HOPES UP WAY TOO HIGH - A TLD review
TOOTS
Posts: 114MI6 Agent
HOPES UP WAY TOO HIGH
“The Living Daylights” REVIEWED. AGAIN!
A Quiet Revolution
When The Living Daylights was released, a quiet revolution happened in the world of James Bond. All of a sudden, what opened up in film Bond were possibilities. A Bond film no longer had to be a circus or a pantomime but could attempt to return to its roots – that of the contemporary, Hitchcock-ian, romantic, intelligent, international, mystery, thriller.
A story murky with recent Iran-Contra-gate topicality, this 15th Eon Bond film was a character-led tale of intrigue that was difficult to summarize for the press. Said press were already antagonized by a new leading man who kept an air of mystery about his personal life. In order to fully appreciate what Timothy Dalton brought to 007, one would have to have been a James Bond fan before he was cast. The long and successful reign of Roger Moore was an achievement in itself but the Press had been rather spoilt by 14 years of media-friendly frolics. Dalton’s distance did not endear him to them. Their view was, “It’s only a Bond film, lighten up.”
However, for the first time, the actor playing Bond had read all 14 Fleming Bond books, researched and knew about Fleming (allegedly keeping a copy of John Pearson’s Fleming biography on his bedside table) and had a keen sense of what he wanted to achieve: something different yet classic.
The Dalton Effect
Upon his announcement as Bond on 6th August 1986, Dalton was a relatively unknown, leading man/working actor. However, this became an important aspect to the thrill of his debut. This lack of knowledge about the actor made his Bond unpredictable. On first viewing, the PTS and the defection in Bratislava were dangerous, involving and atmospheric. When trailing Kara and meeting in her flat, Bond was intense - his careful phrasing making their conversation a chess game of circumstance. When Bond interrogates Pushkin, it is tough and ruthless and even Rubavitch (sic?) is not spared. When Bond is beaten in the Afghan jail, there’s no pithy comeback. Just when one thought a one-liner was coming, it didn’t. To an audience weaned on 14 years of suaveness, this was a revelation. Out of context now, these grace notes are lost.
In TLD, few scenes are written to showcase character. Character is revealed through the plot. Dalton presents Bond as a reluctant yet ruthless romantic protagonist. A man of action and energy, living on the edge, Dalton is in the centre, running, jumping, fighting and shooting with conviction. He details his performance with nuggets of information and emotion:
a) cigarette smoke escaping on hearing Koskov’s report of Smiert Spionam – hot air,
b ) rigid and economical movement in the pipeline scouring pig launch bay,
c) martial bearing in M’s office,
d) the regrasping of the Walther grip in the Pushkin interrogation,
e) drinking whisky with Leiter,
f) his protectiveness of Kara in Afghanistan,
g) frustration in the Hercules as he tries to communicate with Kara,
h) frantic grip on the Hercules controls to evade oncoming, landing plane.
Dalton’s performance conveys the effort of survival, the pain of being hit, the exhilaration of escape, and the spoils of seduction.
He went back to the humanity of the man from the novels and injected as much of the man as the script would allow. In M’s office, a cut scene containing a brief rumination on accidie allowed Dalton to inject some overt world-weariness into his Bond. Dalton had wisely asked for one-liners to be removed and his Bond is a taciturn intelligence operative. Marketed as "The Most Dangerous Bond...Ever", Dalton’s lupine looks and careful publicity heralded a finely wrought, unsurpassed approach to the characterization of Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
The Dalton Defence
The film is not without humour but it is a different sort of humour to that of previous Bonds, especially the Roger Moore era. In TLD, there is little outright comedy. This has been replaced by comic relief. Brief relief, perfectly in keeping with the darker, moodier, thriller tone. One doesn’t laugh, one smiles:
1) The gag of landing on the boat in the PTS.
2) Bond: “Why me?” Saunders: “He’s under the impression you’re the best.”
3) Koskov’s overdone embrace of Bond.
4) “Section 25 paragraph 6, I’m sure you understand.”
5) "You're the first..."
6) The classic “Why didn’t you learn to play the violin” jump cut.
7) “Salt corrosion”
8) "We've nothing to declare" "Except a cello-lo-lo-lo..."
9) The exasperated fair ground worker’s “No more” after Bond’s sharp shooting bags yet another prize.
10) “Kara, we’re in the middle of a Russian airbase…”
11) “Are you calling me a horse’s [censored]?”
All these moments emanate from the humanity of Bond and give TLD a gentler tone, complementing the harder edge to the character and the deeper romance. However, after 14 years a broader, more predictable, pantomime humour was expected. When this surfaced in the film occasionally, it highlighted Dalton’s weakness for flippancy e.g. “Amazing this modern safety glass". The script’s major weakness was a lack of well-written, witty humour. Dalton is adept at playing darkly humorous characters (Framed, The Rocketeer) but he is seemingly not a natural improviser and cannot conjure what is not on the page. The new, subtler approach was lost on some audiences.
However, Timothy Dalton was simply too good an actor and presence for the story and dialogue and general direction of the film. A more linear, more direct storyline would have showcased his particular talents for capturing the spirit and essence of the character of James Bond found in the writing of Ian Fleming. His interpretation of Bond will endure and be discovered by those audiences and fans in time. Timothy Dalton was arguably the best James Bond in the entire series.
The Complex Caper
Richard Maibaum and Michael G Wilson have placed at the heart of TLD a complex caper. American Brad Whitaker is league with Soviet General Georgi Koskov. Koskov is ostensibly using funds procured to buy hi-tech arms from Whitaker for use against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to secure the Soviet presence there.
