If I remember correctly, *Wint and Kidd were going to have their way with Tiffany in the novel?
They strip her and beat her up somewhat- we've been specifically told by Felix that Wint is a sadist. Whether they intend to go any further isn't stated (sexually, that is- they do intend to kill her).
If I remember correctly, *Wint and Kidd were going to have their way with Tiffany in the novel?
They strip her and beat her up somewhat- we've been specifically told by Felix that Wint is a sadist. Whether they intend to go any further isn't stated (sexually, that is- they do intend to kill her).
I think that Wint had her on top of a table (?). I need to re-read Diamonds again. Once I finish LALD and MR, of course.
One thing I've never understood is that Wint and Kidd are cast the wrong way round- their descriptions in the book match Putter Smith and Bruce Glover reasonably well, but Smith should be Wint and Glover should be Kidd!
One thing I've never understood is that Wint and Kidd are cast the wrong way round- their descriptions in the book match Putter Smith and Bruce Glover reasonably well, but Smith should be Wint and Glover should be Kidd!
Yeah but I can't imagine Putter Smith delivering his lines as well as Glover did but then again, we'll never know.
the idea of two queer men being "off" serial killer types is very homophobic and very Hays Code. It is seriously like they were writing John Wayne Gacey into the film. But two men with strange voices and a lust for death. Stabbing/ shooting / death (in a Shakespeare sense) = penetration is not very creative.
I always heard 1 person in 20 is gay whether we (or they) know it or not
so there's been 24 Bond films, each with its own evil henchmen, its statistically inevitable one of those evil henchmen would be gay ... it would be unfair and unrealistic to not have a gay evil henchmen in at least one of the films
the problem is this film makes them look silly. But this film makes everyone look silly, even Bond. Maybe not Q: he is cleaning up in the casino, but everybody else in this film is playing the fool.
I see nothing wrong with having a gay bad guy. To me Silvia read as queer and he is my favorite villain/ Bond character ever. What bothers me is the trappings of super hackneyed formulas. Like, really, they could not come up with anything better that that? It is more that it makes me roll my eyes when I see it. And I do not think my eyes would have rolled if they guys could act at all. It just read like the writers were making fun of queer people in an elementary school way (in my opinion.) It was not like "In Like Flint" where it was very clear satire. BUT I think this is an observation on one aspect of the characterization and I do not think the film should be trashed because of it.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show -- somewhat like how The Simpsons, despite criticism for being crude, ironically was the only show at one time in America that showed a family that wasn't divorced, had parents who loved each other, ate together at the table, regularly attended church, and had limits to their barbs.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show
I agree. Despite the fact they're villains, I don't think they're an awful representation. If anything isn't the Oedipus-complex, homosexual Silva a more negative or simplistic representation? Wint and Kidd are badass. Silva's a stereotyped mess.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show -- somewhat like how The Simpsons, despite criticism for being crude, ironically was the only show at one time in America that showed a family that wasn't divorced, had parents who loved each other, ate together at the table, regularly attended church, and had limits to their barbs.
That is a very good point -{ It is nice to see that it is two men who do really love one another. All of the other stuff kind of gets in the way of focusing on the positive aspects of the dynamic.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show -- somewhat like how The Simpsons, despite criticism for being crude, ironically was the only show at one time in America that showed a family that wasn't divorced, had parents who loved each other, ate together at the table, regularly attended church, and had limits to their barbs.
That is a very good point -{ It is nice to see that it is two men who do really love one another. All of the other stuff kind of gets in the way of focusing on the positive aspects of the dynamic.
One nice touch was Wint's quick reaction - one of grief, and anger - when Kidd dies. Glover telegraphed that well.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show -- somewhat like how The Simpsons, despite criticism for being crude, ironically was the only show at one time in America that showed a family that wasn't divorced, had parents who loved each other, ate together at the table, regularly attended church, and had limits to their barbs.
That is a very good point -{ It is nice to see that it is two men who do really love one another. All of the other stuff kind of gets in the way of focusing on the positive aspects of the dynamic.
One nice touch was Wint's quick reaction - one of grief, and anger - when Kidd dies. Glover telegraphed that well.
From that point on, he was probably thinking "DIE YOU BASTARD!".
There are times where I do want the villain to win. Notable examples are here and in the end of GoldenEye. Both of them should've killed Bond.
Why should Bond be the only one to be able to avenge his loved ones?
There are other times where I really do want Bond to kill the villain...and times that I thought the villain's death was a bit too much even if he did deserve (most of it) like Stromberg in TSWLM (nobody needs to have their balls blown off, it's a waste of bullets unless of course it was the original ending for Blofeld in Spy. Then it would've been perfect!).
Today, for the first time in at least a decade, I re-watched DAF, since I’m currently re-listening to the audiobook version of the novel – which is, needless to say, very different to the film. Returning to the latter without any high expectations and well aware of its numerous flaws, I found it surprisingly enjoyable.
