...one could argue that Bond suffered a breakdown after Tracy's death and merely imagined the events of DAF.
now this is a theory that should developed, somehow. Not quite codename, but it could acknowledge the different actors as different facets of an evolving personality.
So: Bond had matured somehow, from the casual, winking chickmagnet of the early adventures to someone more serious and ready to take a bride and maybe retire from this dirty damn business. But the trauma of Tracy's death leaves him so griefstricken he has to be locked up in a padded cell in Dr Molony's Private Hospital and heavily sedated, where he hallucinates a fun, harmless adventure as his more innocent, irresponsible younger self.
Thus it's not the audience who demands nostalgic escapism, it's Bond himself, experiencing a type of psychic fugue!
(it is a thing, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue_state )
Then once the extreme grief stage is over, and he is taken of his meds and returns to consensus reality, his sense of identity is a bit scrambled and instead of resuming the more serious self that experienced the trauma, he reinvents himself as insufferably posh and smug and picking up more chicks than ever before, and this shallow attitude gets him through the next 12 years of life.
At least till that night spent with MayDay traumatises him once again into becoming nervous twitchy Bond.
well something stressed him out enough to cause that personality shift from arched eyebrows to misty eyes. Granted, the wrestling match with MayDay happened early in the adventure, he didn't seem to suffer any immediate side-effects. Maybe it was the shame of discovering Q using his surveillance tech to spy on him during intimate moments? He felt so, so violated! by the intrusion of that robot-cam that he underwent another psychic fugue and was never the same Bond again.
Don't get me wrong, I love DAF...But something feels very...almost macabre about it. It has a very gloomy, almost depressing atmosphere to it, which makes it somehow unwittingly spooky (as opposed to the calculated over the top spookiness of Live and Let Die). Unlike the next film there's no voodoo or supernatural powers to be found here, yet an ever present, sleazy, shady sort of gloom hangs over the film, a funereal and surreal atmosphere. It has an atmosphere unlike any of the other Bond movies, really.
Let's say we skip OHMSS for a minute and pretend DAF is more a direct sequel to YOLT - The differences become even more profound. YOLT is a truly epic film, the stakes are high, the locations gorgeous and exotic, Connery tan and looking his best if in slightly less than peak physical form, Blofeld is not the cold and calculating thug he is in From Russia With Love, but rather a truly mad diabolical criminal mastermind. Blofeld in DAF seems shoehorned into the plot and the casting of Charles Gray seems such an odd choice. His and Bond's relationship in the film seems more Sherlock and Moriarty than anything else. In YOLT, he seems not to think very highly of Bond and wants him dead; in DAF he seems almost amused - and not really even all that concerned - about Bond's persistence - it's a trifle to him more than any real thorn in his side. SPECTRE seems truly devastated - Bond's basically eliminated everyone capable and he's left with the sadistic and unhinged Wynt and Kidd.
The film just seems to reflect the faded sleaze of the 70s as compared to the glittering 1960s. Blofeld isn't pitting world powers against each other by playing international chess - he's making lasers using diamond smuggling. Bond goes from being the aggressive, seductive lover to laying in a Vegas bed with an ash tray on his chest after a round of lovemaking. Bond is puffy, greying, out of place in the 1970s but not a punchline - but he's clearly an over the hill 00 both physically and mentally it seems.
The whole film really is just surreal, jaded, and oddly depressing and yet at the same time intoxicating. It's silly and over the top - but it has an atmosphere that makes the silliness almost creepy.
Diamonds Are Forever for me as well. Not only is the film surreal and tripped-out (why does Blofeld need all those doubles, anyway?) but it's written out of Bond history: the Blofeld in For Your Eyes Only is clearly the Telly Savalas incarnation, permanently crippled from his bobsleigh neck injury. Constructing any sort of cohesive timeline for the Bond films is virtually impossible, but based on that evidence one could argue that Bond suffered a breakdown after Tracy's death and merely imagined the events of DAF.
No one ever said DAF was written out of Bond history.
Even in the novels Blofeld was constantly changing his appearance. In Bond's world he'd basically be one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. His voice is different in every incarnation. He looks utterly different from the Telly Savalas version in YOLT; Does that mean YOLT didn't happen either? The only similarities between those two versions is a bald head. Also, Telly Savala's version didn't have an Arab-American accent and I don't think would offer to have bought Bond a delicatessen.
