Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Is DAF the most flawed and most entertaining Bond film?
Life After Lazenby:
Conceptually the film is a train-wreck. In every way 'Diamonds are Forever' is a response to the perceived negative reception of 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service'. While that film is unfairly seen as a flop it was still a critical and commercial disappointment and as a result 'Diamonds are Forever' needed to reestablish and reaffirm Bond's viability moving into the 1970's. Subsequently, any of the flair or individuality on show in 'On Her Majesty's' was wholly toned down for 'Diamonds are Forever' and as a result the film represents something of a retreat creatively for the producers. Having taken a bold risk with the previous film it's clear that when developing that film's sequel they were still licking their wounds. Having attempted something new and interesting, 'Diamonds are Forever' feels like a movie compromised by studio intervention and paranoia that the Bond series had lost it's lustre, therefore it's clear the producers wanted the next film to play to as broad an audience as possible.
'Diamonds are Forever' is essentially the complete opposite of 'On Her Majesty's'. For instance, 'On Her Majesty's' was an elegant, classy and rather European affair; while DAF is a gaudy, tacky and very American film. More integrally, 'On Her Majesty's was a character-driven and emotional movie and in response DAF is a pretty lightweight and breezy affair.
This must have been frustrating for fans of the Ian Fleming novels at the time. Having opened up the character of James Bond in an interesting and revealing way with 'On Her Majesty's', initial impressions that the film's sequel would further explore these ideas did not come into fruition. It's a shame because the chance to see a broken and vulnerable Bond out for revenge would have been a far more compelling premise than the one eventually used; instead 'Diamonds are Forever' almost completely disregards 'On Her Majesty's' to a fault.
Opposed to taking the impetus left by it's predecessor 'Diamonds are Forever' leans heavily upon the third (and supposedly best) Bond film, 'Goldfinger'. Not only does the film reunite the star, director, composer, production designer and songstress of that film but employs the same American setting and light entertainment feel. At the time in 1964, 'Goldfinger' was very much an attempt to create a commercial Bond film that deliberately catered to an American audience and less than 10 years later history was most definitely repeating itself.
It's really for these issues I can understand why people take so heavily against the film, however, despite it's actual concept lacking there is certainly a lot of fun to be had with 'Diamonds are Forever'. In the most part the film really is rather fun, untaxing and politically-incorrect entertainment despite it's squandered potential.
Pure Entertainment:
As a breezy piece of entertainment the film is rather successful if not a little disposable and ultimately forgettable. I've seen numerous critics point out how the actual plot, which concerns Bond infiltrating a smuggling ring, is a little too low-key for a Bond film and uneventful. However, personally I think much of the enjoyment of the picture comes in the early stages as Bond poses as a diamond smuggler and begins investigating the pipeline in order to find who is atop of the chain.
During the first half, 'Diamonds are Forever' is essentially a caper or heist film infused with the Bond's typical espionage genre. While at times the plot may get slightly convoluted, there is an undeniable thrill in seeing each link in the pipeline as we see the diamonds smuggled from the mines in South Africa through to Amsterdam and eventually to Las Vegas.
The Vegas sequences in particular provide great entertainment value as the film openly embraces the tacky and gaudy atmosphere of America's sin city and there is plenty of fun to be had in all the sleaze and disrepute of the environment. In addition, Tom Mankiewicz's razor-sharp script really brings a witty and fun energy to these sequences.
Following up Peter Hunt's stellar turn behind the camera is Guy Hamilton. Hamilton uses the same inventive devices he utilised for 'Goldfinger' to snare audiences in and play with their expectations. Whether it be the fingerprint scene during Tiffany's introduction or Bond stuck in a coffin, there is a certain playfulness behind the camera from the director. Hamilton referred to these scenes as 'snake-pit' sequences; where Bond would seemingly find himself in impossible scenarios. It would then be down to the audience to try and figure out how 007 will escape, giving Hamilton enough time to pull the rug from under the audiences's feet.
The inclusion of Willard Whyte and the veiled suggestions that he is behind the smuggling ring are also very welcome additions. Whyte is presented as a man with more power and sway then the President of the USA despite very few people having actually seen him. The film's slow build-up to Whyte's introduction is also well-handled as Bond elegantly crashes into his penthouse. The only real disappointment is that Whyte is not the main villain and once the character is introduced Jimmy Dean's performance is grating at best. Of course Whyte's parallels with the great Howard Hughes also make the character more compelling and give 'Diamonds Are Forever' a touch of added weight.
