What am I missing?

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

I want to be very careful not to turn this thread into a bitch and moan thread on my part, because I genuinely am trying to understand other Bond fans' points of view in regards to OHMSS and Lazenby, and I currently don't. I will explain my problems with both, but I'm really not trying to start an argument here. I want to lay out why neither OHMSS nor Lazenby have ever appealed to me, and hopefully the many fans of both on these boards can help explain what I'm missing. Or, at the very least, I can start to "get" the pro-OHMSS and pro-Lazenby point of view. I understand the views of the pro and anti Craig camps, even though I'm in the anti camp. I understand both Dalton lovers and Dalton haters (I'm somewhere in the middle on that one, as I am in the pro/anti Moore debate). Much as I like Brosnan, I can completely understand why some people loathe him and think him to be at best barely adequate. As boring as I find TB, I understand why some people love it, because I did myself when I was about 14 or so. But I do not understand the adulation Lazenby and his film receive here and on all Bond fan sites. It doesn't help that OHMSS is the only Fleming book (other than CR) that I don't enjoy reading, but that can't be the whole issue. Here are my problems with Lazenby and with OHMSS. I will use bullet points to try to be succient and to avoid my usual verbosity:

Lazenby

• He looks more like an Australian larrikan than a secret agent. Even in the gunbarrel he ambles about ridiculously. He looks overly large and harmless.

.

And he punches like a girl, often swinging his arm like an amateur tennis player.

He occasionally moves well, and during the shot of him in his office looking out a window near the end, he actually looks mature and very Bond-like, but that is the only shot where he convinces.

I think of OHMSS as a movie about somebody other than Bond. Call him 0011 maybe.

Sharky wrote:

M: "You look like hell. When's the last time you slept?"

trevanian wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

I want to be very careful not to turn this thread into a bitch and moan thread on my part, because I genuinely am trying to understand other Bond fans' points of view in regards to OHMSS and Lazenby, and I currently don't. I will explain my problems with both, but I'm really not trying to start an argument here. I want to lay out why neither OHMSS nor Lazenby have ever appealed to me, and hopefully the many fans of both on these boards can help explain what I'm missing. Or, at the very least, I can start to "get" the pro-OHMSS and pro-Lazenby point of view. I understand the views of the pro and anti Craig camps, even though I'm in the anti camp. I understand both Dalton lovers and Dalton haters (I'm somewhere in the middle on that one, as I am in the pro/anti Moore debate). Much as I like Brosnan, I can completely understand why some people loathe him and think him to be at best barely adequate. As boring as I find TB, I understand why some people love it, because I did myself when I was about 14 or so. But I do not understand the adulation Lazenby and his film receive here and on all Bond fan sites. It doesn't help that OHMSS is the only Fleming book (other than CR) that I don't enjoy reading, but that can't be the whole issue. Here are my problems with Lazenby and with OHMSS. I will use bullet points to try to be succient and to avoid my usual verbosity:

Lazenby

• He looks more like an Australian larrikan than a secret agent. Even in the gunbarrel he ambles about ridiculously. He looks overly large and harmless.

.

And he punches like a girl, often swinging his arm like an amateur tennis player.

He occasionally moves well, and during the shot of him in his office looking out a window near the end, he actually looks mature and very Bond-like, but that is the only shot where he convinces.

I think of OHMSS as a movie about somebody other than Bond. Call him 0011 maybe.

This is a good expansion of my reservations about Lazenby, trevanian. I do think that the producers served Lazenby very poorly by making him do OHMSS as his first movie. Connery and Moore (the two most successful Bonds in terms of popular opinion and longevity) got action laden non-character pieces in DN and LALD. But when Cubby and Harry cast a male model as Bond, they throw him into the most personal of all Bond stories. I view their decision as an act of hubris - they were desperate to show they could do fine without Connery, and it backfired on them, since they had to get Connery back in the end anyway.

