The Living Daylights
alabamabondfan
Posts: 23MI6 Agent
I'm continuing to make my way through all the Bond films for the first time. The Living Daylights is the latest one I've watched. Well, attempted to watch. I made it through about 3/4 of the film but I honestly was bored to tears.
First complaint: I loved Connery as Bond, liked Moore as Bond but I can't stand Dalton as Bond. No offense to those that like him.....he just didn't come close to being good enough to be James Bond to me. His acting was decent but he didn't have the charm that the previous actors had.
Second Complaint: The actors in this movie were terrible. Ms. Moneypenny was awful. Brad Whitaker was almost unwatchable. Kara Milovy was not a good leading lady. General Koskov is the worst villian I've seen yet.
Third: The plot was stupid. I would elaborate but I think that covers it.
I don't remember much about Pierce Brosnan as Bond (I'd seen bits and pieces of Bond films before I started at the beginning and watched them all) but I hope he's better than Dalton.
I don't look forward to LTK at all.
First complaint: I loved Connery as Bond, liked Moore as Bond but I can't stand Dalton as Bond. No offense to those that like him.....he just didn't come close to being good enough to be James Bond to me. His acting was decent but he didn't have the charm that the previous actors had.
Second Complaint: The actors in this movie were terrible. Ms. Moneypenny was awful. Brad Whitaker was almost unwatchable. Kara Milovy was not a good leading lady. General Koskov is the worst villian I've seen yet.
Third: The plot was stupid. I would elaborate but I think that covers it.
I don't remember much about Pierce Brosnan as Bond (I'd seen bits and pieces of Bond films before I started at the beginning and watched them all) but I hope he's better than Dalton.
I don't look forward to LTK at all.
Comments
I sympathize with those who were disappointed with Timothy Dalton, but he did make things easier for Brozzer, I think...
I look forward to to your review of LTK with a mixture of interest and dread
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Hopefully, LTK is much better.
Thanks for the response.
I love the cold-war setting and Dalton's intensity when confronting Pushkin in the hotel room (or after Saunder's death).
True, Moneypenny was very bad and Whittaker a disappointing villain. But despite these imperfections it's a Bond film I can take seriously, and still enjoy over and over again.
It is flawed in other areas. The villains are indeed less over the top than most of the Bond films, but this is a double edged sword. I feel all of them are rather bland and don't stand out. Necros comes closest but he's an obvious 'Red Grant' clone to such an extent (imho) the character is weakened.
Yet, it remains a pretty good entry, imho. Some fine action sequences, Dalton does a fine job and Kara Milovy is a far better Bond girl than Stacey Sutton in the previous film. I prefer Licence To Kill overall, but this ranks at a solid 3.5 stars to me.
I'd argue that after Moore left, ANY new Bond film/actor would've been more serious, just the only place to go with the series, so no bonus points for that at all. And, as it was handled so atrociously...just bleck. Dalton deserved better.
IMO, the Brosnan years suffered because of the dreadful 80s Bond films, just took some time to get all that amateurish Glen crap out of Bond's system. Good luck with LTK.
The gadgets on the Aston Martin were indeed unnecessary, and the chase could have been exciting without being silly.
THe cold-war angle of the movie (especially the part set in Bratislava) was perfect, and indeed my favourite plot-sequence in the whole series. Great PTS.
Afghanistan was a bit of a let-down; but third acts are often less good than beginnings and middle-parts in Bond (the few exceptions I can think of are FYEO and FRWL).
Anyway, though it is only second in my list of favourites (because of its flaws), TLD is the Bond film I enjoy watching the most, and the one for which I am willing to suspend all critical judgement.
And incidentally (I don't know whether this is relevant) my wife is a cellist.
PTS is one of the finest in the series.
The few regrets, well, on a light hearted note, and yes, this is petty and superficial, I hate the Necros Walkman.
Seems sad we are now at war in real life with those we allied in the 80's movies, TLD, Rambo 3, etc.