Yes, Charles Gray plays Blofeld like a Batman villain – his priceless delivery of lines such as “Prepare my bathosub” and “I do so hate martial music” had me laughing out loud. The Electronic Voice Disguiser was also pure Batman. If Adam West had taken the Bond role he’d have been right at home.
Enjoyed Jimmy Dean’s James Stewart-ish turn as Willard Whyte.
Would’ve preferred Van Nutter or Hedison as Leiter, obviously.
Wint & Kidd were a great double act. The duo’s comeuppance, though, was surprisingly nasty.
John Barry’s music – great, of course.
Excellent fight in the lift.
Even the bloated, beetle-browed Connery of memory seemed more engaged and enthusiastic than I recalled, enjoying the opportunity to send himself up. But I still didn’t like the way Tiffany Case devolved from tough cookie to ditzy klutz and was utterly helpless in fight scenes.
The film really set the tone for the '70s Bonds, for better or worse. There was even a kind of proto Sheriff Pepper.
Plus I was reminded of DAF’s curious influence on Blade Runner, of all films.
Next one lined up for a re-watch is LTK, but I’m waiting until the right mood strikes.
Yes, Charles Gray plays Blofeld like a Batman villain – his priceless delivery of lines such as “Prepare my bathosub” and “I do so hate martial music” had me laughing out loud. The Electronic Voice Disguiser was also pure Batman. If Adam West had taken the Bond role he’d have been right at home.
and by coincidence, Jill St John played the Riddler's moll Molly in the very first episode ever of the Batman teevee series!
Danvers I've been enjoying your recent series of posts. You must come introduce yourself properly in the Welcome & Comings & Goings thread
In DAF Connery plays a jaded Bond, self-reflexively conscious of his own star persona while mildly amused/incredulous at the pop art decadence of the fantasy world through which he's sauntering. It's a subtle and engaging performance, an exercise in knowing light comedy and a plausible take on the character at this point in the franchise (if we just accept a de-emphasis on any post-OHMSS revenge themes): a pleasure to watch. The theme song captures perfectly the ethos of this performance.
I agree with the criticism that DAF's representation of gay identity as a signifier of off-beat, deviant villainy is essentially homophobic, even given the overall camp tenor of the film; but to point out and critique all problematic cultural and minority stereotypes across the Bond franchise would take a book; DAF is hardly a lone offender.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
In DAF Connery plays a jaded Bond, self-reflexively conscious of his own star persona while mildly amused/incredulous at the pop art decadence of the fantasy world through which he's sauntering. It's a subtle and engaging performance, an exercise in knowing light comedy and a plausible take on the character at this point in the franchise (if we just accept a de-emphasis on any post-OHMSS revenge themes): a pleasure to watch. The theme song captures perfectly the ethos of this performance.
An excellent analysis with which I agree entirely.
DAF was was intended as post-OHMSS damage limitation exercise, a return to the self-spoofing, crowd-pleasing 'glory days' of GF. Consequently, the revenge element was short-changed, even deemed unimportant.
Oddly enough, Diamonds are Forever may be the first time a gay couple in a bonafide relationship are shown onscreen in a mainstream film -- which is to say they obviously love each other, hold hands, get jealous, work as a team, and don't hide their relationship. It is done as camp, but at the same time, it's more than films would usually show
I agree. Despite the fact they're villains, I don't think they're an awful representation. If anything isn't the Oedipus-complex, homosexual Silva a more negative or simplistic representation? Wint and Kidd are badass. Silva's a stereotyped mess.
The bit where he enjoys having a bomb shoved up his arse just because he’s gay is rather off. But, it was the time.
I watched DAF on telly the other week: I haven’t spotted just how dreary it is before. Sean is noticeably better than he was in YOLT- he’s got far more twinkle. But not very much actually happens and the film is very low on memorable or attention-grabbing incident. It’s one of the very worst.
I just watched DAF again tonight and enjoyed it very much. While there are a few big plot holes, I love the story and the way it is told. The film both looks and sounds incredible. The colours remind me a bit of some Hitchcock films. I think it is directed very well.
I really liked Wint and Kidd more than I had in the past. They are the most well-rounded characters in the film and carry the film more than any other characters in the film do. They are there every step of the way, even more than Bond is. They show the most emotion, and when Bond kills Mr Kidd, Mr Wint's reaction shows the character as most human. I really like the idea of a couple as a team of assassins, and I don't think it makes a difference what gender the couple is. I don't think that Wint and Kidd are offensive (I've seen truly offensive portrayals from the 1970s), but apart from a couple lines that identify them as a gay couple, it could have easily been changed to a man and woman. But if people are offended by them, I will accept that.
They are by no means the worst from the 70s at all, but the bum gag is a bit of a shame.
That is a low point of the film.
I have to say I think that Connery is great in the film. After constantly reading here about Connery's poor performance, I really don't agree with that. He's playing Bond a bit differently than before, but he looks far from being bored.
They are by no means the worst from the 70s at all, but the bum gag is a bit of a shame.
That is a low point of the film.
I have to say I think that Connery is great in the film. After constantly reading here about Connery's poor performance, I really don't agree with that. He's playing Bond a bit differently than before, but he looks far from being bored.