So, I've always been willing to try to imagine Connery, Moore or Dalton (the only other Bond actors the right age) in OHMSS, and Lazenby in any one of Connery, Moore or Dalton's movies. Unfortunately, Lazenby's comes off poorly in my thought experiment. I think Connery would have done well in OHMSS, and that Moore and especially Dalton would have been masterful. And I can't think of any Connery/Moore/Dalton films that would be improved for me by Lazenby's presence. Connery is the best part of the otherwise tedious TB, Moore is plenty funny in the otherwise tonally confused TSWLM. I also can't see Lazenby improving AVTAK or LTK (by contrast, Dalton could have charged AVTAK with some energy, and Moore - not the 62 year old Moore in real life, but Moore when he was younger - could have provided some much needed humor had he been forced kicking and screaming to be in LTK).*

*EDIT - I'm using my four least favorite Connery/Moore/Dalton films as examples. I'm not trying to start a debate about any of them. I am aware of how beloved TB is by most people. Since I find it tedious, I tried to see if Lazenby would improve the film. He wouldn't, IMO. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else can think of Connery/Moore/Dalton films they think woul be improved by having Lazenby in them, and why they think that.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

See, I can do the same thing - like each for its own merits, without having to choose one over the other.

However, overall I prefer OHMSS because it contains so much more class and original Fleming input. FYEO was trying too hard to be just like OHMSS and FRWL; OHMSS didn't have to try, it already was what it was.

AMC Hornet wrote:

But seriously, PM, everyone - Roger Moore included (see 'Crosspolt') - was wearing ruffled evening shirts in 1969. And when Sir Sean Connery wears a pleated dublet with his kilt, who calls him a 'frilly ponce'?

Get with the times - in this case, the late 1960s - and stop imposing 21st C sensibilities on such an insensible time.

I didn't call Lazenby a "frilly ponce" because of what he was wearing. I'm well aware that the costumes were a product of their time.

I called Lazenby - more specifically, his Bond - a "frilly ponce" because I saw him as the steretypical uptight dandy. His Bond was everything that Fleming's Bond was not.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I much prefer OHMSS to FYEO, but the latter is vastly more plausible than OHMSS.

See, I can do the same thing - like each for its own merits, without having to choose one over the other.

However, overall I prefer OHMSS because it contains so much more class and original Fleming input. FYEO was trying too hard to be just like OHMSS and FRWL; OHMSS didn't have to try, it already was what it was.

I can relate to both of you. OHMSS like most of the 60's and 70's Bond films had minor continuity issues but its a great Bond film. Practically flawless. George did a really nice job stepping in for Sean. I'd easily take it over FYEO which is not to knock the later film. OHMSS is just that good.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

AMC Hornet wrote:

But seriously, PM, everyone - Roger Moore included (see 'Crosspolt') - was wearing ruffled evening shirts in 1969. And when Sir Sean Connery wears a pleated dublet with his kilt, who calls him a 'frilly ponce'?

Get with the times - in this case, the late 1960s - and stop imposing 21st C sensibilities on such an insensible time.

I didn't call Lazenby a "frilly ponce" because of what he was wearing. I'm well aware that the costumes were a product of their time.

I called Lazenby - more specifically, his Bond - a "frilly ponce" because I saw him as the steretypical uptight dandy,

Examples?

Sharky wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

AMC Hornet wrote:

But seriously, PM, everyone - Roger Moore included (see 'Crosspolt') - was wearing ruffled evening shirts in 1969. And when Sir Sean Connery wears a pleated dublet with his kilt, who calls him a 'frilly ponce'?

Get with the times - in this case, the late 1960s - and stop imposing 21st C sensibilities on such an insensible time.

I didn't call Lazenby a "frilly ponce" because of what he was wearing. I'm well aware that the costumes were a product of their time.

I called Lazenby - more specifically, his Bond - a "frilly ponce" because I saw him as the steretypical uptight dandy,

Examples?

Yeah, really. I saw nothing of the dandy in Laz, and he certainly wasn't uptight. He was a bareknuckled Bond possessing a great deal of class and suavemente', in my view.

Laz was awesome. He moved like a cat and looked exactly like Bond.

...except in the scenes where he was impersonating Sir Hilary Bray, with George Baker's voice dubbed over. Then he was trying to pass as someone else less threatening ("Of course I know what he's allergic to"). Perhaps this was when PM perceives him as a ponce, which was how Bond wanted Blofeld to perceive him as well.

