Skip to main content

Well, if we destroy Kansas the world may not hear about it for years.


Diamonds are Forever
(1971)

In conception, Diamonds are Forever was a retreat to safer ground for the series following the “failure” of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. In the end, it proved to be a significant break in tone and humour from what had gone before. More playfulness was evident in the heightened characterisations and settings, but simultaneously more boundaries were pushed in terms of sex and violence. Las Vegas lends the film a tarnished, glitterball quality that would quite accurately predict the excess and decadence of the coming decade. And presiding over the proceedings was a greying Bond, somewhat gone to seed and looking noticeably older than the near-decade it was since his first appearance. Somehow, the result is as sparkling and vital as the diamonds of the title, but it is understandably a curate’s egg. In many respects it bears more resemblance to the camp affectations, eccentricities and quirks of the television series The Avengers than the more straightforward heroics seen in previous Bond films (and replete with character names like Morton Slumber, which could have been plucked straight from an Avengers script).


Goldfinger became a touchstone for what the series should aspire to, and as such director Guy Hamilton was brought on board to bring some of that magic. Writer Richard Maibaum initially drafted a script featuring Goldfinger’s brother as the villain. This entrenchment came with the understanding that Bond would yet again be recast and, indeed, Psycho (American) actor John Gavin was signed up for the role (another concern of the producers was that the series should appeal consciously more to the US market). United Artists still wanted Connery back, though, and when the reluctant Broccoli and Saltzman (reluctant, as they did not wish to persuade Connery to do something if he really didn’t want to) gave the actor an offer he couldn’t refuse Gavin was nixed. Meanwhile, script problems had resulted in Tom Mankiewicz being brought in to rework it.  An American writer might have been expected not to “get” Bond, but Mankiewicz recognised its absurdities and fully embraced them.


It has been suggested that, due to Connery’s (then) enormous fee ($1.25m, about $7m in today’s money) the effects budget was scaled back. This may explain why a fight between Blofeld and Bond in a diamond mine was excised from the climax, left unfilmed. Certainly, the action is noticeably less extravagant than the last couple of Connery pictures; a car chase set piece along the Vegas Strip and the oilrig climax, and that’s about it. Instead of action we’re treated to stylisation and eccentricity. Larger than life characters abound, from gay assassins Mr Wint and Mr Kidd to hit women Bambi and Thumper to Howard Hughes by-another-name Willard Whyte.


DAF was adapted from the fourth Fleming Bond novel, which did not feature Blofeld as the villain. Notably, Connery was a big fan Mankiewicz’s work on the script; he can be seen discussing it at the time, observing that it was the best one yet. He commented that the plot was very strong, but maybe he was also thinking of the campy, humourous tone, which came in for much criticism at the time. As such, it may be the most Marmite of Bond films. Either you love it or it’s near the bottom of your series ranking.


The plot that Connery considered so strong really isn’t all that, basically a plan by Blofeld to hold the world to ransom under threat of destruction with his laser satellite (constructed using the all-important diamonds). What is undoubtedly in the script’s favour, and more than making up for the slightly mundane quest for global domination, is that almost every scene in the film is memorable; for it’s dialogue, characterisation and distinct purpose. Even the gangster caricatures make a strong impression (“I didn’t know there was a pool down there”, one opines after throwing Plenty O’Toole from a hotel window.


With that tone came a more cavalier approach to the trademark sex and violence that Bond engages in. This is the first film in the series to show bare breasts, in a scene where 007 is at his most sadistic, threatening a woman with strangulation (“There is something I’d like you to get off your chest”). Later, a double of Blofeld is shot in the head (we are privileged to see the bullet hole). 

Tellingly there is no attempt to provide continuity with OHMSS, unless one assumes that Bond’s desire to get Blofeld as the film opens is a result of Tracy’s demise at the end of the previous film. The opening echoes the pre-credits sequence in From Russia with Love, where a Bond double is killed by Red Grant. This time it is 007 shooting a Blofeld double.


