Thanks, you guys. I do wish Lazenby had done more Bond films.
Me too. I would have loved to have seen him in DAF, LALD & TMWTGG.
Me three. George Lazenby is more than acceptable as Bond. And, due to the physical demands of the role in those films, I could easily see him in Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die. Possibly even The Man With The Golden Gun...
It's his line readings that are so awful plus the fact that he is given dialogue that really only Connery could get away with... Connery tended to send it up, the whole Engish pretention, but Lazenby just can't do that, or the jokes.
Which lines, do you think, Napoleon Plural? I think he's very effective in the scenes that focus no him, such as his sparring with M, his proposal to Tracy, and so forth.
I originally wrote this to answer another thread, but I soon realized I had a lot more to say than I thought.
I do not buy into the idea that Lazenby is at best a mediocre actor, though that is often said by fans and critics alike. His acting is fine. What hurts his performance as Bond is a combination of dubbing, quick editing, and Peter Hunt's decision to usually film Lazenby in oblique ways, except in the most emotional scenes.
Watch the earlier Connery Bonds. The camera seems there to love on him, and there are countless closeups, medium shots, and longer shots where Connery is fully in frame, nicely lit, and carefully made up. Connery is the star, and all of the directors treat him as though the audience is there to see him and not just Bond.
In contrast, Lazenby is often filmed from behind, slightly over the shoulder, in profile, or in motion in ways that obscure his expressions. The quick editing frequently reduces the amount of time we can actually watch what he is doing as an actor. The shots are often tight and at angles. The lighting is dark and moody.
I don't believe this was done to conceal Lazenby's limited talent. Instead, Hunt sought to create a Bond film that didn't quite act or look like the ones before it, and he's clearly interested in fast editing and a kind of hybrid classic film and New Wave approach. He was trying to make a film more than a movie, if that makes sense. That's one of the reasons his film doesn't seem quite as dated as, say, YOLT, which is so clearly rooted in the technicolor 1960s. This approach would become common later.
I think Hunt also tried to reserve the "full on" shots of Lazenby for scenes where he thought the emotions were most important -- Lazenby's confrontation with M, his waiting to be caught scene at the Christmas pageant, his proposal to Tracy in the barn. Prior to that, we frequently get what amounts to mostly glimpses of Lazenby or quick shots of him with a single expression.
I'm not saying Lazenby is a stunning actor. I'm saying he's a better actor than he's given credit for. And given his relative inexperience, I think he would have gotten much better if a director had worked with him more. In other words, Lazenby needed a Terrance Young or a Guy Hamilton more than a Peter Hunt. And while this is not a slam against Hunt, it's clear that Lazenby wasn't the only one-off involved with the Bond franchise. But even Cy Endfield's rambling, low-budget approach in the mostly cretinous Universal Soldier treats Lazenby as the star, and shows that he can be a relaxed, dominating presence in a scene if the camera lets the actor be the focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iqMgiqjTkA.
A good director can make or break an actor's career. The better directors not only know the range of the actors but also how to film them in flattering ways, capitalizing on their strengths. But a director who is less focused on the actor and more on the film may overlook opportunities to let the actor shine. The best directors -- Hitchcock, for instance -- understand how to do both.
This is a great post. It offers a great on screen analysis of Lazenby's performance. Also makes a good point on Peter Hunt being a novel director.
But (and it's a big but) it forgets an important part of an actor's job. There are many stories of nightmarish on set behaviour of some stars. I wouldn't go as far as calling OHMSS shooting nightmarish from what I read, but it wasn't happy. And Lazenby's attitude was apparently a big factor. He himself said about his younger self that he "needed to do a lot of growing up". He acted like a diva when he was an unknown. He wanted to have fun. He thought playing Bond was a game. He mostly wanted to get laid. He managed to alienate himself from his co-starr, his director and the producers.
I agree that being his first movie, his performance is not that bad. Also he was under a lot of pressure, considering Bond was probably the most important male role of that period. But he could have been much better simply if he had had another type of personality. Connery, even at his most strained relationship with the franchise, was said to be a true professional by everybody while on set.
