George Lazenby's Acting Gets a Bad Rap

Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
I originally wrote this to answer another thread, but I soon realized I had a lot more to say than I thought.

I do not buy into the idea that Lazenby is at best a mediocre actor, though that is often said by fans and critics alike. His acting is fine. What hurts his performance as Bond is a combination of dubbing, quick editing, and Peter Hunt's decision to usually film Lazenby in oblique ways, except in the most emotional scenes.

Watch the earlier Connery Bonds. The camera seems there to love on him, and there are countless closeups, medium shots, and longer shots where Connery is fully in frame, nicely lit, and carefully made up. Connery is the star, and all of the directors treat him as though the audience is there to see him and not just Bond.

In contrast, Lazenby is often filmed from behind, slightly over the shoulder, in profile, or in motion in ways that obscure his expressions. The quick editing frequently reduces the amount of time we can actually watch what he is doing as an actor. The shots are often tight and at angles. The lighting is dark and moody.

I don't believe this was done to conceal Lazenby's limited talent. Instead, Hunt sought to create a Bond film that didn't quite act or look like the ones before it, and he's clearly interested in fast editing and a kind of hybrid classic film and New Wave approach. He was trying to make a film more than a movie, if that makes sense. That's one of the reasons his film doesn't seem quite as dated as, say, YOLT, which is so clearly rooted in the technicolor 1960s. This approach would become common later.

I think Hunt also tried to reserve the "full on" shots of Lazenby for scenes where he thought the emotions were most important -- Lazenby's confrontation with M, his waiting to be caught scene at the Christmas pageant, his proposal to Tracy in the barn. Prior to that, we frequently get what amounts to mostly glimpses of Lazenby or quick shots of him with a single expression.

I'm not saying Lazenby is a stunning actor. I'm saying he's a better actor than he's given credit for. And given his relative inexperience, I think he would have gotten much better if a director had worked with him more. In other words, Lazenby needed a Terrance Young or a Guy Hamilton more than a Peter Hunt. And while this is not a slam against Hunt, it's clear that Lazenby wasn't the only one-off involved with the Bond franchise. But even Cy Endfield's rambling, low-budget approach in the mostly cretinous Universal Soldier treats Lazenby as the star, and shows that he can be a relaxed, dominating presence in a scene if the camera lets the actor be the focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iqMgiqjTkA.

A good director can make or break an actor's career. The better directors not only know the range of the actors but also how to film them in flattering ways, capitalizing on their strengths. But a director who is less focused on the actor and more on the film may overlook opportunities to let the actor shine. The best directors -- Hitchcock, for instance -- understand how to do both.
«1

Comments

  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    It was his first full Length Film, so Critics will always pick up on that.
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,057Chief of Staff
    Good post, Gassy, as ever.

    OHMSS wasn't just Lazenby's first film as an actor, but Hunt's first as a director. Unlike most directors, who get the chance to cut their teeth on a low-budget production, he was thrown in (willingly, of course- he'd accepted 2nd unit chores on YOLT in lieu of the top job at that point) to the deep end on a multi-million, highly-promoted, very visible epic and the pressure was enormous. His handling of Lazenby could be seen as a form of insurance for the film, and his cutting style as an extension of his editorial style as perfected over the previous Bonds.

    There are some actors/actresses the camera seems to love, and Connery is certainly one of them. Hunt could not have known if the same would be true of Lazenby.
  • stagstag Posts: 2,083MI6 Agent
    Great thread. I have enjoyed reading the posts thus far. From my own POV I feel that the viewer could see Lazenby somehow settle & relax into the role over the course of the film. I Don't know if It's just me though as the thing wouldn't have been shot in sequence.

