Diamonds Are Forever - a study in characterization
Doctor Who
Posts: 62MI6 Agent
By the by, I know people criticize Connery's performance. They say he "sleepwalks" through the film.
But...I will say this:
His underacting kind of fits. We're presented in this film with a graying, out of shape Bond, in a time far removed from the grander 1960s, a time full of weirdos with long hair and where the world his character was most comfortable in is fading away. Let's imagine Bond is real for a minute. He's been doing this for nearly a decade now, if you take Dr. No as his first big mission; it's implied in Dr. No he's a relatively new 00. In that nine year span, he's saved the world multiple times over. He's bedded numerous women. He's had so many bizarre encounters with seemingly unstoppable, almost supernatural henchman and survived. Connery's Bond always played a straight man - he never winked and went along with the kookyness the way Moore did. If something over the top was happening, Connery kind of reflected the audience's "what the hell" sentiment, whether it be in his facial expression or the look in his eyes.
If you're James Bond in 1971, as portrayed by Connery, you would be tired. You'd be jaded. You'd be worn out. You wouldn't be as interested. At this point, saving the day comes easy to him. It's almost old hat. Physically, the drinking would be getting to him, leading to the paunch we see. So, if you were in his shoes, as a character, wouldn't you kind of sleep walk through it? You could even write it as his way of dealing with Tracy's death. Connery's Bond never let his emotions slip, although you could tell they were there. He had the classic stiff upper lip. Perhaps his lazily walking through the film's events is his way of dealing with it. He thinks he killed Blofeld, and is estatic in the pre-titles sequence, gleefully saying "Welcome to Hell, Blofeld"...Only to learn this catharsis is rendered meaningless when he learns Blofeld is still alive, he killed the wrong guy. You could even imagine Bond is kind of numb, which is why his dealings with Blofeld lack any real anger. He and Spectre have been dancing with each other since 1962. They've come face to face three times, and each time have failed to kill one another. At some point the anger would fade; it's almost like one needs the other to have a reason. Like Lex Luthor and Superman.
I know people will write it off as "Connery didn't care, he was fat, and he didn't try" - yes, that's the real life explanation of the film's characterization of Bond, how he decided to play it. But I'm talking about it from an in-universe perspective. I think the film shows us an older, wiser, jaded and disintered Bond who just wants to get rid of Blofeld already and be done with it.
But...I will say this:
His underacting kind of fits. We're presented in this film with a graying, out of shape Bond, in a time far removed from the grander 1960s, a time full of weirdos with long hair and where the world his character was most comfortable in is fading away. Let's imagine Bond is real for a minute. He's been doing this for nearly a decade now, if you take Dr. No as his first big mission; it's implied in Dr. No he's a relatively new 00. In that nine year span, he's saved the world multiple times over. He's bedded numerous women. He's had so many bizarre encounters with seemingly unstoppable, almost supernatural henchman and survived. Connery's Bond always played a straight man - he never winked and went along with the kookyness the way Moore did. If something over the top was happening, Connery kind of reflected the audience's "what the hell" sentiment, whether it be in his facial expression or the look in his eyes.
If you're James Bond in 1971, as portrayed by Connery, you would be tired. You'd be jaded. You'd be worn out. You wouldn't be as interested. At this point, saving the day comes easy to him. It's almost old hat. Physically, the drinking would be getting to him, leading to the paunch we see. So, if you were in his shoes, as a character, wouldn't you kind of sleep walk through it? You could even write it as his way of dealing with Tracy's death. Connery's Bond never let his emotions slip, although you could tell they were there. He had the classic stiff upper lip. Perhaps his lazily walking through the film's events is his way of dealing with it. He thinks he killed Blofeld, and is estatic in the pre-titles sequence, gleefully saying "Welcome to Hell, Blofeld"...Only to learn this catharsis is rendered meaningless when he learns Blofeld is still alive, he killed the wrong guy. You could even imagine Bond is kind of numb, which is why his dealings with Blofeld lack any real anger. He and Spectre have been dancing with each other since 1962. They've come face to face three times, and each time have failed to kill one another. At some point the anger would fade; it's almost like one needs the other to have a reason. Like Lex Luthor and Superman.
I know people will write it off as "Connery didn't care, he was fat, and he didn't try" - yes, that's the real life explanation of the film's characterization of Bond, how he decided to play it. But I'm talking about it from an in-universe perspective. I think the film shows us an older, wiser, jaded and disintered Bond who just wants to get rid of Blofeld already and be done with it.