Their plan is this:
1) A down payment of $50 million of Soviet funds is made in secret accounts to Whitaker. The money is meant to be used to purchase hi-tech arms…
2) …but Whitaker uses these funds to purchase diamonds instead which are then smuggled to Afghanistan.
3) The diamonds are used as currency to buy raw opium from unscrupulous Afghan drug Lords of the Snow Leopard Brotherhood.
4) This opium is then to be quickly processed into heroin and sold in the West, converting $50 million of Soviet funds to $500 million in drug profits.
5) Part of the profit from the sale of drugs is used to buy the arms for the Soviets pursuant to the original deal.
6) The rest of the profit is shared between Koskov and Whitaker and to fund revolutionaries led by Necros, their chameleon-like junior partner.
We are led to believe that Whitaker and Koskov have done this before, but presumably on a smaller scale. Whitaker and Koskov obviously have course of dealings, Whitaker having bought Koskov’s girlfriend, innocent cellist, Kara Milovy, a Stradivarius cello, The Lady Rose.
This big sting is obviously bad news for the West (a huge influx of heroin) and the USSR (leading to a Soviet Irangate of their own). Such an action could destabilize the superpowers drastically.
Enter Bond
Now, there is a fly in the ointment. Leonid Pushkin, new head of the KGB is suspicious of Koskov and Whitaker and has started to investigate them. Pushkin has to be stopped.
a) Resurrecting Smiert Spionam , “Death To Spies”, an old Beria assassination programme, Koskov uses his KGB contacts (was Necros on annual leave?) to infiltrate an SIS training exercise in Gibraltar, causing mayhem, killing 004 (and eventually Saunders and others) thus announcing the programme to SIS and embroiling 007.
b ) The validity and presence of Smiert Spionam has to be made known to the British and in particular their Double-0 Section. Koskov knows James Bond 007 by reputation and specifically requests him to assist in his defection, knowing Bond takes his work seriously…..
c) …..that work being the use of his licence to kill. Koskov sets up his girlfriend, Kara Milovy as the KGB counter-defection assassin to be killed by Bond. Milovy has become excess baggage and can link Whitaker and Koskov and their plans. Her presence will add validity to Koskov’s fake defection and her death, at the hand of 007, will tie off loose ends for Koskov.
d) Once Bond has killed Kara, Koskov will brief SIS about Smiert Spionam to persuade them to ensure that Pushkin be “put away”.
e) Koskov will be snatched back (seemingly by the Soviets), adding weight to the imperative to SIS to kill Pushkin.
f) Bond will be licensed to kill Pushkin, and in doing so, thereby stopping Smiert Spionam and conveniently, Pushkin’s investigation into 1-6) above.
g) Upon his return to the Soviet fold, Koskov’s defection can be explained as a misinformation initiative of Pushkin’s (who, alas, will no longer be around to verify this).
h) With no Soviet investigation pending, Koskov and Whitaker can continue, unfettered, with 1-6) above.
If only Bond had followed orders, not instincts! Deciding in a split second not to kill Koskov’s defection-preventing assassin when he targets her, Bond unwittingly unravels Koskov’s precariously calculated plan. 007 shoots Kara’s gun from her hand in an effort to “scare the living daylights [and break her assassination nerve]”. In the Fleming short story, the twist is that a beautiful cellist can also be a trained assassin ("The Trigger")and the subtext of the title is the psychological scar of her near death will stop her being useful as a killer. Unfortunately, both aspects are lost in the film and the title becomes a non-sequitur. However, it is wonderful to have the Fleming story essentially in place and also the reference to Smiert Spionam (SMERSH from the novels although unmentioned here). Remember, Fleming's half-sister, Amaryllis was a famous concert cellist!
Different Daylights
The fact is that too many characters carry too complex a plot with not enough time devoted to their motivations and the effect of their actions. Like all wise-after-the-event reviews, I suggest the following changes:
1) Defer the Blayden Hall snatch back of Koskov. Instead devote time to Koskov’s persuasion and convincing of SIS that Pushkin has to be taken out as intercut with 2 and 3 below.
2) Cut to Whitaker’s Tangier base where we seem him in huge war chamber eavesdropping on CIA/KGB reaction to escalating spy war (Necros either onscreen or implicitly taking out spies).
3) Cut to a global briefing to the NATO agents intercut with the same scene in the Soviet Union (in unsubtitled Russian) would have been an economically visual storytelling device. The machinations are given context displaying the way Smiert Spionam was affecting the intelligence apparatus, heightening the tension Koskov spoke of.
5) Koskov disappears while under Bond’s protection. Bond should have had the fight in the kitchen, knocking out one of Necros’s helpers. When Bond declines to kill Pushkin, M throws this failure in his face. Plus Bond is at the centre of the best fight in the film.
6) The reveal that Koskov is in league with Whitaker must be a dramatic moment.
7) Koskov and Whitaker extolling their plan to raise funds in Afganistan to fund Necros’ wars of revolution in said huge war chamber in the villa with maps and tin soldiers in Africa, Asia and South America (providing a more dramatic setting for the eerie shoot out at the finale). If there's one Bond villain who needed his own private army, Whitaker was the man. These guards should be swarming all over the villa, to be taken out by Bond at the end. These wars will be Whitaker’s wars, where he will finally play general with real soldiers and then be a powerful man in those spheres of influence. The money raised is the means to this global threat. This would streamline the need for introducing new elements later (the diamonds, the raw opium would be understood and have context) and could shorten the running time of this already overlong film. Admittedly, some of the mystery element would be lost but Koskov’s duplicity would provide the intrigue.
