Lazenby: underrated?

frostbitten

There have been many comparisons made between CR and OHMSS, and rightly so, since there are many parallels between the 2 films. Therefore, having watched CR, I decided to watch OHMSS again to see how Lazenby's performance would measure up.

Both CR and OHMSS featured relative unknowns who took over from very popular Bonds. Both Craig and Lazenby are considered physical Bonds, who handled the fight scenes well. Both films are more faithful to the books than most of the others, and both stand out due to their tragic endings. However, there are differences as well, such as the ways that Craig and Lazenby played Bond. While Craig is definitely the more experienced, and simply better, actor of the two, I somehow found Lazenby's Bond a more sympathetic figure. Craig's Bond seems to be more of an intimidator, and with his cold stare and pugnacious demeanor, always seems to be ready for, even eager for, a fight. Lazenby's Bond, while also projecting a very cocky, alpha-male image, is more laid-back, relaxed. He seemed more at ease in the tuxedo and as he moved through the casino, seemed to be looking out for opportunities to indulge himself, to have fun. He was very smooth and opportunistic in coming to Tracy's rescue at the gaming table. After beating a thug senseless, he stopped to have a bite of caviar. Overall, he portrayed a man who was very self-assured, could take care of himself, and was as much a sensualist as he was a fighter. His lack of acting experience let Lazenby down, but he got all the basics of the character right, and if he'd not given up on playing Bond after one film, he could have been a terrific Bond.

blueman

Yeah, that's one of my great what-ifs about the series, what if Lazenby had stayed on? And agree with your assessment, he may not have had the range as an actor, but he was Bond (for me at least). I've always been a bit put off by his affected mannerisms though, he comes off a wee much to-the-manor-born...but that was how Bond was thought of at the time ("just walk like Prince Charles"--can't remember who said that to Lazenby, but what a funny quote!).

Shame he only made the one, I think he would've grown into the 70s as Bond nicely, learned a bit more about acting, rounded out his Bond, etc.

jbfreak

Fish1941 wrote:

I am peeved that Lazenby had given up so early on being the new Bond. On the other hand, I really did enjoy his performance in OHMSS and thought he was perfect for that particular movie.

I agree. It would be interesting to see how the series would be today if Lazenby had stayed as Bond, but, even though he didn', I am glad that he played in OHMSS because I just can't picture any other Bond in that film.

Jamesbondjr

George Lazenby gets a lot of praise from Bond fans but you read a lot of stuff (mainly mainstream movie magazines and the like) stating that OHMSS is good but Lazenby can't act.

I disagree with this, I don't think there is a single scene in the film that George can't handle. He may not give a polished performance of an accomplished actor but I think he was very good, and the last scene is wonderful.

I think that Lazenby is woefully under-rated and deserves much more widespread credit than he is given. If only he'd done a few more. I think he had the potential to be the best Bond!

frostbitten

blueman wrote:

("just walk like Prince Charles"--can't remember who said that to Lazenby, but what a funny quote!).

That's very interesting. I haven't heard that story, and all this time, I thought that maybe Lazenby was doing a bit of the "Connery walk" in OHMSS.

I do agree that he handled the last scene beautifully. There would naturally be a temptation to overact in that scene, but he played it in an understated but quite effective and poignant way.

Gassy Man

Yes, I've never understood the "can't act" comment. His physical presence, expressions, movements, etc., are fine. Some of the lines sound flat, perhaps, but many of them were dubbed or overdubbed badly later, which was not unusual in quite a few Bond films. (Listen to Plenty O'Toole, for instance.) Does Lazenby hit the wrong beats in a few lines? Sure. But given his relative inexperience, he's surprisingly polished. What people are really reacting to is that they just don't like him, which is an entirely different matter altogether.

Jamesbondjr

I think the reason that a lot of people don't like him is that OHMSS, much the same as CR is doing now, broke a trusted formula.

I think OHMSS adhered to it a little more than CR has done, but the people who were expecting the typical Bond formula were disappointed. Poor George took the heat for it!