    GL remains one of my top three Bonds.
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    With a few more Outings, Audiences would have taken to Lazenby a bit more. But he could never fully replace Connery in there Eyes, no matter how hard he tried.
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I always thought Lazenby did a great job in OHMSS. -{ I've never had
    A problem with his acting, it's my favourite film ! :D
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    Mine too -{
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • The Red KindThe Red Kind EnglandPosts: 3,119MI6 Agent
    I love OHMSS and can't see too much wrong with the direction or acting. Other more experienced directors made a much worse job of later Bond films IMHO.
    "Any of the opposition around..?"
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    Would it have been even better if Dalton had done it?
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,057Chief of Staff
    As Dalton himself said, he'd have been too young at the time.
  • The Red KindThe Red Kind EnglandPosts: 3,119MI6 Agent
    Perhaps I just look at it with rose coloured spectacles but for me Lazenby fits just right in that film.
    "Any of the opposition around..?"
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    1+ -{
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    I know we all like to think what if ? But I honestly can't see another
    Bond in that film. ;)
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • BIG TAMBIG TAM Wrexham, North Wales, UK.Posts: 773MI6 Agent
    Lazenby gets a bad rap for OHMSS. It's lazy criticism, frankly. He's a non-actor playing a high profile role who is on screen for roughly 99% of the time. Given the huge production he's expected to lead I think he can be forgiven for the odd bit of wooden line reading. Frankly, it's astonishing he's as good as he is. My only gripe is the odd bit of unnecessary overdubbing which is down to the director anyway.
    And overdubbing aside, I think Peter Hunt does a great job, too. He brings a style & elegance that puts the film streets ahead over other Bonds visually.
  • Absolutely_CartAbsolutely_Cart NJ/NYC, United StatesPosts: 1,740MI6 Agent
    Agree that Lazenby was better than given credit for. He was the right man at the right time. Extremely lucky to get the part and fortunate to be casted for the right movie. I agree that the directing allowed the viewer more intimate moments with Connery than Lazenby, and that's part of Connery's charm.

    Some people come into your life and really help you out, but are only good for that moment and you have to part ways afterwards. That's what Lazenby was to Eon.
  • 75vette75vette South Outer BanksPosts: 82MI6 Agent
    BIG TAM wrote:
    And overdubbing aside, I think Peter Hunt does a great job, too. He brings a style & elegance that puts the film streets ahead over other Bonds visually.

    Preface to say, I'm a fan of OHMSS. While not a fan of Lazenby, per se, I think he did as good as can be expected given this was his debut, his young age, etc. But I think Big Tam hits the nail on the head in his appraisal of Hunt's contribution. I've often wondered how much I would care for the film had the visual aspects and locations been more in line with the films which bookend it. Each time I come away thinking we owe Hunt a heartfelt, "Well done." I've come to believe he is as primary a reason as any that OHMSS is in my top five.
  • Moore ThanMoore Than EnglandPosts: 3,173MI6 Agent
    75vette wrote:
    While not a fan of Lazenby, per se, I think he did as good as can be expected given this was his debut, his young age, etc.

    Indeed, given the circumstances George Lazenby acted about as well as could be expected. Perhaps, another director would have got a bit more from him. With more films he almost certainly would have improved.

    I do admire Lazenby for the way he went after the role, what cojones.
    Moore Not Less 4371 posts (2002 - 2007) Moore Than (2012 - 2016)
  • 75vette75vette South Outer BanksPosts: 82MI6 Agent
    Moore Than wrote:
    I do admire Lazenby for the way he went after the role, what cojones.

    Eager, he is! Though most others seem to disagree, I actually liked his tongue-in-cheek reference to Connery, too :)
  • SpoffSpoff Posts: 244MI6 Agent
    I understand where you are coming from with the obscured direction, cinematography and editing on this, I felt it too when I watched OHMSS. Particularly in the PTS, I was like "will you just show him ffs!"

    GL does get a bad rap, and I think he did very well considering the shoes he had to fill, he took the role on when everyone else saw following Connery as "career suicide" .

    That being said, I liked his performance, but I did not feel he had the presence to carry a Bond film as the star, it does fall down in places because of him.

    But he did the best he could, and OHMSS is a good film.
  • BlackleiterBlackleiter Washington, DCPosts: 5,615MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:

    I'm not saying Lazenby is a stunning actor. I'm saying he's a better actor than he's given credit for. And given his relative inexperience, I think he would have gotten much better if a director had worked with him more. In other words, Lazenby needed a Terrance Young or a Guy Hamilton more than a Peter Hunt. And while this is not a slam against Hunt, it's clear that Lazenby wasn't the only one-off involved with the Bond franchise.