If There Was A Girl
The love story between Bond and Kara is believable and well developed in the film. It is essential to the story that Bond uses Kara to trace Koskov, having initially been set up to kill her. In the process, his heart approaches what it yearns; Bond’s humanity gets the better of him and he falls for her. However, when she is manipulated by Koskov, his only chip left is the fact that he did not kill her. This sequence in Tangier is powerful although after Bond’s confession, Kara’s functionality in the script is effectively over. Her character becomes comic in Afganistan. Perhaps the revelation should have come at a pivotal moment in Afghanistan. Bond is then sent to be executed by Feyador and Kara rescues him! The meeting in Bratislava, the fairground scenes in Vienna and the aftermath of Saunder’s death really make this a wonderful subplot, helped, in no small measure, by John Barry’s exquisite romantic theme. She believably falls for Bond – a darkly handsome man of danger and mystery, a bit like her Georgi. He is tender yet determined and seduces her with the delights of the West. She too is conflicted – he is her route back to Georgi but in the time spent with the beautiful stranger, she begins to waiver. The film is not erotic or sexy but that is in keeping with the romantic subplot. Maryam D’Abo deserved special credit here. An excellent actress, D’Abo plays the role as a Hitchcock ingenue with a convincing accent and musical ability, sincere romance and passion. She looks splendid, capturing the cellist with the "golden bell of hair" from the short story. Her Playboy photoshoot showcased other talents the film seemingly could not…
Villainous Triptych
The villainy is a development of the FRWL triptych which was also found in Octopussy. The Rosa Klebb/Orlov of the piece is Brad Whitaker; a failed West Point-er, turned mercenary and arms dealer. A sort of spoiled, brash, toy soldier with martial vanity and private army, he is played with gusto and relish by Joe Don Baker. Similarly, the Kronsteen/Kamal Khan is ideological hypocrite, General Georgi Koskov. Jeroen Krabbe’s Soviet general is suavely treacly and treacherous, roguish yet casually ruthless: knowingly setting up his girlfriend and his superior both with a view to a kill. Finally, the Red Grant/Gobinda is Necros, Andreas Wisniewski’s scarily effective physical threat who is a menacing presence at Blayden Hall and the Prater Park. The experiment here seems to be to make each of the elements more equal – a triangulation of villainy. However, this interesting experiment does not quite work. Whitaker is given little screen time yet has the trappings of a grander villain. The self-styled pantheon is a great idea but feels too small. More needs to be made of this quirk - his dealings with Koskov seem to merely about the accumulation of wealth. Perhaps he is the scion of an American military family, who admires what the Soviets are doing in Afghanistan. Perhaps, his private army, glimpsed briefly in Tangier, should have been in Afghanistan. Perhaps his arms dealing is a way to pretend to be a real general giving him real power, no matter what the consequences of his war-making. Koskov, on the other hand, is given too much time out of necessity for the mechanics of the plot. His double-cross needs to be a surprise, come out of the blue. Once again, the plot, if streamlined, would have less need for him, showcasing Whitaker more. Necros is the most successful henchperson for ages, with his own malevolent theme (“Where Has Everybody Gone?”), method of killing and physicality and pretensions to be an Aryan Che Guevara. The shortcomings of the caper are outlined above but this attempt to shake up the films and layer them with more depth and intrigue is laudable.
Section 25 Paragraph 6
Bond’s interaction with the wider world of espionage is interesting. Thomas Wheatley’s Saunders is the best Bond ally since Columbo. The role of a by-the-book case officer (in the short story, the Wykehamist is called Captain Paul Sender) beautifully acted by Wheatley: Saunders actually has an arc and comes to respect Bond. We feel his death – a key point in the film. Bond’s anger in close up is one of the most powerful moments in the entire series. It is a shame that actor Walter Gotell’s health would not permit him to have played Gogol as a pivotal character in the film. However, the rewrite that created Leonid Pushkin allowed John Rhys Davies to shine. The line reading and chemistry of two fine Welsh actors in the Pushkin interrogation scene is tight and tense, elevating it to one of the series only tangential examinations of the Cold War. This Bond is really is dangerous. Art Malik’s Kamran Shah is an echo of Hossein from SWLM but is played with earnest realism, although similar to Saunders. I would have preferred the more cliched, bigger, less restrained, warmer performance – an Arab buccaneer freedom fighter morally conflicted by the dope dealing scheme. His appearance at the finale is contrived but again, a satisfying, smile-inducing moment. It’s also nice to see Gogol there too.
Caroline Bliss’ Moneypenny is attractive. Bliss, if allowed to, would have grown in the role which could have benefited from more astute and sophisticated writing – the handling of the character (the sigh, the overt pining) was slightly cringe worthy. Indeed, this same clumsy handling of female roles (apart from most of Kara's characterization) does not help CIA agents Liz and Ava and Rubavitch (not Rublevitch?) - who are all sexy and beautiful but do nothing. It's interesting to compare these women with their post-1995 counterparts. John Terry's Felix Leiter is too restrained, with none of the Texan bonhomie of the character. It is a shame because, lack of a mop of straw hair apart, visually, he could be Bond's best friend. Unfortunately, the character is wasted. When we open on M in the PTS, it is an attempt at one of those fabulous Bond reversals – M in an immaculate office that then reveals itself to be in the back of a Hercules. The Blayden Hall briefing and interview with Bond gave us a more formal, edgier relationship. It was less clubbable and added a welcome frisson of conflict. Sir Frederick Gray also added some irascible energy. Q functions well in the field (justifiably, for once, and popping pills!) and in the lab. The ghetto blaster line and the revolving settee are excellent jokes. Robert Brown, Desmond Llewelyn, Walter Gotell and Geoffrey Keen create natural and seamless continuity; vital monuments in a transitional Bond film world whose tonal landscape had changed radically.