I mean, that's basically saying that every time Moneypenny's actress or Bond's actor changes, a new timeline is created. There's no need to erase movies in the original canon. Bond seems immensely satisified with killing Blofeld in the pre-titles of DAF and his assignment is a personal mission and seems to be of a vendetta nature, at least supporting in part the events of the previous film. After the pre-titles Bond thinks Blofeld is dead and gone and is sent on a much more routine mission. He still wastes no time in trying to kill Blofeld when he discovers Blofeld is behind the diamond smuggling plot.
Agreed that Blofeld is somewhat chameleonic in the novels, but it's more blatant in the films: he ends OHMSS as a paraplegic, is fully mobile again in DAF and is a paraplegic again in FYEO. That's why I'd argue that DAF seems to exist outside the normal Bond timeline.
Agreed that Blofeld is somewhat chameleonic in the novels, but it's more blatant in the films: he ends OHMSSas a paraplegic, is fully mobile again in DAF and is a paraplegic again in FYEO. That's why I'd argue that DAF seems to exist outside the normal Bond timeline.
No, in a neck brace and driving a rather large Mercedes ,certainly nor a paraplegic.
Blofeld couldn't have been a paraplegic at the end of OHMSS, simply because he was able to accelerate the car with his foot. Perhaps it was 'only' a neck injury, that was able to heal come the events of DAF, then getting knocked around in the bathosub may have been enough to do further damage to his spine, hence the wheelchair.
Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
Paraplegics can drive cars, and the character certainly appears wheelchair-bound by the time of FYEO. Notwithstanding, it's 100% clear that the character in FYEO is supposed to be the same Blofeld as in OHMSS (bald head, neck brace), so the Charles Gray version has clearly disappeared from the timeline.
Paraplegics can drive cars, and the character certainly appears wheelchair-bound by the time of FYEO. Notwithstanding, it's 100% clear that the character in FYEO is supposed to be the same Blofeld as in OHMSS (bald head, neck brace), so the Charles Gray version has clearly disappeared from the timeline.
Or he just changed his face again, and the Charles Gray version is the same guy, just with heavy plastic surgery and a wig (Since I will accept that Blofeld is likely naturally bald).
One could also argue that since it's made clear he has a number of body doubles, and that he also changes his appearance and even his voice often, that it's possible that NONE of the versions we see on screen are the "REAL" Blofeld.
The OHMSS Blofeld didn't have a stereotypical Arab-American accent like in FYEO, but sounded like an upper class New Yorker.
I actually feel DAF saved James Bond.
Let me explain. Of course there would always be a market for Bond. But the late 60s/early 1970s were a very rapidly changing time. OHMSS underperformed at the box office. The mid 1960s - Bond's height - was culturally a long time gone. By 1971, gritty crime movies like The French Connection and Panic in Needle Park had sort of replaced Bond; this was the era of Serpico, government distrust. Bringing Sean Connery back in - and updating the look and feel of the series a bit (The Vegas car chase could come out of Bullit; the elevator fight reminds me of gritty 70s movie fights; the moon buggy scene threw a wink at popular Moon Landing conspiracies) and changing the tone - was the perfect segue needed to bridge James Bond into a new era of cinema. Connery proved the draw that brought the series back to life, the film was a smash hit, the biggest Bond hit in a while, and then casting Roger Moore and getting Paul McCartney to do the theme song, and George Martin to do the score for the next film sealed the deal. DAF is the bridge between the 60s and 70s for James Bond, and it's because of DAF that the James Bond movie franchise was able to cross that bridge into a new era with a new audience and different expectations. DAF is a weird film because it's a transitional film. It's the missing link between the Connery and Moore years.
I think if we had gotten a commercial dud Bond in 1971 - another Lazenby film - it might've tanked and the series might've taken a long hiatus. Maybe from an artistic or novel purist standpoint, another Lazenby film with a morose tone would have been better - but commercially it might have killed the series and money is what matters in the end.
I'm pretty tolerable to bond movies that may be considered bad or over the top, but Diamonds Are Forever is not one I can sit through. Whether it were a sequel to OHMSS or YOLT, the film is still bad no matter what way I look at it. It's silly, uninspired, containing awful humor and jokes, a terrible performance by Connery, an wasted bond girl who I can't stand, bland locations and climax and the worst portrayal of Blofeld. Most of all, it was supposed to be a revenge story but Tracy isn't even mentioned once, so I guess Irma Bunt really did get away with murder. Hate to drag down this discussion with my post, but it's my honest opinion. As for it being the weirdest bond film, well it's up there but I personally find The Man With The Golden Gun to be the weirdest. Who thought taking Mr. Bond to school would enhance the plot, or Bond's so called ally driving off without him lol.
