It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
I agree with that in respect to Brosnan and Moore. Dalton may not have been as physical but he was no doubt able to convince most that he was also lethal and certainly, in my opinion, was more than adequate in that area in a comparison with the above.
Lazenby ranks with Connery and Craig in physicality, that's never been a question to me since I saw the film's debut. However, the ideal Bond is both physical and can ACT. This is why the other Bonds are all preferable for me, they are actors. Moore is far from a great screen fighter, but he can act and convince as Bond in other, more important ways. That said, I've correctly pointed out that George is severely lacking in that area and not convincing to anyone but his apologists, who clearly need an oculist themselves if they feel monotone delivery and wooden facials define a good actor, let alone a good 007. Floor's yours, chaps. In the immortal words of Harry Kalas, I'm "outta heeeere!".
And even if he did have the acting ability to pull off OHMSS, he was more than past his prime as Bond by that point. Lazenby was I think by far the best man for the job.
Imo, Lazenby did a good job in OHMSS. The final scene, proposing to Tracy, panicking as he desperately tries to escape Blofelds henchmen in the crowd, etc, all these moments more than make up for the odd wooden line delivery.
What I think Lazenby did brilliantly was the everyman aspect. I think more than any of the others, he felt like a real person.
Here's one example of this: After he escapes Piz Gloria and he's trying to hide from Blofeld's men, he actually looks frightened. He genuinely looks afraid for his life. When has any other Bond actor showed a hint of fear?
He felt like a real person, vunerable emotionally and physically and I can't say that about any of the other Bond actors.
That said, I will agree that he was also offered vastly more acting roles with the potential to prove himself than Lazenby. So I guess it's only fair to assume that Lazenby in any other acting career, could have improved on his acting a lot as well.
He's good don't get me wrong but aside from a couple of performances he mostly just seems to play himself imo.
Do you honestly think Connery circa 1969 could've done a better job than Lazenby in OHMSS despite the fact he was past his prime and didn't really give a toss by that point?
Because that's what this is about: Not who's the better actor, but could Connery have done better in OHMSS. And I think all evidence points to a massive no.
Craig does the emotional stuff brilliantly but he's hardly an everyman. He's like the f***ing Terminator in some of the action scenes and he's never shown fear, there's nothing like that Switzerland bit I mentioned in his era.
@DarthDimi Thank you for actually trying to explain your opinion instead of just bringing up awards and making the same old tired Oculist joke.
I did overreact a bit there, I'll admit. I think Connery is a better actor than Lazenby overall and he's given some very good performances over his career (The Untouchables, that Robin Hood film, etc), but I think calling him one of the greats is overrating him a bit. There are plenty of times I think where he's just playing himself.
Completely agree with @doubleoego here. For that reason, you should vote in this topic: http://www.mi6community.com/index.php?p=/discussion/7199/rank-each-bond-actor-in-their-1st-bond-film-poll#Item_22. I posted similar arguments there:
@GustavGraves- you must not have seen what I wrote in your thread. But you have become quite the spin doctor I must say.
I'd forgotten about that moment but from what I remember (haven't seen CR in a while), he hides his fear by taking the piss.
Except there's nothing to suggest he would want to. He was sick of Bond by that point and he likely would've just phoned it in like he did with DAF.
Connery in his prime would've been better but at the time, Lazenby was definitely the best man for the job.
Maybe you didn't read my post, I already have seen that. I said to Dimi it was one of the good performances Connery had given over his career.
Maybe you should watch OHMSS again sometime, specifically the final scene, if all you think Lazenby can do is fight and crack one liners then maybe watching him cry over the body of his dead wife in one of the most moving moments of the series will make you change your mind.
George Lazenby did a good job in the acting department in OHMSS. I have always given him credit for that. He did, however, have some awkward deliveries at the beginning of the film while talking to Tracy (Diana Rigg) at the gambling casino, but he did make up for it afterwards as you have mentioned. That being said: "He's no Sean Connery." It's just a fact that Connery is a much better actor. I first saw GOLDFINGER in it's initial release in 1964 (I'm 56 years old) and was captivated by the entire experience. Part of that experience was how convincing Connery was at portraying the role of James Bond. And of course, who could forget Pussy Galore!
Connery also had a long and very successful career and starred in some truly great films apart from his Bond adventures. He's won numerous awards over his career. A few of these would include: a BAFTA Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role in THE NAME OF THE ROSE, an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor in THE UNTOUCHABLES, and a Golden Globe Award for Best Supporting Actor, also in THE UNTOUCHABLES.
As far as Connery and Lazenby being similar...they are similar in stature and fighting abilities, but that's where the similarity ends. Connery was referred to as an unknown by the media when he was first awarded the role of James Bond. However, he was in fact, an established actor (not a household name) and had some fine performances already under his belt. He had some memorable scenes in HELL DRIVERS and ANOTHER TIME, ANOTHER PLACE (opposite Lana Turner), was great in DARBY O'GILL and THE LITTLE PEOPLE (he even sings), was one of the antagonists in TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE and was very convincing as a rugged hood in THE FRIGHTENED CITY.
