George Lazenby / Peter Hunt feud

crawfordboon

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere else, but Lazenby had an interview with Jeremy Clarkson about 4 years ago, spoke about OHMSS. He claimed that on the first day of shooting, Hunt asked for the set to br cleared, but nobody heard him as they were too busy. Lazenby said he personally stood up on set and spoke loudly for everyone to clear the set and grab some lunch. According to Lazenby, Hunt was rather angry about this and barely spoke to Lazenby for the rest of the production.

I know I did not imagine this, did anyone else see this interview or hear about this incident? Perhaps George made it up fearing Clarkson would take the mickey or something.


In the Peter Hunt interview, the OHMSS director states that this is untrue, that he does not understand Lazenby's motives for making public statements of this kind. He backs this up by asking rhetorically how a 'boy stright from the Australian backwoods' (inexact quote) could be put on a movie set and be expected to act perfectly without help.

Hunt also suggested Lazenby''s inexperience perhaps made him feel that he wasn't getting special treatment he was entitled to. Certainly the marketing department thought the same way when his picture was excluded from advertising material.

Does anyone know any more on the truth of Lazenby's claims?

Hardyboy

I've heard a lot of stories about a "feud" between the two men, but it seems as though each story contradicts the next. For instance, I've heard that Lazenby did feel he was coldly treated by Hunt; but others have said that Hunt was extremely busy with the film and that he didn't have time to nurse Lazenby through the role. Then again, on the OHMSS DVD Lazenby himself says that Hunt brought the best out in him!

Also, by all reports, Lazenby was pretty much a prima donna. Dana Broccoli reported (again on the DVD) that Lazenby got his nose out of joint when he wasn't given a personal "invitation" to an informal party because he was the "star." Cubby put him in his place by saying something like, "You're not the star because you say you are or because I say you are. You're not a star until the public says you are!"

Sir Miles

Quoting Hardyboy:
I've heard that Lazenby did feel he was coldly treated by Hunt;

Which Hunt said was partly true. Peter said he did this to get a better performance out of George. I've also seen the Lazenby/Clarkson interview a couple of times and Lazenby was quite open and candid about himself as well.

Moore Or Less

I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. From what I've read and heard it seems that George admits he was a bit of a pain and did make some mistakes, of which he says he's learned from. The chances are (with the whole clear the set thing) that it was a misunderstanding and one of the two (Lazenby or Hunt) took it just a bit too far. As for contradiction I've heard from Lazenby that Hunt wouldn't speak to him afterwards when he tried, and I've heard the opposite likewise from Hunt! Argh my head hurts

Hardyboy

Quoting Moore Or Less:
I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle. From what I've read and heard it seems that George admits he was a bit of a pain and did make some mistakes, of which he says he's learned from.

Yep--even on the OHMSS DVD Lazenby says that he had a lot of growing up to do.

taity

Everything Ive heard about the feuding on set seems much more aimed at the romantic leads than anything else - Lazenby and Rigg.

Something tells me that because the common theme there is Lazenby, I'd believe he was the trouble maker.

cbdouble07

taity wrote:

Everything Ive heard about the feuding on set seems much more aimed at the romantic leads than anything else - Lazenby and Rigg.

Something tells me that because the common theme there is Lazenby, I'd believe he was the trouble maker.

I've also heard that the feud between Lazenby and Rigg was overblown and that they actually had a thing for each other. I gave up trying to figure out what was going on around the set for this film a long time ago. It's just a mess of he-said, she-said. Kind of interesting that despite all of the feuding and disputes on set this turned out to be one of the best Bond films.

highhopes

taity wrote:

Something tells me that because the common theme there is Lazenby, I'd believe he was the trouble maker.

I'm with you, Taity: there are simply too many people whose stories seem to support that view. My sense is that Lazenby was young, plucked from obscurity to star in the biggest movie franchise of its day, and it went a bit to his head. That in turn colored his relationships with his co-workers and his decision-making (with regard to signing for more Bond films -- he screwed up big time). But that doesn't make him a monster, only human. He may not have had much of a movie career in the aftermath, but he doesn't seem any worse for wear.

blueman

Oil and water and oil and water and...

Sometimes personalities (especially creative ones) under pressure clash. OHMSS is a credit to all involved, they collectively rose above the whatever and made a classic, classy adventure film. That they could work together despite difference registers more with me than the differences, however they came out (and are fuzzily remembered).

I blame Telly.

7289

I really think all the feuding was a 50-50 situtation.

Hunt was by trade an Editor, not a director. His skills were techincal and not personal. While OHMSS benefited from Hunt's sticking to the original story, his actors appeared to run amuck!

