MovieChat Forums > On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) Discussion > Controversial: Lazenby was a better Bond...

Controversial: Lazenby was a better Bond than Craig

posted 3 years ago by cyguration (3951)
24 replies | jump to latest

Lazenby lacked the charisma of Brosnan, Connery, and Dalton, (Brosnan still tops out as the most charismatic Bond), but he certainly came across as more charming, stealthy, intuitive, and guileful than Craig's Bond.

Also, physically, I have to say that Lazenby was the most proficient Bond of them all. I really loved Connery's Bond for willing to go head-to-head in fisticuffs any chance he got, but Lazenby was so much more proficient. You could literally see his military and expert martial arts background shine through in the choreography.

He was very adept at utilizing his surroundings, and thinking quick on his feet. He's one of the few Bonds that actually followed through with takedowns and combos instinctively, but he wasn't a super man. His choreography also made a lot of sense and it was a well ahead of the time for 1969... in fact, choreography wouldn't see a significant improvement until the kung-fu classics of the 1970s, due in large part to Bruce Lee. So in that regard, Lazenby was way ahead of the times.

Even while some of his line delivery was stilted due to being an acting neophyte, I felt like Lazenby was actually a far better Bond for his first time out than a lot of people gave him credit for. In fact, I avoided this movie so often because I mistakenly read all the critics reviews mostly trashing Lazenby and calling the film middling, even though this was certainly one of the more grounded Bond films with a realistic villainous plot (threatening the release of diseases and selling the treatment for profit *cough* current day Big Pharma*cough*).

Seeing the film outside the critical lens of biased critics and apart from comparisons to Connery, I actually thought this was a really, really, really good espionage spy film. Lazenby's Bond also actually went undercover as someone completely different than himself, and nearly fooled his foes. The cover was also pretty good, and the dialogue they wrote for him was top notch as a genealogist.

I can't even remember if Craig's Bond was ever properly sent undercover? Or was ever undercover as a convincing pseudonym?

It's easy to forget that Craig's Bond is even supposed to be a spy at times, he did so very little spy work compared to Lazenby's depiction.

I would even venture to say that Lazenby's Bond would certainly be adept enough to kill Craig's Bond. He was quick on his feet, good with his hands, and actually avoided being conspicuous (his Assassin's Creed-style blending in with the crowd at the ice rink was a nice cover until he could think of a way to get out).

I have to rank this easily as one of my favorites. I think I'm glad I waited to see it because I have a much better appreciation for it now than perhaps if I had seen it years ago and compared it to the more bombastic Bond films I grew with up. A shame Lazenby didn't return to the role, he was perfectly handsome for Bond, had a good face for the role (and he practically looked like Clive Owen), was one of the better technical fighters out of the all the other Bond actors, and portrayed Bond as smart, cunning, witty, and very easily likable.

When you think of a secret agent, Lazenby really nailed the traits well.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 3 years ago

Why controversial? It's your opinion, that's all that matters.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Not every opinion is equal or right, and when judged through a proper measurement or scale of quality/quantity, it's easy to see how some opinions are more controversial than others when they don't hold up under scrutiny. Though, hopefully this one does :P

[–] Roguemail (1614) 3 years ago

No opinions are, right, wrong or equal. They are your own personal thoughts and it does not, or it should not matter what others think.

Unless you want to play the numbers game, as I call it.

By that I mean I see many posters on here doing that 'Am I the only one who does not like' stuff. Or 'I don't understand why do many people like that movie'.

It's like some people feel inadequate and feel like they are missing something if they don't like a movie that is very popular. And even more bizarre, they question those who like it and why, like there is something wrong with them for liking it.

Your opinion is your opinion. If you like or dislike a movie, why should it matter what others think?

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

No opinions are, right, wrong or equal. They are your own personal thoughts and it does not, or it should not matter what others think.

That's not entirely true. While it's completely valid for everyone to have an opinion, not every opinion is valid.

For example, someone saying, "I think it's fine to go outside in the winter without a jacket. What's the harm?" It's valid to have that opinion, but the opinion is wrong, as many people will get sick going outside in the winter without a jacket (some, who are warm blooded, may be fine).

It's the same as someone saying "I think shaky cam fights are better than steadicam fights because it seems more intense!" It's perfectly valid to have such an opinion, but most people would agree that shaky-cam fights make it difficult to see what's actually happening, and in some cases even induces motion sickness. Also, due to not being able to tell what's going on, it lowers the intensity of the fight because it's hard to be emotionally invested when you can't properly visualize the threat of danger for the characters involved.

