Diamonds Are Forever question (Connery's graying hair)
Doctor Who
Posts: 62MI6 Agent
Why did the producers allow Connery's hair to be gray in Diamonds Are Forever? Was it an artistic choice? Was it Connery's decision? Or was it just plain laziness. I ask because Connery was only 41 when Diamonds Are Forever was filmed yet he could easily pass for a full ten years older in that film with the combination of his paunch, his untrimmed eyebrows, poor color, and gray hair. He looks twenty years older than the slim, tanned, brown haired Bond we meet in Dr. No. He looks tired and worn out. It's quite astounding, and jarring if you watch YOLT and DAF back to back. Moore was 3 years older than Connery yet looked a good ten years younger in Live and Let Die.
Comments
As for why the producers allowed it, he had a great deal of power at that point.
Transporter 007
"Better make that two."
I truly hate color correction. Only if it's done to fix a faded negative. But when you try to be creative and alter things from how they originally looked, that to me is like raping history, and it may sound hyperbolic, but it's how I feel. It's altering what was originally presented. Even if DAF's dreary tones are out of sync with the 1960s Connery films, that's part of it's appeal for me; the entire film is perhaps the weirdest entry in the entire series, and it has a very weird, dour mood to match its original color grading. Making this dour film look bright and warm doesn't jibe. The desaturated original colors give the film a gritty, sleazy feel...Which fits with Connery's tired, older looking Bond, sleazy 1970s Las Vegas and the dreary atmosphere of the film overall.
I find that TMWTGG is actually more muted on the Blu-ray than it is on the VHS and DVD releases, though the new sharpness makes it look a lot more appealing regardless of the colours. Dr. No, on the other hand, was made more vibrant on the Blu-ray than it was on the VHS and DVD releases. DN has more vivid blues on the Blu-ray and FRWL has less vivid blues on the Blu-ray. Do you know, would the DVD or colour-corrected Blu-rays be more accurate?
Some of the DVD transfers have been muted, though. In some home video editions, the mud in the PTS has a kind of greenish hue. In others it's brown. Perhaps a slightly faded print was used as the source?
I believe the Blu-ray does look reasonably true to the original film in contrasts and hues. In the cinema that Mustang red really sticks out in the gas station sequence. Also the scene by Tiffany's pool- the sky was really bright. Gives the impression it was a very hot day when Plenty was drowned.
As far as Connery's appearance, I believe he signed on fairly late in the game and really didn't have time to get into Bond shape like he would later for NSNA. Also, the trend then was for a more natural leading man look, hence the bushy brows and slightly longer hair. He's not as neatly tapered at the neck in this film compared to the others, but then again by the early 70's tapered necklines were stating to become out of fashion for a more blocked look.
I sometimes wonder if Guy Hamilton had anything to do with the toupee chosen in this film, as Bond's hairline is more akin to the way it looked in GF.
Also the longer, bushy sideburns. Not Hippie long, but definitely not conservatively short.
Connery's perfomance and appearence in it only dragged it down further for me. He was clearly phoning it in and obviously tired of the character and just played it for the money and yuks. Sure there were a few small ghost scenes from the past, such as the great fight in the elevator - but that was it. Here he was overweight - not in any kind of obviously grotesque way - but enough to clearly not be in the sort of shape for a 00. Even his tailor made suits could not hide this fact. As for his hair? Just as bad. The strange thing to me is that when middle aged men have very dark or black hair and are overweight the dark hair seems to makes their age and weight even more obvious and if they are sporting a toupee it's even more obvious. This is where photography can sometimes save the day.
In some scenes that are lit in a particular manner and where Connery is framed in the right way, the camera does a better job of flattering his image. In others (and here I mean most of them in the film), he just looks like an out of shape, middle aged office manager - hardly the James Bond of the earlier years. Now contrast that with how he appears in NSNA. Even though he sports a greying toupee (which strangely gets less grey in interior shots and really grey in the outside shots) - he obviously lost weight and is in better shape. I was actually a little shocked when I first saw the film at how much better he appeared than he had in DAF (I liked his performance better in it as well) - and he's twelve years older.