Imagine being a global superstar, fresh off the success of one of cinema's most iconic roles, only to take the blame for a film's failure. That's exactly what happened to Sean Connery after the 1964 crime thriller Woman of Straw flopped. But here's where it gets controversial: Was it really all his fault, or were there deeper issues at play? Let’s dive into the story behind this overlooked film and the surprising reasons why even Connery himself felt responsible for its shortcomings.
By 1964, Sean Connery was already a household name, having skyrocketed to fame just two years earlier as James Bond in Dr. No. The film not only launched his career but also kicked off the most enduring franchise in cinematic history (https://www.slashfilm.com/1043462/tales-from-the-box-office-dr-no-kicked-off-cinemas-most-enduring-franchise-with-bond-james-bond/). With Goldfinger—arguably one of the best Bond films ever (https://www.slashfilm.com/624745/every-james-bond-movie-ranked-from-worst-to-best/)—set to debut later that year, Connery was at the peak of his stardom. But before that triumph, he starred in Woman of Straw, a film that critics savaged and that Connery himself would later call a misstep. Yet, was he truly to blame, or was he being too hard on himself?
Directed by Basil Dearden, who had previously helmed the critically acclaimed heist masterpiece The League of Gentlemen (https://www.slashfilm.com/589099/the-best-heist-movies-of-all-time/), Woman of Straw was one of two films Dearden made for United Artists with his longtime collaborator, producer Michael Relph. Despite their track record, the film failed to match the success of their earlier work. Starring Connery as Anthony Richmond, the film follows a nefarious plot to inherit a millionaire’s fortune through deceit and murder. Anthony hires Italian nurse Maria Marcello (played by Gina Lollobrigida) to marry his dying uncle, Charles Richmond (Ralph Richardson), with the promise of a $1 million payout. However, Anthony’s scheme unravels when he double-crosses Maria, poisoning Charles and framing her for the crime. The melodramatic thriller failed to resonate with critics, who deemed it outdated and uninspired.
And this is the part most people miss: Connery openly admitted to feeling responsible for the film’s failure, citing his hectic schedule and failed attempts to rewrite the script while juggling another project. In a 1965 Playboy interview (via The James Bond Dossier (https://web.archive.org/web/20181011133335/http://www.the007dossier.com/007dossier/post/2013/05/04/Playboy-Interview-Sean-Connery-1965)), he reflected, “I wasn’t all that thrilled with Woman of Straw, although the problems were my own. I’d been working nonstop… and trying to suggest rewrites for it while making another film, which is always deadly.” Yet, was it fair for him to shoulder all the blame?
Connery’s desire to break free from the Bond mold was understandable. Playing a scheming villain in Woman of Straw seemed like a bold move to challenge his typecasting as England’s suave spy. However, critics like The New York Times’ Eugene Archer were unforgiving, calling the film “archaic” and questioning Connery’s choice to star in such an old-fashioned thriller (https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/01/archives/gina-lollobrigida-stars-in-woman-of-straw.html). But was the film truly a failure, or was it simply a victim of unfair comparisons to Hitchcock’s masterpieces?
Interestingly, Connery’s next thriller, Alfred Hitchcock’s Marnie, faced similar initial criticism but has since been reevaluated as a classic. Woman of Straw, however, remains largely forgotten—though not entirely without merit. In his Playboy interview, Connery admitted to being happier with Marnie, albeit with reservations, while taking full responsibility for Woman of Straw’s shortcomings. Yet, reports of a difficult shoot, including clashes between Lollobrigida and the crew, suggest that the film’s issues went beyond Connery’s involvement.
Here’s the real question: Was Sean Connery truly at fault, or was Woman of Straw doomed from the start by a troubled production and unfair critical expectations? And could this film, often dismissed as a blunder, deserve a second look today? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—do you think Connery was too hard on himself, or was he right to take the blame?