One only needs to watch Rigg and Savalas hamming it up during the "sunrise" scenes to realize that Hunt let them run on a long leash.

Lazenby was just an average guy, grabbed by great fortune to fullfill everyone's dream - become oo7!
No acting skills, little direction, no pals on set, in short no one to help him maintain his stability and prespective. When viewed from that prespective, all of Lazenby's behavior is quite understandable.

Hunt was the "Captain of the Ship" and should have made better arrangements to shepard his star through the process. While Hitchcock may have said "Actors should be treated as cattle" my prespective is that Hunt may have unintentionally treated Lazenby in that manner.

But the producers were in place too, and could have stepped in ... but did not! All in all EON learned alot with Lazenby. And never again plucked an unknown car salesman to play Sean Connery in a James Bond film.

Napoleon Plural

Tell you what, it must be hell to be on one of these films when things go wrong and you fall out... nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide. Like the Big Brother house, in fact.

I can imagine Lazenby feeling a bit insecure and therefore acting overbearing. No worse than fellow Aussie Errol Flynn perhaps, he rubbed people up the wrong way once he was **** of the walk.

mooreisbest

Didn't Lois Maxwell say that George had told her that he and Rigg had had an affair and then they fell out during the film but then he went on holiday and she joined him there later?

Hunt to me seemed a rather creepy little man who bullied Lazenby. To say it was "to get the performance" seems a little rich. He probably was just a little man who got off on having a bit of power.

I think Lazenby was fab in OHMSS and that his film was by far one of the very best, the best in-fact. And he was one hell of a good looking guy. He has aged the best out of all the Bond stars, and his story of getting the role and the lead up to it is the ultimate story of "making your own luck".

Love you George!

7289

mooreisbest wrote:

Didn't Lois Maxwell say that George had told her that he and Rigg had had an affair and then they fell out during the film but then he went on holiday and she joined him there later?/quote]

Never heard that before! Sounds like "**** of the walk" George doing a little too much crowing!

Barbel

7289 wrote:

Hunt was by trade an Editor, not a director. His skills were techincal and not personal. While OHMSS benefited from Hunt's sticking to the original story, his actors appeared to run amuck!

One only needs to watch Rigg and Savalas hamming it up during the "sunrise" scenes to realize that Hunt let them run on a long leash.

One can't quibble with the fact that Hunt was originally an editor and had great technical skill. Letting two capable actors enjoy a bit of "hamming" (which I for one thoroughly enjoyed) seems permissible every now and then. In other films Hunt had Oscar-winning actors such as Ray Milland and Lee Marvin and allowed them a moment or two to ham up as well; didn't hurt the end result.

taity

I heard the rumour about Rigg and Lazenby hooking up as well. But I dont know what to believe anymore. It all seems to contradict itself.

cbdouble07

It would be interesting to know how things would have been filming OHMSS with Connery still on the role. Would Hunt have still ignored him? Would Connery even listen to Hunt? I'm guessing there would be much less drama and things would be much more typical of a Bond set. But maybe the drama improved the overall product.

highhopes

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Tell you what, it must be hell to be on one of these films when things go wrong and you fall out... nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide. Like the Big Brother house, in fact.

I can imagine Lazenby feeling a bit insecure and therefore acting overbearing. No worse than fellow Aussie Errol Flynn perhaps, he rubbed people up the wrong way once he was **** of the walk.

Aaah, Errol Flynn. **** of the walk in more ways than one, from what I understand. But I never got the impression that he was particularly difficult to work with as an actor. In fact, I think most people were very fond of him, even if his employers found him exasperating, to say the least. There's no doubt he was a world-class hell-raiser.

Many years ago, I lived in Chico, a town about 90 miles north of Sacramento (my son was born there). Chico's Bidwell Park stood in for Sherwood Forest in The Adventures of Robin Hood, the film that made Flynn a star. Fifty years later the old-timers in the town still told tales of Flynn's antics during the shoot, from Flynn parking his Rolls on a road just outside the city limits night after night, where the local girls would literally line up to be "entertained" by their Hollywood idol, to drunkenly buzzing the town one evening in a small plane -- without the benefit of any previous flying experience. Even if only half the stories were true, Errol definitely made an impression. Nobody in Chico had ever run across the likes of Errol Flynn, that's for sure.

7289

This topic caused me to put in the OHMSS DVD and take another look at the Lazenby/Hunt epic. Still a fine film, Lazenby was pretty damn good as Bond.

The best evidence of a "feud" between Hunt and George remains the unforgivable dubbing of George Baker's voice while Bond is pretending to be Sir Hilary Bray.