Old Eonians
John Glen directed his best Bond film with TLD. His attempts to create atmosphere and mystery and romance are very successful. The tone throughout the movie is mostly even although Julie T Wallace’s Rosika Miklos and Kamran’s gate-crashing Kara’s concert borders on the burlesque. However, Glen’s work with Dalton is remarkable, as with D’Abo and the creation of the romantic subplot. The other performances are wonderful. The action is extremely exciting: the visceral Gibraltan PTS, Blayden Hall snatchback, the Aston-Martin-cello-sled escape, the moody cat-and-mouse finale in Whitaker’s villa. The notion of Bond throwing a rug over telegraph wires and escaping on a seeming magic carpet, if shot well, would have been visually terrific and a perfect example of Bondian flair. However, as included on the DVD, the deletion of this scene appears to have been a wise move. The battle on the airbase is similarly too sprawling and needed a better sense of geography. Despite fake mountain peaks, the inflight fight is breathtaking. Literally. At my first cinema screening in the Odeon, Leicester Square on 30th June 1987, the entire packed audience sucked in one collective breath when that cargo net slides out!
John Barry composed one of his best scores ever. Seemingly reinvigorated and yet inventively exploring new production technology, Barry gives us three wonderful songs. A-ha’s anthemic synth-pop hit has that Barry majesty although lyrically it is thin. Chrissie Hynde’s Pretenders give us the powerful aforementioned Necros theme and one of the most beautiful (Bond) songs ever written; the achingly, romantic If There Was A Man. The trickling piano for the instrumental of this song, used as the love theme, inhabits that space between a smile and a tear. All are repeated thematically throughout, instantly binding the film together and giving it musical and tonal coherence. Barry goes on to provide wonderful mysterious Czech suites and haunting, majestic soundscapes for Afghanistan. John Barry’s score for TLD is an amazing piece of varied, memorable and appropriate film composition.
Alec Mills’ photography is sweeping and captures the wonder of picturesque but not obvious locations. It is shame that Afghanistan could not have been re-created more believably (no palm trees, more rugged terrain) but Vienna, Gibraltar and Tangier are feast enough for the eyes. Peter Lamont’s production design is in keeping with the reality of the script although a little more size and flair would have been preferred, especially for Whitaker’s villa – a chance to really add scale to this villain. Also, the weapons and technology use by the Soviets is distinctly western (the pistols, the planes). Surely there was another way of doing this, especially as a lot of these shots were achieved with very realistic models. John Richardson's effects and tricks with perspective are very clever and the reality of the danger is conveyed. The fake mountains in the cargo net are a shame. The lazer hubcaps, while visually good, are a bit of a cop out and take the film slightly out of its own reality. Emma Porteous’ costume design is believable creating euro chic and romantic desert figures, although Kara is a tad school girlish. Her work with Dalton is interesting. They gave Bond a modern, action figure look that was very much required at the time. From the parachute jumpsuit, the angular, modern yet classic black leather jacket, the Afghan fighter to the black clad assault figure at the end, the clothes framed a more agile, less foppy Bond. The suit in the office is formal (the wearing of which, a female interviewer friend told Dalton that she thought was more difficult for him than doing the stunts! He laughed heartily!). Dalton (very casual in real life) asked for and got a more relaxed, continental sport jacket ensemble. The costuming of Bond lacked a certain attention to detail and flair but at the time, this streamlined modernity was exactly what was needed for this new interpretation.
The Spirit And The Essence
The bravery of the direction of TLD coupled with the inauguration of a new and radically different actor playing Bond did not help the film at the US box office. The film was a worldwide hit (grossing $192 million theatrically) and made on a budget (variously $32-40 million without P & A), which was in real terms, the same as that of Moonraker. Perhaps it was too much too soon. Certainly, Dalton’s lack of panache with the press did not help but he was game and came across as an intriguing, earnest man in interviews. For the Bond scholar, however, his insistence on attempting to capture the spirit and essence of Ian Fleming’s spy and his view of Bond as a tarnished knight was wonderful to hear and see. His James Bond has lost some of its sparkle in light of what happened during his reign as Bond. However, it does reward repeated viewings and has earned a favourable position in a lot of our personal Bond histories. Timothy Dalton WAS James Bond.
“The Living Daylights” REVIEWED. AGAIN!
A Quiet Revolution
When The Living Daylights was released, a quiet revolution happened in the world of James Bond. All of a sudden, what opened up in film Bond were possibilities. A Bond film no longer had to be a circus or a pantomime but could attempt to return to its roots – that of the contemporary, Hitchcock-ian, romantic, intelligent, international, mystery, thriller.
A story murky with recent Iran-Contra-gate topicality, this 15th Eon Bond film was a character-led tale of intrigue that was difficult to summarize for the press. Said press were already antagonized by a new leading man who kept an air of mystery about his personal life. In order to fully appreciate what Timothy Dalton brought to 007, one would have to have been a James Bond fan before he was cast. The long and successful reign of Roger Moore was an achievement in itself but the Press had been rather spoilt by 14 years of media-friendly frolics. Dalton’s distance did not endear him to them. Their view was, “It’s only a Bond film, lighten up.”
However, for the first time, the actor playing Bond had read all 14 Fleming Bond books, researched and knew about Fleming (allegedly keeping a copy of John Pearson’s Fleming biography on his bedside table) and had a keen sense of what he wanted to achieve: something different yet classic.
The Dalton Effect
Upon his announcement as Bond on 6th August 1986, Dalton was a relatively unknown, leading man/working actor. However, this became an important aspect to the thrill of his debut. This lack of knowledge about the actor made his Bond unpredictable. On first viewing, the PTS and the defection in Bratislava were dangerous, involving and atmospheric. When trailing Kara and meeting in her flat, Bond was intense - his careful phrasing making their conversation a chess game of circumstance. When Bond interrogates Pushkin, it is tough and ruthless and even Rubavitch (sic?) is not spared. When Bond is beaten in the Afghan jail, there’s no pithy comeback. Just when one thought a one-liner was coming, it didn’t. To an audience weaned on 14 years of suaveness, this was a revelation. Out of context now, these grace notes are lost.
