Dissapointing Lazenby

blofeld#1

I saw OHMSS 4 the first time ever, and well it was pretty good for a first time actor. But come on I think he should of done a few more films. And now he acts like he never wanted to be bond in the first place. He never shows up at special bond events and things. So anyone feeling the same way give me a shout.

christotheman

I think he is only like this because a lot of people don't really consider him a Bond, and even if people do consider him Bond his performance isn't appreciated.

bondaholic007

This thread should be locked :v

arthur pringle

I have no problems accepting Lazenby as 007 in OHMSS - the best film in the series in my opinion. He seems a tad bored at times (first meeting with Draco) but he looks great and is very physical. When I used to subscribe to the printed version of 007 Magazine, Lazenby featured several times as a guest at events and, according to Graham Rye & co, always signed endless autographs and seemed happy that people remembered his brief stint as Bond. His low profile of late is due to personal problems that are probably best left alone.

John Drake

Of all the Bond actors, Lazenby is the most likely to turn up at conventions. He was advertised recently in Empire magazine as a guest at an event honouring cult movies and TV. It is Sean Connery who avoids anything to do with Bond; Cubby's funeral, DAD Premiere, even mentioning the role that made him famous in his autobiography.

Napoleon Plural

What autobiography? The Scotland book does have a picture of him running across the DAF moon buggy site, complete with unconvincing caption about 'lunatic escapades'...

John Drake

Napoleon Plural wrote:

What autobiography? The Scotland book does have a picture of him running across the DAF moon buggy site, complete with unconvincing caption about 'lunatic escapades'...

To be honest I've never read it. The title alone put me off.

thesecretagent

Ever noticed it's people who either aren't Bond fans, or people who haven't seen OHMSS that knock Lazenby? I thought he was alright. He could certainly have gone on to do more. The film could have been better - a tad slow in places. But the ending makes me shiver every time - certainly more sad than that stroppy fridged Vesper in CR!

blofeld#1

I like Lazenby don't get me wrong. It's just bond fans talk about him all the time. I was saying what some bond fans think. So I wanted to see how all the fans of ajb007 would comment.

Napoleon Plural

He's an acquired taste imo. Can't do the jokes for toffee... gets better as the movie goes on but a bit too smarty pants in the early scenes. Fans like his movie because it's close to Fleming and takes the thing seriously, and to be fair it's the film that's dated least of the 1960s efforts, it's astonishingly contemporary on the big screen.

Higgins

blofeld#1 wrote:

I like Lazenby don't get me wrong. It's just bond fans talk about him all the time. I was saying what some bond fans think. So I wanted to see how all the fans of ajb007 would comment.

That sounded very much different here:

blofeld#1 wrote:

I saw OHMSS 4 the first time ever, and well it was pretty good for a first time actor. But come on I think he should of done a few more films. And now he acts like he never wanted to be bond in the first place. He never shows up at special bond events and things. So anyone feeling the same way give me a shout.

And I still don't get the point, why you are posting a thread by quoting "just what bond fans talk about him all the time". 8-)

Napoleon Plural

Well, he is called Blofeld....

Higgins

no, he calls himself Blofeld and seems not to have an own opinion...

Dan Same

thesecretagent wrote:

Ever noticed it's people who either aren't Bond fans, or people who haven't seen OHMSS that knock Lazenby? I thought he was alright.

That's not true. I'm a huge Bond fan and I've seen OHMSS, and I knock him. I thought he was superb in terms of his physicality, but I didn't like his acting. I thought he looked extremely uncomfortable and I'm not convinced that he could have improved. Interestingly enough, I loved his handling of the final scene, but that probably was because he was able to handle it naturally and being a non-star, he didn't have any hang-ups going into it. Although Connery was IMO the greatest actor to ever play Bond (and *quite possibly the greatest to appear in a Bond film), I don't think that Connery could have handled the final scene better as I'm not sure he would have been as willing to appear 'un-macho.' Anyway, other than the physicality and his handling of the final scene, Lazenby was IMO a major flaw of the film.


*I'm not entirely certain as Robert Shaw could certainly give Sir Sean a run for his money.

Napoleon Plural

Totally agree DS. It's the way we at last see Bond's humility, after the posturing arrogance of his earlier scenes. Reminds me of Daniel Day Lewis' redemption at the end of A Room With A View, it's unexpectedly quite moving (sort of).

Alex

I like George fine but Connery could've given us all a shiver down the spine with OHMSS, if he really wanted to. He probably wouldn't have wept openly, but it could have been the best understated cool anguish since McQueen's comrade in the Sand Pebbles.

thesecretagent

Alex wrote:

I like George fine but Connery could've given us all a shiver down the spine with OHMSS, if he really wanted to. He probably wouldn't have wept openly, but it could have been the best understated cool anguish since McQueen's comrade in the Sand Pebbles.