I would include putting GL in a kilt, the tux with the original Seinfeld "puffy" shirt and that incredible golden ascot as other cinematic "hate crimes", but whoever was resposible for GL's costume also failed to do Diana Rigg and Telly Savalas any favors.

Dan Same

7289 wrote:

One only needs to watch Rigg and Savalas hamming it up during the "sunrise" scenes to realize that Hunt let them run on a long leash.

I love that scene. IMO the scene involving Blofeld and Tracy is one of the greatest, and best acted, scenes in the entire series. I'm a big fan of Savalas's Blofeld, and this scene is a major reason why.

In fact, the only acting I had a problem with during this film was Lazenby's (apart from the end), and I don't think that any director could have helped him.

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

No worse than fellow Aussie Errol Flynn perhaps, he rubbed people up the wrong way once he was **** of the walk.

That's the thing about us Aussies; we may come across as gentle, sensitive types, but once we get a bit of power, watch out as we will out-Richard Keith Richards! )

Higgins

I have been in Asia last year and had nice conversations with people, who met GL in person, when he has been working with Bruce Lee.
His financial situation has been not the best these days as I read, but from what I hear, he still behaved like a superstar and was not at all easy to deal with.

I am not Alessandras opinion on his acting (but admire her pics from Lake Garda and her research), but I came to the conclusion, that he's not the easiest person having stayed on the ground.

Shady Tree

Saltzman, Broccoli and Hunt made the mistake of thinking that lack of acting experience was a less important consideration than 'looking the part' when they cast GL. Hunt was clearly wrong in his belief that it's possible to edit a good performance as Bond out of anyone. Having watched OHMSS again this week, and admiring all its fine qualities, I think Richard Burton would have been terrific casting as a one-off Bond. His experience would probably have made for a less tense atmosphere on set, as he had nothing to prove. His laconic style (a la 'Where Eagles Dare') would have played brilliantly against Savalas's Blofeld, and as a fine actor he could have convinced us that Bond had fallen for Diana Rigg. One could actually imagine that particular couple being compatible and perhaps having a future together, as Burton would have played the kind of Bond who looked READY to resign from the Service. (And he wouldn't have needed revoicing in disguise as Sir Hilary Bray, either!) Of course, it's only with hindsight that we know that OHMSS was going to be a once-only turn for the actor cast as Bond...

7289

IMO Richard Burton's "one off" Bond would likely have been a "purple balloon" ie. out-of-control overacting. I also doubt that RB could muster the "polish" to play Bond effectively, he would have come off as a worn out Dalton. Even in 1969 RB was too old for the part.

I do agree that GL was hired for his looks alone, and the director/producers overestimated this aspect of the Bond charecter. GL should get credit for pulling off the role with some dignity. Much of the criticism of him in 1969 was no doubt tacitly encouraged by EON, as the last thing they wanted after OHMSS was the return of GL.

Krassno Granitski

7289 wrote:

IMO Richard Burton's "one off" Bond would likely have been a "purple balloon" ie. out-of-control overacting. I also doubt that RB could muster the "polish" to play Bond effectively, he would have come off as a worn out Dalton. Even in 1969 RB was too old for the part.

I do agree that GL was hired for his looks alone, and the director/producers overestimated this aspect of the Bond charecter. GL should get credit for pulling off the role with some dignity. Much of the criticism of him in 1969 was no doubt tacitly encouraged by EON, as the last thing they wanted after OHMSS was the return of GL.

I could be mistaken, but didn't the producers want GL for 7 more films? Also his fighting skills had a lot to due with his casting as well.

Higgins

Shady Tree wrote:

Saltzman, Broccoli and Hunt made the mistake of thinking that lack of acting experience was a less important consideration than 'looking the part' when they cast GL....

Sorry, have to disagree.
First of all, I think, that the part of 007 is not as challenging as other movies acting-skill-wise and therefore besides the personal aspects, I find GL a very credible Bond. Look at SCs acting skills in YOLT and DAF, he's obviously bored and tired on the job and come back to me again with the acting-discussion prior to the right look.

With the fact that Peter Hunt got the full playground after being the 2nd man for such a long time together with the closest-possible Fleming novel realisation makes OHMSS a very good movie.

Besides of this, this thread is about the Lazenby/Hunt feud and not about the movie itself.

Napoleon Plural

I agree with Shady Tree about Burton being a good one-off Bond in retrospect, much as I'd have liked to see Mel Gibson be a one-off Bond in place of Timothy Dalton (well, until Gibson went bananas).

Lazenby could have been edited better, it's just so much of the first half of the film is him talking and acting and it's too much. He gets better when it's short bits of dialogue and action.