In TLD, few scenes are written to showcase character. Character is revealed through the plot. Dalton presents Bond as a reluctant yet ruthless romantic protagonist. A man of action and energy, living on the edge, Dalton is in the centre, running, jumping, fighting and shooting with conviction. He details his performance with nuggets of information and emotion:
a) cigarette smoke escaping on hearing Koskov’s report of Smiert Spionam – hot air,
b ) rigid and economical movement in the pipeline scouring pig launch bay,
c) martial bearing in M’s office,
d) the regrasping of the Walther grip in the Pushkin interrogation,
e) drinking whisky with Leiter,
f) his protectiveness of Kara in Afghanistan,
g) frustration in the Hercules as he tries to communicate with Kara,
h) frantic grip on the Hercules controls to evade oncoming, landing plane.
Dalton’s performance conveys the effort of survival, the pain of being hit, the exhilaration of escape, and the spoils of seduction.
He went back to the humanity of the man from the novels and injected as much of the man as the script would allow. In M’s office, a cut scene containing a brief rumination on accidie allowed Dalton to inject some overt world-weariness into his Bond. Dalton had wisely asked for one-liners to be removed and his Bond is a taciturn intelligence operative. Marketed as "The Most Dangerous Bond...Ever", Dalton’s lupine looks and careful publicity heralded a finely wrought, unsurpassed approach to the characterization of Ian Fleming’s James Bond.
The Dalton Defence
The film is not without humour but it is a different sort of humour to that of previous Bonds, especially the Roger Moore era. In TLD, there is little outright comedy. This has been replaced by comic relief. Brief relief, perfectly in keeping with the darker, moodier, thriller tone. One doesn’t laugh, one smiles:
1) The gag of landing on the boat in the PTS.
2) Bond: “Why me?” Saunders: “He’s under the impression you’re the best.”
3) Koskov’s overdone embrace of Bond.
4) “Section 25 paragraph 6, I’m sure you understand.”
5) "You're the first..."
6) The classic “Why didn’t you learn to play the violin” jump cut.
7) “Salt corrosion”
8) "We've nothing to declare" "Except a cello-lo-lo-lo..."
9) The exasperated fair ground worker’s “No more” after Bond’s sharp shooting bags yet another prize.
10) “Kara, we’re in the middle of a Russian airbase…”
11) “Are you calling me a horse’s [censored]?”
All these moments emanate from the humanity of Bond and give TLD a gentler tone, complementing the harder edge to the character and the deeper romance. However, after 14 years a broader, more predictable, pantomime humour was expected. When this surfaced in the film occasionally, it highlighted Dalton’s weakness for flippancy e.g. “Amazing this modern safety glass". The script’s major weakness was a lack of well-written, witty humour. Dalton is adept at playing darkly humorous characters (Framed, The Rocketeer) but he is seemingly not a natural improviser and cannot conjure what is not on the page. The new, subtler approach was lost on some audiences.
However, Timothy Dalton was simply too good an actor and presence for the story and dialogue and general direction of the film. A more linear, more direct storyline would have showcased his particular talents for capturing the spirit and essence of the character of James Bond found in the writing of Ian Fleming. His interpretation of Bond will endure and be discovered by those audiences and fans in time. Timothy Dalton was arguably the best James Bond in the entire series.
The Complex Caper
Richard Maibaum and Michael G Wilson have placed at the heart of TLD a complex caper. American Brad Whitaker is league with Soviet General Georgi Koskov. Koskov is ostensibly using funds procured to buy hi-tech arms from Whitaker for use against the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to secure the Soviet presence there.
Their plan is this:
1) A down payment of $50 million of Soviet funds is made in secret accounts to Whitaker. The money is meant to be used to purchase hi-tech arms…
2) …but Whitaker uses these funds to purchase diamonds instead which are then smuggled to Afghanistan.
3) The diamonds are used as currency to buy raw opium from unscrupulous Afghan drug Lords of the Snow Leopard Brotherhood.
4) This opium is then to be quickly processed into heroin and sold in the West, converting $50 million of Soviet funds to $500 million in drug profits.
5) Part of the profit from the sale of drugs is used to buy the arms for the Soviets pursuant to the original deal.
6) The rest of the profit is shared between Koskov and Whitaker and to fund revolutionaries led by Necros, their chameleon-like junior partner.
We are led to believe that Whitaker and Koskov have done this before, but presumably on a smaller scale. Whitaker and Koskov obviously have course of dealings, Whitaker having bought Koskov’s girlfriend, innocent cellist, Kara Milovy, a Stradivarius cello, The Lady Rose.
This big sting is obviously bad news for the West (a huge influx of heroin) and the USSR (leading to a Soviet Irangate of their own). Such an action could destabilize the superpowers drastically.