Klaus Hergescheimer

Lazenby: underrated?

Yes.

Agent Sidewinder

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Lazenby: underrated?

Yes.

Seconded.

Lazenby880

Agent Sidewinder wrote:

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Lazenby: underrated?

Yes.

Seconded.

Thirded.

JennyFlexFan

Lazenby880 wrote:

Agent Sidewinder wrote:

Klaus Hergescheimer wrote:

Yes.

Seconded.

Thirded.

This might kill the joke but Fourthded. (I really don't know how you'd say that...)

Moore Not Less

No!

Would anyone care to second that.

Actually, over the years I have slowly come round to appreciate George Lazenby a little more. Instead of concentrating on what I don't appreciate, such as his voice and his obvious lack of acting experience. I now tend to concentrate on what I do appreciate about him. Such as when Blofeld reveals his evil scheme to Bond, the ski chases, the ending. These are the moments to me where Lazenby shows real potential. I should also include the fight scenes, but they more resemble cartoons the way they are sped up. Not Lazenby's fault of course.

Undoubtedly, if he had chosen to stay on he surely would have improved considerably as an actor and would very likely be now seen in a much more favourable light.

Thomas Crown

There's no doubt one of the most fascinating counter-factuals in the series is what would have happened if Lazenby had the foresight to not give up on Bond and keep with the seven picture deal offerred to him. Personally, I would have loved it. I have little interest in Moore's 007 aside from a few entries, and believe Lazenby showed great promise. If Lazenby is underrated, and I think he is by some, especially within casual audiences, its because he is the first post-Connery 007. For whatever he brought to one of the best character roles of Bond, he failed to convince the media-going public there could be another 007 besides Sean Connery. It's as if Lazenby was the proverbial "sacrifical lamb" to demonstrate another man could play 007. No one could have succeeded at this challenge, not even if Roger Moore had taken the role and The Man With The Golden Gun had been filmed in 1968 as planned. Had he stuck with it however, I firmly believed the public would have warmed to him, especially as the generation that grew up with him began to claim loyalties.

We see a little bit of this in Craig, but far less than with Lazenby. The reasons for this is varied. To be sure, Brosnan staked a strong claim to 007 and defined the role for my generation of fans, I even am quite proud to be apart of the "Brosnan era." Yet his claim, or anyone else's for that matter, has never been as strong as Sean Connerys. So, while you will have the detractors of Craig from the Brosnan camp simply because he is not Pierce Brosnan, its more in line with the critcism Dalton recieved from Moore fans because "he's not Roger Moore." Even then however, that's not entirely true as, unlike Moore and Dalton, the contrast between the Bond of Brosnan and Craig is not as stark. In many ways, Craig achieved with flying colors what Brosnan had been hunting for: a world weary, ruthless, believeable, suave, and fatalistic 007. Unlike Brosnan however, Craig had the benefit of superior acting capabilites, a great physical presence, and vastly superior script that made it achieveable.

As I've mentioned in other places as well, what makes Craig unique to any other actor casted post-Connery is that he is not casted in the mold of Sean Connery. Rather than be "another Sean Connery" like Lazenby tried to be, Craig has used Fleming's character as his inspiration, and its to both his and the films benefit. Lazenby, for as deep as his performance was, is still an Bond cast from the Connery mold. There is nothing wrong with that, it is the mold of the cinematic Bond. But Craig's Bond is the literary 007, or should I say, the closest we've come to it. Therefore, the similarites between Craig and Lazenby aren't quite as clear.

