What is the most underrated Bond film?

Films
141

Please pardon my previous shorthand. To me the film is an “anxious Bond.” Feminism, gay rights and what was referred to at the time as the military-industrial complex were emerging concepts/movements that were challenging the hegemony/ies that reigned at the time–they were threats in this way. Connery Bond #1 was emblematic of the old school/men-in-charge ideology of the post World War II world (in the novels Fleming charts from a British perspective the decay of this world, and I think DAF is the Bond films where this concern of Fleming’s is most/best articulated).

Bond’s adversaries in Mr. WInt and Mr. Kidd and Bambi and Thumper are coming at him from emerging worlds. I part company with Vito Russo and do not see Kidd and Wint as negative gay stereotypes, but as gay assassins trying to do their job. In the final confrontation, I love the moment when Kidd jumps overboard and there is a shot of WInt being distracted from his strangling of Bond as he witnesses his partner’s fate. This momentary lapse allows Bond to get the upper hand in the fight and dispose of Wint as well. But it is so remarkable that the filmmakers would even include such a shot–when else have henchman been shown to express emotion over the loss of one of their own?

As for the Bambi/Thumper confrontation, it always strikes me that Bond wins because…well, he has to so the movie can continue. There is a delicious sense that this fight will continue in other arenas.

Additionally, DAF has what I would term a poetics of anxiety–the film catches the mood of anxious change in early 70’s America: a) Bloefeld cross-dresses for no reason; b) Tiffany and Plenty are working-class girls and not exotic femmes; c) Tiffany wears pants-a first for a Bond girl; d) the CIA is shown to be actively working inside the borders of the USA (which it is forbidden to do); e) Willard Whyte seems to be able to call NASA operations without any problem; Whyte (industrialist) and Leiter (CIA) in the helicopter “overseeing” the raid on the oil rig in American waters; f) the faking of the moon landing; g) how conveniently and adroitly an industrialist’s empire can serve as cover for a criminal enterprise.

Add to the above the themes of masquerade and multiple identities–and you have a Bond movie that looks and acts like a Bond movie, but not quite. And that sense of “not quite-ness”–what I would refer to as a “queering of the text” (to use some jargon I picked up somewhere)–gives the film an anxious poetry–not poetry in a lyrical sense as in say a Terrence Malick film, but still a pervading aura that bonds (yes–pun) the scenes together even when the narrative fails to cohere.

5 Likes
142

A more erudite and considered response than either my interjection or the film deserve; thank you for that - much appreciated.

143

I‘ve been meaning to come back to this the whole day long, only I couldn’t find the specific quote: I distinctly remember having read Connery once suggested Bond should come down with rheumatism and a couple of girls should put him out of his misery. He probably said that around the time he began to hate the role, TB to YOLT or thereabouts - only I cannot for the life of me find this quote now, neither on the net nor in my books.

Anyway, I always thought the Bambi/Thumper teamup was DAF‘s comeback at Connery, more of an Easter egg than a particular shot at women‘s lib. Just as Wint and Kidd’s impact seems very different from today’s point of view than it did in the 70s. It’s seems odd from our perspective but I seriously doubt audiences - regardless of sexual orientation - gave gay rights much thought when they watched Diamonds Are Forever in 1971.

1 Like
144

I think they’re just gay in the film because they’re gay in the book… albeit in a much more comedic way in the film… so many great one liners!

145

Thanks for this comment. I always felt that the Hamilton Bonds reflected the personality of their director more than other Bonds–and you pointing out Hamilton’s penchant for flippancy solidifies it for me.

From research, I do know that Hamilton said that he and Mankiewicz got on like a house afire (though tensions eventually arose), so there was synergy there, and I would argue that Mankiewicz learned from his father Joseph L. Mankiewicz the technique of working in a specific film genre and at the same time being open to contemporary events as the script is written. As you can tell, I think DAF is the best work by the pair and demonstrates an almost ideal blend of genre elements and cultural-time-of-creation ideas and attitudes. Both Mankiewicz and Hamilton are rather flip (from different angles) about the new American Empire that is replacing the British one, and Las Vegas is the perfect setting for such an approach (I love that we do not see M and Moneypenny in their offices–even these solid signifiers have been eschewed).