I would rank GOLDFINGER slightly ahead of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE, mainly because of Sean Connery's superb performance.
Cubby and Harry have been switched around also.
But i'm glad that Lazenby has had his name marked now.
Also, I notice none of the Lazenby haters have suggested an "available" actor who would be better suited for the role in 1969 or one that had the balls to accept the role after Connery.
That's another mistake EON Productions made. A huge mistake, that wasn't Lazenby's fault. Now personally I think Lazenby pulled it off his first time. The love scenes with Tracy....they were simply marvellous. Not to mention the Daniel Craig-esque fighting scenes and the way they were edited. Hence the Golden Globe nomination for 'Best Newcoming Actor' back in 1970.
But now the mistake: EON were focussing too much on a 'Connery-esque actor'. Fighting skills, roughness and especially looks like hair and clothes, were the guiding principles for casting the new Bond actor. In my opinion a huge mistake. They should have focussed more on finding an 'experienced actor'. Not necessary 'acting skills' but the overall experience an actor has on set. Because let's face it.......Moore was an experienced actor, but were his acting skills thát impressive??
Acting George pulled off. But director Peter Hunt was wrong in thinking that experience is not important. An experienced actor doesn't let stardom rise to his head. He stand with both feet on the ground. That wasn't the case with Lazenby.
I also think.......it was the very fact that a new actor had to take over the shoes from Connery. Back in those days it was generally felt an impossible task. Both press and EON never really thought 'What shall we do after Connery?' It was generally thought in the late sixties that Bond would die at the moment Connery was leaving.
All these factors made it so incredibly difficult for Lazenby to....adjust as a 'star'. He should have gotten way more coaching and guidance from behind the scenes. Right at the moment when Lazenby was signing the multi picture deal.
Just think about it: Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig, they always had the advantage of seeing how 'bad Lazenby fucked up things'. Not to mention that after 1971 EON Productions finally realized it's a bad idea to mold Moore in some kind of surrogate-Connery.
My 2 cents
As for the dubbing @Recipe, this has been covered numerous times in other posts. Ok, let's imagine that Connery was playing the part of Sir Hilary Bray, do you really think Connery would have perfected the necessary clipped English accent in order for those scenes to work as a disguise? Of course not, they would have dubbed his voice as well.
My 2 cents and a dollar.
Hmmm, saying that Lazenby is 'such a good actor'?? I never said that. And what do you mean by that? His overall experience on set and also behind the scenes? His relationship with other cast and crew? Or solely his 'acting skills'?
It's not true that Lazenby was dubbed when he was playing Sir Hillary Bray in such an awful manner. If that was really the case, the Bond producers wouldn't hesitate and dub him entirely afterwards.
I think Peter Hunt as a director lacked some empathic skills with his actors. His ideas....were just written law. He was quite autoritarian behind the scenes. To such an extend that Lazenby easily felt not being respected. Yes, some of that is Lazenby's own ego. But things go wrong when a director can't make the actors feel comfortable on set. It was wrong that Dana Broccoli was actually taking up that task from Hunt. Peter Hunt could have learned from directors Terence Young and Sam Mendes........ Working with Sam and Terence........well, that was everybody's wet dream no? That's how it should be from scratch.
So in all its inexperience, we should also focus on Peter Hunt's inexperience as director. 'OHMSS' shall always be the Bond film, together with 'Thunderball', that people will have endless discussions about.
Having said all this, I'm still surprised Lazenby pulled it off. He really pulled it of despite all the on-set problems. He deserved to win that Golden Globe......as an encouragement perhaps. And by jolly, it would have been so nice if Lazenby's last Bond film was 'For Your Eyes Only' in 1981....... If only......
Wow. I've heard it all now. Are you seriously looking to blame Hunt for Lazenby's shortcomings? Do you actually know anything about Hunt? He's arguably one of the most important individuals in the history of the franchise. Lest we forget, this is the man whose editorial nous was responsible for the switching of the titles and opening scene in FRWL - a move which not only left a lasting impact on the Bond franchise, but that influenced countless film makers the world over. To make such a bold editorial choice, and for that to become a staple of the series, is no mean feat.
As for his directorial prowess, he crafted one of the most operatic and seminal films in the entire canon. He fought George's corner, it was Cubby who had a problem with Lazenby, not Hunt. To suggest his directorial inexperience had a negative impact is so wide of the mark that you must be either incredibly naïve, or incredibly stupid - ironically, much like Lazenby.
Off course you are right here @Bondsum. I mean, look at the finished end product. Despite all gossip and banter behind the scenes, despite all the criticism we point at Peter Hunt and/or George Lazenby, the final film is a true gem in the Bond film franchise. An instant classic that is together among FRWL, GF, FYEO, TLD, CR and SF (my opinion) among the best of the bunch.
I disagree. I actually think Hunt did a fantastic job with Lazenby. I struggle to see what more could have been drawn out. George was cast on his looks and ability to throw a punch, not his acting chops. As the saying goes 'You can't polish a turd', but I'd argue Peter Hunt put a bow on it. This isn't me suggesting he is above criticism, I just believe it's naive to think Hunt is responsible for the shortcomings of his lead, when in fact I'd say he did an astonishing job. I don't dislike Lazenby, but I feel like he benefits greatly from some sensationally well cast co-stars, a faithful adaptation of the novel (bettered in parts), plus some smart, daring and ultimately brilliant directorial decisions. To create the film he did in 1969, following the Connery era is a testament to Hunt's genius IMO.