Mark65

I think it’s fair to say that at the time OHMSS was released in 1969 much of the media and general public were still hung up over Sean Connery and it’s hard to imagine how any actor could have won universal acclaim in taking over the role of James Bond. The challenge this presented is even acknowledged in the film itself with George Lazenby’s famous “This never happened to the other fellah!” remark. However, over the years I feel that opinion has become better informed. OHMSS is of course a firm favourite amongst true 007 fans and I would put money on it topping the list of favourite films amongst members of this forum. I also find that when discussing the series with ‘casual’ fans of the series there is general acknowledgement that OHMSS is one of the best. We will always wonder how George’s interpretation of 007 would have developed had he stuck with it and not let his perception that the role was Connery’s alone, and that the series’ popularity would struggle in the 1970s, get the better of him.

None of this should deflect form the fact that he did incredibly well in OHMSS – thank you George. I watched the film again this week for the first time in many months and if anything I like it more as I get older.

So on balance I would have to say that no, George Lazenby is not underrated in OHMSS. Certainly not today.

Regards,

Mark

John Drake

I’ll always have a great deal of time for George Lazenby for starring in OHMSS. I think Bond fans value Lazenby’s contribution to the series, but the mainstream media still seem to write him off as a failure and OHMSS as an inferior Bond film. I saw David Letterman’s interview with Daniel Craig and the host held up pictures of the previous five actors to play Bond. When the audience politely cheered Lazenby’s picture Letterman accused them of being sarcastic, which of course got a big laugh. Sadly, this still seems to be the prevailing view among those who are aware of the franchise but are not that well acquainted with the individual movies.

Dan Same

Gassy Man wrote:

What people are really reacting to is that they just don't like him, which is an entirely different matter altogether.

I don't know. I think Lazenby was pretty dreadful (his scene with Sir Hillary Bray was IMO one of the worst acted scenes in the entire series, and he completely lacked charisma), so in my case, I dislike him because I think it was a bad performance, rather than because I dislike him.

In orer to address this issue in full, I think three questions need to be answered:

1)Was Lazenby as bad as the general public and many film critiics seem too think he was? No. I think his general performance was just as bad as everyone says, if not worse, but his physicality and his handling of the final scene were both superb. They were such that I would in fact describe him as underrated. In fact it is due to his physicality and his handling of the final scene that I do not consider it to be the worst Bond performance of all time. However, if Connery (in DN-TB/DAF mode) had been cast, then OHMSS would undoubtfully be in my top 5, as opposed to 7th on my list.

2)Could he have improved if given the opportunity? We will never know for sure but I personally doubt it. Connery wasn't all that more experienced when he did DN except IMO he was terrific. Wether or not Lazenby could have improved is a less important question than...

3)Would I have wanted him to continue? Absolutely not! There are two reasons. First, I hated Lazenby's performance in OHMSS and I consider it to be the *third worst Bond performance of all time (the worst are the two Daltons), and I often dream about Connery doing OHMSS, but secondly, Lazenby staying on would have denied us Connery's performance in DAF, which I adore, as well as the Moore years. I consider Moore to be the *third greatest Bond of all time (after Connery and Brosnan) and I consdier the Moore years to be the series' silver era. (The golden era being the 60's.) I wouldn't want to give up the Moore years for all the riches in the world, and I certainly wouldn't want to give it up for George Lazenby, whom in my ideal world would nevr have been Bond.

*I am basing my judgements of both Lazenby's performance and Moore on the first 20 films, as I am yet to see CR, however (and this will be my final CR prediction) I don't expect to like Craig at all.

Napoleon Plural

Have you posted your CR review, Same?

I agree, but Laze had a tough call with OHMSS anyhow. All that disguise stuff is hard for a debut actor to pull off. It's not very Bond anyhow...

Moore had the right look for the 70s anyhow and it was a change for audiences who might have grown tired of the same sort of formula. The series might have died if Lazers had stayed on for anymore. Like Craig I suppose, Moore broke the mold.

Matt S

I think Lazenby had good scenes and bad scenes, but he had a great movie. It would have been much better with Connery or perhaps even if Dalton accepted the role. But if Lazenby was in Diamonds Are Forever the way it turned out, then I'm sure Lazenby would be less regarded than he is now.
I'm not a fan of Brosnan's Bond very much. His movies were terribly written. He could have done much better if he had the script. But never the less, he was very popular. Quite the opposite of Lazenby's situation. Brosnan gave much better performances in Remington Steele and I know he is capable of much more than what his Bond scripts gave him. I think Brosnan would have been a great actor for OHMSS, but too bad he was only 16 years old at the time.