Yeah that was my thought too; he's doing a good job here- I think maybe the OP is thinking of You Only Live Twice more. He got one of the highest salaries ever for a movie at this point, didn't he? So I would imagine he wasn't going to coast through it!
Comments
They strip her and beat her up somewhat- we've been specifically told by Felix that Wint is a sadist. Whether they intend to go any further isn't stated (sexually, that is- they do intend to kill her).
One thing I've never understood is that Wint and Kidd are cast the wrong way round- their descriptions in the book match Putter Smith and Bruce Glover reasonably well, but Smith should be Wint and Glover should be Kidd!
so there's been 24 Bond films, each with its own evil henchmen, its statistically inevitable one of those evil henchmen would be gay ... it would be unfair and unrealistic to not have a gay evil henchmen in at least one of the films
the problem is this film makes them look silly. But this film makes everyone look silly, even Bond. Maybe not Q: he is cleaning up in the casino, but everybody else in this film is playing the fool.
I agree. Despite the fact they're villains, I don't think they're an awful representation. If anything isn't the Oedipus-complex, homosexual Silva a more negative or simplistic representation? Wint and Kidd are badass. Silva's a stereotyped mess.
"Better make that two."
Isn't Silva bisexual rather than homosexual?
One nice touch was Wint's quick reaction - one of grief, and anger - when Kidd dies. Glover telegraphed that well.
There are times where I do want the villain to win. Notable examples are here and in the end of GoldenEye. Both of them should've killed Bond.
Why should Bond be the only one to be able to avenge his loved ones?
There are other times where I really do want Bond to kill the villain...and times that I thought the villain's death was a bit too much even if he did deserve (most of it) like Stromberg in TSWLM (nobody needs to have their balls blown off, it's a waste of bullets unless of course it was the original ending for Blofeld in Spy. Then it would've been perfect!).
Yes, Charles Gray plays Blofeld like a Batman villain – his priceless delivery of lines such as “Prepare my bathosub” and “I do so hate martial music” had me laughing out loud. The Electronic Voice Disguiser was also pure Batman. If Adam West had taken the Bond role he’d have been right at home.
Enjoyed Jimmy Dean’s James Stewart-ish turn as Willard Whyte.
Would’ve preferred Van Nutter or Hedison as Leiter, obviously.
Wint & Kidd were a great double act. The duo’s comeuppance, though, was surprisingly nasty.
John Barry’s music – great, of course.
Excellent fight in the lift.
Even the bloated, beetle-browed Connery of memory seemed more engaged and enthusiastic than I recalled, enjoying the opportunity to send himself up. But I still didn’t like the way Tiffany Case devolved from tough cookie to ditzy klutz and was utterly helpless in fight scenes.
The film really set the tone for the '70s Bonds, for better or worse. There was even a kind of proto Sheriff Pepper.
Plus I was reminded of DAF’s curious influence on Blade Runner, of all films.
Next one lined up for a re-watch is LTK, but I’m waiting until the right mood strikes.
Danvers I've been enjoying your recent series of posts. You must come introduce yourself properly in the Welcome & Comings & Goings thread
I agree with the criticism that DAF's representation of gay identity as a signifier of off-beat, deviant villainy is essentially homophobic, even given the overall camp tenor of the film; but to point out and critique all problematic cultural and minority stereotypes across the Bond franchise would take a book; DAF is hardly a lone offender.
An excellent analysis with which I agree entirely.
DAF was was intended as post-OHMSS damage limitation exercise, a return to the self-spoofing, crowd-pleasing 'glory days' of GF. Consequently, the revenge element was short-changed, even deemed unimportant.
The bit where he enjoys having a bomb shoved up his arse just because he’s gay is rather off. But, it was the time.
I watched DAF on telly the other week: I haven’t spotted just how dreary it is before. Sean is noticeably better than he was in YOLT- he’s got far more twinkle. But not very much actually happens and the film is very low on memorable or attention-grabbing incident. It’s one of the very worst.
I really liked Wint and Kidd more than I had in the past. They are the most well-rounded characters in the film and carry the film more than any other characters in the film do. They are there every step of the way, even more than Bond is. They show the most emotion, and when Bond kills Mr Kidd, Mr Wint's reaction shows the character as most human. I really like the idea of a couple as a team of assassins, and I don't think it makes a difference what gender the couple is. I don't think that Wint and Kidd are offensive (I've seen truly offensive portrayals from the 1970s), but apart from a couple lines that identify them as a gay couple, it could have easily been changed to a man and woman. But if people are offended by them, I will accept that.
That is a low point of the film.
I have to say I think that Connery is great in the film. After constantly reading here about Connery's poor performance, I really don't agree with that. He's playing Bond a bit differently than before, but he looks far from being bored.
Yeah that was my thought too; he's doing a good job here- I think maybe the OP is thinking of You Only Live Twice more. He got one of the highest salaries ever for a movie at this point, didn't he? So I would imagine he wasn't going to coast through it!
He even does a couple of comedy accent scenes!