21 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

Anyone actually seen this? Incredibly interesting look into production problems in Lazenbys own words. Very very insightful.

Also...

"In spite of the critics, the film is a fantastic box office success. And in America Mr Lazenby himself has been voted the most promising newcomer of the year."

[Guy Haines]

Watching the bobslleigh and stock car scenes in black and white, for the first time in decades, reminded me of getting into the Bond series in the first place. We didn't have colour TV - not many people I knew locally did - but something about those scenes triggered my lifelong fascination with Bond. Thank you for putting this video on the site.

Observations; did GL and Peter Hunt get on? This video suggests not.Then again Lazenby says "they" a lot of the time, suggesting to me at least that it might have been more than just the director he had problems with, if at all.

Got on best with the film crew? I don't blame him. I've always tried to treat everyone I work with in whatever role with the utmost respect. A bit of Aussie egalitarianism there?

I can understand GL's reasoning when it came to the US tour. He's GL, playing JB. Not the same person. However, the producers had a film to promote. Maybe GL thought the beard and the hairstyle (not short back and sides, but not overlength hippy) would resonate with the changing audience in the early 1970s - but if this is right Messrs. Salzman and Broccoli didn't exactly agree. I can't help thinking though that an official promotional tour in which the leading lady is the star rather than Bond would straight away signal that something wasn't quite right.

Finally, GL's comment about music. John Barry scored the "will you marry me?" scene perfectly imho, and the return of that orchestral cue when Tracy is assassinated is all too apt. I think Lazenby was mistaken to want "pop" music instead of, as he put it "light". John Barry knew exactly how to score the film, and did it brilliantly.

[New Digs]

Lazenby had quit 007 by this point. His belief that Bond was finished and a remnant of the sixties is all over this interview. It explains his decision to deny himself a paid US tour on the basis of not shaving off a beard but then going under his own steam anyway: he was obviously reluctant to associate too closely with Bond and the set image. Must have drove Broccoli & Saltzman bananas. Still, guess he was just doing what he thought was right at the time for him and his career. 

[Simon]

Fair play to the guy.

 

I do think he interviews well.  Even in 1970, it appears he had learned his lesson and got it all into a Life Perspective.  At the end of the day, he was only 29 when he played Bond, and 31 when he interviewed for this piece.  It is a lot to handle for anyone of any age, never mind for a chap of so few years.

 

For me, his was the best all round Bond and his is one of life's greatest missed opportunities.  That said, if his confidence / arrogance is what got him the part and allowed him to play it so well in the first place, it was this same character that removed him so swiftly from said part.  School of hard knocks.

[Guy Haines]

I don't think George Lazenby's problem with Bond was down to lack of maturity. After all, his predecessor, Sean Connery, was only in his early thirties when he took on the role of Bond in 1962.

Reputedly GL had been badly advised by someone - friend, mentor, guru? - that the Bond era was drawing to a close, if not already over. And others may have worried that that was the case also - look at how the studio, rather than casting another fresh face as Bond for DAF in the end plumped for Sean Connery again. A worry there that only the familiar face of SC could draw audiences back?

When you think of the efforts GL made to land the role, above and beyond just the normal audition process, it does seem sad that it all ended the way it did.

[Emrayfo]

Thanks DamnCoffee for sharing that – very interesting and one I hadn’t seen before.

 

Also - well said Guy Haines, New Digs and Simon: you all make excellent observations and I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

 

I've always had a soft spot for ol' George. He was an excellent Bond IMO with the potential to become one of the best had he stuck around and matured in the role, and had scripts crafted for him. Yet OHMSS is easily one of the best films thanks to or despite all the disparate and warring components: the cast, crew, composer, director, editing and production team somehow together produced a high quality and notable contribution to the canon. Beyond the intrinsic qualities of OHMSS, what makes the film and Lazenby’s performance so memorable to me is the melancholic knowledge that it would end there, despite the promise.

 

I think if Lazenby had had at least one, hopefully two more, then it would have helped to re-set the tone of what a Bond film is. Then early-Connery together with the Lazenby, Dalton and Craig eras would have been seen as the norm for what a Bond film is rather than later-Connery together with the Moore and Brosnan eras. The former grouping tending more to the realistic and the latter tending more to the fantastic and cartoon. I still hear a lot of folk weaned on the latter group complaining regularly of the ‘departure from formula’ in the Craig films. I personally make a distinction between the judicious use of what I call the ‘signature elements’ of a Bond film versus a slavish devotion to a ‘formula’, which basically means ‘lazy and hackneyed’. In my view FRWL, OHMSS, TLD and Skyfall (to pick one from each era of the first group) all deploy the signature elements of Bond without devolving to or relying completely upon formula. Unfortunately formula is all some people want, and that’s okay I guess. But I prefer something more.   

 

Arguably, a longer Lazenby tenure would have made Dalton's turn at the wheel a much easier and natural transition from the OTT Moore years. Or not. That's the fun of "what ifs".

