Imagine this: a Hollywood icon, fresh off shattering box office records as the suave secret agent everyone adored, steps into a role that was supposed to showcase his range beyond spy games—only for the film to crash and burn critically. Sean Connery, the legendary Scotsman who defined James Bond in 1964's "Dr. No," found himself in exactly that spot with the crime thriller "Woman of Straw." But here's where it gets intriguing—was he really the villain in this cinematic flop? Let's dive into the story, unpack what went wrong, and explore whether Connery's self-blame was entirely fair. Buckle up; this tale of ambition, mishaps, and hindsight might just change how you view one of cinema's most enduring stars.
Just two years after skyrocketing to fame as 007 in "Dr. No," which ignited the James Bond franchise that still captivates audiences today with its mix of gadgets, glamour, and global intrigue, Connery was poised for another triumph. That came later that September with "Goldfinger," widely hailed as one of the finest Bond films ever—think dazzling heists, unforgettable villains like Goldfinger himself, and a soundtrack that still gets heads nodding. But before that blockbuster hit screens, Connery took on a different challenge: a gritty crime drama called "Woman of Straw." Directed by Basil Dearden, who had earlier masterminded the acclaimed heist film "The League of Gentlemen" (a clever caper about a group of ex-military men pulling off a daring bank robbery, which many fans consider a top-tier heist movie for its intricate plotting and sharp dialogue), this project seemed like a smart pivot for Connery. He wanted to prove he could be more than just Bond, shaking off the typecasting that came with playing the world's most famous spy.
Yet, "Woman of Straw," adapted from Catherine Arley's French novel "La Femme de paille," turned out to be a major disappointment for critics upon its 1964 release. It follows Connery's character, Anthony Richmond, as the opportunistic nephew of a wealthy tycoon named Charles Richmond (played by the esteemed Ralph Richardson). Charles is on his deathbed and plans to donate his vast fortune to charity, but Anthony has greedier plans. He teams up with Maria Marcello (the captivating Gina Lollobrigida), an Italian nurse he hires, convincing her to marry the old man so they can inherit the money after his passing. The scheme? Anthony gets the lion's share, while Maria pockets a cool $1 million for her role. Naturally, things spiral into chaos—Anthony betrays Maria by poisoning his uncle and attempting to pin the murder on her, leading to a tense game of cat-and-mouse. It's a classic melodramatic thriller, full of twists, deceptions, and moral dilemmas, but it didn't resonate with most reviewers at the time.
And this is the part most people miss: shortly after the film's release, Connery openly took the blame. In a candid 1965 interview with Playboy (as detailed in "The James Bond Dossier"), he admitted he wasn't surprised by the backlash. Why? He pointed fingers squarely at himself, citing his packed schedule—juggling multiple projects back-to-back—and his attempts at script rewrites while filming another movie, which he called a 'deadly' mistake. For beginners in Hollywood lore, this is like trying to fix a leaky boat while sailing through a storm; multitasking can lead to rushed decisions and overlooked details. Connery reflected that the film's issues stemmed from his own overcommitment, vowing not to repeat such errors. He wanted to show versatility beyond Bond, who had become a 'double-edged sword'—granting fame and fortune but limiting him to action-hero roles that pigeonholed his image as the quintessential British spy.
But here's where it gets controversial. Was Connery truly the sole culprit, or were there deeper problems at play? The movie's director, Basil Dearden, had a solid track record (his partnership with producer Michael Relph had previously delivered "The League of Gentlemen," a heist masterpiece praised for its witty ensemble and high-stakes plot), yet "Woman of Straw" didn't capture the same magic. Critics panned it as outdated and stiff, with The New York Times' Eugene Archer snidely noting how ironic it was to see James Bond 'stalking glumly through an old-fashioned thriller he usually mocks.' The film's premiere at the Criterion Theatre didn't help, and Archer even hinted that Connery seemed resigned to the flop. Yet, reports from the set paint a picture of turmoil: Lollobrigida was reportedly difficult and clashed with Dearden and Connery, creating a tense atmosphere that mirrored the drama on screen.
Comparisons to Alfred Hitchcock's thrillers loomed large, and "Woman of Straw" inevitably got measured against them. Hitchcock, the master of suspense (think "Psycho" or "Vertigo," where everyday fears morph into psychological nightmares), had raised the bar for psychological intrigue. The Monthly Film Bulletin critiqued Dearden's film for lacking that Hitchcockian edge—suggesting it needed more chills, like turning a simple dog howl into something eerily foreboding rather than just 'noises off.' Interestingly, Connery starred in Hitchcock's "Marnie" later that year, another novel adaptation (from Winston Graham's 1961 book), which faced initial scorn from critics like Archer but has since been celebrated as a Hitchcock classic, exploring themes of trauma, identity, and deception in ways that feel timeless today. "Marnie" teaches us that some films need time to reveal their brilliance—perhaps "Woman of Straw" deserved the same patience, but it hasn't quite achieved that reassessment.
In "The Cinema of Basil Dearden and Michael Relph," authors Alan Burton and Tim O'Sullivan highlight these production headaches, arguing that the shoot was fraught with challenges beyond Connery's control. With a demanding co-star and critical expectations weighing heavily, was it fair for Connery to shoulder all the blame? He even distinguished "Marnie" (which he liked 'with certain reservations') from "Woman of Straw" in that interview, but maybe hindsight shows a more nuanced story. Some might argue blame should fall on the script's dated feel or the director's inability to inject fresh energy. Others could say Connery, as the star, should have demanded better conditions. What do you think—was this a personal failure, or did the industry's pressures conspire against it? Have you seen "Woman of Straw" or similar thrillers, and does it hold up today? Share your thoughts in the comments; I'd love to hear if you agree, disagree, or have a counterpoint to offer!