In my view, LALD is less successful (apologies to its defenders), and I think flippancy in this case may be part of the problem. There seems to be an attempt to capture the insouciance of blaxploitation cinema, but what is missing is the genre’s soul (if you will allow it). Also, DAF spends a good deal of screen time away from Bond developing its secondary characters. LALD does not have this luxury since it is trying to establish a new Bond.

TMWTGG is my “what if” Bond. Had Mankiewicz been kept on, how would he and Hamilton have developed the original idea of Scaramanga and Bond as doppelgangers.

146

Agreed. What is so liberating is that Kidd’s and Wint’s gayness is not used as a signifier of evil/criminality which was standard procedure in films up until that time (and which persists to varying degrees to this day).

2 Likes
147

Dustin writes: “It’s seems odd from our perspective but I seriously doubt audiences - regardless of sexual orientation - gave gay rights much thought when they watched Diamonds Are Forever in 1971.”

I think some audience members might have. The film is only made two years after Stonewall. What is fascinating is how non-judgmental the film is about its queer characters. Here is a link to Andrew Sarris’ review that appeared in The Village Voice:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1299&dat=19711216&id=i9RHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=IIwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6558,5689371

Great critic that he is, he senses something new, but at the end calls upon Gore Vidal and Parker Tyler for assistance.

1 Like
148

Absolutely, in fact the whole film just revells in campery… right from the outrageous title song lyrics… and I love it as it gives DAF it’s sense of fun!

149

This has always struck me - it’s never a point to signify a story beat or particular characterisations, it’s just a detail for its own sake.

150

Not entirely true: Tiffany throwing the fake cake distracts Wint.

Strongly disagree. The film would have been so much better had Peter Hunt cut it. As it stands the editing is insufferably lax.

Many of your other points are on the mark - the film is really truly subtextually interesting in a way that most Bond films aren’t.

151

That’s technically correct, but I think the bigger point is that Wint displays considerable emotion over Kidd’s fate. He twists even harder on Bond’s neck and seems (to me) to let out a bit of a sob. This is our confirmation that the two were more than just “pals,” if we missed the other “hints.”

MrKiddWint, I have to say your insights here make for fantastic reading and I appreciate your sharing them. It’s fascinating to see a take on DAF that makes everthing seem almost deliberate and thematically coherent, instead of how it’s always come off to me, which is merely lazy, half-baked and borderline incompetent. Mind you, I’m not convinced you’re right, but it’ll make it easier to get through the film the next time I have a go at it.

Which I think was the original intent of this thread.

3 Likes
152

I’d love to disagree with you, but i can’t - it’s all true.

Makes me wonder why i like the movie, but i do.

Despite your well founded grievances, there’s still far more for me to love than to hate.

For the funeral sequence and the following, sublimely stylish rescue of Lucia alone i will always love this movie. More fool me, i guess!

1 Like
153

I love it because, I’m spite of the unfortunate family tree revelation, it is a real attempt to go classic Bond: and I love that!

154

First–thanks for all the comments and being made so welcome. It is much appreciated.

@glidrose: “Not entirely true: Tiffany throwing the fake cake distracts Wint.”

Thanks for the correction. The fact that a henchman is given a moment of depth in such a scene fogged my memory.

“The film would have been so much better had Peter Hunt cut it. As it stands the editing is insufferably lax.”

I agree that the editing is not in the manner of Peter Hunt–his style anticipates/inaugurates the type of rapid editing that is now the norm, which for me sacrifices a sense of space for a compulsive rhythm/pace.

What you describe as laxness I experience as capaciousness–but admittedly I like Tarkovsky films.

“…the film is really truly subtextually interesting in a way that most Bond films aren’t.”