The American setting was reportedly fixed on as a sop to the US audience who had been less embracing of OHMSS, and what is most surprising – largely down to Mankiewicz – is that it doesn’t feel like a forced choice. The American Bond girl, Tiffany Case, runs the biggest risk (of being a caricature loudmouthed American). And, to be honest, that’s exactly who Jill St John plays her as. But she also plays her immensely likeably, and the result is one of the most resourceful of Bond girls (sometimes too resourceful, as in the tape-swapping scene). St John also looks fantastic in a bikini, which doesn’t hurt her “case”.


One is left with the impression that Connery isn’t trying too hard to summon up the Bond of old. He’s almost too relaxed, but he does appear to be having fun. He’s also blessed with some of the series’ best one-liners. Upon first catching sight of Tiffany he comments, “Well, that’s quite a nice little nothing you’re almost wearing”. As if to emphasise the point, Tiffany’s arse-crack is showing. This is also the film where 007 notes that he doesn’t mind what colour Tiffany’s hair is, “as long as the collars and cuffs match”. DAF has little time for notions of elegance or etiquette. And Bond never looks particularly dapper in his ‘70s-cut tuxedo. Nevertheless, the film as a whole is blessed with fantastically quotable, such as 007’s classic exchange with Lana Wood’s Bond girl.

Plenty: Hi, I’m Plenty.
James Bond: But of course you are.
Plenty: Plenty O’Toole.
James Bond: Named after your father, perhaps?

Later, on being accosted by heavies in Plenty’s bedroom, he observes,

James Bond: Well, I’m afraid you’ve caught me with more than my hands up.


Even Blofeld turns lecherous in DAF. After noticing the cassette tape containing the satellite control codes nestling amid Tiffany’s buttocks, he has her placed under guard. And then waxes lyrical.

Blofeld: What a pity, such nice cheeks too. If only they were brains.


At other times, the revelling in absurdity is more akin to Connery’s successor. Bond emerges from an oil pipe at one point, much to the surprise of the workers who open the hatch.

James Bond: Thank you very much. I was just out walking my rat and seem to have lost my way…

This, after holding a conversation with said rat.

James Bond: Well, one of us smells like a tart’s handkerchief. (sniffs) I’m afraid it’s me. Sorry, old boy.


Mr Wynn and Mr Kidd make two of the series’ wittiest henchman. Their man-love is barely referred to, but it’s revealed obliquely through the performances of Putter Smith and, particularly, Bruce Glover. In their first scene, after killing several diamond smugglers, they disappear into the desert hand-in-hand. Later, Glover’s Mr Wint shoots Mr Kidd a most unimpressed look when he comments on how attractive Tiffany is (“for a lady”). Mainly, though, it is their in-tandem repartee that makes them so memorable. On sending Bond to be cremated, they eulogise.

Mr Wint: Very moving.
Mr Kidd: Heartwarming, Mr Wint.
Mr Wint: A glowing tribute, Mr Kidd.

Their presence on the periphery of the main action recalls Red Grant shadowing Bond in From Russia with Love. But in a more surreal, cartoonish form.


It isn’t just Wint and Kidd that display playfulness with ideas of gender and sexuality. Blofeld dons drag at one point, while Bambie and Thumper are deadly fighters who nearly best Bond using only their bodies as weapons.


I commented in my OHMSS review that I was unsure who was my favourite Blofeld, but it’s definitely Charles Gray. He’s just having so much fun, and he’s so witty too.

Blofeld: Well go on, go on, it’s merely a lift. Or should I say elevator?

In contrast, there’s little to say about M, Moneypenny or Q this time round. M gets sniffy with Bond over his identification of the vintage of sherry and delights in his lack of knowledge of diamonds. Felix Leiter is back to being a rather dull pen pusher, this time played by Norman Burton; it’s curious how nondescript most of the Felixs have been.


One of the most appealing characters is Willard Whyte, played with an “Aw, shucks” affability by country music singer Jimmy Dean. The (rare) likable tycoon persona would later re-emerge with Jon Glover’s performance as Daniel Clamp in Gremlins 2.