That said, I really like TLD. It's funny seeing Dalton doing comedy in the Bonds, as his comedy timing is actually pretty good nowadays.
While TLD could have been improved, it isnt as if its AVTAK or DAF
I couldn't agree more, this is all basically my opinion, the gadgets shouldnt have been in Dalton movies. Whoever it was that said he should have been given the CR treatment is right. However, I still find TLD quite decent. I certainly don't go in expecting a Moore Bond, I love those for entirely different reasons.
I actually like the confrontation with Joe Don Baker, it has a nice surreality with all the war relics. Dalton's films are not perfect but I firmly believe he was the closest to the Bond in the novels. Oh, and I also like Jeroen Krabbe very much.
The film went downhill from there.
Off the top of my head, the main twist in TLD is that Koskov wants the British to kill Pushkin so therefore the exercise on Gibraltar seems like as good a place as any to plant the death to spies red-herring. I remember watching TLD on video for the first time when it came out and when the OO agent falls to his death and we cut to Timothy Dalton I immediately accepted him as James Bond. I suppose that is part of the fun of a forum, all the different perceptions of everything!
1) Tim is a great Bond in much the same or maybe even a slightly higher league than Sean (don't kill me). He is great doing a serious Bond and though alot of people would disagree he is ok with the jokes. As much as I like Roger and Sean which I do Tim IMO is slightly better.
2) The villain is a mystery at the start and as the short story only goes to Bond shooting the girl it is quite hard to guess Koskov is the baddie. Where as in FYEO it is obvious.
3) The plot is great and I like the M not as much as Bernard Lee but he is good.
4) And last but not least the score along with The main song, Where Has Everybody Gone and If There Was A Man is terrific.
And as rubbish as the Moneypenny and the villains are they can't bring down a great film.
Agree with 99% of what you say. I just lack the audacity to say that Tim was in a higher league than Sean. Otherwise, I'm tempted to repeat pretty much everything verbatim.
For me the PTS is by far the best of the series. I also thought Dalton was pretty good at humour but not so good at one-liners. It's the moment he takes a break from his otherwise intense acting to wink half-heartedly at the audience and deliver a cheesy line that rubs me the wrong way.
The score is indeed beautiful, and the cold-war setting perfect. The film is not without flaws but all in all the first two acts qualify as possibly the best Bond I've seen.
Good Points:
1 - The action is really good, and there are some great sequences in there, particulaly Bond and Necros fighting on that net hanging from the plane.
2 - One of the best pre-titles sequences ever.
3 - Necros was a great henchman, and the explosive milkbottles were cool.
4 - Locations were nice. I liked the fairground type scene.
However, many bad points also...
Bad Points:
1 - To me, the film just dragged on. I didn't really like the way it flowed. Felt like falling asleep at times.
2 - Dalton not the best Bond IMO, but then again he's still good (and I love LTK).
3 - Plot way too confusing. Most confusing one ever IMO, and it still confuses me to this day.
4 - Nothing memorable about the film in general. All the other films (except for FRWL) have lots of memorable things about them. But this one, nothing really sticks out for me. When I have to think back to TLD, I just have a mental memory blank.
5 - Weakest villains ever. Although Necros was excellent, Brad Whitaker and Koskov weren't. Brad doesn't hardly do anything except sit on his fat arse. And Koskov is a puney little wimpy coward that is an embarassment to the Bond villains as a whole.
6 - Unmemorable allies. Kamran Shah (is that his name) was pretty unoriginal, and Kara Milovy would be completely unforgettable if it wasn't for that Cello.
Overall, certainly not my favourite Bond entry. But certainly not the worst either. Watchable, but forgettable. 6.5/10
1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby
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 moment 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.
You're quite right. This was the first Bond film my girlfriend (now my wife) and I saw together---and we both agreed, at the time, that Bond was definitely headed out of the wilderness with TLD, and in the right direction.
There's no disputing this was different---and, for my own part, after a long darkness, things were truly brightening for 007---but this was, indeed, a jarring transition from the unflappably dandified, eternally-tuxedoed Bond to which the worldwide audience had become accustomed.