    I agree with that assessment. -{
    "Felix Leiter, a brother from Langley."
  • CmdrAtticusCmdrAtticus United StatesPosts: 1,102MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    I originally wrote this to answer another thread, but I soon realized I had a lot more to say than I thought.

    I do not buy into the idea that Lazenby is at best a mediocre actor, though that is often said by fans and critics alike. His acting is fine. What hurts his performance as Bond is a combination of dubbing, quick editing, and Peter Hunt's decision to usually film Lazenby in oblique ways, except in the most emotional scenes.

    Watch the earlier Connery Bonds. The camera seems there to love on him, and there are countless closeups, medium shots, and longer shots where Connery is fully in frame, nicely lit, and carefully made up. Connery is the star, and all of the directors treat him as though the audience is there to see him and not just Bond.

    In contrast, Lazenby is often filmed from behind, slightly over the shoulder, in profile, or in motion in ways that obscure his expressions. The quick editing frequently reduces the amount of time we can actually watch what he is doing as an actor. The shots are often tight and at angles. The lighting is dark and moody.

    I don't believe this was done to conceal Lazenby's limited talent. Instead, Hunt sought to create a Bond film that didn't quite act or look like the ones before it, and he's clearly interested in fast editing and a kind of hybrid classic film and New Wave approach. He was trying to make a film more than a movie, if that makes sense. That's one of the reasons his film doesn't seem quite as dated as, say, YOLT, which is so clearly rooted in the technicolor 1960s. This approach would become common later.

    I think Hunt also tried to reserve the "full on" shots of Lazenby for scenes where he thought the emotions were most important -- Lazenby's confrontation with M, his waiting to be caught scene at the Christmas pageant, his proposal to Tracy in the barn. Prior to that, we frequently get what amounts to mostly glimpses of Lazenby or quick shots of him with a single expression.

    I'm not saying Lazenby is a stunning actor. I'm saying he's a better actor than he's given credit for. And given his relative inexperience, I think he would have gotten much better if a director had worked with him more. In other words, Lazenby needed a Terrance Young or a Guy Hamilton more than a Peter Hunt. And while this is not a slam against Hunt, it's clear that Lazenby wasn't the only one-off involved with the Bond franchise. But even Cy Endfield's rambling, low-budget approach in the mostly cretinous Universal Soldier treats Lazenby as the star, and shows that he can be a relaxed, dominating presence in a scene if the camera lets the actor be the focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iqMgiqjTkA.

    A good director can make or break an actor's career. The better directors not only know the range of the actors but also how to film them in flattering ways, capitalizing on their strengths. But a director who is less focused on the actor and more on the film may overlook opportunities to let the actor shine. The best directors -- Hitchcock, for instance -- understand how to do both.

    +1.
    Great job on explaining OHMSS and Hunt's influence on Lazenby's performance.
    I also agree with others on the dubbing in the film. I really believe that was done because GL had to perform extensive dialogue scenes as Bray and Hunt probably thought Lazenby's accent would have been too noticeable. I actually wish GL could have re-dubbed the DVD versions with his own voice to correct the error, but EON would never allow it because it would come across as an outright admittance of Hunt's bad decision.
  • SpoffSpoff Posts: 244MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    I originally wrote this to answer another thread, but I soon realized I had a lot more to say than I thought.

    I do not buy into the idea that Lazenby is at best a mediocre actor, though that is often said by fans and critics alike. His acting is fine. What hurts his performance as Bond is a combination of dubbing, quick editing, and Peter Hunt's decision to usually film Lazenby in oblique ways, except in the most emotional scenes.

    Watch the earlier Connery Bonds. The camera seems there to love on him, and there are countless closeups, medium shots, and longer shots where Connery is fully in frame, nicely lit, and carefully made up. Connery is the star, and all of the directors treat him as though the audience is there to see him and not just Bond.