Enter Bond
Now, there is a fly in the ointment. Leonid Pushkin, new head of the KGB is suspicious of Koskov and Whitaker and has started to investigate them. Pushkin has to be stopped.
a) Resurrecting Smiert Spionam , “Death To Spies”, an old Beria assassination programme, Koskov uses his KGB contacts (was Necros on annual leave?) to infiltrate an SIS training exercise in Gibraltar, causing mayhem, killing 004 (and eventually Saunders and others) thus announcing the programme to SIS and embroiling 007.
b ) The validity and presence of Smiert Spionam has to be made known to the British and in particular their Double-0 Section. Koskov knows James Bond 007 by reputation and specifically requests him to assist in his defection, knowing Bond takes his work seriously…..
c) …..that work being the use of his licence to kill. Koskov sets up his girlfriend, Kara Milovy as the KGB counter-defection assassin to be killed by Bond. Milovy has become excess baggage and can link Whitaker and Koskov and their plans. Her presence will add validity to Koskov’s fake defection and her death, at the hand of 007, will tie off loose ends for Koskov.
d) Once Bond has killed Kara, Koskov will brief SIS about Smiert Spionam to persuade them to ensure that Pushkin be “put away”.
e) Koskov will be snatched back (seemingly by the Soviets), adding weight to the imperative to SIS to kill Pushkin.
f) Bond will be licensed to kill Pushkin, and in doing so, thereby stopping Smiert Spionam and conveniently, Pushkin’s investigation into 1-6) above.
g) Upon his return to the Soviet fold, Koskov’s defection can be explained as a misinformation initiative of Pushkin’s (who, alas, will no longer be around to verify this).
h) With no Soviet investigation pending, Koskov and Whitaker can continue, unfettered, with 1-6) above.
If only Bond had followed orders, not instincts! Deciding in a split second not to kill Koskov’s defection-preventing assassin when he targets her, Bond unwittingly unravels Koskov’s precariously calculated plan. 007 shoots Kara’s gun from her hand in an effort to “scare the living daylights [and break her assassination nerve]”. In the Fleming short story, the twist is that a beautiful cellist can also be a trained assassin ("The Trigger")and the subtext of the title is the psychological scar of her near death will stop her being useful as a killer. Unfortunately, both aspects are lost in the film and the title becomes a non-sequitur. However, it is wonderful to have the Fleming story essentially in place and also the reference to Smiert Spionam (SMERSH from the novels although unmentioned here). Remember, Fleming's half-sister, Amaryllis was a famous concert cellist!
Different Daylights
The fact is that too many characters carry too complex a plot with not enough time devoted to their motivations and the effect of their actions. Like all wise-after-the-event reviews, I suggest the following changes:
1) Defer the Blayden Hall snatch back of Koskov. Instead devote time to Koskov’s persuasion and convincing of SIS that Pushkin has to be taken out as intercut with 2 and 3 below.
2) Cut to Whitaker’s Tangier base where we seem him in huge war chamber eavesdropping on CIA/KGB reaction to escalating spy war (Necros either onscreen or implicitly taking out spies).
3) Cut to a global briefing to the NATO agents intercut with the same scene in the Soviet Union (in unsubtitled Russian) would have been an economically visual storytelling device. The machinations are given context displaying the way Smiert Spionam was affecting the intelligence apparatus, heightening the tension Koskov spoke of.
5) Koskov disappears while under Bond’s protection. Bond should have had the fight in the kitchen, knocking out one of Necros’s helpers. When Bond declines to kill Pushkin, M throws this failure in his face. Plus Bond is at the centre of the best fight in the film.
6) The reveal that Koskov is in league with Whitaker must be a dramatic moment.
7) Koskov and Whitaker extolling their plan to raise funds in Afganistan to fund Necros’ wars of revolution in said huge war chamber in the villa with maps and tin soldiers in Africa, Asia and South America (providing a more dramatic setting for the eerie shoot out at the finale). If there's one Bond villain who needed his own private army, Whitaker was the man. These guards should be swarming all over the villa, to be taken out by Bond at the end. These wars will be Whitaker’s wars, where he will finally play general with real soldiers and then be a powerful man in those spheres of influence. The money raised is the means to this global threat. This would streamline the need for introducing new elements later (the diamonds, the raw opium would be understood and have context) and could shorten the running time of this already overlong film. Admittedly, some of the mystery element would be lost but Koskov’s duplicity would provide the intrigue.
If There Was A Girl
The love story between Bond and Kara is believable and well developed in the film. It is essential to the story that Bond uses Kara to trace Koskov, having initially been set up to kill her. In the process, his heart approaches what it yearns; Bond’s humanity gets the better of him and he falls for her. However, when she is manipulated by Koskov, his only chip left is the fact that he did not kill her. This sequence in Tangier is powerful although after Bond’s confession, Kara’s functionality in the script is effectively over. Her character becomes comic in Afganistan. Perhaps the revelation should have come at a pivotal moment in Afghanistan. Bond is then sent to be executed by Feyador and Kara rescues him! The meeting in Bratislava, the fairground scenes in Vienna and the aftermath of Saunder’s death really make this a wonderful subplot, helped, in no small measure, by John Barry’s exquisite romantic theme. She believably falls for Bond – a darkly handsome man of danger and mystery, a bit like her Georgi. He is tender yet determined and seduces her with the delights of the West. She too is conflicted – he is her route back to Georgi but in the time spent with the beautiful stranger, she begins to waiver. The film is not erotic or sexy but that is in keeping with the romantic subplot. Maryam D’Abo deserved special credit here. An excellent actress, D’Abo plays the role as a Hitchcock ingenue with a convincing accent and musical ability, sincere romance and passion. She looks splendid, capturing the cellist with the "golden bell of hair" from the short story. Her Playboy photoshoot showcased other talents the film seemingly could not…
Villainous Triptych
The villainy is a development of the FRWL triptych which was also found in Octopussy. The Rosa Klebb/Orlov of the piece is Brad Whitaker; a failed West Point-er, turned mercenary and arms dealer. A sort of spoiled, brash, toy soldier with martial vanity and private army, he is played with gusto and relish by Joe Don Baker. Similarly, the Kronsteen/Kamal Khan is ideological hypocrite, General Georgi Koskov. Jeroen Krabbe’s Soviet general is suavely treacly and treacherous, roguish yet casually ruthless: knowingly setting up his girlfriend and his superior both with a view to a kill. Finally, the Red Grant/Gobinda is Necros, Andreas Wisniewski’s scarily effective physical threat who is a menacing presence at Blayden Hall and the Prater Park. The experiment here seems to be to make each of the elements more equal – a triangulation of villainy. However, this interesting experiment does not quite work. Whitaker is given little screen time yet has the trappings of a grander villain. The self-styled pantheon is a great idea but feels too small. More needs to be made of this quirk - his dealings with Koskov seem to merely about the accumulation of wealth. Perhaps he is the scion of an American military family, who admires what the Soviets are doing in Afghanistan. Perhaps, his private army, glimpsed briefly in Tangier, should have been in Afghanistan. Perhaps his arms dealing is a way to pretend to be a real general giving him real power, no matter what the consequences of his war-making. Koskov, on the other hand, is given too much time out of necessity for the mechanics of the plot. His double-cross needs to be a surprise, come out of the blue. Once again, the plot, if streamlined, would have less need for him, showcasing Whitaker more. Necros is the most successful henchperson for ages, with his own malevolent theme (“Where Has Everybody Gone?”), method of killing and physicality and pretensions to be an Aryan Che Guevara. The shortcomings of the caper are outlined above but this attempt to shake up the films and layer them with more depth and intrigue is laudable.