Comments
I can't take the other stuff too seriously, but it's true generally that by the time you get to 1971 it's not so much Bond can't take this for real, but the audience certainly can't, hence the style of the movie. Things can't just stay the same, at the same level of intensity.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Roger Moore 1927-2017
When he finished his "hearty breakfast", I always felt that the movie felt a bit sleazy and I felt a bit dirty watching that part.
Seeing Sean's Bond being used as an ashtray really shows that he just feels numb and doesn't care anymore. I doubt the macho man we met in '64 would've allowed that.
A stark contrast to the playfulness seen in Russia With Love.
I hope I'm not alone on this.
Oh and by the way, Blofeld is blind.
Not surprisingly, he said that Moore was very good fun and tried to keep the atmosphere on the set light and relaxed. Interestingly, he said that Connery was very serious and committed to the role, even on quite a light scene such as the one Ed appeared in. He certainly didn't seem to be phoning it in, according to this account.
For the record, I really like SC's performance in this film - he seems a lot more engaged with the material than in his previous two Bond movies, and I find Tom Mankiewicz's script genuinely witty.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
It's definitely one of the Bonds that, although it gets a lot of flack, I tend to pop it in quite often.
Bond pretending to kiss himself is a sparkling (a reference to diamonds, deal with it) example of that.
I'm not sure it is cynicism, it's just a very poor film, and a substandard Bond film IMO. This is amplified by following the superb OHMSS. OHMSS has its own flaws,but transcends them in a way that for me at least makes it a triumph. An as fit as a Butchers Dog and youthful Lazenby only serves to highlight the jaded performance from Connery. Don't get me wrong, Big Tam was a superb Bond, just not in DAF. As we must say though, 'each to his own' :007)
Thing is, I enjoy Bond films for their fun factor - not depth.
I don't see it as a stark binary choice or zero sum game. The best Bond films deliver both and I'm certainly in favour of fun. My main disappointment with the current era is that they are mostly joyless. As said though each to his own
I believe that Diamonds isn't exactly a good film but it certainly is fun and it's outlandish by the fact that these things would never happen in a modern Bond film. Which is why I love it so much. That doesn't change the fact that it would be probably at the bottom part of my ranking.
Sorry. Did not fully appreciate the rules about 'staying on topic' or the Hegemony surrounding the sacrosanct Craig era. Perhaps I should review the criteria before contributing in future. I was not taking a stabl at the Craig era' (heaven forbid) just trying to offer some context to counter the subtext and false dichotomy re lighter versus darker tones. Don't want to discuss it any more with you, did not mean to offend. Zaphod out.
Is a Bond film for all moods. I get as much pleasure from DAF as SF, two very different movies
but still Bond. I could do the line about Russian caviar and Peking duck ....... but I won't.
Bless you TP, ever the Diplomat.
It's just that so many people are taking a stab at it these days and it wouldn't be hard to imagine.
If you check every single topic, you will find that I never made a ranking and probably never will.
But...if I ever did it would probably be around there on my list.
Anyway, Bond movies should be action packed movies with a good balance between storytelling and fun (just like you said).
However, there are some which lean more on fun than depth and that's why I like Diamonds so much. Stupidly good fun.
Not appropriate post-OHMSS though.
I would still think that say, Octopussy would be a better movie overall. It still had plenty of jokes and it was all around better made, in my opinion.
zaphod, I apologize.
Homophobic? I never got the impression they hated themselves. ?:)
How many straight women killers have we had,..... is that part of some anti female agenda ?
DAF is a camp film, most of the characters reflect this , even Blofeld.
It's the old mistake of judging old movies by todays political standards. If they were making
DAF today, I guarantee it would be a very different film.
Torchwood is a favourite of mine, I own all the episodes. The lead character Cpt Jack. Is an
openly gay, heroic, action hero. -{ so the times are a changing.
My bad, seems like I was over sensitive. No need to apologise.
Also speaking about Tiffany, Fleming best female character after Vesper, any sort of depth is thrown out the window in the movie.
https://filmicmag.com/2015/08/01/from-sissies-to-secrecy-the-evolution-of-the-hays-code-queer/
To British tv comedies of the time.
Of those will leave you open mouthed in astonishment !