George Lazenby is crying out for rehabillitation

The argument

George Lazenby is generally portrayed as the poor man's James Bond — not as handsome as Connery, not as funny as Moore. The argument is that this reputation is an accident of arithmetic rather than a verdict on the performance. It is probably more to do with his having only appeared in On Her Majesty's Secret Service than with anything he did in it: a single film gives an actor no chance to accumulate the familiarity that turns a Bond into the Bond for a given audience. The brevity was not a judgement on him either. Allegedly he was offered the option of as many as seven further Bond films, but was badly advised by his manager that the franchise was never going to last. If that is right, the shortest tenure in the role followed from a bad prediction about the series rather than from any dissatisfaction with the actor playing it. What remains to be judged, then, is the film itself. OHMSS is arguably as close to the original book as any Bond film, which supplies the standard this argument wants applied. Measured against Fleming's Bond rather than against what the series later turned into, the performance is doing something the others are not attempting. And what the others attempted is the comparison usually made instead: sex-pot Connery, the play-it-for-laughs Roger Moore series, and the stuff-as-many-gadgets-into-it-as-you-can Brosnan yawn-fest. Each departs from the source in its own direction. Viewed in that context, George Lazenby is clearly the Real Deal — the one Bond who can be assessed against the character as written rather than against the franchise's habits, and on that basis the one crying out for rehabilitation.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Critics reply that fidelity to Fleming is only one criterion, and one film cannot outweigh a single-outing sample. 'Best Bond' is usually judged on sustained screen presence, charisma and embodiment of the role across a career, and Lazenby's performance in On Her Majesty's Secret Service is widely rated stiffer than Connery's. That bad managerial advice cut his tenure short explains his obscurity but does not retroactively make his one appearance the best. A single, divisively received film is thin ground for topping actors with multiple acclaimed outings.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Faithfulness to Fleming's books is one possible criterion, but 'best Bond' is usually judged on screen presence, charisma and sustained performance, by which Lazenby is not the frontrunner. [Rejecting P2] One film being close to the source does not establish the actor as the best, especially on a single-film sample against actors with multiple acclaimed outings. [Rejecting P3] That bad advice cut his tenure short explains his obscurity but does not demonstrate his performance was superior. [Rejecting C] A single, divisively received appearance is thin ground for ranking Lazenby the best James Bond.