From a historical perspective the inclusion of the Willard Whyte character is interesting. 'Diamonds Are Forever' encapsulates a certain period in American history by playing with the mythology surrounding the Howard Hughes legend and in particularly his Las Vegas years. With hindsight we know that Hughes suffered from severe mental illness which hampered his day-to-day life but at the time his illness was perceived as eccentricity. DAF's interpretation of Hughes may be slightly heightened but it does provide a revealing insight into the time and mythos surrounding a great man.
The Problem with Blofeld:
Tonally the first half of the film is very different from any of the other 007 films. It's only around the 75 minute mark that 'Diamonds Are Forever' seems to recall that is a 'Bond film' at which point it obligatorily wheels out Blofeld and ushers in a plot of world domination rather half-heartedly. It's at this point the film begins to capsize in on it's self and Blofeld's overall inclusion and scheme seems more an excuse to usher in an overblown finale opposed to any actual organic plot developments.
In addition, Blofeld's scheme is hardly fleshed out with the actual internal logic of his plot being completely ridiculous even for Bond film standards. Furthermore, the space/laser sequences aren't helped by some rather appalling visual effects which feel more suited to a Gerry Anderson show. The film leaves too many questions unanswered; for instance, how is he able to actually launch a satellite into space? Furthermore, how is it even possible for the satellite to be operated from a meagre cassette tape? I understand that Bond films encourage audiences to suspense their disbelief but the actual logic of the plot is ill-conceived and completely laughable.
The biggest issue is how easy Blofeld makes it for Bond to foil his plan, beyond the risible plot, Blofeld refuses to kill Bond and as a result makes a rod for his own back. Surely after 7 films the writers and director could have figured a more inventive method than having Bond imprisoned and escaping.
Furthermore, why is Blofeld doing this? His motivation is hazy at best, I understand he's an evil-genius but beyond that he seems to have no real reason beyond a throwaway line mentioning some sort of supposed revenge for the world-power's previously humiliating him.
The finale is also rather under-served, maybe all the money was blown on getting Connery back and as a result we're left with a rather flat and tacked-on ending at an oil rig. Apparently a more elaborate sequence had been dreamed up initially and the idea had to be scrapped. Moreover, a tight production timeline meant many scenes went unfilmed and there certainly a sense of incompleteness to the finale. For instance where does Blofeld disappear too? It's criminal that the film does not adequately deal with the fate of it's villain more adequately and absolutely abominable when that character is Blofeld; Bond's supposed arch-enemy.
Richard Maibaum apparently conceived a final moment where Bond would chase Blofeld through a beech before eventually strangling his foe. Considering the history the character has in the franchise there was an opportunity here to actually give Bond some catharsis but the idea is left to languish. The worst part is that Kevin McClory's claim to the character has meant Blofeld has been off screens ever since which makes this oversight even more egregious. Despite his status within the Bond oeuvre, Blofeld has never really had a definitive interpretation. He should be Bond's Professor Moriarty or The Joker to his Batman. Hopefully that will change with the release of 'Spectre' this year.
The return of Sean Connery:
After George Lazenby's rather blank performance, one of the great virtues of 'Diamonds Are Forever' is Sean Connery. Sean returns with his typical nonchalant and sexy charm and he's clearly having a great time (I'd imagine his record-breaking fee and his supposed affairs with both the lead actresses had something to do with this). There is a playful and cheeky nature to his performance as he is clearly relishing the more humorous and light script. It's clear that in the four intervening years since playing Bond, Connery had got a little thicker in the mid-drift, a little greyer around the temples and rather jowly. But who cares? He's just plain cool and despite having more fun in the role he is still as authoritative and threatening as ever.
Connery works best when he's paired with Jill St. John. The pair have great chemistry and the dialogue between them by Mankiewicz is often very funny and charming. Tiffany Case gets a slightly hard time from many Bond enthusiasts which I feel is slightly undeserved. In her introductory scenes she's presented as a tough, duplicitous and untrustworthy sexpot who runs rings around 007 and the CIA. Soon after her scene with Bond in the bridal suite at the Whyte House the film seems to run out of ideas for the character and she peters off quite quickly after that. In the second hour of the film she only has a small handful of scenes and few of these are with Connery which is very unfortunate and a case of the film playing against it's strengths.
The only other supporting characters of any note are Mr Wint and Mr Kidd who I can't help but enjoy the presence of. I know they are one of the chief reasons DAF is often derided for being overly campy and vulgar but I love the concept behind the henchman and the great unusual casting. Putter Smith and Bruce Glover make marvellous creepy and sinister, albeit polite, henchman and it's always a joy when the two turn up in the film.