Section 25 Paragraph 6
Bond’s interaction with the wider world of espionage is interesting. Thomas Wheatley’s Saunders is the best Bond ally since Columbo. The role of a by-the-book case officer (in the short story, the Wykehamist is called Captain Paul Sender) beautifully acted by Wheatley: Saunders actually has an arc and comes to respect Bond. We feel his death – a key point in the film. Bond’s anger in close up is one of the most powerful moments in the entire series. It is a shame that actor Walter Gotell’s health would not permit him to have played Gogol as a pivotal character in the film. However, the rewrite that created Leonid Pushkin allowed John Rhys Davies to shine. The line reading and chemistry of two fine Welsh actors in the Pushkin interrogation scene is tight and tense, elevating it to one of the series only tangential examinations of the Cold War. This Bond is really is dangerous. Art Malik’s Kamran Shah is an echo of Hossein from SWLM but is played with earnest realism, although similar to Saunders. I would have preferred the more cliched, bigger, less restrained, warmer performance – an Arab buccaneer freedom fighter morally conflicted by the dope dealing scheme. His appearance at the finale is contrived but again, a satisfying, smile-inducing moment. It’s also nice to see Gogol there too.
Caroline Bliss’ Moneypenny is attractive. Bliss, if allowed to, would have grown in the role which could have benefited from more astute and sophisticated writing – the handling of the character (the sigh, the overt pining) was slightly cringe worthy. Indeed, this same clumsy handling of female roles (apart from most of Kara's characterization) does not help CIA agents Liz and Ava and Rubavitch (not Rublevitch?) - who are all sexy and beautiful but do nothing. It's interesting to compare these women with their post-1995 counterparts. John Terry's Felix Leiter is too restrained, with none of the Texan bonhomie of the character. It is a shame because, lack of a mop of straw hair apart, visually, he could be Bond's best friend. Unfortunately, the character is wasted. When we open on M in the PTS, it is an attempt at one of those fabulous Bond reversals – M in an immaculate office that then reveals itself to be in the back of a Hercules. The Blayden Hall briefing and interview with Bond gave us a more formal, edgier relationship. It was less clubbable and added a welcome frisson of conflict. Sir Frederick Gray also added some irascible energy. Q functions well in the field (justifiably, for once, and popping pills!) and in the lab. The ghetto blaster line and the revolving settee are excellent jokes. Robert Brown, Desmond Llewelyn, Walter Gotell and Geoffrey Keen create natural and seamless continuity; vital monuments in a transitional Bond film world whose tonal landscape had changed radically.
Old Eonians
John Glen directed his best Bond film with TLD. His attempts to create atmosphere and mystery and romance are very successful. The tone throughout the movie is mostly even although Julie T Wallace’s Rosika Miklos and Kamran’s gate-crashing Kara’s concert borders on the burlesque. However, Glen’s work with Dalton is remarkable, as with D’Abo and the creation of the romantic subplot. The other performances are wonderful. The action is extremely exciting: the visceral Gibraltan PTS, Blayden Hall snatchback, the Aston-Martin-cello-sled escape, the moody cat-and-mouse finale in Whitaker’s villa. The notion of Bond throwing a rug over telegraph wires and escaping on a seeming magic carpet, if shot well, would have been visually terrific and a perfect example of Bondian flair. However, as included on the DVD, the deletion of this scene appears to have been a wise move. The battle on the airbase is similarly too sprawling and needed a better sense of geography. Despite fake mountain peaks, the inflight fight is breathtaking. Literally. At my first cinema screening in the Odeon, Leicester Square on 30th June 1987, the entire packed audience sucked in one collective breath when that cargo net slides out!
John Barry composed one of his best scores ever. Seemingly reinvigorated and yet inventively exploring new production technology, Barry gives us three wonderful songs. A-ha’s anthemic synth-pop hit has that Barry majesty although lyrically it is thin. Chrissie Hynde’s Pretenders give us the powerful aforementioned Necros theme and one of the most beautiful (Bond) songs ever written; the achingly, romantic If There Was A Man. The trickling piano for the instrumental of this song, used as the love theme, inhabits that space between a smile and a tear. All are repeated thematically throughout, instantly binding the film together and giving it musical and tonal coherence. Barry goes on to provide wonderful mysterious Czech suites and haunting, majestic soundscapes for Afghanistan. John Barry’s score for TLD is an amazing piece of varied, memorable and appropriate film composition.
