It has been said that the plot of Diamonds Are Forever is confusing. But it is possible to connect the dots and draw some conclusions to what is really going on by reflecting and piecing together all the information that has been presented in the story. One could argue this is poor direction or unpolished writing, while on the otherhand, it could be argued this approach lends itself to deeper thought and interpretation rather than spoon feeding the viewer the plot. A non-Bond example is Pulp Fiction, where the story jumps chronologically from scene to scene, which could potentially confuse the viewer on initial viewing. There is also the unexplained briefcase, which one can infer possible meaning from various clues from throughout the film. There are several scenes throughout DAF that were lost on me the first time through. But on repeated viewings I was able to gather enough clues to make sense of what was going on: such as why the gangsters leave the hotel and why they tossed Plenty out of the window for example.
One particular scene that stands out is the Tiffany Case scene in the casino as Blofeld-in-drag walks by. Tiffany is having a chat with Q about working for the 'good guys'. Meanwhile, Q uses his RPM detector to score the jackpot on the slots. Suddenly, Blofeld in drag with cat walks through the room, which catches Tiffany's attention. She immediately pursues him to the outside. She searches for him in the taxi area, and eventually finds him, only to be shoved into the car. To which Blofeld says he is pleased to <i>meet</i> her.
This scene left me scratching my head for the longest time and I'm still not entirely sure about it. For one, based on what Tiffany said in earlier scenes, she only takes orders from voices on a phone, so she wouldn't have seen Blofeld face to face. So why then would she pursue this person without knowing who he(she) is? Second, how would Blofeld know how to bait her?
Here are my two theories:
Theory #1
Blofeld was wearing one of Tiffany's costumes and wigs: Blofeld wears a blond wig in the scene, and Tiffany's blond wig is alluded to in the scene in her Amsterdam apartment with Bond. Secondly, Kidd and Wint visited Tiffany's Vegas pad to kill her (but instead get Plenty). When Tiffany arrives there, she says "What's my wig doing in the pool?", which suggests she brought at least one wig with her on her trip to the States, so it's plausible she brought her collection of wigs as well. Having visited the Vegas house, Kidd and Wint would have rummaged the place for information on Tiffany, finding her outrageous collection of wigs and outfits. It would make sense that K and W, being androgynous characters themselves would go for the wigs. Blofeld who wishes to keep his identity secret in public uses the wig as disguise and as a way to bait in Tiffany.
Theory #2
Tiffany recognizes the diamonds on the cat's collar: This seems to be the more likely theory. For one, the movie opens to the shot of the diamond cat collar suggesting this is an important symbol that will come up later. The next clue comes in the briefing scene with M and Bond, where M describes the different types of diamonds. This is important, because the diamonds used in the heist by Blofeld are a specific unique high karrat type of diamond. This all ties together because Tiffany is a diamond connoisseur--she's literally named after Tiffany & Co. Plus, she was involved in the diamond smuggling ring first hand. She even had them in her chandelier. So she could probably spot those diamonds a mile away. Being that these were a rare variety of diamond and Tiffany's knowledge of diamonds, she would have <b>spotted the diamonds on the cat collar</b> and followed suit out of curiosity. By this theory, the DIAMONDS are the bait and Blofeld dressed as an old lady makes him appear less intimidating to Tiffany, so that she follows after her.
What do you think of these theories? Do you think there are other explanations? I want to avoid base reactions such as "this movie sucks" or "the writing is terrible". Obviously those opinions of the film as a whole are certainly held and expressed by many. But I'd like this to be more of a creative discussion of what could possibly be the explanation from the perspective of the story. I appreciate your input!
Comments
Of course all of this is silly because James Bond goes around telling everyone his real name in all of his films. Some "secret" agent! The whole world should know who he is by now. Yet, that's the type of silliness that makes Bond so fun!
On the previous site I was working on a novelization of DAF. Would you mind if I used your theory in my story?
