Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Is there a Scaramanga Character Inconsistency in The Man with the Golden Gun (1974)?
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
This is something I noticed only earlier on this year after twenty years of watching The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) first on video cassette and then later on DVD and and most recently on Blu-Ray this year.
You see something bothered me about the characterisation of the main villain Francisco Scaramanga in this film. To me at least the film's script by Tom Mankiewicz and later Richard Maibaum seems a bit confused and muddled in places almost like it can't quite decide in itself what sort of film it wants to be. Of course the same could be said (only even more so) about the Mankiewicz/Maibaum script for Diamonds Are Forever (1971).
The thing that bothered me was what I can only now see as the character inconsistency in Scaramanga in the scene where he and Bond meet for the first time at the kickboxing stadium. Scaramanga has already assassinated his wayward mistress Andrea Anders for betraying him with Bond and for stealing his crucial MaGuffin the Solex Agitator. Then comes what I call the character inconsistency. Scaramanga half smiles at Bond once he has revealed his identity to him and goes on to say the following:
"Personally I've got nothing against you, Mr Bond, so let us hope that our paths never cross again. Please don't try to follow me."
Firstly, I know director Guy Hamilton encouraged his actors to take it "softly, softly" but I find how Nick Nick disappears before Bond offers him the peanuts to be very half-hearted Bond villainy and that little tidbit feeds into what I'm about to write next.
Now the inconsistency here is that we know that later on Scaramanga is expecting Bond to come to his private island at some point (e.g. "No, he won't be leaving", he says to the Chinese radar team) and of course he waxes lyrical about the clash of two titans, each with a 50-50 chance. Scaramanga even talks about a gentlemanly mano-a-mano duel to the death and how the killing of 007 would go down as one of the greatest duels/killings in all history. Now that is all very well but given what he says in that quote above doesn't his little speech seem very inconsistent with what went before. His speech in the kickboxing stadium is also inconsistent with the fact that he happily shoots the fingers off the mannequin (Why does he even have this?!) that he has of James Bond suggesting he would be his fantasy or ultimate kill. We can of course discount the golden bullet with '007' on it sent to M with Scaramanga's fingerprints on it as that was falsely sent by his mistress Andrea Anders but again even that suggests to the viewer than Scaramanga is out to assassinate Bond, later ratcheting up the tension in the Gibson assassination quite nicely.
Perhaps I have misunderstood something here so I'll leave it there and see what other members here think.
You see something bothered me about the characterisation of the main villain Francisco Scaramanga in this film. To me at least the film's script by Tom Mankiewicz and later Richard Maibaum seems a bit confused and muddled in places almost like it can't quite decide in itself what sort of film it wants to be. Of course the same could be said (only even more so) about the Mankiewicz/Maibaum script for Diamonds Are Forever (1971).
The thing that bothered me was what I can only now see as the character inconsistency in Scaramanga in the scene where he and Bond meet for the first time at the kickboxing stadium. Scaramanga has already assassinated his wayward mistress Andrea Anders for betraying him with Bond and for stealing his crucial MaGuffin the Solex Agitator. Then comes what I call the character inconsistency. Scaramanga half smiles at Bond once he has revealed his identity to him and goes on to say the following:
"Personally I've got nothing against you, Mr Bond, so let us hope that our paths never cross again. Please don't try to follow me."
Firstly, I know director Guy Hamilton encouraged his actors to take it "softly, softly" but I find how Nick Nick disappears before Bond offers him the peanuts to be very half-hearted Bond villainy and that little tidbit feeds into what I'm about to write next.
Now the inconsistency here is that we know that later on Scaramanga is expecting Bond to come to his private island at some point (e.g. "No, he won't be leaving", he says to the Chinese radar team) and of course he waxes lyrical about the clash of two titans, each with a 50-50 chance. Scaramanga even talks about a gentlemanly mano-a-mano duel to the death and how the killing of 007 would go down as one of the greatest duels/killings in all history. Now that is all very well but given what he says in that quote above doesn't his little speech seem very inconsistent with what went before. His speech in the kickboxing stadium is also inconsistent with the fact that he happily shoots the fingers off the mannequin (Why does he even have this?!) that he has of James Bond suggesting he would be his fantasy or ultimate kill. We can of course discount the golden bullet with '007' on it sent to M with Scaramanga's fingerprints on it as that was falsely sent by his mistress Andrea Anders but again even that suggests to the viewer than Scaramanga is out to assassinate Bond, later ratcheting up the tension in the Gibson assassination quite nicely.
Perhaps I have misunderstood something here so I'll leave it there and see what other members here think.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
As I don't think he knows about Bond being sent for ? Only that Andrea has stolen the solex, for
Her new lover ?
When Bond is flying to the island, Scaramanga by then knows Bond is after him, and this will
Be his chance to fulfill his dream of killing 007, the best shot in Her Majesty's Secret Service.
Thank you, @Thunderpussy. I never thought about it that way but that take on it certainly has merit.
I'd be interested in hearing any other possible explanations from members too.
Scaramanga knows about Bond way before this as he's in cahoots with Hai Fat (and present) when Bond attempts to impersonate him.
Well that's true certainly. The waters are muddied.
Yes, even having the mannequin at all suggests he is obsessed with Bond long before Bond knows much about him or that there is a threat against him. Scaramanga's performance at the kickboxing match doesn't exactly tally with this pre-existing obsession with killing James Bond. That was precisely why I was moved to make this thread.
Yes, that's true as well. I find the screenplay confused, but I'm just as happy to be proved wrong on this. Even with this, it's still not as bad as Diamonds Are Forever where the plot and Blofeld's plan keeps changing as it goes along!
Yes, as any sensible person should. I still like it, mind. It's just that it's near the bottom of my Bond film rankings. Only DAD is lower in fact.
Indeed it can. The humour is quite dark in places too.