Moore had the same sort of cover identity as James St. John Smythe in AVTAK. Then we were supposed to recognize that he was acting up in order to convice Zorin to underestimate him (except that his performance wasn't much different from how he plays Bond anyway). Had Dalton done AVTAK, it might have been too soon to present himself as a silly-ass upper-class twit (unless he had an opportunity to drop the facade for a moment in the middle of the act and let his natural menace show through).

If you want to see ponce, try Peter Wyngarde as Jason King.

Argh, no...oh the horror, the horror.

Lazenby can't act and the writer's messed up Tracy's characterisation as a suicidal manic depressive with a largely tangential role in the plot by trying to involve her more. Rigg creates a great impression, but on the page it just doesn't add up. The 'Thy dawn' scene is a great piece of acting, but makes zero sense for the character. As you point out, is she supposed to be a mess or a tough and resourceful? In the novel she was reckless, not confident, and again, that stemmed from her desire to be involved in a car pile up.

And please spare the sacharinne 'Bond's love made her self-assured and confident in a situation where 99% of people would be shitting themselves' tripe.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Moore had the same sort of cover identity as James St. John Smythe in AVTAK. Then we were supposed to recognize that he was acting up in order to convice Zorin to underestimate him (except that his performance wasn't much different from how he plays Bond anyway).

Zinger!

AMC Hornet wrote:

...except in the scenes where he was impersonating Sir Hilary Bray, with George Baker's voice dubbed over. Then he was trying to pass as someone else less threatening ("Of course I know what he's allergic to"). Perhaps this was when PM perceives him as a ponce, which was how Bond wanted Blofeld to perceive him as well.

Moore had the same sort of cover identity as James St. John Smythe in AVTAK. Then we were supposed to recognize that he was acting up in order to convice Zorin to underestimate him (except that his performance wasn't much different from how he plays Bond anyway). Had Dalton done AVTAK, it might have been too soon to present himself as a silly-ass upper-class twit (unless he had an opportunity to drop the facade for a moment in the middle of the act and let his natural menace show through).

Hornet, your point about Dalton and AVTAK is an interesting one, and I think it's spotlights why I find Lazenby underwhelming. Dalton takes control of the role of Bond very quickly. When I did a Bondathon 18 months ago and watched all the films in order, it's amazing how quickly I forgot about Moore while I was watching TLD. By the time Dalton utters the title of the movie after helping Koskov "defect", the movie, and Bond, are his. I think that if Dalton had been able to have more than two movies, he might have leapfrogged Moore and Brosnan in my rankings, because he is a VERY strong actor.

So while I think bringing up Dalton and AVTAK is a great point, I think that, had Dalton started with AVTAK, he could have pulled off pretending to be a ponce at Chantilly. He took control of TLD within about 20 minutes, which is about how long it took Moore to arrive at Zorin's stables as "St. James Symthe". The more I think about it, the more I think this might have increased Dalton's longevity as Bond. Let him play Bond as dark if not darker than he did in TLD, but have him deliver goofy one-liners when he's pretending to be a foppish aristocrat. The two would have been obviously different, and it would have allowed Dalton's film to have had a fair amount of humor in it (which the audience expected after years of Moore) without making Dalton uncomfortably utter phrases like "salt corrosion".

And your point about AVTAK helps me articulate why Lazenby just doesn't work for me. He really doesn't have a strongly delineated character as Bond. With the other five Bond actors, it becomes pretty plain early into their introductory films what their personas as Bond are like. Moore and Dalton particularly set the tone for their tenures as Bond early on in their films. Lazenby doesn't go up to Piz Gloria until what, 45 minutes in OHMSS? And yet, I still don't have a firm grasp of who he is yet. So when he appears in a kilt and having George Baker say his lines for him, it's like I'm watching a different movie. Moore could be harder at times, and it was effective (parts of LALD and TMWTGG, FYEO, his lines to Orlov in OP). Dalton could laugh or show bursts of human emotion (his more romantic moments, finding Della and Felix dead and maimed, etc.). Both could violate their usual personas and not seem totally bizarre. Both in fact enriched their characterizations by playing a bit against type. It was good to know Moore could get angry or menancing, and it was good to know that Dalton had a heart. I think I see where Prisoner Monkeys is coming from, because when Lazenby pretends to be a ponce on Piz Gloria, he sort of becomes a ponce. It's not that Lazenby himself is a ponce, but since his characterization of Bond is so . . . sketchy might be the word . . . it's easy for his protrayal of "Hilly" (which benefits from Baker's marvelous line reading) to overtake his portrayal of Bond.

