Why DAF feels different to other Bond films

MilleniumForce

I don't know if anyone else does, but I feel as though DAF has a different feel to it than the others. There are a few elements from DAF that have not been repeated in the series, or just feel odd in the film. Here's some:

- The PTS. We don't see Bond, just a POV of him beating up a few people. I know it's to build up for Connery returning, but I feel it's different to the others, and I don't feel it works for Bond. However, it would suit as a opening sequence to an Austin Powers sequel due to the people he meets and some of what he says.

- Characters talking over a scene they're not in. I know it's done in OHMSS, but Lazenby had quite a good narration voice. But here it seems a bit strange. We have them talking about the diamond smuggling whilst we actually see this. It's like in a heist movie where the plan is being told whilst it's happening. It also leads to something strange. When the narration does end, we have the scene with Wint and Kidd. And then...were back to Bond and the others having the same conversation.

- The way Bond hangs up on Q. It's quite cartoonish, just having the phone lying on the bed with Bond gone. It's not something he'd rush for, like he does when Silva escapes. This is just Franks. We've never seen him, he's not that big of a villain...but the way the scene goes, you would have thought Blofeld had escaped!

- Bond doesn't get a break. This is something that's weird to explain. Bond switches his ID with Franks in Amsterdam. He arrives in Vegas as Franks, he's taken to the crematorium as Franks....he seems to be going on for a while. I know it's stupid, but it just bugs me. I know it's not impossible, but it just feels like it goes on for too long.

- Cheap effects. We're talking DAD quality effects here.

Absolutely_Cart

Its the awkward middle ground between the true to fleming era and the campy humor era

AlphaOmegaSin

Even with the Humor and Camp in the Film, I still don't think it would have fitted Moore's kind of Humor.

BIG TAM

I love it in spite of (or maybe because of) it's odd tone. It's camp one minute, sadistic the next. I can't put my finger on why I like it so much. It doesn't get in my Top Ten but at the same time I don't consider it a Guilty Pleasure - I happily admit to loving it! But I do agree it runs out of steam after Bambi & Thumper.

Thunderpussy

I wonder if the film would have turned out the same if they'd gone ahead with John Gavin as
Bond ? or would it have been far less camp and full of jokes ?, maybe that was the direction they
were going in, anyway ?

Barbel

MilleniumForce wrote:

- The PTS. We don't see Bond

Yes, we do.

MilleniumForce wrote:

- This is just Franks. We've never seen him

Yes, we have.

AlphaOmegaSin

Thunderpussy wrote:

I wonder if the film would have turned out the same if they'd gone ahead with John Gavin as
Bond ? or would it have been far less camp and full of jokes ?, maybe that was the direction they
were going in, anyway ?

I've always wondered how he would have tried to keep a British Accent up.

Thunderpussy

I thnk they use the term " Mid Atlantic". ) Who knows he might have done a great accent.

Matt S

MilleniumForce wrote:

- The way Bond hangs up on Q. It's quite cartoonish, just having the phone lying on the bed with Bond gone. It's not something he'd rush for, like he does when Silva escapes. This is just Franks. We've never seen him, he's not that big of a villain...but the way the scene goes, you would have thought Blofeld had escaped!

This recalls how Bond left Moneypenny on the phone in Thunderball, so this isn't limited to DAF. It's pretty urgent. If Franks got to Tiffany before Bond could stop him, his whole cover and plan would have been ruined. Franks was the only villain in the story Bond knew of at the time, so why shouldn't it be a big deal? Plus, we saw him earlier in the film when he is arrested after leaving his car. Remember, Bond thinks he killed Blofeld in the PTS.

Matt S

Thunderpussy wrote:

I wonder if the film would have turned out the same if they'd gone ahead with John Gavin as
Bond ? or would it have been far less camp and full of jokes ?, maybe that was the direction they
were going in, anyway ?

I think the film would have been the same, whether they got John Gavin or if Lazenby stayed on.

AlphaOmegaSin

If Lazenby was in DAF, there would most likely have been more Tracy References.

Thunderbird 2

Re how would the film have been different, - the easiest way to examine that is to look at FYEO and TLD.

The PCS of FYEO was created with a possible new actor in mind, because Sir Roger was in two minds about coming back. Hence seeing Tracy's grave, and a certain bald white cat carrying no good who gets shafted. Or stacked.

In the same way, certain comedy elements, most notably the flying carpet bit were dropped from TLD and the drama tightened up to make the film more fitting to Mr Dalton. When each actor has been cast, the story has been altered to fit the actor.

I suspect they tried to make DAF a bit lighter not necessarily just to accommodate Sir Sean, who handles the comedy well, but the lighter theatrical twists of Charles Grey as a much feyer Blofeld, and Putter Smith and Bruce Greenwood's almost gleeful turns as Wint & Kidd. It always puzzled me that as a gay couple, neither Wint nor Kidd said or did anything to suggest Bond pushed their buttons. - Though Kidd does comment on how lovely Tiffany C is. The whole film has a slightly sureal quality to it, and it does come between OHMSS, one of the more serious films, and LALD, which feels contemporary in spite of all that creepy voodoo stuff. - DAF is almost whimsically jovial from scene to scene compared to either of them, as though the characters see whats going on as "a jolly romp." That feeling / impression is not lessened with Bond playing wrecking ball with the baddie towards the end!