Tobias

Altogether i think it is a great film and it is one of my favourites too its an interesting story and there is some good scenes like the breaking into Gumbolds office and the music goes well with that scene and the pre-title opening on the beach is good as well and the locations are nice as well and Lazenby gets quite a few looks by his female co-stars watch the scene in the casino when he comes down the stairs and he passes 2 ladies and they give him a look

Absolutely_Cart

Lazenby is absolutely underrated in my opinion. In the same sense that 2nd U.S. President John Adams was underrated.

He was met with the impossible expectation of following up Connery. He did a pretty good job. Not as good as the acting in first 3 Films (DN/FRWL/GF) but by YOLT, Connery was getting worn out and Lazenby was hungry for it. Lazenby wanted it more.

I would still say that Lazenby ranks at the bottom of all the Bond actors, but not because he isn't a good actor. More so that the other Bond actors were better. But, nonetheless, Lazenby's reputation was mostly hurt because of closed-minded Connery fans who wouldn't accept anyone else as Bond.

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

But, nonetheless, Lazenby's reputation was mostly hurt because of closed-minded Connery fans who wouldn't accept anyone else as Bond.

Really overgeneralizing there, my friend. I don't understand why you insist that those of us who prefer Connery are "close-minded". I have accepted other Bond actors, but I happen to firmly believe that no one to date has performed the role as well as Connery. It's an opinion - what's wrong with that?

Absolutely_Cart

I didn't mean to say that Connery fans were inherently closed-minded. Moreso, that closed-minded people have a propensity of becoming closed-minded Connery fans. What were they saying about Lazenby? Not that he was a bad actor. Not that he wasn't Bond. Not that he wasn't Fleming's Bond. Not that he wasn't David Niven or the other guy who played Bond on TV. But that he wasn't Sean Connery.

I take no issue with people, who have open-mindedly watched movies from each actor, saying that Connery was their favorite. Or that they didn't like Lazenby's performance.

But Lazenby was a victim of the "Connery is Bond" mentality. There are so many ways to interpret Bond, a complex deep character. Connery certainly isn't what Fleming had in mind, and to say he was the definitive best actor or even the sexiest, can't be without contest.

Blackleiter

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Connery certainly isn't what Fleming had in mind, and to say he was the definitive best actor or even the sexiest, can't be without contest.

Of course all of that can be contested - it's subjective opinion! But I remember very well what it was like when OHMSS was released, and there was a LOT of feedback about Lazenby that went far beyond "he's not Connery". Personally, I thought Lazenby did a pretty good job as Bond, but not as good a job as Connery. There were many fans who were simply unimpressed with Lazenby's acting skills, which is not surprising since he hadn't had much acting experience at that time. Others were bothered by his voice and accent (and it didn't help that some of his lines were dubbed). And there were still others who thought he didn't quite carry the air of world-weariness and danger that was necessary for Bond. Again, I don't necessarily agree with all of those opinions, but I certainly think they are legitimate and more well thought out than "he's not Connery". And as for your comment "Connery certainly isn't what Fleming had in mind", perhaps not, but which Bond actor was? There's obviously no way to know for certain, so that's sort of beside the point. Again, nothing against Lazenby, but to say he was underrated as Bond just because of "close-minded Connery fans" seems way off the mark to me. There's a lot more to it than that.

