I would say Dalton is more likely but Brosnan does seem very proud of Bond tenure and what he did for a generation engaging with Bond should not be underestimated…
4 Likes
The break was for gif purposes.
Dalton was just too big.
4 Likes
Brosnan would be more effective for a mass audience but BB would not want him back.
Dalton would be welcomed by BB but the mass audience would not be interested.
And it’s too late for both anyway.
Still, I‘d love to see Dalton as M, just for my own nostalgia kick.
But… just for argument‘ sake: imagine the next actor failing, and then BB makes Craig come back for one more… I would not be surprised.
2 Likes
Sadly it is true that Dalton would not appeal to the mass audience (but I would love to have him back).
I agree that Brosnan could work but as an older Bond but it would be a very different Bond film. Perhaps a retired agent brought back to help on a key problem like Smiley and (if my memory is correct) Peter Deveraux in the November Man. I believe you are right in saying BB would not be interested.
I would certainly welcome Dalton back in any capacity (M, Q, the bad guy, the valet at the hotel…).
4 Likes
After ON HER MAJESTY’S I followed up with DIAMONDS and just jotted down my off the cuff reactions:
First absurd thing - if we just ignore Bond beating up and interrogating some guy in public in a Cairo casino - is the Blofeld double resting near-completely submerged in some mud bathtub. With a revolver at the ready.
Next: three seconds later the same guy who was just fine and toasty submerged in whatever this brown sludge is supposed to be, drowns fatally because Bond empties another half tub on him - that mostly spills over the brim. How is this supposed to be deadly?
‘A diamond? In a ring?’
Splendid idea, Moneypenny! This is the guy who just lost his wife and avenged her during his holidays. Your chance to grab him and see if you can do better than that chit of a girl of the year before last. Go for it! Then again, that’s just par for the course with M who openly hates ConneryBond and only just kicked his broad backside metaphorically by suggesting now that Blofeld is dead he might actually start working again…
Has Connery always carried himself so hunched forward? I never noticed.
What’s the point of fixing a win for Tiffany Case in a way even a kid can see through?
And why would guys playing astronauts move in moon-slo-mo when they want to head off an intruder?
Moon buggy chase: we can’t be arsed to pull this above roadrunner level, get used to it.
That Nevada state trooper with the helmet and the sunglasses in the glaring Vegas neon night…
Actually, we cannot be arsed to make any special effects above tin can telephone level - but those we can make look like a Wes Anderson composition.
And while most of this reads critical of the film - because it is - that’s also testament to the strange fascination DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER holds: this film almost completely does away with the virtues of its predecessor, no story, no adventure, almost no thrills and no action to speak of. Its only special effect is Connery (in almost every frame); its only spectacle is how Connery-as-Bond is entirely beyond the reach of a script or critical assessment. This is meta-showman Bond and the only sensation worth watching: how the absurdities stack up around him - even on him - and how he keeps his cool while his surroundings swoon.
For long years we fans considered this a nadir, a failure, a missed opportunity. But history teaches us it was exactly that drift into self parody the series needed to survive. Would Moore have been interested without the series on financially solid ground? Would the era of circus act Bond have been so successful without the concession to fluff and fun? That’s questionable.
Insofar, all that’s right with DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER.
6 Likes
The entire movie is LazenbyBond’s dream/hallucination as he lays under sedation in hospital, having suffered a complete mental breakdown as a result of Tracy’s murder.
Method acting. They are so committed to their roles, they continue them even as their playacting is overrun by Bond and security staff. Same thing happens at Slumber, Inc: Morton Slumber never breaks character.
Which is the poetry of the film. If there had been a stray absurdity here or there (which broke a realistic tenor), that would have been problematic. But when the entire film is meta/absurd/parodic, there is poetry. In the face of everything and anything, Bond triumphs, e.g., suddenly being able to best Bambi and Thumper in the pool. Why? Because the narrative must go forward. DAF is the greatest depiction of Bondian resilience in the franchise.
Without the existence and success of DAF, CommanderBond.net would not exist.