Agree with everyting what Wadsy says about DAF, its just not fun to watch for me. Connery looks loads better in NSNA and that was 12 years later.
Don't confuse me with the other DutchBondFan, but be sure to follow his YouTube account. You can read my articles on James Bond Nederland: www.jamesbond.nl/author/gosse/
Good call on LALD AND Golden Gun. They're both pretty farout. I love LALD, it's one of my favourites, and yes it is pretty left of field. It seems like the 70s was probably the weirdest period for Bond. Maybe because they were experimenting a little and trying to take the series in all of these different directions. I always found Diamonds quite strange because of the characters and the imagery. Blofeld is the campiest villain, the two gay henchmen are great but bizarre. Then there are strange characters like Shady Tree and Willard Whyte. And I always found the circus scene with the ape-woman absolutely bonkers. So random. Also the moon buggy chase and the pre-titles with that strange mud lake. Crazy times
DAF, LLD and TMWTGG... I love those three movies, for exactly these reasons. They were the first Bonds that I saw on initial release in the cinema, so I learned to associate 'new Bond' with the strange and surreal, while at the same time, as a kid, accepting it all at face value.
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
Most of all, it was supposed to be a revenge story but Tracy isn't even mentioned once, so I guess Irma Bunt really did get away with murder.
Was DAF supposed to be a revenge story? Not really. DAF was off its face, in a good way, and doing something else tonally... essentially for commercial reasons, as has been said, and giving the franchise a decadent new direction...
From a 'fan fiction' point of view, as a coda to OHMSS, one can always imagine that a vengeful Bond tracked down Bunt, going to a dark place before hunting Blofeld next... and only afterwards transitioning to sparkling, high camp! Or perhaps "this never happened to the other fella."
Of course, one could simply bide one's time and wait for one's revenge fix in LTK or CR/QOS.
"You used to say live and let live... But if this ever changin' world in which we're livin' makes you give in and cry, say live and let die!
"And what exactly do you intend to do with those diamonds?
"I don't need love, for what good will love do me? ... For when love's gone, they'll lustre on!"
Critics and material I don't need. I haven't changed my act in 53 years.
I always find it hilarious that Blofeld is driving the car and turning to see Bond when Irma shoots. First, there's the idea of the Big Bad doing something as menial as driving, then there's the fact he can't turn his neck properley. Has me laughing every time - even though it's a tragic death scene.
Most of all, it was supposed to be a revenge story but Tracy isn't even mentioned once, so I guess Irma Bunt really did get away with murder.
Was DAF supposed to be a revenge story? Not really. DAF was off its face, in a good way, and doing something else tonally... essentially for commercial reasons, as has been said, and giving the franchise a decadent new direction...
That's just it. It is the direction they took for whatever silly reason - why even have an opening scene with Bond going after Blofeld as if his life depends on it if the movie is just going to ignore that?
Most of all, it was supposed to be a revenge story but Tracy isn't even mentioned once, so I guess Irma Bunt really did get away with murder.
Was DAF supposed to be a revenge story? Not really. DAF was off its face, in a good way, and doing something else tonally... essentially for commercial reasons, as has been said, and giving the franchise a decadent new direction...
That's just it. It is the direction they took for whatever silly reason - why even have an opening scene with Bond going after Blofeld as if his life depends on it if the movie is just going to ignore that?
I think they did plan on having Irma Bunt coming back for DAF, but George retired from Bond and Ilse Steppatt died after making the film.
Have you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclamation?"
In a strange and wonderful way, all James Bond films are a trifle weird.
IMO though, because it is so much to do with identity, DAF is top of the pile - who is who? Bond is Franks, Franks is Bond, Plenty is Tiffany, three Blofelds, a dentist who is a diamond smuggler, a comedian who is a distributor, a funeral parlour that kills people, a research centre which may or may not be faking moon landings, satellites equipped with lasers, weather balloons delivering secret agents, two identical cassette tapes, a shapeshifting gorilla, Bond impersonates 'one of the little people', Moneypenny impersonates a customs official - need I go on?
I'm quite fond of DAF, it makes me chuckle like no other Bond film.
I think they did plan on having Irma Bunt coming back for DAF, but George retired from Bond and Ilse Steppatt died after making the film.
That's correct. Maibaum's early drafts of DAF would have resulted in a very different and considerably more serious film. In one, Irma was identified and killed off in the pre-title sequence.