Sure, I think Lazenby has over the years come to terms with his own role in his self-destruction as an actor. I was only speaking to his actual ability onscreen. I don't doubt that his antics didn't endear him to Peter Hunt and the crew, who may have not invested as much in him as a performer as a result, but I do think that Hunt very much wanted to create a different sort of Bond movie. He might have been more willing to work with Lazenby to coax out better performances had Lazenby not be such a cad, but I don't think he would have directed much differently in terms of the blocking and the camera set ups. Hunt could have gotten away with this better with Connery because he was a known property, but it was trickier with a complete unknown like George Lazenby.
In a lot of ways, this was the wrong vehicle for a new Bond actor to debut. The argument that Connery would have been too confident to show the vulnerability of Bond is a compelling one, but at the same time, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is not a story that's meant to establish a character so much as take a familiar character through a harsh personal journey. A better film for Lazenby might have been Diamonds Are Forever, whose lighter tone and more externalized plot would have let a new actor shine brighter in less dramatic ways. Had Lazenby done three films, we could have seen his evolution as the character, and that would have allowed him the time to acclimate himself to the role and for us to do the same with him, but the combination of elements left it harder for that to actually happen . . . we would probably view Lazenby's performance differently as a result.
but I do think that Hunt very much wanted to create a different sort of Bond movie. He might have been more willing to work with Lazenby to coax out better performances had Lazenby not be such a cad, but I don't think he would have directed much differently in terms of the blocking and the camera set ups. Hunt could have gotten away with this better with Connery because he was a known property, but it was trickier with a complete unknown like George Lazenby.
Yes, I agree with everything. Hunt definitely wanted a different flavour, and he would have gone for it with Lazenby,Moore or Connery. But it's also noticeable how in the key scenes Lazenby's performance improves. Specially in the barn with Tracy, and in the final death scene Lazenby is very good. I'm pretty sure that didn't only come from himself, being a newcomer. He probably had the full support of Rigg and Hunt there, because being professionals they knew those scenes were difficult. I only wish it had been that way the whole movie, but I can sense it was not. Lazenby's performance is unbalanced as a result.
I do think the whole production were lamenting the fact that Connery had left a little bit too much. They even make poor old George do "The other Guy" thing, and go through all the old stuff from Connery's films. The title sequence also showed the old Connery stuff. It's almost like they were holding George back a bit, or at the very least they ham-strung him a bit with it all.
I know they wanted to give the audience a transition, but for me it was unnecessary.
but I do think that Hunt very much wanted to create a different sort of Bond movie. He might have been more willing to work with Lazenby to coax out better performances had Lazenby not be such a cad, but I don't think he would have directed much differently in terms of the blocking and the camera set ups. Hunt could have gotten away with this better with Connery because he was a known property, but it was trickier with a complete unknown like George Lazenby.
Yes, I agree with everything. Hunt definitely wanted a different flavour, and he would have gone for it with Lazenby,Moore or Connery. But it's also noticeable how in the key scenes Lazenby's performance improves. Specially in the barn with Tracy, and in the final death scene Lazenby is very good. I'm pretty sure that didn't only come from himself, being a newcomer. He probably had the full support of Rigg and Hunt there, because being professionals they knew those scenes were difficult. I only wish it had been that way the whole movie, but I can sense it was not. Lazenby's performance is unbalanced as a result.
Absolutely! In the most powerful scenes, Lazenby is as good as any actor who has played the role.
Connery's over-confidence is part of why he's not my favorite Bond. He's not believable. I can't help but feel he started a very pernicious trope about what masculinity should be: womanizing, never being scared (out of some macho ego trip) and never being stressed (despite the nature of his job).
I just felt like Connery never really cared about anything, except getting laid, as Bond. And aside from the witty dialogue scenes (which he mastered), he was just going through the motions. This wouldn't have boded well for OHMSS.
One thing I did notice (not that it relates that much, but is interesting) is on the DvD cover of OHMSS that I own (the early 2000's re-release, the ones that spell out the 007 logo when the spines are lined up).