6 Likes
I should rewatch the next one - but in my memory LALD is almost down to earth realistic compared to DAF, right?
3 Likes
It brings back the semblance of a story, dials back the meta and puts the confrontation into a destiny frame: Solitaire really reads Bond’s arrival and that he has ‘purpose’ (one supposes in certain social circles that’s the definition of ‘is out to kill you’). Everything is meant to happen, even Bond tricking her and the laughter of Samedi at the end. LIVE AND LET DIE is more episodic circus show, but with a frame story that doesn’t simply rely on the lead actor being the sensation.
3 Likes
It depends on how realistic a viewer considers the film’s portrayals of African-American and Caribbean characters. Trying to mix Blaxploitation tropes with a British spy narrative, while featuring a white hero, was not the best idea. The film’s depiction of Caribbean religious rituals also seems to have more in common with I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE and other B-movie conventions, than anything associated with the concept of realism.
As Dustin notes, LALD
but it doesn’t dial up the realistic. Rather, it switches out the meta for the stereotypical (which it hopes to pass off as the realistic).
3 Likes
It’s about as realistic as DRACULA A.D. 1972 and it shares some of that film’s general air of mild horror tropes. But it’s no more meant to be realistic than Fleming’s book was. Fleming had no more understanding of the Afro-American communities than of Caribbean ones; he was strictly interested in the obscure and bizarre that often enough originated more in fantasy than reality.
Does it, though? Hope to pass off stereotypes as realistic?
To me, LIVE AND LET DIE’S flamboyant gangster types are far more memorable - even relatable - than all the black/red/yellow clad armies of faceless goons before or after. Yes, they are ‘types’ - but not stereotypes. They are identifiable with different tempers and contexts (the San Monique voodoo village aside). And they are far from easily disposed by Bond.
But even as a kid I never mistook these types as realistic or rivals to the characters in CAR WASH. Nor do I think that was intended.
2 Likes
I disagree. Removing the meta and spectacle elements of DAF, are a move to realism, with Bond as a fish-out-of-water in gritty 1970s New York City.
I agree. But being memorable does not exclude them from the category of the stereotypical.
Not sure that the distinction you are proposing is present.
That is one huge aside, and may be part of the problem for me. The voodoo village is such a stereotype that it casts a pall on the entire proceedings, making the earlier depictions (which may walk the line between type and stereotype) tip over into stereotypes.
I think that is great that you didn’t, and I am not not surprised.
Whether it was intended or not does not impact if it can be received that way. There are many representations that I am sure were not intended as racist/sexist/homophobic/misogynist/etc., but which, in point of fact, are.
3 Likes
To me, the theme of LIVE AND LET DIE is ‘Bond vs the Occult’ - it is a horror film in Bond drag, diving from the ordinary UN conference room ever deeper into the realm of the supernatural: the Big Easy with its undertone of the big unease, a whole funeral party to celebrate the killing of one man. Finally, the setting of a ritualistic voodoo execution. This scene differs in tone and impact from the UN killing (extravagant) and New Orleans murder (bizarre).
The voodoo ritual is closer to THE WICKER MAN than a spy/adventure thriller. It’s used to set the tone, a Dracula film with old Vlad and Van Helsing replaced by Kananga and Bond.
Given that context I see few alternatives to the depiction of this (studio) village and its people, unless we’d spend much more time in that village. We’re effectively watching the crowd congregating around a pyre with a witch bound to a stake. Yes, that’s a horror stereotype - only I don’t see how this could be avoided.
I think whoever receives LIVE AND LET DIE as ‘realistic’, today or back in the age of films like CAR WASH or, particularly, CLAUDINE, decides to do so against every observable reality. And would likely also consider a Looney Tunes cartoon realistic if it met their expectations.
3 Likes
All of the absurdities in DAF have their own logic the film is about masks and duality, and performance.it is Meta.
LALD doesn’t create enough of a universe for it’s absurdities be logical to itself.
The British spy knifes in PTS is obviously American.