I'll be honest, I've not come across 'all' this criticism of Hunt you speak of. He's no messiah, and certainly not immune to criticism, but of all the men who stepped up to helm a Bond picture, I'd argue Hunt made one of only a very few timeless classics.
I find it strange that some of us can see "wooden" or "inappropriate" deliveries at different stages, and yet Hunt decided he was okay with those takes and shouted "That's a wrap. Print it!" Unless I hear from someone who worked on OHMSS who states Hunt demanded 63 takes on these "awkward" scenes, such as Alfred Hitchcock demanded of his less experienced actors, then it's open to debate whether Hunt couldn't have got more from Lazenby than he did.
Anyway, as you said "Hunt did a fantastic job with Lazenby" so you obviously like the final results. I'll end it there before I end up going round in circles.
Quite. But every actor has a limit and with the fine juggling act of delivering a Bond picture, I'm not convinced Hunt had the time to eek an Oscar worthy performance out of Lazenby. I agree, it's a mystery why certain lines and takes were allowed to stand, but name a director who hasn't done this, particularly a Bond director? Some people have certain constraints to work within, others (Kubrick) don't care about spiralling budgets and can get away with it. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but looking back I'd be asking what could George have done better? Everyone else was working at the top of their game. The first time director did a better job than the first time actor.
I'm defending Hunt because in the hands of a Hitchcock, a Kubrick, a Wilder, perhaps we'd have seen a better delivery in certain scenes, but as a whole, I'm not convinced they'd all of a sudden transform Lazenby into an O'Toole, a Brando or even a Connery. That just doesn't happen. The same way Alex Ferguson could not turn a mediocre player into a world beater.
So while I agree it's feasible Lazenby may have delivered under better stewardship, I don't feel it's categorical. At the end of the day, Lazenby's shortcomings aside, the film is a classic and Lazenby's performance does not detract. If it weren't for some bad advice and typical aussie-ego, he'd have continued on.
I find it harder to imagine Connery having his dialogue dubbed in the way Laz did. That said I think @Bondsum has indeed pointed out that Connery was dubbed in DAF (although then he was meant to be using a voice altering device so the dubbing was more acceptable).
Connery may very well have been dubbed but either way I find it a bit sad that in what turned out to be his one and only film the lead actor was dubbed for the most dialogue driven part of it. At least if Connery was dubbed we'd have seen him in five previous Bond films with his normal voice.
@thelivingroyale has a point that Connery can sometimes play himself but he has had some more "human" roles like in his career like The Hill or Marnie so who knows whether he would have made the film better or worse.
...either way, while Laz did a good job in OHMSS (IMO) - despite some cringy line deliveries at times as well as the dubbing - its a fact that Connery has more onscreen charisma.
Anyway Laz deserves to be recognised as a "worthy" Bond actor as do all the others. He had his weaknesses and he may or may not be a complete a**e in real life but OHMSS is still a great film and he was part of it.
Haven't read through the entire thread so apologies if this has been mentioned. The specific reason Lazenby's name was deleted from the promotional material (and his involvement was minimised in the marketing campaign) wasn't because of his perceived limitations as an actor but was because Lazenby had already decided to quit the role by the time of OHMSS's release.
UA/MGM typically put a lot of focus on the "new Bond" every time the role is recast as they're not only launching a single film but are, in effect, relaunching the franchise for the next decade. The marketing campaigns for LALD, TLD, GE and CR all focussed on Moore, Dalton, Brosnan and Craig. They also subtly focus on highlighting how much better the new guy is than his predecessor and contrast them with said predecessor's perceived weaknesses i.e.:
- Lovely cuddly Roger Moore was actually Fleming's original choice for the role and is a real English gent unlike the brutish Connery
- Dalton not only does his own stunts but is a Trained Shakespearean Actor (TM) not like creaky old Rog and his elasticated eyebrow
- Charming Mr Brosnan was the original choice back in '87 and so much more popular than dour, unloved, second-choice Dalton
- Craig is younger, grittier, sexier and more masculine than ageing pretty-boy Brosnan.
Lazenby's departure presented UA with a problem. Investing heavily in building up excitement about The New 007 and promoting Lazenby as Even Better Than Connery (for example) would lead them into a pickle two years later as they would have to do it all over again with the new guy before the public had chance to forget that Lazenby had just been touted as the Best Bond Ever himself. They knew that focussing on the other elements of the film and ignoring Lazenby would allow them a more painless transition to the next actor during the marketing of Diamonds Are Forever (even easier, as it turned out, as it was a returning Connery.)
ThunderballFever said:
Very well said! You hit the nail on the head. Couldn't have explained it any better myself. :)>-
Those are great @Sir_James_Moloney. I strongly advocate putting them as taglines on the Blu-ray covers! I suspect that the humor would be lost on most people though.