By the time OHMSS came out, Connery couldn't have acted any better than Lazenby. Just watch DAF closely before you say I'm wrong. He was the best Bond we've seen for the first four films. Then merely became Sean Connery in yet another role. He has continued to be Sean Connery ever since until he has now become an over-exagerated characterture of himself. He never sounded so Scottish in earlier films, but now he is merely Sean Connery.

Good call on McQueen though. The coolest actor of all time, especially with less lines. The only actor to use the movement of an eye instead of ten words...

zaphod

No Bond Actor has had as tough an assignment as Lazenby did taking over from SC. Even with the slight break that SC was clearly bored and a bit portly by YOLT Lazenby still had a hell of a hill to climb. For me he is a success, not perfect, but his shortcomings would have been solved by more experience. He represents a huge amount of promise, and it's a shame that he dcided not to do more.

I think only Dalton, and Craig could have pulled off the final scene as well, which as they are both fine actors is a real coup for the 'non-actor' Lazenby.

Dan Same

thesecretagent wrote:

By the time OHMSS came out, Connery couldn't have acted any better than Lazenby. Just watch DAF closely before you say I'm wrong. He was the best Bond we've seen for the first four films. Then merely became Sean Connery in yet another role.

I don't agree. I really loved Connery's performance in DAF and I consider it to be among the greatest Bond performances of all time. It was a performance that was borne out of his delight in playing Bond again and it absolutely showed. I loved it, and IMO it was a much better performance than Lazenby could ever have produced.

thesecretagent

Dan Same wrote:

thesecretagent wrote:

By the time OHMSS came out, Connery couldn't have acted any better than Lazenby. Just watch DAF closely before you say I'm wrong. He was the best Bond we've seen for the first four films. Then merely became Sean Connery in yet another role.

I don't agree. I really loved Connery's performance in DAF and I consider it to be among the greatest Bond performances of all time. It was a performance that was borne out of his delight in playing Bond again and it absolutely showed. I loved it, and IMO it was a much better performance than Lazenby could ever have produced.

I might have been a bit hard on old Sean - don't get me wrong, he is probably my favourite Bond after all. I just find a lot of factors of DAF that annoy me. Connery is old and implausable to my mind, certainly not fit enough looking to be a double 0. But the film lacks the previous polish and appears cheap. Las Vegas was never going to add an element of class, and Felix is played like some old street weary cop turned PI - certainly it's hard to believe that Bond could ever have become friends with Felix. There are some good bits, and great characters like all Bond films. I certainly don't hate any of the films. (Well, maybe Moonraker...)
But we're off track here, this is about Lazenby. He was alright, good enough to defend in my opinion. Whether he could have got any better, we'll never know. Connery set the bar, and nobody could have walked right into the role without forty years of flak.

Dan Same

I'm also not a huge fan of DAF. There are things about it which I love (such as Connery's performance) but, all in all, I think it's a disappointment, especially coming after OHMSS.

Regarding Lazenby, although I'm not a fan of his performance (apart from his physicality and his handling of the final scene), he did offer an innocence that Connery never really had. Even in DN, Connery was much more cynical and battle hardened than Lazenby was, who was almost naive. Perhaps he had to be; for if he wasn't naive, he mightn't have fallen in love with Tracey and the film would have charted an entirely different course.

Loeffelholz

I think Lazenby's perceived innocence might be the principal weakness in his overall performance. Bond was never supposed to be innocent; in the OHMSS novel, he falls for Tracy despite a lifetime of surviving danger and duplicity, and a sardonic fatalism on display in each and every literary adventure prior to that one. And I liked that: no one, in spite of their life experience or philosophical outlook, is immune from falling unexpectedly in love, and IMO this magnified the tragedy of the story's finale. I believe that OHMSS is Fleming's greatest work.

I also happen to believe that Lazenby could have matured in the role. He carried himself very well, and gave an inspiring account of himself in every fight scene. His performance in the oft-mentioned final scene gives us a glimpse at what his potential might have been. But this history has been written: he's an enigma with unfulfilled promise.

Dan Same

I think his innocence was partly, or mainly, a product of his awkwardness. He never seemed confident to me in the role until really the final scene, and when he was engaging in physical activity. Whether or not it was a weakness in his performance, I think I would agree with that, as Craig's Bond (and Brosnan's to a limited extent) was also naive in terms of his thinking that he could just retire and leave MI6 behind, everything would be fine and he would be perfectly happy; yet he never struck me as innocent. Although I'm no fan of Craig, I do think he strick the right note in not apearing innocent; I mean, whether or not one supports what Bond does, he is, among other things, a professional killer. Not only is he not innocent, but he can't afford to be, not even when he was inexperienced.

I often think about how great it would have been if Connery had been in OHMSS, however while I do consider Connery to be the best actor of all the Bonds, I'm not sure if he could have, or would have wanted to let his guard down in the way that Lazenby did. Perhaps, if Connery had starred in OHMSS, and was indeed willing to expose himself emotionally in the same way that Lazenby did throughout the entire film (and especially the ending,) we could have had the greatest Bond performance of all time, or at least one that rivalled the early Connerys. Bond would still have been naive, but his naivety would have been borne out of recklessness, boredom or perhaps even true romantic love, rather than out of innocence.