In a sense, DAF does bear comparison with Goldfinger; it isn’t the action scenes that make it such a strong entry in the canon. There are a couple of solid ones, nevertheless. The brutal, close-quarters fight between Bond and Peter Franks in a cramped elevator isn’t quite as proficient as the scrap that most likely inspired it, between Red Grand and Bond in FRWL, but it’s thrillingly messy. And it’s a nice touch that it’s initiated when Bond makes a mistake, drawing back his elbow and breaking the glass behind him.


Perhaps most famous is the fake Moon landing sequence. Bond, exploring Whyte’s research laboratory, stumbles across astronauts filming on a Moon set before fleeing his pursuers in a rover. It’s quite surprising to see such a satirical set piece in a series of films not exactly known for such elements. It’s clearly a commentary on the conspiratorial rumblings that the Moon landing of two years previously had been filmed in a television studio. The book Dark Moon: Apollo and the Whistle-Blowers even devotes several pages to dissecting the exchanges preceding the scene (the focus on radiation levels and shields; the lack of protection against harmful radiation is one of the arguments presented by conspiracy theorists that the Moon landing couldn’t have been real). Connery obviously relishes the dialogue, posing as Klaus Hergerscheimer


Elsewhere there are further strange, surreal moments thrown in. An elephant playing, and winning at, slot machines (Q also proves highly adept). A stage act where a woman transforms into a gorilla. The design of the Moon buggy Bond escapes into the Nevada Desert in, arms flailing uselessly at its sides.

A word for John Barry’s score. If OHMSS is his most elegantly classic Bond work, DAF sees him at his loosest and most freewheeling. From the wonderful funeral music at Slumber Inc to the catchy casino muzak to maybe the best Bond song, creatively he’s on fire.


Diamonds are Forever looks set to remain one of the most divisive Bond films, ironically as it was envisaged as a sure thing, a safe bet to get viewers back on side following the perceived failing of OHMSS. It was a bigger hit than Lazenby’s solo mission but fell considerably short of Connery’s three previous runs (in inflation-adjusted terms). I rate it as one of the best in the series, possibly only second to OHMSS. Perhaps I’m the wrong sort of Bond aficionado, as I tend to consider the more idiosyncratic entries to be the best ones. DAF saw Connery go out on a high. Maybe he wasn’t giving it his very best, but this remains one of his most enjoyable performances; much different to the all-round going-through-the-motions that crippled You Only Live Twice.


The man with one raised eyebrow was waiting in the wings, and for the rest of the ‘70s Bond would be a safe, known and immensely popular quantity. But Moore’s Bond would, after a couple of films, receive mounting brickbats from purists enraged at the mockery he was making of their beloved spy series. They should have looked to DAF, which is arguably where the “rot” set in.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Your honor, with all due respect: if you're going to try my case for me, I wish you wouldn't lose it.

The Verdict (1982)
(SPOILERS) Sidney Lumet’s return to the legal arena, with results every bit as compelling as 12 Angry Men a quarter of a century earlier. This time the focus is on the lawyer, in the form of Paul Newman’s washed-up ambulance chaser Frank Galvin, given a case that finally matters to him. In less capable hands, The Verdict could easily have resorted to a punch-the-air piece of Hollywood cheese, but, thanks to Lumet’s earthy instincts and a sharp, unsentimental screenplay from David Mamet, this redemption tale is one of the genre’s very best.

And it could easily have been otherwise. The Verdict went through several line-ups of writer, director and lead, before reverting to Mamet’s original screenplay. There was Arthur Hiller, who didn’t like the script. Robert Redford, who didn’t like the subsequent Jay Presson Allen script and brought in James Bridges (Redford didn’t like that either). Finally, the producers got the hump with the luxuriantly golden-haired star for meetin…

He mobilised the English language and sent it into battle.