"When the time was right I would have given you love " this implies that Kananga did this to Solitaires Mother - so is Solitaire his daughter? If so why is she white and English? If not did her mother moved to England have a child and send the child to Kananga.
The 007 cards would have worked. In the Casino of DAF but are corny here.
2 Likes
Yes, but also specifically Black Occult. The filmmakers were explicit about their using Blaxploitation tropes. LALD is not BELL, BOOK, AND CANDLE.
I would say it is a Bond film in both horror drag and Blaxploitation drag.
Done as a Black jazz funeral.
If the ritual is closer to THE WICKER MAN, why dress it up in voodoo trappings?
A good reading, but one still has the question of why swathe it in Black culture tropes? Once the filmmakers do that, they invite these questions.
Refrain from including in your movie a depiction of an occult ritual performed on a Caribbean island?
This is the problem as I see it: the filmmakers wanted to pivot back to the franchise’s earlier realism, while keeping a smidgen of DAF’s absurdist energy. As a result, they made a film that had occult elements, as well as Blaxploitation tropes, while refraining from producing either a full-blown horror movie or Blaxploitation movie. They thought (and this is my surmise) that they could pick and choose among the tropes/stylings of these genres, while maintaining a realistic core. They did not want to go full DAF.
But taking Blaxploitation tropes, and applying them to a narrative with a white hero, doesn’t work. Blaxploitation tropes were designed for films with Black protagonists/heroes, and without that context, the tropes curdle into racist representations.
Unfortunately, as Stb points out,
The filmmakers forgot the lesson they had learned two years before. LALD never totally embraces its Blaxploitation/horror tropes/narrative, so its realism is only decorated by the tropes, rather than transformed by them.
3 Likes
British film makers made movie in nd about “the colonies”. What did you expect? 
6 Likes
I’m not sure it would be less offensive if we changed the theme from voodoo to Celtic paganism. Either depiction isn’t based - very probably isn’t based - on actual customs. And both are problematic once we descend into depictions of human sacrifices. Then again, audiences are usually mature enough to recognise such depictions as fantasy. At least they used to; I cannot vouch for future generations. Or current ones fanaticised by the Internet.
To both questions I can only point at the source material: Live and Let Die is a book about the Black New York culture and the reverberations of the voodoo religion inside that sociocultural group along the East Coast and the Caribbean. The voodoo parts of which were quoted and informed by Patrick Leigh Fermor’s The Traveller’s Tree (find the archived book here for free).
I haven’t read that book but it’s safe to assume Fleming focused on more sensationalist parts while ignoring Fermor’s insights into the slave trade as the root cause for much of the resulting situation in the 1940s and in fact up to this day.
However, once you decide to adapt that book you are set with Black culture tropes and occult rituals. You could leave them alone, only why then adapt the book at all? And if you ignore that book, the only one in Fleming’s œuvre with major black protagonists, wouldn’t that open similar questions as to why they ignore that work at a time of a strong Black voice in culture?
I’d say they absolutely can pick and choose whatever they like; as creatives that’s their prerogative. As you rightfully point out, they have to live with the consequences, that’s absolutely fair.
Well, it’s not as if Blaxploitation tropes were sacrosanct themselves. NAACP was critical of the genre even back then precisely because it purported stereotypes and a negative image of Afro-Americans. That didn’t keep audiences from enjoying these tropes as a cheeky subversive play on genre conventions. But I would argue they are not quite eye level with fair ethic/ethnic representation regardless of the protagonist.
Then again, LIVE AND LET DIE’s use of Blaxploitation elements comes down to a few simple photo ops with Moore in Shaft costume. Inevitable when we consider the time and place of that film in the entertainment landscape. Should it rather have been left alone?
I’m undecided because I think there’s a thrilling story inside Live and Let Die that deserves to see its big screen adaptation - but it’s doubtful how that adaptation could have been made without the implied racist representations. One might argue it’s still an entertaining film in its own right cutting large doses of the source’s racism. But is that enough? How would we feel about it had that been Jewish tropes and misrepresentations, or British/German/French ones?
I don’t know.