 

Now that I have gotten firmly off-track, back to the topic of the interview above:

Lazenby was not blameless, and he made some poor choices which he in later years has openly regretted. But I think it is also clear, from this interview and other sources I have come across, that he was somewhat justified in feeling he was being treated not particularly well – as just the ‘hired help’ – and basically kept in the dark as to the process etc. It is inconceivable to think that nowadays a tyro male lead would be kept in the dark as to the filming and film promotion process and basically left to their own devices – especially for such a major property as Bond. No doubt Saltzman and Broccoli learned as much from the OHMSS experience and the mistakes they made as Lazenby did. Could it be that Peter Hunt was also partly outside his comfort zone too, as he was directing for the first time and trying to show Saltzman and Broccoli he could do it?

 

Lazenby was pigheaded with regard to refusing to shave for the promo tour, but then it seems EON were just as pigheaded, or more-so, basically cutting off their nose to spite their face! Promo tours are one of the things actors seem to complain about the most these days, but in the contemporary era it is usually written into their contracts, so thankfully the space for such shenanigans has been squeezed away.

 

What also becomes clear from this interview, and it seems genuine on his part and not revisionism, is that Lazenby actually went into the role not as a cipher for Connery – which the director and producers wanted to an extent, and understandably so – but with his own ideas as to the character and how he should be played, how he should present himself and how he should relate to people. A more thoughtful, reflective and humane Bond struggling with his flaws and his responsibilities. I think that makes Lazenby the proto-Dalton and proto-Craig in many ways.

 

Here's to you, George. Cheers!

[Guy Haines]

First thank you for your kind comments about my contributions here, Emrayfo.

OHMSS has always been a special film for me because it was the very first I saw, making George Lazenby my first James Bond.

Thinking about how the film was promoted - quite apart from what GL said himself about having to fund his own tour of the US - it's interesting to look at the film posters from the first Bond right up until the 1990s, when they weren't headed by the lines "Sean Connery/Roger Moore/Timothy Dalton as Ian Fleming's James Bond 007, in" ((Insert whichever Bond is applicable!)

Apart from the first film, and up until the advent of Pierce Brosnan as Bond, the only actor whose posters didn't feature his name "as James Bond" was George Lazenby. Certainly his image, on skis or surrounded by what appeared to be Blofeld's angels of death - plus Tracy herself - appeared. It could hardly be otherwise. But no great promotion of this new man as Bond. I wonder why?

Was it because there were already concerns before the film was released about whether audiences would accept anyone other than Connery? A not very subtle way of suggesting to an audience that it's still a Bond film, it doesn't matter who plays Bond? Was it a way of saying that the role is bigger than the actor playing it, and that Bond is the star of the film, not the actor?


Or was there a message for George Lazenby himself in the way he wasn't given automatic number one star billing?

Whatever the answer, it seems from this interview that GL wasn't entirely happy with the way he was "used" in the film. As I commented earlier, given the effort he put into landing the part, it is a pity things turned out as they did for him on a personal level.

[Simon]

I don't think George Lazenby's problem with Bond was down to lack of maturity. After all, his predecessor, Sean Connery, was only in his early thirties when he took on the role of Bond in 1962.

 

But, with respect, James Bond was not a big deal and with no baggage at the point Connery took it on.

 

Yes it was a success, but Connery had by then done a few films and the success took off gradually, albeit in a rather steep curve.

 

Lazenby was taking over from The Man.  Success and, thereby, expectations already stratospheric.

[Mr_Wint]

Apart from the first film, and up until the advent of Pierce Brosnan as Bond, the only actor whose posters didn't feature his name "as James Bond" was George Lazenby. Certainly his image, on skis or surrounded by what appeared to be Blofeld's angels of death - plus Tracy herself - appeared. It could hardly be otherwise. But no great promotion of this new man as Bond. I wonder why?

George Lazenby wasn't a star so no reason to promote his name. But they didn't try to hide the fact that this was a NEW Bond.
Just look at the trailer which clearly emphasizes that this was a new actor in the role, and a whole new Bond.



The film clearly shows how far ahead everyone else EON was at that time. OHMSS is like a cookbook for "how to keep a franchise alive". They did a reboot long before the audience even knew what it was.

[Guy Haines]

It's true that Lazenby wasn't a star. By the same token neither was Sean Connery in 1962 - indeed James Bond wasn't a "star" then, except for a certain readership out there in the 1950s and early 1960s. There were no guarantees in 1962 that Bond on film would work, so no need to promote Connery.

But by 1969 the whole "Bond-mania" of the decade had shown that Bond was big box office, and I would have thought the producers and studio would want to emphasise that Bond is continuing with a new actor in the role. So why not "George Lazenby as James Bond in" as part of the poster? (We had "Timothy Dalton as James Bond" in his two movie posters - he is a renowned actor on stage and screen but when he became Bond wasn't a "film star").

And why send Diana Rigg on the official promotion in the USA but leave Lazenby to have to pay for his own.

Was the poster line because "James Bond" was the star and it didn't matter who played him? Could well have been - so why flash George Lazenby's name up in lights when it's Bond the audience are coming to see.