Darkest Hour (2017)
(SPOILERS) Watching Joe Wright’s return to the rarefied plane of prestige – and heritage to boot – filmmaking following the execrable folly of the panned Pan, I was struck by the difference an engaged director, one who cares about his characters, makes to material. Only last week, Ridley Scott’s serviceable All the Money in the World made for a pointed illustration of strong material in the hands of someone with no such investment, unless they’re androids. Wright’s dedication to a relatable Winston Churchill ensures that, for the first hour-plus, Darkest Hour is a first-rate affair, a piece of myth-making that barely puts a foot wrong. It has that much in common with Wright’s earlier Word War II tale, Atonement. But then, like Atonement, it comes unstuck.

The simple fact is, your killer is in your midst. Your killer is one of you.

The Avengers 5.12: The Superlative Seven
I’ve always rather liked this one, basic as it is in premise. If the title consciously evokes The Magnificent Seven, to flippant effect, the content is Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None, but played out with titans of their respective crafts – including John Steed, naturally – encountering diminishing returns. It also boasts a cast of soon-to-be-famous types (Charlotte Rampling, Brian Blessed, Donald Sutherland), and the return of one John Hollis (2.16: Warlock, 4.7: The Cybernauts). Kanwitch ROCKS!

Never mind. You may be losing a carriage, but he’ll be gaining a bomb.

The Avengers 5.13: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Station
Continuing a strong mid-season run, Brian Clemens rejigs one of the dissenting (and departing) Roger Marshall's scripts (hence "Brian Sheriff") and follows in the steps of the previous season's The Girl from Auntie by adding a topical-twist title (A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum came out a year earlier). If this is one of those stories where you know from the first who's doing what to whom, the actual mechanism for the doing is a strong and engaging one, and it's pepped considerably by a supporting cast including one John Laurie (2.11: Death of a Great Dane, 3.2: Brief for Murder).

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

I freely chose my response to this absurd world. If given the opportunity, I would have been more vigorous.

The Falcon and the Snowman (1985)
(SPOILERS) I suspect, if I hadn’t been ignorant of the story of Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee selling secrets to the Soviets during the ‘70s, I’d have found The Falcon and the Snowman less engaging than I did. Which is to say that John Schlesinger’s film has all the right ingredients to be riveting, including a particularly camera-hogging performance from Sean Penn (as Lee), but it’s curiously lacking in narrative drive. Only fitfully does it channel the motives of its protagonists and their ensuing paranoia. As such, the movie makes a decent primer on the case, but I ended up wondering if it might not be ideal fodder for retelling as a miniseries.

Who are you and why do you know so much about car washes?

Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018)
(SPOILERS) The belated arrival of the Ant-Man sequel on UK shores may have been legitimately down to World Cup programming, but it nevertheless adds to the sense that this is the inessential little sibling of the MCU, not really expected to challenge the grosses of a Doctor Strange, let alone the gargantuan takes of its two predecessors this year. Empire magazine ran with this diminution, expressing disappointment that it was "comparatively minor and light-hitting" and "lacks the scale and ambition of recent Marvel entries". Far from deficits, for my money these should be regard as accolades bestowed upon Ant-Man and the Wasp; it understands exactly the zone its operating in, yielding greater dividends than the three most recent prior Marvel entries the review cites in its efforts at point scoring.

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)
(SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison.

Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War, Infinity Wars I & II, Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok. It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions (Iron Man II), but there are points in Age of Ultron where it becomes distractingly so. …

You use a scalpel. I prefer a hammer.

Mission: Impossible - Fallout (2018)
(SPOILERS) The latest instalment of the impossibly consistent in quality Mission: Impossible franchise has been hailed as the best yet, and with but a single dud among the sextet that’s a considerable accolade. I’m not sure it's entirely deserved – there’s a particular repeated thematic blunder designed to add some weight in a "hero's validation" sense that not only falls flat, but also actively detracts from the whole – but as a piece of action filmmaking, returning director Christopher McQuarrie has done it again. Mission: Impossible – Fallout is an incredible accomplishment, the best of its ilk this side of Mad Max: Fury Road.