Aye---and there's the rub, IMO. As good as the script was (at least, in comparison to its predecessor, AVTAK!) a suitable balance between literary Bond and the then-long-established Moore Bond seemed unachievable.
Your examples are certainly indicative of the sort of character-based humour which are ultimately at the core of Bond's long-term survivability...but such things as the Aston Martin---still stuck within the small garage, driving about on the frozen lake, until he announces, "Time to leave"---serve to ruin an entire segment of the film, at least as far as I'm concerned. I can even go along with (and applaud) the Aston's tire rim cutting a ring in the frozen lake, if only we could have foregone this damning bit of Moore-era kitsch. Again, perhaps I'm all but alone in this sentiment...
To me, this is a key to the (relatively) diminished box office of Dalton's Bond tenure.
By God, at least he was a welcome (and IMO long overdue!) step in the right direction! {[] He was certainly before his time...at least, inasmuch as a more grounded, Fleming-based interpretation was not to be embraced---and rewarded, with a more thematically cohesive script (and accompanying box office success) for another twenty years :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thruppence! I for one, would pay much more. Great post, Toots. I could print it and hang it on my bedroom wall (not being a bachelor, though, I won't).
Minor disagreements: I found Moneypenny frankly indefensible; and Whitaker, could have been a great villain with your proposed revisions. But in actuality, he was rather poor.
Honestly, I'd have loved to get more of the down-to-earth Bratislava-Vienna-Tangiers action, and less Afghanistan.
I have never considered Moore to be the clown or dandy that some other people seem to believe that he was; rather I considered his Bond to be a continuation of the tradition that Connery started. That of a Bond being both ruthless and suave in equal measure. I got that with Connery and Moore (as well as Brosnan), but I never got that with Dalton. Instead he came across to me as dour, quite emotionless (or at least featuring one emotion for the entire film), extremely dull and very uninteresting.
Look, I know I have no hope of changing your opinion on Dalton. But why can't you at least respect the fact that he was portraying Bond as Fleming wrote him? Do you not like the character that Fleming wrote? Fleming's Bond is not a balance of "suaveness and ruthlessness." He is a balance of choleric, haunted, ruthless, arrogant, reserved, and reflecting, but at the same time, he is also classy and composed. He is a genuine human being, not a constant charm machine. Dalton nailed all of the listed characteristics, with the exception of the last one. (He was unhinged at times when he shouldn't have been, which has downgraded his ranking upon further review, in my book.) And Dalton's Bond did have class. He may not have had the brilliant one liners with the cute raised eyebrow that charmed your pants off like Moore (nothing wrong with this about Moore's protrayal, he was great for what he did), but he still had class.
I have to admit, since Craig has come on the scene, Dalton has gone down in my book, mainly because Craig was able to portray the composure of Fleming's Bond in the appropriate settings, as well as generally portray the literary 007's characteristics better. But I still love Dalton's Bond for who he was, and I infinitely respect his goal. The least you and others can acknowledge his literary aim as valid and have respect for it and his fans.
Yeah, I could have done without the goofy smile in the car as he watched Pushkin's wife enter the hotel. I know what you're saying there.
I think generally, Dalton carried the darker elements of Fleming's character very well. He just needed to tone it down a tad, have more subtlety (as Craig's Bond did), and have the composure of Fleming's Bond, because Fleming's Bond was composed.
I would rank him fourth behind Craig, Connery, and Brosnan, in that order. Upon review, I think Brosnan tried to do the same thing as Dalton, but he was able to convey the composure moreso than Dalton. Brosnan also seems more comfortable with the role than Dalton. Craig is superior to both in term's of playing Fleming's Bond and has established a new mold for the film Bond, and Connery defines the identity of the film James Bond that ran through Brosnan, which is why they form a cut above Brosnan and Dalton.
I would've loved to have seen Dalton in the role post-MR, and with a different director/script. I blame Cubby :x.
Agreed.