Regardless, I love that Bond was naive as his naivety arguably led to Tracey being killed; thus, she killed because Bond worked On Her Majesty's Secret Service.

Napoleon Plural

Agree with Loeffs and DS. And the script in OHMSS calls for Bond to be worldly and knowing, ie Connery's Bond. When he calls Tracy 'Countessa' he is basically taking the mickey in Mellors the gamekeeper style, it's the wry, yanking of her chain, her supposed superiority in class... perfect for Bond. But Lazenby doesn't have that string to his bow. He just sounds a bit painful.

Another snag. How or why do they fall in love? I don't really see how it happens. Ditto with Vesper to be honest. There has to be that clincher moment where the jigsaw fits. Okay, the shower scene in CR did kind of have it, though again I sense the relationship got shoehorned to accommodate Haggis' final act in Venice, a rewrite.

thesecretagent

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Agree with Loeffs and DS. And the script in OHMSS calls for Bond to be worldly and knowing, ie Connery's Bond. When he calls Tracy 'Countessa' he is basically taking the mickey in Mellors the gamekeeper style, it's the wry, yanking of her chain, her supposed superiority in class... perfect for Bond. But Lazenby doesn't have that string to his bow. He just sounds a bit painful.

Another snag. How or why do they fall in love? I don't really see how it happens. Ditto with Vesper to be honest. There has to be that clincher moment where the jigsaw fits. Okay, the shower scene in CR did kind of have it, though again I sense the relationship got shoehorned to accommodate Haggis' final act in Venice, a rewrite.

You're right. I never saw that initial spark to start a love affair. The shower scene in CR could have been it, but I always find that cringable. I mean, he's practically eating the poor girl's fingers! A lot has been made of the two films and how Bond falls in love, but I've never seen why either.

Dan Same

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Another snag. How or why do they fall in love? I don't really see how it happens.

Apparently the montage had them falling in love, but I think the moment that really clinced it was when Tracey appeared before Bond at the ice skating rink, after Bond escaped from Piz Gloria. She was luminous, however personally I'm not sure if that would have led me to propose to her.

thesecretagent wrote:

The shower scene in CR could have been it, but I always find that cringable. I mean, he's practically eating the poor girl's fingers!

) You're so right. Darenhat, I believe, referred to it as the vampire scene, or something along those lines.

thesecretagent wrote:

A lot has been made of the two films and how Bond falls in love, but I've never seen why either.

Me too, although I can understand why he would have fallen in love with Diana Rigg, much more so than Eva Green. Tracey, unlike Vesper, was IMO among the most beautiful of all the Bond girls. However, to be brutally honest, I much prefer Emma Peel to Tracey. I think that Tracey was great because she was played by Diana Rigg, but I think that Diana Rigg was much better and vastly more attractive as Emma Peel; IMO the greatest and sexiest female fictional character of all time! (Well, certainly in the history of television.)

Loeffelholz

To me, the romance in CR is evident from the first scene on the train. The back-and-forth, "His Girl Friday"-style repartee smacks of two people very interested in each other, and yet each trying to get the upper edge. Further, their exchange in the car, re: their cover stories, and their continued friction over Bond's carelessness with giving out his own name at the hotel desk, raises the stakes in their mutual tension/attraction to one another. When we see the exchange of dinner jacket and evening dress, in the hotel room, a significant step has taken place. Vesper's breakdown after the violence in the stairwell cements the foundation. From there, what happens during Bond's recovery from his torture isn't really much of a leap at all, in my own humble opinion. Of course, those who see little or no value in this particular screenplay will have a different take. Personally, I think this one's pretty well-written---a high-water mark not seen since the Classic Days.

With OHMSS, I tend to go against the grain of popular opinion and credit the Louis Armstrong song/montage with selling the love between Bond and Tracy---one of my favourite moments in all the Bond films, if for no other reason than its sheer uniqueness. That, and the scene in the barn after Tracy essentially rescues him from Blofeld's men with her timely appearance and excellent driving skills, to me also make the final product---their engagement and marriage---fairly well-supported by the material. To me, it seems obvious that he sees something of himself in Tracy: a person with something inside that is essentially broken, and in need of repair. I've always felt that Bond figured that if he could save Tracy, he could save himself as well...and, as history shows, that doesn't pan out so well.

I've always said that OHMSS and CR are essentially unique within the Bond film canon, for the simple reason that they're the only times---as in the novels! B-) ---when Bond is truly vulnerable (in an emotional sense) with a woman.

Naturally, opinions will vary. But that's how I see it.

Napoleon Plural

Loeffelholz wrote:

To me, it seems obvious that he sees something of himself in Tracy...

Nothing unusual there...

Loeffelholz

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Loeffelholz wrote:

To me, it seems obvious that he sees something of himself in Tracy...

Nothing unusual there...

Shameless.

Just shameless.

)