    In contrast, Lazenby is often filmed from behind, slightly over the shoulder, in profile, or in motion in ways that obscure his expressions. The quick editing frequently reduces the amount of time we can actually watch what he is doing as an actor. The shots are often tight and at angles. The lighting is dark and moody.

    I don't believe this was done to conceal Lazenby's limited talent. Instead, Hunt sought to create a Bond film that didn't quite act or look like the ones before it, and he's clearly interested in fast editing and a kind of hybrid classic film and New Wave approach. He was trying to make a film more than a movie, if that makes sense. That's one of the reasons his film doesn't seem quite as dated as, say, YOLT, which is so clearly rooted in the technicolor 1960s. This approach would become common later.

    I think Hunt also tried to reserve the "full on" shots of Lazenby for scenes where he thought the emotions were most important -- Lazenby's confrontation with M, his waiting to be caught scene at the Christmas pageant, his proposal to Tracy in the barn. Prior to that, we frequently get what amounts to mostly glimpses of Lazenby or quick shots of him with a single expression.

    I'm not saying Lazenby is a stunning actor. I'm saying he's a better actor than he's given credit for. And given his relative inexperience, I think he would have gotten much better if a director had worked with him more. In other words, Lazenby needed a Terrance Young or a Guy Hamilton more than a Peter Hunt. And while this is not a slam against Hunt, it's clear that Lazenby wasn't the only one-off involved with the Bond franchise. But even Cy Endfield's rambling, low-budget approach in the mostly cretinous Universal Soldier treats Lazenby as the star, and shows that he can be a relaxed, dominating presence in a scene if the camera lets the actor be the focus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iqMgiqjTkA.

    A good director can make or break an actor's career. The better directors not only know the range of the actors but also how to film them in flattering ways, capitalizing on their strengths. But a director who is less focused on the actor and more on the film may overlook opportunities to let the actor shine. The best directors -- Hitchcock, for instance -- understand how to do both.

    +1.
    Great job on explaining OHMSS and Hunt's influence on Lazenby's performance.
    I also agree with others on the dubbing in the film. I really believe that was done because GL had to perform extensive dialogue scenes as Bray and Hunt probably thought Lazenby's accent would have been too noticeable. I actually wish GL could have re-dubbed the DVD versions with his own voice to correct the error, but EON would never allow it because it would come across as an outright admittance of Hunt's bad decision.

    So we don't actually hear GL's voice in any of this film then? if that's true then they picked a bloke with a horrible voice to dub it. Bonds voice was the thing I disliked the most when I watched it.
  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,057Chief of Staff
    No, we do hear GL's voice except when he's impersonating Sir Hilary Bray (when he's dubbed by George Baker, the actor playing the real Sir Hilary).
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    Lazenby could also throw quite a Punch -{
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Agreed, I thought Lazenby moved very naturally in the fight scenes. -{
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • The Red KindThe Red Kind EnglandPosts: 3,119MI6 Agent
    Most Aussies enjoy a ruck. I imagine he felt at his most comfortable during the fight scenes.
    "Any of the opposition around..?"
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    :) I do remember in an interview he mentioned he got in to fights
    Most weekends in Australia. :D
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
  • AlphaOmegaSinAlphaOmegaSin EnglandPosts: 10,924MI6 Agent
    I think that's a National Past Time Down under :))
    1.On Her Majesties Secret Service 2.The Living Daylights 3.license To Kill 4.The Spy Who Loved Me 5.Goldfinger
  • Absolutely_CartAbsolutely_Cart NJ/NYC, United StatesPosts: 1,740MI6 Agent
    Sir Hilary Brey is my favorite James Bond disguise ever. It was hilarious.
  • The Red KindThe Red Kind EnglandPosts: 3,119MI6 Agent
    His disguise on the streets of Harlem in LALD always makes me chuckle :))
    "Any of the opposition around..?"
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy Behind you !Posts: 63,792MI6 Agent
    Standard effect in movies, especially "Superhero", slip on a pair of glasses, and no one knows who you are ! :))
    "I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Sign In or Register to comment.