I think Pussy has a new crate of Claranet at the SABS. - Bombe Surprise for pud anyone?

HalfMonk HalfHitman

Is this the first Bond film to feature children onscreen? I recall the GOLDFINGER commentary making a point that in the fantasy world of Bond, vacation spots are entirely devoid of children.

Barbel

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Is this the first Bond film to feature children onscreen?

In speaking parts, yes. On screen, no.

superado

Regarding Franks, his role in the plot was essentially pivotal, more so than usual. Although we often see Bond “on the trail,” the trail itself, e.g., the diamond pipeline and Bond’s mission to infiltrate it to bust it up from beginning to end, was central to DAF the novel and the movie even when the SPECTRE plot took over. Bond’s taking over Franks’ role and function was so key and the thread was likewise so thin and tenuous that dropping the ball at any point of “Franks”’ journey would have frustrated the investigation.

With that said, without the early intervention from the Secret Service the world powers would have eventually been confronted with Blofeld’s threat, so it seems all of Bond’s early efforts lead to Blofeld’s secret HQ off and neutralizing that threat.

O07

Apart from having Connery in OHMSS, which would have been an ideal, (I'm sure some of the more characterful moments would have gotten a better more interested focus out of Sean than either the over blown adventures seen in YOLT and DAF). I think if Roger were cast in OHMSS and did the next 6 after that, ending with FYEO then Roger would be higher than Sean in alot of people's who's the best Bond opinion.

Anyway out of the land of conjecture...

DAF, LALD and TMWTGG all have a similar feeling to them. I can imagine the Vegas Cop being Pepper very easily...

:v

Gassy Man

Diamonds are Forever feels different for a variety of reasons:

Visually:

1) This Bond isn't filmed in the bright, warm technicolor tones of previous Bond films but instead has a more muted, early 1970s palette, which the next two films would share.

2) The clothes and hairstyles aren't as conservative. There are the requisite big sideburns, and Bond gets to wear more patterns and earth tones. Check out the plaid sportcoat he wears later in the film, for instance.

3) This movie has more graphic violence, including blood, than previous Bond films. It also has more suggestions of nudity, including the brief topless moment and Tiffany Case's bottom cleavage.

Tone

1) For lack of a better term, this Bond film is kinky. I'd say it goes even beyond camp. There are constant iterations of, at the time, "out there" sexuality -- homosexuality, cross-dressing, S & M. A cut scene with Connery and St. John comes closer to full nudity than even more recent Bond films.

2) The stereotypes are even more one-dimensional. Everything from the brightly smiling "darkies" in Africa to the Italian mobsters to the American redneck cops. Earlier Bonds had their types, especially with Asians, but these are to the point of caricature. The moment with the lady turning into a gorilla is especially offensive, though I will say as a child of the 1970s, not uncommon.

3) The humor is clearly meant to be adult, but at the same time, it's more juvenile. Instead of "Red fish with wine. That should have told me something" or even "Something big has come up," we get "Blow it out your pants" or "Named after your father, perhaps?" For all the guff Roger Moore has to take, that last line in particular seems like something his Bond would say, and it predates him. Truly, the only characters who get some sophistication are Wynt and Kidd.

4) The violence is more cruel. One could argue that Bond sealing Count Lippe in the sauna or the spider left in Bond's bed were mean, but here, we watch a man die agonizingly of a scorpion bite, see a drowned little old lady, watch a helicopter explode into the desert, see a man dispatched with scalpels, watch a Blofeld double boiled, watch another Blofeld double succumb to an exploding piton, and so forth. It's not just the suggestion of cruelty but actual on screen cruelty.

Music

1) This is probably John Barry's most ethereal score for a Bond film. A lot of films of the early 1970s had a kind of sad but sophisticated soundtrack. Gone is the big brass of films like Goldfinger and Thunderball, and even the action and lushness of soundtracks like You Only Live Twice and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. This film for the most part sounds mysterious in an almost haunting kind of way, though there are moments where it reminds viewers of previous scores. But this may be why 007 -- which I like -- seems a bit out of place in the movie, with a jaunty sense of adventure the rest of the soundtrack ignores.

2) Sometimes the music is less musically but more tonal. Barry has done this with other films, but not so much with Bond films.

Acting

1) Connery is clearly older and fatter than we've seen him before. He looks better or worse depending on the scene, but combined with a kind of lethargy, doesn't seem to bring his A game to the role. He's still good -- he's Connery -- but so many of the canards about his Bond can probably be traced to this film, where he gives his least nuanced performance in the role.