Of course, Sean, Roger, Tim et al are seasoned actors, capable of creating multi-level characters. Lazenby was a male model with precious little acting experience who was directed by Peter Hunt to "do it like Connery."

Naturally George couldn't deliver what Connery could, but Harry and Cubby were determined to find a replacement who had the same physical presence as Sean and to mold him in Sean's image. Only later (and as a result of this failed experiment) did they take the chance on letting their lead actor create a persona that was different from what Connery did.

So George was scrod both ways - incapable of and discouraged from creating his own take on the character, and lambasted by the fans for not being the 'real' James Bond. Plus, considering himself an instant movie star without having paid his dues made him difficult to work with, resulting in him scuttling his own career.

I so feel for him. By the time he became a legitimate professional actor, his star had already set and he was relegated to guest appearances on American action shows like The Master and B.J. and the Bear where he appeared in a tuxedo, driving an Aston Martin DB5 and spouting Michael Sloan's idea of Bondlike dialogue. (Actually, his appearance in The Return of the Man From UNCLE was the highlight of the show, despite their feeling it necessary to mention OHMSS for the sake of those among the lowest common denominator who still didn't get it.)

I love OHMSS. I watch it once a year in December and make an event of it with champagne, pate and caviar. My lady, who is also forgiving of amateur efforts, enjoys it too (but then, she even enjoys my turns on the stage, so taste is relative). As limited as George's acting chops were in 1969, I don't imagine that I could ever do as well, let alone better.

AMC Hornet wrote:

Of course, Sean, Roger, Tim et al are seasoned actors, capable of creating multi-level characters. Lazenby was a male model with precious little acting experience who was directed by Peter Hunt to "do it like Connery."

Naturally George couldn't deliver what Connery could, but Harry and Cubby were determined to find a replacement who had the same physical presence as Sean and to mold him in Sean's image. Only later (and as a result of this failed experiment) did they take the chance on letting their lead actor create a persona that was different from what Connery did.

So George was scrod both ways - incapable of and discouraged from creating his own take on the character, and lambasted by the fans for not being the 'real' James Bond. Plus, considering himself an instant movie star without having paid his dues made him difficult to work with, resulting in him scuttling his own career.

I so feel for him. By the time he became a legitimate professional actor, his star had already set and he was relegated to guest appearances on American action shows like The Master and B.J. and the Bear where he appeared in a tuxedo, driving an Aston Martin DB5 and spouting Michael Sloan's idea of Bondlike dialogue. (Actually, his appearance in The Return of the Man From UNCLE was the highlight of the show, despite their feeling it necessary to mention OHMSS for the sake of those among the lowest common denominator who still didn't get it.)

I love OHMSS. I watch it once a year in December and make an event of it with champagne, pate and caviar. My lady, who is also forgiving of amateur efforts, enjoys it too (but then, she even enjoys my turns on the stage, so taste is relative). As limited as George's acting chops were in 1969, I don't imagine that I could ever do as well, let alone better.

And I think that's as reasoned a defense of OHMSS as I've heard yet. I think, sadly, in the end, there's really nothing I'm missing about Lazenby or OHMSS. I simply see things as flawed about both that others tolerate or like. Which is fine. I'm glad to see a diversity of opinion about the film though. I dislike sacred cows, whether it's "this film sucks" or "you must like this film to be a 'real Bond fan'", both of which I've gotten on other forums.

Glad we could help.

I'll stumble in. I like OHMSS more than I like Lazenby. It's a tragedy that Lazenby did that film when something less dramatically-demanding like LALD would have suited him much better.

But he's pretty good when he's dubbed.

