Film Clips

These satisfactions are permanent

Diamonds Are Forever

1971, USA, Guy Hamilton

 

Diamonds Are Forever is unique among the Bond movies in that it doesn’t really feel like a Bond movie. It’s packed with a kind of camp sadism that owes more to some of the sixties Bond rip-offs than the previous films in the series. The plot is as familiar as ever, concerning a plan by Blofeld to stockpile diamonds for use in a satellite weapon which, once again, will be the means to hold the world to ransom. Bond is, for much of the time, a straight man to the rest of the cast - although he does get one or two zingers to deliver - and Connery takes his cue from this to give what must be the laziest performance he has ever given. Relying on all his old tricks, and a delivery that is not so much slow burning as extinguished, he seems to be doing as little as possible. Throughout, he looks middle aged and tired. The scene in the burning coffin is a case in point; even given that it’s an appallingly loose bit of writing, Bond should surely look more concerned than he does here.

The narrative construction is a problem. The pre-credits stuff is fine and the development of the plot is fine up until we get to Las Vegas. Then the film drifts into a series of set-pieces, vaguely connected together by a number of coincidences, until we get to the, frankly, hopeless conclusion on the oil rig. It doesn’t help that the main villain, Blofeld, has not the slightest iota of threat about him. Charles Gray is often very funny but he is not a Bond villain. He never seems dangerous; he’s charming and pleasant and seems entirely reasonable. This would be acceptable if there were suggestions of hidden depths of villainy beneath the courtesy. Gray simply suggests hidden shallows.

The film survives because of Tom Mankiewicz’s dialogue. He writes tremendously good flip lines and the result is the wittiest of all the Bond movies. This is highlighted through Blofeld’s henchmen, Mr Wint and Mr Kidd, incarnated to perfection by Bruce Glover and the extraordinarily odd Putter Smith - jazz musician, and session player for Phil Spector. PC they are not, being not merely gay killers, but pathologically misanthropic gay killers. Virtually everything they say is funny, not least because the actors just look so right, and they manage to keep a sense of genuine menace, even when camping around like Julian Clary.

Technically, the film is up to par. John Barry’s music is typically great, and the theme song by Shirley Bassey is one of the best Bond tunes. It’s quite well paced by Guy Hamilton but the lack of structure does begin to make the film pall after about an hour. The tone also seems somehow ‘off’. For example, in the first fight scene, the Japanese man’s head hits the radiator, and there’s a noticeable pause for us to appreciate the brutal smack and then a close up of his bloody forehead. Wint and Kidd are certainly funny, but there’s a queasy edge to the scenes which mix sadism with camp comedy, and that’s why the film has a different atmosphere to the other Bond movies. Not necessarily a bad thing, since it does make the film distinctive, but I’m not disappointed that it was never repeated - although it’s exactly that tone which informs virtually every recent Hollywood action movie.

3 Responses to Diamonds Are Forever »»


Comments

  1. Comment by Livius | 2009/10/12 at 11:05:18

    Not one of my favourites either. Connery looked unfit, tired and just there for the paycheck.
    It’s even more disappointing when compared to the two movies either side of it; OHMSS being just a great film all the way round and Live and Let Die brimming with energy and full-on fun tongue in cheek entertainment.

  2. Comment by John Hodson | 2009/10/12 at 13:07:54

    I can still recall the immense disappointment I felt at watching Rog ponce about in his safari suit ‘acting’ a cross between Simon Templar and Lord Brett Sinclair. With a touch of Ivanhoe for good measure. The last Bond film I saw in the cinema until The Living Daylights.

    I can also picture the Mirror’s centre-spread (aptly), obtensibly there to promote DAF, but actually heckling (from the safe distance of Fleet Street, naturally), Connery’s paunch. Christ on a bike, that I looked that bad at 41…

  3. Comment by Livius | 2009/10/12 at 14:11:54

    John, I know you’re no fan of Moore’s Bond and I understand your (and a lot of other people’s) reasons for that. However, I still think his early efforts (and a few later ones too) brought a hell of a lot of entertainment to the series. Sure they’re flawed in ways and full of cheese, but they are fun.
    Diamonds seemed like it wanted to have fun but wasn’t sure how to go about it and Connery just didn’t have his heart in it any more. I am a fan of big Sean as 007 - although I still generally prefer Moore’s outings - just not in this movie. I also have some issues with Thunderball and From Russia With Love but they’re not really related to Connery, more certain aspects of the films themselves.


Leave a Reply »»

Login     Film Journal Home     Support Forums           Journal Rating: 5/5 (5)