I understand that Lazenby and Rigg and something going but she 'caught him with his pants down' ie with another woman and that spoiled it, his attitude was 'I was just having fun...' 8-) He said this at a OHMSS reunion at Pinewood with the James Bond British Fan Club prior to GoldenEye's release.

7289

NP,

You have information I had never heard of regards the Lazenby/Rigg affair ... at least not from the horse's mouth!

I really do think that GL was deliberately disrespected by Hunt when he dubbed over GL's voice as Hillary Bray. There was NO good reason to do this, it's something they would never have tried with "The Other Fella", and the result stinks.

Now don't think that I dislike OHMSS, its one of the best Bond's, leaps and bounds ahead of much of the product that came after it. But, certain aspects of the film could have been better, and its sad to see that personal agenda's seemed to have affected the final film.

BTW I have NEVER seen a Richard Burton preformance that makes me think he could have played oo7.

Napoleon Plural

This isn't a Craig bash, but if Craig can be Bond I don't see why Burton couldn't be. Although he did age a fair bit in the late 1960s in particular as seen in Who's Afraid Of Virginia Wolf? (though that was semi deliberate and Connery could have been just as 'old' by that time).

The Wild Geese and obv Where Eagles Dare are the obv examples but I guess you've seen them.

7289

NP,

Since RB playing Bond is a "What if" we will never really know what kind of job he would have pulled off.

DC and RB are apples and oranges.

Yes I saw those movies, I guess I am not an RB fan! I prefer "Guns of Navarone", as that has always seemed to me the type of undercover "mission" that Bond would have been given in WW2.

Shady Tree

Bondtoys wrote:

Shady Tree wrote:

Saltzman, Broccoli and Hunt made the mistake of thinking that lack of acting experience was a less important consideration than 'looking the part' when they cast GL....

Sorry, have to disagree.

First of all, I think, that the part of 007 is not as challenging as other movies acting-skill-wise and therefore besides the personal aspects, I find GL a very credible Bond. Look at SCs acting skills in YOLT and DAF, he's obviously bored and tired on the job ...

Besides of this, this thread is about the Lazenby/Hunt feud and not about the movie itself.

I'd still maintain that the actors with the best acting skills make the best Bonds. I concede that Sean Connery looked not only bored but irritated in YOLT. By DAF, however, he brought a great deal of subtlety to his performance, managing resonant shifts of mood through the slightest movements in his facial expression and mastering a droll comedic style. See Andrew Rissik's book 'The James Bond Man' for a persuasive argument that Connery's acting achievement in the Bond films, including his later ones, has been greatly underestimated.

I've thought again about my hypothetical suggestion that Richard Burton, as an experienced actor, might have made a good one-off Bond in OHMSS. In the late 60s he exuded a certain weariness in his action roles, but I think that was an actor's choice as much as anything, a decision to bring out a degree of cynicism which seemed to suit the times. With Tracy starting off the movie in a suicidal frame of mind and Blofeld seeking immunity for retirement into private life (with the authorities apparently prepared to give this to him), Burton's world-weariness would have fitted in well: the challenge would have been to show how falling in love brings Bond new impetus. It's true that in the action scenes Burton would have been unlikely to 'pack a punch' as convincingly as GB did, but, on the other hand, he would have delivered the same kind of dangerous grimaces during the fisticuffs that Connery was always good at... The only problem I could see with casting RB or any other more 'mature' actor is that it would have made Draco's "arrangement" with Bond regarding marriage to Tracy seem even sleazier than it already is: it seems more acceptable that Draco is trying to pair off his daughter with a younger looking man such as GB.

Sorry to have taken this thread off at a tangent, but assessing what-else-might-have-been is a way of exploring why the perception arose that Lazenby had fallen short... I'm minded of Dana Broccoli's anecdote about the reprimand Cubby is supposed to have given GB at a party on location during the making of OHMSS. Lazenby was miffed that he wasn't being treated like "the star". Broccoli told him that he wasn't a star because he said he was, or because the producers said he was: he'd become a star only when the audience themselves decided that this was what he was! So it's worth hypothesising about how different it might have been (both on and off screen) if RB or another actor already established as a "star" had been cast in the role instead.

One thing I dislike about Lazenby's performance is his occasional jerky movements during moments which don't call for this. This jerkiness suggests a certain nervousness which may have come across to those he was working with.

Higgins

Shady Tree wrote:

By DAF, however, he brought a great deal of subtlety to his performance, managing resonant shifts of mood through the slightest movements in his facial expression and mastering a droll comedic style. See Andrew Rissik's book

Sorry, even it is written in a book, I dont find him funny at all in DAF.
SC has never been funny, not in roles and not in real life.
He is just fed up with the role and everybody can see it.