Anyway since the mid 1990s its all a bit academic, since I don't think any of the posters since GE have stated that "X as Ian Fleming's James Bond" before the film title. I guess they don't need to.

(And I wonder what Sean Connery's attitude was to the line "Sean Connery IS James Bond?" in the YOLT poster?)

[Turn]

Connery couldn't have been too happy with the "Sean Connery IS James Bond" marketing as that's exactly what he was trying to get away from. The fact he was quitting the role anyway probably didn't let it bother him too much.

 

I've read they came up with that line in response to Casino Royale '67 with its multiple Bonds and to establish this was the one true Bond.

[Guy Haines]

Which thinking about it makes sense - emphasising who the "real" Bond is, although up against a parody of a Bond movie in which lots of characters were calling themselves "James Bond" including ones who clearly aren't, I do wonder why the Eon team bothered. It wouldn't take a perceptive member of the audience too long to work out the CR67 was not your typical Bond film, I'd have thought.

Funny how they didn't repeat this line with Roger Moore when OP was released, knowing as the producers did that Sean Connery would be back the same year in NSNA. Granted the OP score emphasised the Monty Norman theme a bit more than usual, but apart from that not much beyond typical promotion of the film. Maybe after two decades of Bond they didn't see it as too big a deal - or were resigned to taking a hit no matter what, In the end, of course OP was the overall box office winner.

 

Oddly enough I've just checked out one NSNA poster which says it again - Sean Connery Is James Bond. Trying to make out that the "real" Bond is on a different team from Eon?

[Simon]

Which thinking about it makes sense - emphasising who the "real" Bond is, although up against a parody of a Bond movie in which lots of characters were calling themselves "James Bond" including ones who clearly aren't, I do wonder why the Eon team bothered. It wouldn't take a perceptive member of the audience too long to work out the CR67 was not your typical Bond film, I'd have thought.

 

I would imagine it comes down to precedent.

 

Let one of 'em off the hook, and the gates are thus opened.  It is probably all about discouragement.

[David_M]

 

 

Funny how they didn't repeat this line with Roger Moore when OP was released, knowing as the producers did that Sean Connery would be back the same year in NSNA. 

 

I think they just didn't want to dignify NSNA with even an oblique reference to its existence.  They may have talked and fretted about it constantly behind the scenes, but officially it was beneath their notice.

 

Plus they probably learned their lesson with YOLT and figured it wouldn't be too smart to say "Roger Moore IS Bond" when one of two things was guaranteed to happen: either they'd be trying to promote a new actor in the role in two year's time and undo the all marketing they just spent a fortune on, or else they'd be trying to woo Roger back, in which case he could use that kind of tagline as proof he was worth more money.

 

As far as NSNA, they'd have been crazy not to say "Connery IS Bond," since that's pretty much the #1 (and 2, and 3, and 4...) thing the film has going for it.  A more honest but too-long-to-be-catchy tagline would have been, "Even a crummy Bond movie with Sean Connery is better than a good one with someone else!"  

[Trevelyan 006]

A few sides notes here from me, friends:

 

- George always looks like a totally different person with a beard. 

 

- I want to watch all of Connery's Bond films in black and white.

[DamnCoffee]

A few sides notes here from me, friends:

 

- George always looks like a totally different person with a beard. 

 

- I want to watch all of Connery's Bond films in black and white.

 

 

Seconded. If Bond did start out in Black and White I can totally see Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger being the ones in question and then Thunderball taking the plunge with widescreen technicolor. I could imagine that being incredible at the time. If it where the case. 

[Emrayfo]

 

Seconded. If Bond did start out in Black and White I can totally see Dr No, From Russia With Love and Goldfinger being the ones in question and then Thunderball taking the plunge with widescreen technicolor. I could imagine that being incredible at the time. If it where the case. 

 

 

Do you mean imagine the films prior to TB being filmed in B&W and then TB being in colour, basically exactly as it already is? And that would be incredible? That makes no sense. 

[DamnCoffee]

I was talking about at the time. If the first three were in B&W and Thunderball didn't only mark the transition to widecreen in the series, but colour as well, then I expect it would be pretty remarkable and magical at the time.

[FlemingBond]

that's funny they didn't let him go because of the beard. i just coincidentally saw a Roger Moore hosted event for Moonraker in 1979 and Roger had....a beard.

[David_M]

Roger had the beard because he was filming "ffolkes" (as it was called here in the States), and couldn't reasonably be expected to sabotage that production just to promote MR.  

 

Lazenby, I presume, grew his beard out of personal choice, and supplemented it with long hair.  He definitely had a "hippie" vibe going that ran counter to the "Bond" image Eon was trying to promote.  Note Roger at least showed up in a tux...for all anyone knew, Lazenby would've come in a dashiki and flip-flops.  I definitely get the impression he was a "loose cannon" in the eyes of the producers, and keeping him away from the promotional tour was a question of risk management. 

[FlemingBond]

oh i know Roger was filming, and it was the end of the 70s so beards were more accepted. just something  i noticed today.

[David_M]

For the record, I think Laz looked a lot better with a beard than Rog did.  But I did love that movie.