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 don't know, TB doesn't feel the strongest directed to me. I think he probably stopped at the right point, and apparently he quit during editing anyway didn't he?
I wouldn’t say it’s an easy role (actually I suspect it’s deceptively tricky to play for an actor, and I reckon even some great actors would struggle a bit with it). There is a good deal of natural charisma and screen presence which comes into it. If you don’t ’have it’ then it’s tricky for an actor to play a believable Bond, which I think is where Lazenby’s problem came in. Acting ability aside I don’t think his real life charisma quite made its way onto the screen.
He makes Connery look like the Prince of Wales
And as Peter said, not really an actor at all: he barely knows where to look. Like the bit where he finds the chips in his drawer after spending the night with Tracy- what's he thinking? I have no idea, there's nothing going on behind his eyes at all.
Which funnily enough makes him kind of easy to picture as Fleming's Bond when reading one of the novels, because he looks sort of right but brings almost no personality to the part at all, so it's easy to overlay book Bond's personality and imagine him saying the lines in the book. If I try and picture Connery when reading a Fleming it doesn't work for me as his screen persona is too strong and different to Fleming's 007.
I do think Lazenby had the charisma, because if he hadn't, then Cubby wouldn't likely to bat an eye on him in that Barber Shop or in that Chocolate Advert they've seen him in, the Producers thought that he had potential, these are the same people who chose Connery over Fleming's choice, David Niven, and Fleming disliked Connery for looking more like an overgrown stuntman who thankfully was guided and molded into shape with Terrence Young's guidance (hence, why I wished Young had directed Lazenby) and Connery's casting succeeded, these are the same producers who have Dalton and Brosnan on their radar, so they know what they're doing, when they've seen potential in Lazenby, they knew it, if not for Lazenby quitting from the role.
That's said, for some casual audiences, the 'Cinematic' James Bond, just like Bourne, Hunt, and Wick, is still an action hero, if they looked good in a suit, sophisticated, classy, believable in fight scenes and action, sexy, could handle the essential aspects of the character, then any actor could've gotten the role, there's a criteria already laid on for the Cinematic Bond role through screen tests, if they've passed it, then, they could be Bond, this is not just about Lazenby, it's about choosing the Next Bond, in general, it's just the same as Bond Girls, think of why people prefer the performances of Barbara Bach, Claudine Auger, and Daniela Bianchi over the likes of Halle Berry (an Oscar winning actress) and Denise Richards, for example? It's on how they carry the role, and the quality of the material they're going to be given with, we don't need an A List, Oscar Winning Actors and Actresses in this:
1.) As long as the material is good
2.) As long as they could carry the role, then they could be in.
I mean Halle Berry could've been great as Anya Amasova, but just imagine Barbara Bach as Jinx, for example, but why many people prefer the latter to the former? Because of the material they've been given with.
And Lazenby, I think carried it well, like what I've said, the romance in OHMSS are the best that I could expect from a Bond film (not that the romance in the book was anything that convincing either), Lazenby carried it in the most Bondian way possible (that montage scene is really great, so them skiing together).
This is just my Controversial Opinion, but I don't think the role of Cinematic James Bond is really that demanding, if they pass the criteria, they could go for the role.
It’s not that Lazenby didn’t have charisma as a man. He clearly did and any interview with him will show it. But conveying that charisma as an actor onscreen, and in this case as James Bond, is another matter. It doesn’t matter how much charisma he had, the fact that he didn’t always seem comfortable in the role, didn’t always naturally know where to look, and indeed had this tendency to recite his lines in a stiff, wooden manner kills that slightly. It’s what I mean when I say playing Bond isn’t as easy as it looks. A lot of great actors simply won’t be able to play the role convincingly, but it’s also a case where a non-actor is even unlikelier to succeed, even if they have the look. Honestly, I don’t think the producers struck gold with him (although from auditions I can definitely see how he was the best option), and after Connery they clearly wanted a Bond in the role long term to steady the ship.
I really don’t think Young would have gotten anything better out of him. Despite Connery being a slightly left field pick he was an actor ultimately, and he was very natural onscreen. It’s very much a case where getting the right actor is key for a director - hell, for Bond in general it’s a case where the actor doesn’t really need to be ‘moulded’ into the character because they have the ability to play him naturally. In that sense Connery wasn’t transformed into Bond just because they took him to Saville Row and taught him about fine dining. That’s just preparation, and to some extent Lazenby would have gotten that too.
@DarthDimi — that’s an alternative universe I’d love to see.
DAF, for how much I disliked that film due to being a disappointment of a follow up, I couldn't deny the success it brought the franchise like a lifeline when people back then are shocked of Lazenby, Bond getting married, and that tragic ending which alienated the audiences, and of course, Connery's return, I think it could've possibly worked at some point had Lazenby returned doing a follow up to OHMSS, but in terms of box office, it could've done worse than LTK, as people are not used to seeing Bond being brutal and violent for revenge, people back then are always expecting Bond to be fun and spectacular.
LALD continued on that and bringing an already famous star that's Roger Moore, from what I've read, TMWTGG didn't do well due to poor marketing, according to Wikipedia, so not to the style of the film itself.
I don't know if the franchise would've survived had Hunt directed those films, people back then are alienated with the tone and style of OHMSS, people wanted another Goldfinger, those 70s Hamilton Bond films delivered it, the spectacle and If the humor would remain, could Hunt handle them? The closest we could ever get to him directing a lighthearted scene was with the Ruby Bartlett scenes in OHMSS, which I think was a bit off (maybe part of that was because of Angela Scoular's acting).
