15 replies to this topic

[killkenny kid]

My 300th post and I can not believe its about George Lazenby. Late nite I had the opportunity to see OHMSS in a theater. As a 47 year old man. Not as a 13 year old who missed Connery. Or as a 17 year old who still missed Connery, as I did in my youth. I see Lazenby in a different light now. Yes I know he wasn't a skilled actor. And he was a little stiff in some scenes. But, I now also see how his ego and arrogances infused a freshness that the series needed at the time. I now see the last moments of the movie differently. I now feel the emotions of his last scenes with Moneypenny. I now see that Lazenby did had some screen pressence in this movie.

I don't know the real truth about what happened back then. Ego, arrogance, conflict with the producers or friction with Diana Rigg. Who really knows? But, what I do know is Lazenby was a young man. He was thrust into a major film series, that carried a lot of baggage, He was proceed by Connery. And the eyes of the world was on him. And he held his own. So, looking back at what happened with the Bond series and Lazenby career. He took a gamble. It took a lot of guts to walk away. He can now say "This never happened to any other fella." He will be rememebered as the man who played Bond once. So, tonite thevodka martini is to you GL.

[Icephoenix]

Hear Hear!

[Bond111]

Well said, killkenny kid. I agree with it 100%. I think the reason so many hate OHMSS is because their first memory is that it will be terrible because it doesn't have Connery. And I think that ruined how many people looked at it. Instead they looked at it in a jaded way. Now the reason many dislike it years later, I believe, is they have never attempted to re- their opinion, which is a grave mistake.

I've said it many times before: OHMSS is my favorite Bond movie. Yes, Lazenby was inexperienced. Yes, it wasn't the same as Connery's Bonds. But that's what sets it apart for me. It works great as a sort of special Bond. Sure, you could count those as cons, but look at all the pros (of course they are all in my opinion, but I think most will agree):

Great steady action that's exciting
One of John Barry's best scores
Beautiful locations
Interesting storyline
Well developed characters
Plenty of eye candy
And it is the closest to a 'Fleming movie' that we will ever get

For all of those who hate this movie, I URGE you to look at it with different eyes, like you are seeing it for the first time. Just give a great film a chance.

[Turn]

George Lazenby could have either been remembered as the Fry's Chocolates guy or as James Bond for one movie. Make that a classic James Bond movie. I think he now knows his place in pop culture history.

Now if just everybody else would give the man his props.

[Jaelle]

I hate to add just a "ditto" post but I couldn't agree more. I love OHMSS, it's tied with FRWL and TLD as my favorite Bond film. I think George is pretty damned good in the film, and he looks FABULOUS in a kilt!

[BONDFINESSE 007]

well as one who does not like ohmss but watched it again last nite, this is the 6th time i have seen this film...(dont laugh, its true) the one thing that keeps going in my mind is oh why could we not have had connery in this movie, it would have been his best...but oh well we had to put up with george lazenby, who each time i watch this gets a little bit better, but to me the thing i dont like is blofeld being played by telly savales, to me he is not blofeld and thats to jaring for me to get around...not lazenby but in fact telly is what puts me off of this movie and i am glad i know where the blame lies for my coldness towards this film goes. maybe i have not watched it enough....but who knows in 10 years i might be saying how great it is.

why is there always one film that a bond fan has trouble with ? for me its ohmss

[ChandlerBing]

Lazenby did indeed have a lot of guts to jump in and play Bond when he did and to leave. Even Kubrick was quoted as telling him how admirable it was to walk away like he did. And when a more accomplished actor like Dalton shies away from the part back then because he was too scared of taking over for Connery, and for Lazenby to jump in like he did, that takes balls.

[Tarl_Cabot]

I think OHMSS wasn't meant for Sean unless it was early in his career. I think George was the right guy for it. Sean was too old and jaded and too much of a bastard to fall in love and get married! I just can't picture him in the film. I like George just fine.On the contrary to popluar sentiment, I wish he was in DAF and had encroached on Roger's era as well. I think he could have grown into a very popular Bond...

[Triton]

It's very clear that George Lazenby got the role because he wanted it more than anyone else. Through deliberate effort and manuevering, he was seen by Harry Saltzman and Cubby Broccoli and considered for the role. The man certainly had a large ego and guts and made the doors open for him.

The assumption of many people, including Raymond Benson in his book The James Bond Bedside Companion, is that On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been the best film in the series if Sean Connery had played the part of James Bond. But I think that this assumption is very wrong.

Director Peter Hunt's style was deliberately different than that of Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, or Lewis Gilbert and the tone of the film also makes it unique in the James Bond film series. Peter Hunt wanted this film to be as close to the original novel as possible as well. Peter Hunt's opinions also had a direct affect on other cast members, stunt men, and crew. I don't think that the film would have been much different if the James Bond role was portrayed by Sean Connery. On Her Majesty's Secret Service was an experiment that departed from the established James Bond formula. Even John Barry's musical score for the motion picture seems very different than the musical scores he created for the Sean Connery motion pictures.

Some fans are too quick to villify George Lazenby and blame him for the differences that we see in On Her Majesty's Secret Service. But I like his portrayal of James Bond and I think that it's a pity that for half the film his voice is dubbed by George Baker who plays Sir Hilary Bray. George's impersonation of Sir Hilary Bray that we get in the Special Edition documentary seems perfectly adequate. I don't know why the producers were so quick to dub out his voice.