Thanks for this. One of my struggles has always been that DAF has this alternate gear (if you will) that I do not find in other Bond films, and I really want to be able to ascribe a cause (or causes) for it. As David_M comments: “…everthing seem[s] almost deliberate and thematically coherent,” and it is that verb–“seems”–which is so troublesome.

Hamilton showed skills in his earlier work in England and an engagement with contemporary issues, and certainly demonstrated an affinity for the 2:35 AR in THE BATTLE OF BRITAIN. He apprenticed under Carol Reed and John Huston, and clearly learned from the experiences. But there is nothing of the richness of DAF in his filmography either before or after this particular movie. I can see how a viewer could legitimately experience the film as David_M has: “lazy, half-baked and borderline incompetent.”

But I find poetry in the film, and even if I cannot cause someone to experience it, I can point to the many constituent elements which are far more numerous than mere happenstance would allow for. And I do not think they can be accounted for as a by-product of the production process of a Bond film (“genius of the system” argument) since such poetry occurs possibly only this once out of 24 films (though I have another candidate I am mulling over). But even two out of 24 does not a case make.

Quentin Crisp said that “If at first you don’t succeed, failure may be your style.” DAF is a failed Bond movie–not a failure in the sense of technical execution–Hamilton is not Herman Shumlin after all–but in the sense of not upholding/honoring–to the degree/level of previous Bond films–the tropes of the prior movies. David_M can experience this as “lazy, half-baked” and it is, but the film is so consistently lazy and half-baked that a new cohesion emerges–a cohesion of failing to obey the rules of a Bond film without actually bothering to discard them.

In this way, even the attack on the oil rig–which was filmed with only half of the cameras intended because an assistant director mistook a final run-through for the actual take and set the explosions off too soon–goes from a lackluster spectacle to a ruined set piece complete with devoted assistant gravely intoning a countdown and Bond abandoning the rig before he is sure that the villain is dead…followed by a quick cut (which I love–the abruptness creates an aporia where multiple resonances can flourish) to the cruise ship about to depart (which in my mind is sailing the waters still with James and Tiffany aboard enjoying themselves). And how do we end? Not with Bond atop the woman, uttering a quip, but with the woman having the last word and then the final titles:

THE END
OF
DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER

JAMES BOND WILL RETURN IN

LIVE AND LET DIE

But which Bond will return? And LALD is now set to follow a film in which characters seemed to die and yet lived. Of course, LALD just happened to be the next book to be adapted (only four novels remained I think), and this is the standard final title, and yet the poetry persists.

And lastly, there is that glowing speck on the screen above the letter “O” in DIAMONDS–the weapon that still hangs in space and which Bond failed to bring down. You are all better Bondians than I–in any other Bond film is the potential tool of destruction allowed to survive in this way?

3 Likes
155

He also had their eye for composition, something, I believe, sets him apart from many of the other Bond directors in the original series (1962-2002).

156

@glidrose: He certainly did, and it does. The original series’ directors were better editors than composers of images (thankfully they had Ted Moore much of the time). My favorite image in the original Bond series (and one of my favorites in all of cinema) is from DAF (surprise).

It is the high angle shot when Bond and Tiffany in the red Mustang are following the van out of Las Vegas into the desert. The left side of the screen has the tall sign of The Dunes (I think) and a cluster of other buildings indicating that we are at the edge of the Strip. The rest of the screen has the road heading into the desert (the majority of the image).

Narratively the shot tells us where the story is headed, but it also comments on the “circus circus” that is America–an oasis of excess in the middle of a huge wasteland. A piece of visual flippancy on Hamilton’s part, the image moves the narrative forward; embodies the film’s (and Fleming’s) mixed (at best) feelings about America and its empire; and possesses a balance and eloquence in its composition that is deeply satisfying.

2 Likes
157

MrKiddWint: I’ve never thought about DAF more deeply than just 'it’s the most whimsical and weakest of Connery’s Bond films, but it’s fun in a we’re-in-on-the-joke way". Poetic? Subtext? More power to you :slight_smile: I firmly believe that DAF is neither under nor over appreciated.