I think people started to accept a serious Bond when Craig took over in CR'06, but back then, a serious Bond was more of an outlier, think of how LTK underperformed in Box Office, only for the triumph to return with Goldeneye.
I know it wouldn't have happened, but just the thought of him sticking around long enough to make LALD is a horrible one! Imagine him doing this scene with the same kind of dead-eyed look he brings to the 'please stay alive, if just for tonight' scene.
Lazenby wouldn't really worked in LALD, the script was very much fitted for Roger Moore, probably the script would've been different had he stuck around, who knows? Each scripts fits the current Bond actor for the role, I couldn't even imagine Connery in LALD.
It's the same thing as I couldn't imagine Dalton in Goldeneye, the script was very much fitted for Brosnan, as much as many people wanted to see Dalton in that film, the sauna scene with Xenia, I can't imagine Dalton being in that scene, that certain playfulness, or Brosnan's reaction when he saw Trevelyan in the Cemetery.
I'm not saying that the future of the series depended upon this one specific scene, but it did depend to some extent upon the talent and ability of the lead actor.
Very true. You watch a simple scene like the one above and it takes talent and gifts to pull it off (and make it look easy), and it’s clear there’s a universe between what Lazenby brought to the table and the other Bonds that were cast. There’s just absolutely no getting around the fact that Lazenby was quite vacuous, with zero charisma and absolutely no talent. He does come off as a little slow, not engaged and mentally out of his depth. Is he fine in some scenes— thankfully yes, but all in all he was a dud, a non-actor in a role that is much more difficult than what one would assume, and the proof is in the pudding: we’ve had a non actor fake his way in the role and it shows. You can’t fake being James. You have to make him yours and wear him like the best of your comfortable clothes. Lazenby couldn’t do it.
But I still love the film immensely .
I don't know if it's a controversial opinion, but I think playing Bond is and will be increasingly difficult.
Yet another time, @peter, where you sort of took the words right out of my mouth. I'd add that I always considered his facial expressions, all maybe two of them, plainly stupid, which is why I never bought him as a smart secret agent. It's a miracle that in spite of this miscasting, OHMSS turned out so good. Imagine having an accomplished actor playing Bond instead.
Yeah, he gets by. Some of his scenes I like include the M scene where M seems to fire him: he looks suitably miffed there and it works quite well. But otherwise, as I say, you can't really tell what he's thinking half the time, and the other half is indistinguishable from 'smell the fart' acting. There's just no connection with the audience there, he's just not an actor.
Oddly you watch some of those Italian knock-off Bonds from the 60s and he's probably better than some of their stars, however. I guess he's better than Neil Connery.
That reason being an enormous sack of cash.
One of which he generously donated to charity.
Yes, a sack that came from nowhere. Or did Santa Claus bring it?
I've never really given this scene that much thought before, but looking at it just now, trying (1) to picture Lazenby in it (who obviously would not have been able to handle this scene at all), and (2) paying closer attention to Roger's performance, it really struck me how perfect Roger is in this scene, and how much it plays to his strengths as an actor. It's such a small scene, but it actually shows everything that made his Bond work; how easily he could turn from all serious facing danger, to the ultimate charmer at the flick of a switch.
It could've changed the entire franchise, and I'm afraid but it wouldn't make franchise survived for long, people were too alienated by OHMSS, without the lighthearted era of Bond, the spectacle that people always wanted back then from Goldfinger, just pure seriousness and drama, it would be a comatose for the series, if people got alienated with a Bond film, it would result in box office failure, putting the franchise on ice for good.
People were alienated with Bond getting married, the tragic ending, him crying at the end, yes, the tone would've continued at that, with a Revenge sequel, then we could've gotten perhaps, an earlier version of Craig Era sort of thing (shifting from drama and revenge to comedy would've been jarring).
And that wouldn't likely to click with the people at that time, they wanted something bombastic, hence, why Diamonds Are Forever became a box office success, same with TSWLM and MR, they wanted spectacle.
OHMSS was not a box office success (it made money decently) but not as highly as compared to the previous Bond films and after it, sure, Connery's absence might've been a factor, but then so the tone and style of the film, for those people back then, their idea of Bond was invincible and just being cool all the time, not emotional, let alone falling in love and getting married.
This was happened once again with LTK, because it alienated people to see Bond gone rogue and be violent, which was very far from their idea of Bond.
I love OHMSS, but I'm happy to leave the franchise as it is, I wouldn't change a thing at all, I will let things happened for what it is, people can complain anytime they want (cough, cough, Reddit Bond fans, cough, cough), but they don't realize the implications that may change, some of them even wanted a remake of the classic Bond films, that's a bit going too far.
I seem to recall from reading Charles Helfenstein's deep study into the film that, contrary to popular belief, OHMSS wasn't so poorly received at all. The no-Connery effect factored in for sure, but other things may have played a part as well, including oversaturation of the spy genre and a new 'cool' on the horizon. OHMSS wasn't suddenly rediscovered ten years later like a forgotten jewel in a hidden vault. For a brief while, people were possibly moving on from the spy stuff and into newer material, but overall, OHMSS didn't do so poorly. I at least wouldn't put it like being "alienated by OHMSS". But it's hard to sort out the facts after so long. Perhaps I should read Helfenstein's amazing book again. It's been a while.
Don't get me wrong, I understand Moore had a bit of that with LALD (ie. comparisons to Connery) but I do think a strong lead makes a difference. And we tend to somewhat overemphasise what general audiences 'want' (I genuinely think there's no reason OHMSS couldn't have been a bigger hit with a stronger lead - it came out at the right time for such a Bond film).
He's great in that scene. There's a lot going on which he conveys to the audience, and more importantly he makes it look effortless.