The biggest disappointment comes from Charles Gray's Blofeld. The idea of a slightly fussy, prissy and upper-crust Blofeld is an intriguing one but aside from a few small moments Gray hardly breaks out. Instead, in the latter stages of the film Gray is often left to dish out the necessary and absurd exposition. It would have been great had Savalas returned or even Pleasance, who's larger-than-life take on the character would have been a better fit. In fact, considering the film's great plastic surgery angle it is a total missed opportunity not to have all three actors reappear as Blofeld with Bond having to figure out which one really is his arch-foe.
Furthermore, the film is very funny but occasionally does make a habit of becoming a little too broad and slapstick. The token comedic American natives and the horrendous Moonbuggy chase being the film's biggest embarrassments.
Like most disappointing Bond films one of the saving graces of 'Diamonds Are Forever' is John Barry's score and the excellent title song by Shirley Bassey. One of the things I love about the early Bond films is Ken Adam's production design which aside from the occasional flourish is rather muted here. Apart from Whyte's office and the Elrod House (which was not designed by Adam but may as well have been) there is little visual eye-candy, this may possibly be due to the tacky Vegas milieu inhibiting his style. Meanwhile, Ted Moore's sunny photography has really stood the test of time, in particular the car chase in the film through the Las Vegas strip is gorgeous and looks brilliant in high-definition.
Summary:
While 'Diamonds Are Forever' is a totally flawed film conceptually, it is still an inherently entertaining film. Considering the promise for the franchise signalled by 'On Her Majesty's', 'Diamonds' does represent something of a creative retreat but when in the moment it's hard not to be swept up in the film's overblown and comedic trappings.
^ 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
I saw DAF recently and enjoyed it a lot. Sure it's quite flawed in all the ways noted, but it's also an entertaining blast, with great lines & lots of humour. If not taken too seriously it's quite enjoyable. It sometimes does feel like a pedestrian 70's caper movie rather than a Bond film (and I think the locations have a lot to do with this, as well as the accents/lack of exotism etc.) but it's fun.
Funnily enough both actors are lambasted for these films and yet I think they're both very good in them. Brosnan is excellent, for the most part, in DAD & I have new found appreciation for Connery's assured performance in DAF (although he admittedly has been noticeably better before).
I'd like to think so naturally, but I'm sure many on here are apt to disagree.
Lots of campiness offset by a palpable sense of threat and danger (which Connery's Bond is best at juggling). All of this alongside an extraordinarily witty script from Manky.
Count me in as a fan of Jill St. John as Tiff Case. Excellent Bond girl and one of the only American Bond girls I enjoy.
:D
I didn't mean any offence, haha! :D
;)
So you think the embarrassing stuff with Mary Goodnight during the sabotage of Scaramanga's solar weapon is great?! :)
And, on top of that, we get a series of one-of-a-kind background source cues: the melodramatic and over-the-top orchestral and choral 'requiem' piece for Slumber Inc., the saxophone-driven jazz piece for LA International Airport, the big band number in the Las Vegas casino when Bond meets Plenty, the jazzy fun that is 'Q's Trick', the elegant waltz 'Circus, Circus', the Dixieland number for the casino scene with Tiffany - the list of delicious goodies just goes on and on, making the expanded soundtrack a joy to listen to.
DAF for me is the best of the bunch. I see it as a great homage to the glorious decade that preceded.
As it was the first Bond film that I saw, it wasn't Connery that blew me away. I just took him for granted as the guy that plays this James Bond character.
What grabbed me was the great fantasy spy vibe, with real danger and suspense.
I was only 12 but I declared DAF the greatest movie ever made, and nothing has changed. It's still my favourite.
Roger Moore and the others that have followed, is what made me a Connery purist.
Connery's understated brilliance is magnified by the more exaggerated performances of the successors. Not really a knock. Just that Sean hit it out of the park. Bar was set very high.
Best of the succesors IMO is Laz, in that he didn't try to do anything too different, and like Sean had the advantage of being young, athletic, moved real well, and perfectly looked the part.
Back to DAF. I think each scene is perfection. Wouldn't change a thing, other than I think Sean is too hard on Tiffany at the oil rig. She had no way of knowing that he had already switched the tape.
Sean had these girls, literally eating out of his lap. Legend has it, he was rather "close" with both leads.
Sean I think was ultimate playboy Bond moreso than Rog.
It's the suave alpha male thing down pat.