4 Likes
I do not expect nuanced and careful treatment of any sensitive issue in a pulp story which only has one goal: to tell an exciting story of good vs evil.
Is Bond chauvinistic, sexist, at least skirting racism? Definitely. Because its very idea is intrinsically offensive in today‘s perspective: a British spy with the licence to kill saves the world, bedding women whenever he wants, fights opponents of every skin color, religion and favorably with divergent appearances, impediments and whathaveyous.
In my opinion, DAF is extremely offensive to the LGBTQ+ community, with two weirdly looking and behaving homosexuals who enjoy torturing and killing others, with one being killed after apparently enjoying having put his „tail“ between his legs.
And here‘s the shocker: it is „all in good fun“. And I laughed when I saw it as a kid.
Nowadays I see it as a sign of its times, just like a lesbian being turned to the good side by being kissed and more.
6 Likes
I am not disappointed. Hamilton’s colonial perspective did wonders for DAF.
In an oral history of Bond films, a critic from The Hollywood Reporter says that LALD is full of “playful racism,” and it is clear that LALD is not in THE BIRTH OF A NATION territory, being more misguided and undercooked than malicious.
Agreed. The question is: how authentic does a depiction need to be with regard to its cultural source? People are often comment about the unbelievability of a character’s behavior, saying that some action would never happen in real life (as opposed to reel life). So what rules guide the presentation of cultural practices?
The question arises: does racist content lose its racist nature when incorporated into fantasy? Does the fantasy genre provide a get-out-of-jail-free card for biased depictions?
I am not sure that it is a matter of fanaticism. It seems more that there is greater analysis nowadays of the license that has been taken, and the amount of respect shown in the taking of that license. As I noted above, the claim that “it is a fantasy” is subject to scrutiny (not undeserved, since I think we can all cite fantasies that traffic in the biases of the cultures/societies which produced them).
Which started the problem.
That is the question. Do you course correct on Fleming’s biases/omissions, or reduce/correct them as much as possible?
Maybe not, since the material in this instance is so biased that skipping it would seem sensible, because, as you note, renovating it would make hash of the narrative.
Agreed. We also agree that they can be critiqued for their selection process and its results.
Agreed. As you note, the NAACP played the respectability card on the genre, just as later happened during the emergence of hip hop.
The question is: how to excavate it from beneath all of Fleming’s racist stylings.
Agreed.
The movie improved on its source, but unless it went into documentary mode, it was always going to have problems.
Exactly. Whose ox is being gored? I may love a certain moment in a movie, but someone with greater cultural knowledge may point out to me that Bavarians having schnapps with their cornflakes is a vicious stereotype. I have learned from my husband about depictions that are racist, and from female friends about sexist content, which, in both cases, I missed.
Avoiding racism/sexism when telling any type of story is not requesting “nuanced and careful treatment.” It is merely asking for common decency.
It was intrinsically offensive at the time of production–just as with THE BIRTH OF A NATION, which had people pointing out its racism in 1915, when it was released. Works do not suddenly become problematic; rather, discussions of their problems have became more widespread. The quiet part is getting said out loud more and more.
Sad to admit, but not all gay men possess GQ-level looks. And what is wrong with enjoying one’s work? Mr. Kidd and Mr. Wint are are killers, who are gay. They are not killers whose gayness is a signifier of their evil natures.
At least we know that Mr. Wint wasn’t a side.
Depends on whom you ask. It may have been meant in good fun, but maintaining that a lesbian is just one kiss away from heterosexuality is creepy (or worse) to some folk.
4 Likes
When you pour a glass of wine into a barrel of slurry, the result is slurry. When you pour a glass of slurry into a barrel of wine, the result is also slurry. “Playful” or not, it is what it is: racism.
5 Likes
Agreed. I found the comment interesting coming from a known Black critic for The Hollywood Reporter. I do think that LALD’s “playfulness” is one of the reasons that its racism gets a pass, where the racism of TBOAN gets no quarter whatsoever.
Also, deep thanks to all for yet another remarkable and enlightening discussion.
2 Likes