So it's an opinion that doesn't really hold up well, especially if you break down the components of what makes a fight scene intense, how the camerawork plays a role in that, and the payoff of shaky cam vs steadicam when done right.

Your opinion is your opinion. If you like or dislike a movie, why should it matter what others think?

That's fine to a degree, but that's not really the way the world works. And in many ways we can quantify the quality of art under the lens of scrutiny, and this is where opinions get dicey because, as my reply above mentions, not every opinion holds up under scrutiny, hence why I labeled the post "controversial", because under said scrutiny some may find that the opinion may be more wrong than right.

[–] Roguemail (1614) 3 years ago

I still fundamentally disagree...your jacket example, it may not be wise to go out in the cold without a jacket, but if a person disagrees and decides to do so then that's their opinion and they are free to do so.

Anyway, it's really not the same when it comes to movies and the arts. You use the phrase 'most people' when talking about shaky cam, which tells me that you do indeed think weight of numbers is key, so the more people who hold an opinion must therefore validate that opinion. I disagree.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

your jacket example, it may not be wise to go out in the cold without a jacket, but if a person disagrees and decides to do so then that's their opinion and they are free to do so.

The point wasn't whether or not they should (they absolutely can), it's the fact that it's hazardous to their health. So some opinions are fundamentally wrong, and can be harmful when people are ignorant or unwise about the consequences of said opinion, like someone saying "It's no big deal to throw a rock into the Grand Canyon", even though it's illegal, or "I think it's fine to fly after surgery", even though it will literally kill someone to do so at high altitudes.

You use the phrase 'most people' when talking about shaky cam, which tells me that you do indeed think weight of numbers is key

Not really, it's just a basic observation of how most people (lol) feel about shaky cam in general public discussions.

so the more people who hold an opinion must therefore validate that opinion.

Not necessarily. Though, again, through scrutiny perhaps consensus can be made. I'm not so obstinate that my opinions can't change, especially if someone provides objective examples, proof, evidence, or facts that are persuasive.

[–] FootOfDavros (8171) 2 years ago

+ 1.

A lot of people dislike Daniel Craig's "Bond" therefore I don't see this as particularly controversial viewpoint at all.

[–] Bercilak (300) 3 years ago

No.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I'm not sure if Lazenby was better than Craig...but Craig will forever be linked to "a Bond who wasn't Bond" in a series of films which were, conversely, the biggest grossers of the bunch(due to modern international zillions of screens, but maybe not really given ticket inflation) and yet hardly connected to the original 60s franchise at all.

George Lazenby, coming on right after Connery jumped off(well, for awhile), was plugged into the Connery mix of rugged action and overt sexuality. Key: though this is the one where Bond gets married (well, for awhile)...this is ALSO the one where Bond hangs out for a couple of days in a compound filled with beautiful women, several of whom bed him, one after the other as if Bond were sampling an international sexual smorgasbord. THOSE were the days. For male fantasy, at least. I think Daniel Craig was almost a one-woman man, oh two I guess, though the other one sometimes got killed.

Of all the Bonds who followed Connery, I think Lazenby was closest to Connery in this way: another tall, strapping, BIG man. Connery had been a bodybuilder in the pre-Arnold days where that just mean muscular, not scuptled; Connery created a Bond physically big enough to go toe to toe with any opponent. And Lazenby had a very strong build as well.

Which reminds me: Pierce Brosnan was handsome, and projected enough danger as Bond, but as one critic pointed out: "He looks like he is James Bond's valet." Suggesting: not strapping and sizable enough.

Daniel Craig isn't what you call strapping, but he has the tight and sculpted musculature of recent decades and that probably puts him up over everybody except Connery and Lazenby in the "bod" department -- but rougher. HIS Bond, in HIS fights, is down and dirty and mean.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I'm not sure if I agree with the OP as to Lazenby being better than Craig, but his "one time wonder" of a Bond movie is far more entertaining to me than any Craig Bond (with the possible exception of Casino Royale, which was a good start to the Craig series that was betrayed by the movies after it.)

OHMSS was really "epic" for a Bond movie: more size, more action, more length in a good way(the story meant something.) Part of the reason for this was; Connery was gone, Lazenby took lower pay, more money could go to action and art direction and size. I have very warm childhood memory of seeing it on first release as a 1969 Christmas movie(now THAT's a Christmas movie) and the idea of the "compound with willing women" just warmed the cockles of my young soul.

