George Lazenby's Acting Gets a Bad Rap
Gassy Man
USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
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.
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.
Comments
OHMSS wasn't just Lazenby's first film as an actor, but Hunt's first as a director. Unlike most directors, who get the chance to cut their teeth on a low-budget production, he was thrown in (willingly, of course- he'd accepted 2nd unit chores on YOLT in lieu of the top job at that point) to the deep end on a multi-million, highly-promoted, very visible epic and the pressure was enormous. His handling of Lazenby could be seen as a form of insurance for the film, and his cutting style as an extension of his editorial style as perfected over the previous Bonds.
There are some actors/actresses the camera seems to love, and Connery is certainly one of them. Hunt could not have known if the same would be true of Lazenby.
A problem with his acting, it's my favourite film !
Bond in that film.
And overdubbing aside, I think Peter Hunt does a great job, too. He brings a style & elegance that puts the film streets ahead over other Bonds visually.
Some people come into your life and really help you out, but are only good for that moment and you have to part ways afterwards. That's what Lazenby was to Eon.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)
Preface to say, I'm a fan of OHMSS. While not a fan of Lazenby, per se, I think he did as good as can be expected given this was his debut, his young age, etc. But I think Big Tam hits the nail on the head in his appraisal of Hunt's contribution. I've often wondered how much I would care for the film had the visual aspects and locations been more in line with the films which bookend it. Each time I come away thinking we owe Hunt a heartfelt, "Well done." I've come to believe he is as primary a reason as any that OHMSS is in my top five.
Indeed, given the circumstances George Lazenby acted about as well as could be expected. Perhaps, another director would have got a bit more from him. With more films he almost certainly would have improved.
I do admire Lazenby for the way he went after the role, what cojones.
Eager, he is! Though most others seem to disagree, I actually liked his tongue-in-cheek reference to Connery, too
GL does get a bad rap, and I think he did very well considering the shoes he had to fill, he took the role on when everyone else saw following Connery as "career suicide" .
That being said, I liked his performance, but I did not feel he had the presence to carry a Bond film as the star, it does fall down in places because of him.
But he did the best he could, and OHMSS is a good film.
I agree with that assessment. -{
+1.
Great job on explaining OHMSS and Hunt's influence on Lazenby's performance.
I also agree with others on the dubbing in the film. I really believe that was done because GL had to perform extensive dialogue scenes as Bray and Hunt probably thought Lazenby's accent would have been too noticeable. I actually wish GL could have re-dubbed the DVD versions with his own voice to correct the error, but EON would never allow it because it would come across as an outright admittance of Hunt's bad decision.
So we don't actually hear GL's voice in any of this film then? if that's true then they picked a bloke with a horrible voice to dub it. Bonds voice was the thing I disliked the most when I watched it.
Most weekends in Australia.
AJB007 Favorite Film Rankings
Pros and Cons Compendium (50 Years)