2) Some of the supporting characters are played or dubbed by actors of dubious ability. Lana Wood, who is rather stunning to look at, nonetheless sounds terrible -- the voice delivery is on par with Talisa Soto. Norman Burton's Felix Leiter sounds better, but he's terribly miscast and probably only so because he's shorter and stouter than Connery. To me, this is the first time in the series where the rest of the cast seems rather haphazardly assembled, as the Bond series tended to do an excellent job with its supporting players.

2) Charles Gray's Blofeld s definitely not the same guy on the boat in Dr. No or even skiing after Bond in the last film. I like him, and I don't have a problem with his sounding British, as he seems like a bloviating CEO type, but it is a very different interpretation than we've seen before.

Special Effects

1) The special effects have a kind of pared-down quality that was not unusual for the early 1970s, despite milestones like 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2) At the same time, though, the actual special effects sequences are not particularly imaginative in concept. We get moments like the dish expanding on the satellite or the explosions on the oil rig -- very conventional compared to, I don't know, a spaceship swallowing up another spaceship or a helicopter using a magnet to hijack a car.

Absolutely_Cart

Excellent write-up, Gassy Man. It feels like Eon realized that OHMSS was too intelligent and sophisticated for the masses, so they wanted to dumb it down by 30 IQ points. It sold more tickets and it was a better popcorn flick than OHMSS, but it just lacks the depth that makes the other films so good.

HalfMonk HalfHitman

Barbel wrote:

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Is this the first Bond film to feature children onscreen?

In speaking parts, yes. On screen, no.

Where do we see kids previously? Not doubting you, just can't think of examples.

Matt S

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Barbel wrote:

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Is this the first Bond film to feature children onscreen?

In speaking parts, yes. On screen, no.

Where do we see kids previously? Not doubting you, just can't think of examples.

There are kids in OHMSS at the wedding.

chrisisall

DAF is pretty whack. As my intro to Bond that explains my sensibilities I suppose.

superado

chrisisall wrote:

DAF is pretty whack. As my intro to Bond that explains my sensibilities I suppose.

In a nutshell, that's what makes DAF feel different from the rest. It is OTT camp and of all the Bond movies that take place in America, this is the hokiest, in terms of how Americans were portrayed, even more so than the OTT American urban drama that would take place in the next movie.

Barbel

Matt S wrote:

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Barbel wrote:

In speaking parts, yes. On screen, no.

Where do we see kids previously? Not doubting you, just can't think of examples.

There are kids in OHMSS at the wedding.

And at the Junkanoo in TB.

M 'n' M

Funny to see threads about LALD and DAF next to each other - but strange that nobody has emphasised two key links:

1) they were the first Bond films of the 70's

2) they were both written by Tom Mankiewicz

Films changed fairly fundamentally from the 60's / 70's. The feelgood factor of the 60's, which spilled over into films and was fed by the films, was long gone by 1971 and the focus was on grittier, darker - and quirkier - pictures. I think DAF and LALD reflect this. They're both much more urban than other Bond films. They're much more tongue in cheek than previous Bonds (acknowledging the fact that by 1971 it was much harder to be straight faced about a super cool superhero saving the world) and the stories started to reflect more "real" threats than world domination (diamond smuggling, drug running and with TMWTGG the energy crisis).

with the failure of TMWTGG and Harry Saltzman's departure Cubby Broccoli changed the format to focus on large scale, set piece driven adventure. I'd argue that the 3 Mankiewicz films were the last three to contain any great sense of intrigue in Bond films. That's partly why they appeal to fans. They're a bit different

broadshoulder

Barbel wrote:

Matt S wrote:

HalfHitman HalfMonk wrote:

Where do we see kids previously? Not doubting you, just can't think of examples.

There are kids in OHMSS at the wedding.

And at the Junkanoo in TB.

And in the circus in OP...

Napoleon Plural

Bond also hangs up on Moneypenny at Shrublands. He is a very rude man sometimes.

AlphaOmegaSin

It was an Attempt to get back to the Feel of GF (And it was supposed to have GF's Twin Brother as the main Villain)

As well as writing the Scripts for DAF,LALD and TMWTGG, didn't tom mankiewicz also assist on TSWLM as well?

Barbel

Yes, that's right AOS. He did some rewriting on TSWLM as well as some early work on MR, both jobs uncredited.

chrisisall

Barbel wrote:

Yes, that's right AOS. He did some rewriting on TSWLM as well as some early work on MR, both jobs uncredited.

That's 'cause he was busy officially working on Superman. :007)

Absolutely_Cart

DAF seems to be a film that portrays Bond with a certain sense of glamor, but in a campy way. It's in a lot of ways, a Bond that takes itself seriously but also (ironically) doesn't take itself seriously at all. It was before the humility and self-deprecation of the Moore era.

Gassy Man

We all age, of course, but it's almost hard to believe this is the same guy, even ten years apart:








Diamonds are Forever, for lack of a better term, also feels "middle aged" in tone, as though acknowledging that Bond is not the youthful guy of even four years earlier.