Just a few examples. When the real Franks rings at Tiffany’s door, why does she calmly repeat, ‘Third floor.’? Any sane person would go, ‘You know the way, don’t you…?!’ Then there’s the whole circus thing, where Tiffany is taken through an adventurous quest for clues when she could have just been handed the diamonds somewhere, anywhere in fact, by Bond himself. No need to have the CIA track her so obviously. I’m not even going to talk about the Zambala act.
This film wasn’t written, it was smoked into its eventual form. Seriously, Tom M and co must have been puffing the green stuff when they decided that this was the right way to proceed after OHMSS. That said, I love its campiness, its ‘we-don’t-care-as-long-as-it’s-fun’. Numerous conceits lead us from point A to B, so what’s the point bothering anyway? I play along – caring less about why Tiffany chases Blofeld than about Blofeld in drag. However, some really good theories have been brought up in this thread and though they carry the weight of a good spin and nothing more, it amuses me to read into them and re-interpret parts of the story.
Question? Why did the hoods toss Plenty out the window and did they know there was a pool down there? I'm not sure what the correct answer to this question is, despite numerous viewings.
Re Bond posing as Mr. Fisher in YOLT. I don't think he cared what they knew. Bond is brazen this way. He just wanted an audience with Osato, to see what he could glean and take it from there. If the meeting put him in danger, so be it.
My guess is that they're still under the assumption that Bond is still Franks and they're next in line to collect the daimonds. Bond says, "get me the real money first" at the Mortuary. The gangsters eventually realize Bond (Franks) is pulling a fast one on them, so they show up at the hotel room to collect. I would think they just threw Plenty out the window as intimidation so he would pay up with the diamonds; because they are 'gangsters' afterall. But they are taken back by his reaction when he punches the guy out - they suddenly realize that maybe this isn't Franks afterall but an oustide man who's on to them.
I certainly can't disagree with anything you wrote in this post, @DaltonCraig007. However, given this thread's topic I felt compelled to comment on the many flaws and inconsistencies presently detectable in the script. That said, I wouldn't want them to alter a word in said script. Considering the pleasure and fun I extract from each viewing of DAF, I regard the possibility of a more consistent script with complete equanimity, borderline indifference.
Other than Wint and Kidd (only because they're gay) and Shady Tree (stupid name saves his life in my memories, but not in the film), what other memorable/colorful secondary characters are there?
Professor Doctor Metz (was Doctor his first name? Was Doctor a name? Did he really have two titles and a last name?) was easily duped into Blofeld's scheme, when any idiot would know there's no peaceful objective in mind when somebody's building a laser. No weapon was made for peace.
Blofeld himself was kind of stupid (and any Bond villain who goes in drag doesn't rate very high in my book). I honestly think the only reason for the "Blofeld double" thing was to explain that he had plastic surgery to look different in every film (Telly Savalas was the best Blofeld after Anthony Dawson's menacing hands from FRWL and TB, and I'm not kidding, those menacing hands stroking a cat sold that character for me).
Tiffany was, as Bond states, a bitch. She's a stupid twit, again as Bond says. Her only redeeming quality was that two-tone bikini near the end of the movie (God sakes, she fires a machine gun and falls into the ocean, funny but stupid).
Plenty O'Toole is saved by her name and her name alone, but even with that, I wouldn't call her memorable or colorful.
I guess Willard Whyte is okay, but I like Jimmy Dean sausages (God rest his meaty soul).
Felix Leiter in that film was an asshole (please pardon the word, but it best explains him in that film), and that makes him funny, but nothing like the Felix in any film preceding or following (though, I've gotta say, at least after this film, Felix's character stays fairly consistent, but that could be because he was only in three more pre-Craig movies, and was played by David Hedison in two of them).
M, Q and Moneypenny were the same as they were in pretty much every movie with Bernard Lee, Desmond Llewelyn and Lois Maxwell, so they didn't get better or worse.
That's a good question!
Probably because all of the Mankiewicz Bond films have a thing for bimbo characters--Rosie in LALD, Plenty and second half-Tiffany in DAF, and of course Goodnight in TMWTGG. Never mind that bimbos are inherently un-Bondian concept--there are none in Fleming for example.
She was such a strong,independent,interesting character in the first half.