Alec Mills’ photography is sweeping and captures the wonder of picturesque but not obvious locations. It is shame that Afghanistan could not have been re-created more believably (no palm trees, more rugged terrain) but Vienna, Gibraltar and Tangier are feast enough for the eyes. Peter Lamont’s production design is in keeping with the reality of the script although a little more size and flair would have been preferred, especially for Whitaker’s villa – a chance to really add scale to this villain. Also, the weapons and technology use by the Soviets is distinctly western (the pistols, the planes). Surely there was another way of doing this, especially as a lot of these shots were achieved with very realistic models. John Richardson's effects and tricks with perspective are very clever and the reality of the danger is conveyed. The fake mountains in the cargo net are a shame. The lazer hubcaps, while visually good, are a bit of a cop out and take the film slightly out of its own reality. Emma Porteous’ costume design is believable creating euro chic and romantic desert figures, although Kara is a tad school girlish. Her work with Dalton is interesting. They gave Bond a modern, action figure look that was very much required at the time. From the parachute jumpsuit, the angular, modern yet classic black leather jacket, the Afghan fighter to the black clad assault figure at the end, the clothes framed a more agile, less foppy Bond. The suit in the office is formal (the wearing of which, a female interviewer friend told Dalton that she thought was more difficult for him than doing the stunts! He laughed heartily!). Dalton (very casual in real life) asked for and got a more relaxed, continental sport jacket ensemble. The costuming of Bond lacked a certain attention to detail and flair but at the time, this streamlined modernity was exactly what was needed for this new interpretation.
The Spirit And The Essence
The bravery of the direction of TLD coupled with the inauguration of a new and radically different actor playing Bond did not help the film at the US box office. The film was a worldwide hit (grossing $192 million theatrically) and made on a budget (variously $32-40 million without P & A), which was in real terms, the same as that of Moonraker. Perhaps it was too much too soon. Certainly, Dalton’s lack of panache with the press did not help but he was game and came across as an intriguing, earnest man in interviews. For the Bond scholar, however, his insistence on attempting to capture the spirit and essence of Ian Fleming’s spy and his view of Bond as a tarnished knight was wonderful to hear and see. His James Bond has lost some of its sparkle in light of what happened during his reign as Bond. However, it does reward repeated viewings and has earned a favourable position in a lot of our personal Bond histories. Timothy Dalton WAS James Bond.
Comments
The recurring theme I sense from you in this review is one of "what might have been", and on that point I agree completely. One one hand, the film has some of the best sequences in the entire series -- Dalton's intro on the cliff, the kitchen fight (second only to the Bond-Grant train fight in terms of choreography), Saunders's death, the interrogation of Pushkin, the cargo net. On the other hand, it's a complex plot with many characters, and both plot and characters end up being glossed over a bit.
Anyway, your review accomplished what any good review would hope to do -- it made me want to go watch the film immediately.
Well done! {[]
I have to agree about the soundtrack (i love it), and how about the sub titles.... clever, efective... perfect.
Kudos Again Toots...
Lots of little things I don't like about the film, the devil is in the details.
In the pts, the first sign of something wrong is when the papers fly up from M's desk as a joke. It all seems a bit unreal, a bit jokey.
Next, John Glen trademark as a guy screams before falling to his death; ie death is real and horrid, film audience!
Trademark 2: runaway animal in silent moment, making audience jump.
Opening shot of Dalton is superb. But there's no sense of where he is in relation to the 00 deaths, the geography is a bit scattered.
His Holmesqe pondering as he looks at the cut rope. A bit too actorly. His body isn't on alert, it's not thinking.
As he sets off running, he wobbles slightly. You think, this guy can't even run convincingly.
"Oy! You're supposed to be dead!" Yep, funniest joke not from Bond.
Don't like Barry's music for this, can't say why, just doesn't wow me.
Parachute opening no big surprise any more.
Awful joke as he lands on the boat."Better make that two..." Why? He doesn't seem turned on by women much. And he fluffs the line, it sounds hestitant.
Oh dear....
Roger Moore 1927-2017
-Casino Royale, Ian Fleming
Yes, well, I'm rather pining for the old days of AJB when there were posts like this, I suppose. I try to keep things interesting here on AJB, what else are ordinary site members for?
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
In 1987, I was what you might say, more geo-politically aware than most of my American comrades, and I felt that the effort to arm the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets was a mistake that would end up biting us in the ass in a way similar to the effects of arming the Contras in Nicaragua against the Sandinistas (only bigger). The final act of TLD turned me off back then just as most of Rambo III did the next year.
However, with some distance, TLD has come to be my favourite Bond of all, but it DID take some time & forgiveness for the political naivete of the screen writers.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I knew of Timothy Dalton because I grew up in a family of Anglophiles, and Shakespearian actors (my parents met doing rep theater in San Francisco), we all knew of Dalton from RADA IIRC and THE LION IN WINTER, so I knew the performance would be great. I can't remember reading anything ahead of time, but I remember halfway through the film I thought to myself, "Oh, of course, a superb Shakespearean stage actor like Dalton read the books, he knows this role backwards, forwards, up, down, inside out." Not 15 minutes into the flick I thought, Okay, yes, he's playing the 1958 character dressed up in 1980s garb.
One colossal strength of the film is that through much of the film he's deluding and conning Kara, leading her along, and Dalton played it straight, no embellishments to make you think he's enjoying it, or hating it, or out of sadism. He's walking a fine line to try to get to the bottom of things.
I do love that line, iirc, "I only kill professionals."
Crap, now I gotta go get the Blu-Ray disc.
“It reads better than it lives.” T. Case