Barbel

Blackleiter wrote:

I remember very well what it was like when OHMSS was released, and there was a LOT of feedback about Lazenby that went far beyond "he's not Connery". Personally, I thought Lazenby did a pretty good job as Bond, but not as good a job as Connery. There were many fans who were simply unimpressed with Lazenby's acting skills, which is not surprising since he hadn't had much acting experience at that time. Others were bothered by his voice and accent (and it didn't help that some of his lines were dubbed). And there were still others who thought he didn't quite carry the air of world-weariness and danger that was necessary for Bond. Again, I don't necessarily agree with all of those opinions, but I certainly think they are legitimate and more well thought out than "he's not Connery". And as for your comment "Connery certainly isn't what Fleming had in mind", perhaps not, but which Bond actor was? There's obviously no way to know for certain, so that's sort of beside the point. Again, nothing against Lazenby, but to say he was underrated as Bond just because of "close-minded Connery fans" seems way off the mark to me. There's a lot more to it than that.

I back up what BL says 100%, since I can also remember those times.

Barbel

Absolutely_Cart wrote:

Lazenby's reputation was mostly hurt because of closed-minded Connery fans who wouldn't accept anyone else as Bond.

Absolutely_Not. Lazenby's reputation was mostly hurt by himself and his behaviour, as he later freely acknowledged.

SimonTemplar

Hi All,
I'm new here so this is my first post :007)
I'm from the Wirral, Cheshire, Daniel Craig's neck of the wood, also near were Roger Moore use to live (I've seen his house).
When I was a kid back in the early 80s OHMSS was my least like Bond film. Yes I grew up in the camp era of Roger Moore and have no choice except being influenced by what everyone liked at the time. Recently though with changing tastes OHMSS has been re-evaluated and seems more compelling than many of Roger Moore's Bond films. George Lazenby soon after being Bond became part of Bruce Lee's entourage following him everywhere. Bruce Lee at the time was top of the Hollywood food chain despite his brief stint as a movie star until his death.
I think Daniel Craig's Bond is similar to Timothy Dalton (not in appearance of course) but Dalton's Bond for me came at a time when fans still had fond memories of Roger Moore and did not quite accept Dalton's gritty version. I think if Lazenby were to be Bond now as he was back when he starred in OHMSS he would have been successful as Bond and so would Timothy Dalton.

Thunderpussy

Welcome Simon Templar -{
I too grew up watching Sir Roger on TV and then as Bond. So he is
A bit of a childhood hero for me. On first viewing I didn't like OHMSS
Either but after reading the books it soon rocketed up my favourites
List, I love it. Lazenby would of been a great Bond but sadly blew his
Chance, in my opinion after Connery both Timothy Dalton and Daniel
Craig are great Bonds. {[]

Barbel

Hi Simon Templar, please introduce yourself to us here: http://www.ajb007.co.uk/topic/34154/welcome-comings-goings/page/43/ and welcome to AJB!

Gala Brand

Lazenby was wooden and stiff but this worked to his advantage in OHMSS. He projected a certain vulnerability that Connery, although a better actor, couldn't do.

It also helped having an accomplished actress like Dame Diana playing opposite him.

7289

I'll offer this...

Lazenby did a fine job, IMO his Bond was hampered in the film by bad choices in clothing, and a director who undermined his performance with dubbing and distracting references to Sean Connery. Lazenby would have excelled as Bond had he stayed on.

Once Lazenby quit the Bond gig. There was no incentive for anyone to come to his defense.

To insinuate that Connery lacked acting chops when he came to Dr. NO is ridiculous! He was already an accomplished and highly regarded actor on stage, TV and films before he took on Dr. No.

Grindelwald

"became part of Bruce Lee's entourage following him everywhere. Bruce Lee at the time was top of the Hollywood food chain despite his brief stint as a movie star until his death"

Lazenby only met Lee 2 weeks before Lee died so he didn't really know him (unlike Norris/Wall/McQueen/Coburn who knew him for yrs)

Lee only had a small following in the US prior to his death so a far cry from being at the top of the Hwood food chain , to most people he was "that Kato guy" , when he died there was only a small ad in like NY Times or something while in SE Asia it was front cover news.

Couldn't care less what clothing GL was wearing in OHMSS , if we're going down that road then there are several fashion sinners ) 8-)