Daniel Craig's Bond is for a generation twice removed from mine. He's fine. But he's not in movies as fun and involving as "On Her Majestry's Secret Service." So yeah -- I'll pick Lazenby.

One more thing: the finale fight in OHMSS on a speeding toboggan between Bond and the most macho Blofeld ever(Telly Savalas, baby!) was rightly praised as an exciting "fast edit montage" sequence in the spirit of Hitchcock at his Psycho/Birds fast editing best, and a fine companion piece to Sam Peckinpah's fast-edit action in The Wild Bunch the same year.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

One more thing: the finale fight in OHMSS on a speeding toboggan between Bond and the most macho Blofeld ever(Telly Savalas, baby!) was rightly praised as an exciting "fast edit montage" sequence in the spirit of Hitchcock at his Psycho/Birds fast editing best, and a fine companion piece to Sam Peckinpah's fast-edit action in The Wild Bunch the same year.

This! I've been thinking about that fight since having seen it.

Lazenbv's Bond doesn't have an easy go of Blofeld, who is very physically competent in the film. It shocked me somewhat seeing him latch on the skis and go chasing after Bond on the slopes, even leading the charge. He was both scientifically brilliant and physically capable, a rare double-trait for most villains.

But the bobsled fight was really intriguing because Bond wasn't doing so great against Blofeld in the fight, in fact, he was losing most of the time, and was even blown off his own sled. It was an interesting fight where it was difficult for Bond to get the upperhand and he had to rely on his cunning to overpower Blofeld by getting him stuck in the tree.

[–] MonStar (12916) 3 years ago

"the dialogue they wrote for him was top notch as a genealogist."

Note that actor George Baker, who played Sir Hilary Bray, dubbed all of Lazenby's dialogue, when he pretended to be Bray. That was not Lazenby's voice.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

That's true.... but the dialogue itself was written in a way to convince the audience that Bond had done his homework. Baker's dubbing helped authenticate the disguise.

[–] hyperjet (723) 3 years ago

Well to be fair, my big toe would probably be a better fit to play Bond than Craig. Laz was handed the best 007 film of the franchise. He did well in it and given another film or two, he would have owned the role.

[–] cyguration (3951) 3 years ago

Definitely agreed.

He was a bit green on his first outing but showed a ton of promise, even more-so given that this was his first film project at all!

He really won me over as the movie pressed on, which is quite a testament to his natural ability to chew up the screen with his bravado.

Also, I was really worried how he would handle the death of his wife at the end, but the fact that he goes into denial about her death from the shock and still seems to act like she's alive made it all the more heart-wrenching and very believable (which is usually how people react to someone dying suddenly before they break down into tears).

It's a real shame Lazenby didn't want to do Bond anymore because had the natural chops for it. And you're 100% right that another film or two in and he likely would have been as well-regarded as Connery.

I also find it fascinating that Lazenby owned (or molded) his own Bond with a lot more surety than Moore did across his entire run. I still never quite could pin down Moore's Bond; he seemed to change with almost every film. The only time I felt he was somewhat more serious than usual was in The Man With The Golden Gun.

[–] hyperjet (723) 3 years ago

I agree with everything you said here. As far as Moore (comedy aside) there was a stuffiness about him. I think he would have made a better M than 007. Lazenby had some growing up to do (turning down the roll of a lifetime so he could be respected in the hippie crowd??). When he lost out, we ALL lost out. And the whole deal with Tracy was a huge setup for nothing.
A few years later George did a cameo as James Bond in the Man From uncle 2. It showed us a great 'what if'. He would have been the perfect 007 if he stuck with it.

[–] kwestmo (4385) 2 years ago

Roger Moore as M? If M had a sense of humor would he as droll as Moore?

I do fancy the idea.

[–] TreeShaman (806) 2 years ago

Obvious, not controversial.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Gary Coleman would have been a better Bond than Daniel Craig.

[–] seagal72 (1962) 2 years ago

Wiping one's arse with a chainsaw, is more preferable to watching anything with Daniel Craig.

[–] Quint (957) 2 years ago

OHMSS was by far (!!!) the best Bond movie ever. The wannabe serious movies Craig made were never Bond movies at all. They were as dumb as possible Bourne clones (the most obvious copycat since the karate scenes in Mand With The Golden Gun during the Bruce Lee wave).

Therefor Lazenby is indeed lightyears ahead of the dumb character Craig "played".