As for the weirdest Bond film, Live and Let Die is the only movie in the series where a character is unmistakably killed in one scene and then appears magically resurrected in a later one. No other Bond film so blatantly embraces the supernatural. Imagine how any other Bond film would play if its villain was immortal like Baron Samedi!
For me it's probably TMWTGG. I remember as a kid turning on the TV in the middle of the movie and thinking to myself "Cool - Roger Moore is guest-starring on Fantasy Island tonight." It actually didn't dawn on me right away I was watching a Bond movie. There was something about it that definitely felt off.
Comments
So: Bond had matured somehow, from the casual, winking chickmagnet of the early adventures to someone more serious and ready to take a bride and maybe retire from this dirty damn business. But the trauma of Tracy's death leaves him so griefstricken he has to be locked up in a padded cell in Dr Molony's Private Hospital and heavily sedated, where he hallucinates a fun, harmless adventure as his more innocent, irresponsible younger self.
Thus it's not the audience who demands nostalgic escapism, it's Bond himself, experiencing a type of psychic fugue!
(it is a thing, see Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue_state )
Then once the extreme grief stage is over, and he is taken of his meds and returns to consensus reality, his sense of identity is a bit scrambled and instead of resuming the more serious self that experienced the trauma, he reinvents himself as insufferably posh and smug and picking up more chicks than ever before, and this shallow attitude gets him through the next 12 years of life.
At least till that night spent with MayDay traumatises him once again into becoming nervous twitchy Bond.
That would be tearful misty-eyed Bond...?
emotional Celt
Let's say we skip OHMSS for a minute and pretend DAF is more a direct sequel to YOLT - The differences become even more profound. YOLT is a truly epic film, the stakes are high, the locations gorgeous and exotic, Connery tan and looking his best if in slightly less than peak physical form, Blofeld is not the cold and calculating thug he is in From Russia With Love, but rather a truly mad diabolical criminal mastermind. Blofeld in DAF seems shoehorned into the plot and the casting of Charles Gray seems such an odd choice. His and Bond's relationship in the film seems more Sherlock and Moriarty than anything else. In YOLT, he seems not to think very highly of Bond and wants him dead; in DAF he seems almost amused - and not really even all that concerned - about Bond's persistence - it's a trifle to him more than any real thorn in his side. SPECTRE seems truly devastated - Bond's basically eliminated everyone capable and he's left with the sadistic and unhinged Wynt and Kidd.
The film just seems to reflect the faded sleaze of the 70s as compared to the glittering 1960s. Blofeld isn't pitting world powers against each other by playing international chess - he's making lasers using diamond smuggling. Bond goes from being the aggressive, seductive lover to laying in a Vegas bed with an ash tray on his chest after a round of lovemaking. Bond is puffy, greying, out of place in the 1970s but not a punchline - but he's clearly an over the hill 00 both physically and mentally it seems.
The whole film really is just surreal, jaded, and oddly depressing and yet at the same time intoxicating. It's silly and over the top - but it has an atmosphere that makes the silliness almost creepy.
Does anyone agree?
No one ever said DAF was written out of Bond history.
Even in the novels Blofeld was constantly changing his appearance. In Bond's world he'd basically be one of the most wanted terrorists in the world. His voice is different in every incarnation. He looks utterly different from the Telly Savalas version in YOLT; Does that mean YOLT didn't happen either? The only similarities between those two versions is a bald head. Also, Telly Savala's version didn't have an Arab-American accent and I don't think would offer to have bought Bond a delicatessen.
I mean, that's basically saying that every time Moneypenny's actress or Bond's actor changes, a new timeline is created. There's no need to erase movies in the original canon. Bond seems immensely satisified with killing Blofeld in the pre-titles of DAF and his assignment is a personal mission and seems to be of a vendetta nature, at least supporting in part the events of the previous film. After the pre-titles Bond thinks Blofeld is dead and gone and is sent on a much more routine mission. He still wastes no time in trying to kill Blofeld when he discovers Blofeld is behind the diamond smuggling plot.
No, in a neck brace and driving a rather large Mercedes ,certainly nor a paraplegic.
Blofeld couldn't have been a paraplegic at the end of OHMSS, simply because he was able to accelerate the car with his foot. Perhaps it was 'only' a neck injury, that was able to heal come the events of DAF, then getting knocked around in the bathosub may have been enough to do further damage to his spine, hence the wheelchair.
