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 still can't believe he somehow managed to rank higher Brosnan - the world has truly gone mad :D.
The Bedlam/resignation scene is a pretty big example for me. With the other actors I put higher I feel as if they'd add something more to it, more facial reaction or change in line reading.
Lazenby was certainly a bit lucky with being a one-film wonder; imagine how loved Craig would be if quit after Casino Royale! I think out of the EON Bonds, all of them could do an alright job in a good film. But with all the other Bonds, I see elements in their performance that show that they could carry a "bad" film or elevate a less serious work.
All in all the guy done good, and I agree with the ranking, I'd take George over Brossa any day of the week!
That final scene remains one of, if not THE best acted scene in the series and it's carried by George all on his own. Furthermore, he's the absolute best of the bunch in the fight scenes.
I know his behaviour of camera was reportedly not the best, but that doesn't take anything away from his stellar performance in his one Bond film.
I ranked George second. Proudly so.
I think of those scenes like the cable car room or ski chase, where the other actors, when they're on their own in similar situations, can still engage the audience: they communicate to you what's going on, what they're thinking; you're on their side. In these scenes in OHMSS you're just kind of a spectator because GL can't do that. I even find the cable car room scene a bit boring: I reckon with exactly the same edit but a real actor it would be fine. I was thinking also of that scene in Spectre at the funeral, where Craig somehow lets you know that he's recognised Oberhauser, whilst his eyes are obscured by sunglasses and he barely moves a muscle at all.
Yes, he does better than some of the leads of the Bond ripoffs you'd see from Italy or wherever at the time, and he carries himself better than Neil Connery or whoever, but it's a low bar. He is good in the fight scenes, I'll give him that.
I guess I'd have ranked him above Nelson just because the film carries him to some extent, but I could never put Niven's name above him because y'know: David Niven. The man was a legend.
I think it’s actually when he’s doing less that he excels. The final scene is actually an example. From what I understand he wanted to cry for it, and Hunt told him no, James Bond doesn’t cry. Actually, Hunt was right in his own way! The moment is one of shock on Bond’s part, to the point he’s even trying to deny to himself Tracy is dead (‘she’s just having a rest’.) That’s what made the moment in the novel so tragic, and it’s the same here. Seeing Bond holding back tears in this moment was more impactful. Even if Lazenby could cry convincingly onscreen (and let’s be honest, he’s no Sean Connery or Daniel Craig) it would have been the wrong choice.
Anyway, a very strange, even contradictory Bond performance.
Lazenby ranges from wooden, to doing a bang up job. And everything in between. But most of all, Lazenby was the human Bond. And for that, I'm grateful. A good Bond in an outstanding film.
Laz, my man, I salute you for having the balls to go and get the Bond role. Isn't that the dream of all of us?
Truth is, I like him as Bond. He was still very rough, sure, but he had room to improve in future films, and physically, he fit the role. I know it was his decision, but I wish he'd have stuck around a little longer...
The big problem there is that I wouldn't want to lose either the Moore era or the Brosnan era. I'm rather fond of both actors; I find them often unfairly maligned because of some of the less popular films they starred in. Honestly, though, that's not on them.
I would have been fine, however, with Lazenby doing at least one more after OHMSS, possibly bringing in elements from Fleming's YOLT, to round things off. In that fantasy, Lazenby would have had two films, more or less disconnected from the other films, more serious, dramatic, and to some extent faithful to Fleming. Sacrificing DAF for an OHMSS² film feels acceptable to me, no matter how much I love that outrageously silly Connery movie.
Dalton could be easier. No sacrifices needed. Another film in '91 and then another in '93. Tim looked great in '91:
I think he could easily have continued playing Bond until the early 21st century. Then again, I'm glad we got Brosnan as well.