I think that for the most part, fans are too quick to praise or condemn an actor for his portrayal of the James Bond character and attribute the success or failure of a James Bond film based on this portrayal. But this portrayal is a small part of the total content of the finished film and there are people in other jobs who also affect the tone and content of the film.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Triton
I don't think that the film would have been much different if the James Bond role was portrayed by Sean Connery.

I think it's to the films advantage it didn't star Connery at this point. He was bored with the part, aging, gaining weight and his hairpieces were getting worse.

Had the film been made after GF, then it would have been ideal, or maybe even after TB. The way it turned out as far as Bond history has gone, it worked out for the best.

[ChandlerBing]

Considering where Connery was in his life in 1969, it might have been interesting to see. Connery was an unhappy man, restless, in a bad relationship. Some people even tried to get him to run for Parliament that year. He also went back and did TV--I can't recall what, but I know he went back and did one. It might have been Male of the Species, or something like that, playing, well, a cad. I think he would have fit perfectly into the shoes of Bond in this movie because Bond was in sort of the same way at the beginning of OHMSS. Tired of chasing Blofeld. Tired of OHMSS. Then Diana Rigg/Tracy comes in and revitalizes his life. COnnery would have gotten a jazz from working off someone like Rigg. Connery's unhappiness would have likely contributed wonders to the role since that was what it called for.

[Bond111]

Yeah but can you imagine Connery doing Tracy's death scene. He's definately not the right person for scenes like that. This is one of the reasons I think Lazenby was mighty brave taking on the role of Bond with a new emotional side, and I can't picture anyone else doing that.

[ChandlerBing]

I just might be in the minority here, but I don't care. Yep, I can imagine Connery, actually. He can play loss well. Look at Last Crusade when he thinks Indiana is dead after the tank goes over the cliff.

[Jaelle]

Originally posted by ChandlerBing
Even Kubrick was quoted as telling him how admirable it was to walk away like he did.  And when a more accomplished actor like Dalton shies away from the part back then because he was too scared of taking over for Connery, and for Lazenby to jump in like he did, that takes balls.

Kubrick said that? Wow, that's interesting, I never heard that. Cool!

From Triton:

The assumption of many people, including Raymond Benson in his book The James Bond Bedside Companion, is that On Her Majesty's Secret Service would have been the best film in the series if Sean Connery had played the part of James Bond. But I think that this assumption is very wrong.

I agree with your essential point that the merit of a Bond film involves more than just the particular actor who plays Bond. But I also just can't see Sean playing Bond in this film. I can't see Sean's Bond falling in love, proposing and then reacting to Tracy's death openly as George did. It's not that Connery is incapable of showing grief. Chandler rightly pointed out Connery's grief as Indiana's father in The Last Crusade (I adore him in that movie). It's that *Sean's Bond*, the way he portrayed Bond, his *interpretation* of Bond, imo, precluded this kind of vulnerability and even innocence. George gives Bond a kind of innocence that's just not there in Sean's Bond, imo.

And I agree, it was stupid to dub George's voice. In so much of the film we hardly hear the real George speak.

From Turn:

I think it's to the films advantage it didn't star Connery at this point. He was bored with the part, aging, gaining weight and his hairpieces were getting worse.

I agree with you entirely about Connery's whole attitude and emotional state at this particular time in his life vis-a-vis his possible performance in OHMSS. Until just recently, I would also have agreed with you about his looks. But I was very surprised to see a photo of him from 1969 just yesterday in an out-of-print Bond book that I got recently. It's a photo from that year of Connery and Moore at a restaurant. Connery's head is almost all shaven. And he looks *very* good, not at all like what he looked in YOLT and DAF. He looks young and lively, and very handsome. Maybe it was just the toupee and the wrong suits in those films that made him look bad.

[Simon]

Originally posted by Jaelle
Maybe it was just the toupee and the wrong suits in those films that made him look bad.

Connery around the time of Russia and Gf would have benefitted OHMSS, but not Connery post YOLT. But you know what, I prefer it just the way it is. I have absolutely no problem with Lazenby in the film and to be honest, prefer him to Brosnan's portrayal.

Ref the looks, he did have to sport some dodgey toupees, some of them just looked knitted to his forehead, Th and YOLT in particular.

[Turn]

Originally posted by Jaelle
I agree with you entirely about Connery's whole attitude and emotional state at this particular time in his life vis-a-vis his possible performance in OHMSS.  Until just recently, I would also have agreed with you about his looks.  But I was very surprised to see a photo of him from 1969 just yesterday in an out-of-print Bond book that I got recently.  It's a photo from that year of Connery and Moore at a restaurant.  Connery's head is almost all shaven.  And he looks *very* good, not at all like what he looked in YOLT and DAF.  He looks young and lively, and very handsome.  Maybe it was just the toupee and the wrong suits in those films that made him look bad.

I think maybe I was leaning more toward DAF as far as that went. But in YOLT you could tell he had gained some weight. And I also saw that photo with Moore and agree he did look good. The beard does wonders for the guy.

Chandler, I did consider the same thing about Connery's emotional state at the time and how OHMSS could have revitalized his interest and all that. But I just don't think it could have worked. I associate him as the Bond who loves em and leaves em and OHMSS wouldn't befit his portrayal of the character at all. Lazenby, in this sense, made it more appropriate.