In regards to the Bond mask, i’ve always thought, in regards to the in film logic, the use of known enemy operatives was part of Spectre’s indoctrination of their soldiers.
Try 56 years and counting.
That makes some sense. At this stage, Grant still hasn’t been confirmed as THE guy for the job, so maybe all SPECTRE assassins train this way, to reinforce the mental conditioning: “If you ever see this face, kill, kill, KILL!”
However, if they’re this good at making Bond masks, why not just film that incriminating sex scene with Tania using an imposter? Then they could make it as kinky and incriminating as possible.
Ah, but don’t you risk the ACTUAL Bond being somewhere else with witnesses, at which point they’ve given away, to one of their main opponents, one of their assets that could’ve been more useful in the future, like, Thunderball, where they took to the logical extreme of replacing someone for their own ends…
But, yes, that was convoluted to get to.
For me, it’s the confined space that makes it interesting - more a battle of wits and improvisation, rather than brute force and martial arts training.
Indeed questions that Eon would prefer we didn’t ask. They sacrificed logic for that bait and switch moment.
Exactly. The entire moonlight maze assassination scene is superfluous, the film would work perfectly without it. But on another level it perfectly captures what the film, what the world of Bond is all about: suspense in various forms and guises. And the scene even ends with - almost - breaking the fourth wall. The lights go on and the director appears to give his verdict. Eon’s winking there at us, showing us their equipment and the Pinewood main building. Let’s pretend it’s the SPECTRE villa! Let’s play murder!
Even that part in itself defies logic: if they observe the entire training drill killing, as the lights imply, then they should surely be on all the time, no? But inside the Bond world Eon creates it makes perfect sense, the lights, the mask, the silent killer. Because it’s a hell of a good tale this way.
It operates almost entirely on a conceptual level in the a similar way to the main title sequences. It sets up tone and brand.
Equally why on earth would a secret agent have a huge Union Jack on his parachute, advertising his allegiance. But that gag that ends TSWLM pts is saying just the same thing: this is a Bond movie, folks.
Yes, but two very different kinds of Bond movies. That chute in TSWLM signals that we’ve just literally gone “over the top” and that’s the gear we’re going to stay in for the next two hours.
Patriotism was always there (for example, Bond’s portrait of the Queen in OHMSS), but the parachute gag brought it to another level. It worked for Moore. It presented Bond both as an individual and a loyal servant.
Well, and let’s face it, if the object was to keep a low profile, he wouldn’t have climbed into that bright yellow ski suit.
Absolutely… the whole bit about Zambora, being captured and turning into a gorilla at Circus Circus in Diamonds Are Forever… Even back then in 1971 this should have been considered too controversial and never should have been put in the script. I find it much more offensive and cringeworty than the bit in Dr. No where Bond asks Quarrel to fetch his shoes…
I saw the Zambora show at an Exhibition sideshow once, some time in the late 70s. The girl they presented while the barker drew the crowd was white (he didn’t say anything about her being captured near Nairobi, South Africa, though).
Inside the tent (no lab set), the hippie in charge opened the caged box enough for you to see the rippling 2D slide of a similar-looking girl inside, then he started lip syncing to an over-loud recording of a deep voice bringing Zambora out her transcendental state (“ZANBORA bora bora…! HEAR ME ear me ear me…!”)
When the guy in the gorilla suit burst out of the cage, another hippie urged everyone to flee while the dude with the dummy mike tried valiantly to hold the ape off with his bare hands.
That performance was offensive, to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a very stable genius. I wished I’d had a starter pistol with me, so I could have fired a few blanks at the guy in the gorilla suit - it would have been amusing to see him jump into the arms of his ‘handler’.
At least the version in DAF was well-staged.
Isn’t this scene supposed to be cringeworthy? I always thought it underlined the garish and tasteless which a town like Las Vegas is known for.
This raises a point (one that I think is very relevant for Live and Let Die) about whether a film is being racist if what they are intentionally depicting racism. Live and Let Die, for example, has Kananga using stereotypes so as to cover up his drug empire; he is able to farm, ship and sell by using the racist assumptions of others as a distraction.
Of course, the depiction of racism in any film is walking a fine line between representation and enforcement. But as for LALD, I never got the impression that the movie indulges in racism.
Does it use stereotypes? Absolutely. But those apply to every character in the film. Even Bond.
I also do not look at characters in movies as stand-ins for a whole group. They are just representing their own particular personality.
Of course, if a movie regularly depicts people in the same way the filmmakers´s perspectives reveal themselves.
I agree. I don’t see anything particularly racist about LALD, certainly not worse than other films. It more or less plays out like any other Bond film, the villains just happen to be black. The book on the other hand…
In terms of awful CGI action nonsense, the skydive in QOS is worse than the DAD parasurfing. At least DAD has a sort of dumb innocence, like it was directed by a dog.
More than happy to criticise FRWL here! Young was the shakiest director technically, so lots of scenes don’t work, or the seams show (the explosion in Kerim’s office, stealing the Lektor). Too many of the sets tend to look like what you’d see in Elvis movies from around that time. The bad acting from the extra who opens Blofeld’s office door for Kronsteen usually gets me to turn the movie off and put something else on. DN and FRWL are the two Bonds that still feel like creaky 40s movies. Hamilton REALLY brought the series into the zeitgeist and can’t be thanked enough. Part of me wonders if Young had handled Goldfinger, the movies would have fizzled out by the end of the decade.
And I still have no idea what’s supposed to be happening when Connery opens the window blind, is cut off mid sentence but a CRRRRASH sound effect, and raises a hand to his face like he’s been hit. Someone help me!
Okay, that made me almost spray coffee on my laptop screen and keyboard! Nicely played…
It’s a fair point.
Rather like a 50‘s movie-which is only logical since they both were made at the beginning of the 60‘s. Happens every decade, perfectly normal way of evolving - which only in retrospect might appear weird.
Back then both Young directed Bonds were received as a fresh breath of air, and if you turn off FRWL because of one extra‘s acting you seem to be a very tough customer. Without those two films and their success there would not have been more Bond films either.
That’s what it looks like - but it seems like a REALLY weird thing to put in a movie. What’s the point? Is it an in-joke for Orient Express passengers? Baffling decision to me.
The same goes with the IMMENSE significance Young puts on a female passenger in a headscarf that slips between Bond and Kerim in the passage. I wondered for years if it was meant to be a KGB agent, or even Grant, disguising themselves in drag to sneak past them. Such is the IMPORTANCE given to it. I’ve decided it’s just a weird directorial decision, but Young makes a few too many of those.
The song sucks too and Barry wouldn’t hit his stride til the next one.
Otherwise a pretty good movie! But there was much better to come.
And i do appreciate that each Bond looks exactly like its production year - and agree that’s what gives the series its sense of history. I wouldn’t really want any of them to look timeless.