Or he just changed his face again, and the Charles Gray version is the same guy, just with heavy plastic surgery and a wig (Since I will accept that Blofeld is likely naturally bald).
One could also argue that since it's made clear he has a number of body doubles, and that he also changes his appearance and even his voice often, that it's possible that NONE of the versions we see on screen are the "REAL" Blofeld.
The OHMSS Blofeld didn't have a stereotypical Arab-American accent like in FYEO, but sounded like an upper class New Yorker.
Let me explain. Of course there would always be a market for Bond. But the late 60s/early 1970s were a very rapidly changing time. OHMSS underperformed at the box office. The mid 1960s - Bond's height - was culturally a long time gone. By 1971, gritty crime movies like The French Connection and Panic in Needle Park had sort of replaced Bond; this was the era of Serpico, government distrust. Bringing Sean Connery back in - and updating the look and feel of the series a bit (The Vegas car chase could come out of Bullit; the elevator fight reminds me of gritty 70s movie fights; the moon buggy scene threw a wink at popular Moon Landing conspiracies) and changing the tone - was the perfect segue needed to bridge James Bond into a new era of cinema. Connery proved the draw that brought the series back to life, the film was a smash hit, the biggest Bond hit in a while, and then casting Roger Moore and getting Paul McCartney to do the theme song, and George Martin to do the score for the next film sealed the deal. DAF is the bridge between the 60s and 70s for James Bond, and it's because of DAF that the James Bond movie franchise was able to cross that bridge into a new era with a new audience and different expectations. DAF is a weird film because it's a transitional film. It's the missing link between the Connery and Moore years.
I think if we had gotten a commercial dud Bond in 1971 - another Lazenby film - it might've tanked and the series might've taken a long hiatus. Maybe from an artistic or novel purist standpoint, another Lazenby film with a morose tone would have been better - but commercially it might have killed the series and money is what matters in the end.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
DAF, LLD and TMWTGG... I love those three movies, for exactly these reasons. They were the first Bonds that I saw on initial release in the cinema, so I learned to associate 'new Bond' with the strange and surreal, while at the same time, as a kid, accepting it all at face value.
Was DAF supposed to be a revenge story? Not really. DAF was off its face, in a good way, and doing something else tonally... essentially for commercial reasons, as has been said, and giving the franchise a decadent new direction...
From a 'fan fiction' point of view, as a coda to OHMSS, one can always imagine that a vengeful Bond tracked down Bunt, going to a dark place before hunting Blofeld next... and only afterwards transitioning to sparkling, high camp! Or perhaps "this never happened to the other fella."
Of course, one could simply bide one's time and wait for one's revenge fix in LTK or CR/QOS.
"You used to say live and let live... But if this ever changin' world in which we're livin' makes you give in and cry, say live and let die!
"And what exactly do you intend to do with those diamonds?
"I don't need love, for what good will love do me? ... For when love's gone, they'll lustre on!"
As for bad films I agree with some people about DAF. I saw this at the week end and did not even bother watching to the end.
The 70s was weird , what was up with those nazi sexploitation and cannibal films
(Ghengis Khan song , scary stuff
Also those Bruce Lee imitator films , had it been today the estate prolly wouldve sued them to hell :v
That's just it. It is the direction they took for whatever silly reason - why even have an opening scene with Bond going after Blofeld as if his life depends on it if the movie is just going to ignore that?
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
I think they did plan on having Irma Bunt coming back for DAF, but George retired from Bond and Ilse Steppatt died after making the film.
" I don't listen to hip hop!"
IMO though, because it is so much to do with identity, DAF is top of the pile - who is who? Bond is Franks, Franks is Bond, Plenty is Tiffany, three Blofelds, a dentist who is a diamond smuggler, a comedian who is a distributor, a funeral parlour that kills people, a research centre which may or may not be faking moon landings, satellites equipped with lasers, weather balloons delivering secret agents, two identical cassette tapes, a shapeshifting gorilla, Bond impersonates 'one of the little people', Moneypenny impersonates a customs official - need I go on?
I'm quite fond of DAF, it makes me chuckle like no other Bond film.
That's correct. Maibaum's early drafts of DAF would have resulted in a very different and considerably more serious film. In one, Irma was identified and killed off in the pre-title sequence.
As for the weirdest Bond film, Live and Let Die is the only movie in the series where a character is unmistakably killed in one scene and then appears magically resurrected in a later one. No other Bond film so blatantly embraces the supernatural. Imagine how any other Bond film would play if its villain was immortal like Baron Samedi!