OHMSS breaks my rule that a Bond film can't be any better than the Bond actor's performance. For me the film succeeds on the strength of everything around Lazenby. I too am bewildered at his fandom. I think he had good qualities and potential, but he was matched with the worst possible story for his debut.

Vesper wrote:

Lazenby can't act and the writer's messed up Tracy's characterisation as a suicidal manic depressive with a largely tangential role in the plot by trying to involve her more. Rigg creates a great impression, but on the page it just doesn't add up. The 'Thy dawn' scene is a great piece of acting, but makes zero sense for the character. As you point out, is she supposed to be a mess or a tough and resourceful? In the novel she was reckless, not confident, and again, that stemmed from her desire to be involved in a car pile up.

And please spare the sacharinne 'Bond's love made her self-assured and confident in a situation where 99% of people would be shitting themselves' tripe.

I don't know what the hell you're on about. In the novel Tracy was the very soul of both chaotic neurosis and intelligent resourcefulness. And yes, Bond's love did change her for the better. It was therapeutic.

The White Tuxedo wrote:

I'll stumble in. I like OHMSS more than I like Lazenby. It's a tragedy that Lazenby did that film when something less dramatically-demanding like LALD would have suited him much better.

But he's pretty good when he's dubbed.

OHMSS breaks my rule that a Bond film can't be any better than the Bond actor's performance. For me the film succeeds on the strength of everything around Lazenby. I too am bewildered at his fandom. I think he had good qualities and potential, but he was matched with the worst possible story for his debut.

Continue to be bewildered old sport. Bewitched and bothered too whilst you're at it.

My lady sang that song to me once, substituting 'James Bond' for 'two-bit' in the line about being an imitator.

I still maintain, as I did in the old MI6 days, that must be something wrong with self concerning Lazenby. Dalton's my favourite yet there's enough in OHMSS that I've never had a problem. Still, I remember as I've mentioned asking him that time what he thought about all this flak around his performance. There was the slighest shrug, a lazy smile and the muttering that you take it on the chin, get on with life and not take any bull.
And that from a man who turned up baseball cap pulled right down whilst the shop owner played the OHMSS soundtrack.

trevanian wrote:

He occasionally moves well, and during the shot of him in his office looking out a window near the end, he actually looks mature and very Bond-like, but that is the only shot where he convinces.

I've always thought Lazenby was doing a Connery tic there, letting his eyes linger a moment on whatever (I think it was a helicopter) while turning his body away from it. The turned-down mouth, too.

lachesis wrote:

But it's all relative of course, in neither case do we actually have genuinely plausible or grounded action, but then why should we? For myself it is more important how it all slots together whether I 'buy' it or not and thats where OHMSS scores imo. The manner in which the various action set pieces are integrated and the scale of the action as a proportion of the immediacy of the threat that is very different between the films imo, OHMSS has a pretty coherent journey that gives rise to certain types of action sequences which therefore feel pretty fluid and appropriate whereas FYEO feels like a series of arbitrary action set pieces have been tossed together and somehow the plot has to desperately weave its way to encompass them all.

Bang-on.
Incidentally, there's no such thing as a realistic Bond film. What OHMSS has is verisimilitude.

"Wow (glancing down) - now there's a mouthful."

OHMSS is one of the least exciting Bond movies, and that certainly makes a difference. This was my least favorite when I was a kid, even though it has grown to be one of my favorites. Back then, I considered it to be the boring Bond movie with the unfamiliar actor and the lack of gadgets and the lack of cool action scenes.

One of my favorite parts of this movie is the emotional ending. Every Bond movie is action + spy gadgets, and not much more than that. OHMSS has a legitimately heartbreaking ending that hasnt replicated since. Casino Royale tried to replicate that with Vesper's death, but quite frankly I didnt care about her death the first time and I havent changed my mind since. She and every other Bond girl has been an expendable side character, but Tracy is the one Bond girl that wasnt expendable.

OHMSS is drawn out, but I like the pacing. It has a good mix of action and semi-suspenseful scenes mixed with character development and scenery shots. Its not the most exciting movie of the bunch, but its relaxing to watch and entertaining.

For being a guy that basically walked in off the street into this role, Lazenby did an excellent job. He is much less refined than the other Bonds, but he is suave and charismatic without trying.