I noticed that unlike every other Bond, George does not get a "Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Brocolli present George Lazenby as Ian Flemings James Bond 007 in: On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
He does not get that, he simply gets: "Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Brocolli present James Bond 007 in Ian Fleming's: On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
I wonder why? all the other Bonds get their name credited.
Connery's over-confidence is part of why he's not my favorite Bond. He's not believable. I can't help but feel he started a very pernicious trope about what masculinity should be: womanizing, never being scared (out of some macho ego trip) and never being stressed (despite the nature of his job).
I just felt like Connery never really cared about anything, except getting laid, as Bond. And aside from the witty dialogue scenes (which he mastered), he was just going through the motions. This wouldn't have boded well for OHMSS.
I think this is an oversimplification. Connery defined a particular form of masculinity, which Craig in some measure has brought back. To say he didn't demonstrate a range of emotions, I think, is missing a lot of what he did, and he certainly appeared scared or stressed on more than one occasion. Watch him with the spider in Dr. No, the confrontation with Grant in From Russia with Love, his reaction to Tilly Masterson's death in Goldfinger, his car ride with Fiona in Thunderball, his response to Aki's death in You Only Live Twice, and so forth, just to name a few. The Christmas chase scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service alone is virtually a moment-to-moment retread of Connery's scene at the Junkanoo in Thunderball, right down to running into someone and being horrified that it might be the enemy.
Connery's performance was at least in part influenced by his blue collar roots. I came from such people on my dad's side, and these are the guys that fought wars, came back, and just went back to their lives without dwelling on it or who worked long hours in dirty, dangerous factories, where people died in accidents, and just sucked it up because that's what a man does to put food on the table for his family. But you can see the emotions in their eyes and, sometimes, in what they don't do rather than what they do. The swagger is part of the attitude that gets them through. Connery is iconic as Bond for reason, and it is because his performances are superb.
Bravo, GM, well said. Someone said earlier (please remind me who!) that part of Connery's skill was to be able to convey fear within his very masculine persona. I'd add his protectiveness to Honey, his respect for Goldfinger without losing his enmity towards him, and the many subtleties he effortlessly adds (Bond's growing friendship with Kerim, his mistrust of Dent, etc etc).
I agree that such oversimplication is too often on display when Connery's Bond is discussed. You give an excellent distillation of the range and nuances in Connery's acting that are frequently overlooked, and you have quite accurately noted that "Connery is iconic as Bond for reason, and it is because his performances are superb."
Connery defined a particular form of masculinity, which Craig in some measure has brought back. To say he didn't demonstrate a range of emotions, I think, is missing a lot of what he did, and he certainly appeared scared or stressed on more than one occasion. Watch him with the spider in Dr. No, the confrontation with Grant in From Russia with Love, his reaction to Tilly Masterson's death in Goldfinger, his car ride with Fiona in Thunderball, his response to Aki's death in You Only Live Twice, and so forth, just to name a few. The Christmas chase scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service alone is virtually a moment-to-moment retread of Connery's scene at the Junkanoo in Thunderball, right down to running into someone and being horrified that it might be the enemy.
Connery's performance was at least in part influenced by his blue collar roots. I came from such people on my dad's side, and these are the guys that fought wars, came back, and just went back to their lives without dwelling on it or who worked long hours in dirty, dangerous factories, where people died in accidents, and just sucked it up because that's what a man does to put food on the table for his family. But you can see the emotions in their eyes and, sometimes, in what they don't do rather than what they do. The swagger is part of the attitude that gets them through. Connery is iconic as Bond for reason, and it is because his performances are superb.
{[] {[]
GM, you defined this well!
Connery's casting was genius. Even Fleming came 'round.
In many ways that matter, Connery WAS Bond.
I agree that Lazenby gets a bad rap. I have heard time and time again if only Connery had been in OHMSS it would be the best of the series. But I think the film stands up great with Lazenby. Its a shame that he gets the disrespect, which then gives disrespect to the film. Look at James Bond Marathons on American TV, OHMSS is rarely shown if even not at all on a few occasions.
Comments
Me three. George Lazenby is more than acceptable as Bond. And, due to the physical demands of the role in those films, I could easily see him in Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die. Possibly even The Man With The Golden Gun...
