the event, suggesting the actor was immediately aware of the film's shortcomings. However, it's worth noting that Connery, known for his stoic demeanor, often appeared somewhat unhappy, regardless of the situation!
Connery's own assessment, as revealed in his 1965 Playboy interview, paints a clearer picture. "I wasn't all that thrilled with 'Woman of Straw,' although the problems were my own," he admitted. "I'd been working nonstop for goodness knows how long and trying to suggest rewrites for it while making another film, which is always deadly. It was an experience: but I won't make that mistake again." So, was he truly solely responsible?
Shortly after the lukewarm reception of "Woman of Straw," Connery starred in another thriller adapted from a novel, Alfred Hitchcock's "Marnie." While "Marnie" initially received a mixed response (interestingly, Eugene Archer of The New York Times was equally dismissive of "Marnie" as he was of "Woman of Straw"), it underwent a significant reappraisal in subsequent decades and is now considered a Hitchcock classic. But here's where it gets controversial... some critics at the time thought "Marnie" wasn't a thriller at all, but rather a character study of trauma.
"Woman of Straw," on the other hand, hasn't enjoyed the same level of re-evaluation, although it's not remembered as the complete disaster that Archer and his contemporaries initially portrayed it to be. Even Connery himself recognized the difference between his two 1964 thrillers just a year after their release. When asked in his Playboy interview if he was satisfied with his non-Bond films, he expressed happiness with "Marnie," albeit "with certain reservations." He felt differently about "Woman of Straw," attributing its failure to his own shortcomings – a judgment he perhaps should have softened.
In the book "The Cinema of Basil Dearden and Michael Relph," authors Alan Burton and Tim O'Sullivan highlight reports of a "difficult shoot" on Basil Dearden's film. Gina Lollobrigida was reportedly "demanding and temperamental," clashing with both Dearden and Connery. Alongside his own demanding schedule, Connery faced a less-than-ideal on-set atmosphere. What's more, the film inevitably drew comparisons to Hitchcock thrillers, a point critics were quick to emphasize.
According to the Monthly Film Bulletin's review, the picture would have benefitted from "a touch of Hitchcock to sharpen suspense and turn the howl of a dog into something inhuman instead of noises off." With critics seemingly predisposed to view Dearden's movie as a pale imitation of Hitchcock from the outset, and reports of a challenging filming experience, perhaps Connery wasn't entirely to blame.
So, what do you think? Was Sean Connery being too harsh on himself regarding "Woman of Straw"? Or did his heavy workload and involvement in rewrites genuinely contribute to the film's failure? Were the critics unfairly biased against the film from the start? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