( Blackadder goes fourth )
Roger Moore 1927-2017
This is a great post. It offers a great on screen analysis of Lazenby's performance. Also makes a good point on Peter Hunt being a novel director.
But (and it's a big but) it forgets an important part of an actor's job. There are many stories of nightmarish on set behaviour of some stars. I wouldn't go as far as calling OHMSS shooting nightmarish from what I read, but it wasn't happy. And Lazenby's attitude was apparently a big factor. He himself said about his younger self that he "needed to do a lot of growing up". He acted like a diva when he was an unknown. He wanted to have fun. He thought playing Bond was a game. He mostly wanted to get laid. He managed to alienate himself from his co-starr, his director and the producers.
I agree that being his first movie, his performance is not that bad. Also he was under a lot of pressure, considering Bond was probably the most important male role of that period. But he could have been much better simply if he had had another type of personality. Connery, even at his most strained relationship with the franchise, was said to be a true professional by everybody while on set.
In a lot of ways, this was the wrong vehicle for a new Bond actor to debut. The argument that Connery would have been too confident to show the vulnerability of Bond is a compelling one, but at the same time, On Her Majesty's Secret Service is not a story that's meant to establish a character so much as take a familiar character through a harsh personal journey. A better film for Lazenby might have been Diamonds Are Forever, whose lighter tone and more externalized plot would have let a new actor shine brighter in less dramatic ways. Had Lazenby done three films, we could have seen his evolution as the character, and that would have allowed him the time to acclimate himself to the role and for us to do the same with him, but the combination of elements left it harder for that to actually happen . . . we would probably view Lazenby's performance differently as a result.
Yes, I agree with everything. Hunt definitely wanted a different flavour, and he would have gone for it with Lazenby,Moore or Connery. But it's also noticeable how in the key scenes Lazenby's performance improves. Specially in the barn with Tracy, and in the final death scene Lazenby is very good. I'm pretty sure that didn't only come from himself, being a newcomer. He probably had the full support of Rigg and Hunt there, because being professionals they knew those scenes were difficult. I only wish it had been that way the whole movie, but I can sense it was not. Lazenby's performance is unbalanced as a result.
I do think the whole production were lamenting the fact that Connery had left a little bit too much. They even make poor old George do "The other Guy" thing, and go through all the old stuff from Connery's films. The title sequence also showed the old Connery stuff. It's almost like they were holding George back a bit, or at the very least they ham-strung him a bit with it all.
I know they wanted to give the audience a transition, but for me it was unnecessary.
I just felt like Connery never really cared about anything, except getting laid, as Bond. And aside from the witty dialogue scenes (which he mastered), he was just going through the motions. This wouldn't have boded well for OHMSS.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
I noticed that unlike every other Bond, George does not get a "Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Brocolli present George Lazenby as Ian Flemings James Bond 007 in: On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
He does not get that, he simply gets: "Harry Saltzman & Albert R. Brocolli present James Bond 007 in Ian Fleming's: On Her Majesty's Secret Service"
I wonder why? all the other Bonds get their name credited.
Connery's performance was at least in part influenced by his blue collar roots. I came from such people on my dad's side, and these are the guys that fought wars, came back, and just went back to their lives without dwelling on it or who worked long hours in dirty, dangerous factories, where people died in accidents, and just sucked it up because that's what a man does to put food on the table for his family. But you can see the emotions in their eyes and, sometimes, in what they don't do rather than what they do. The swagger is part of the attitude that gets them through. Connery is iconic as Bond for reason, and it is because his performances are superb.
I agree that such oversimplication is too often on display when Connery's Bond is discussed. You give an excellent distillation of the range and nuances in Connery's acting that are frequently overlooked, and you have quite accurately noted that "Connery is iconic as Bond for reason, and it is because his performances are superb."
Well done! -{
GM, you defined this well!
Connery's casting was genius. Even Fleming came 'round.
In many ways that matter, Connery WAS Bond.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Which makes a mockery of the name of the production company that made them all: Everything Or Nothing