
Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. Can you name a more iconic duo? These henchmen are played as clearly defined lovers which shows a great deal of progressive foresight by producers and author Ian Fleming. And it was a bit of inspired casting too. They’re played by Crispin Glover’s dad and the bassist to the Righteous Brothers. They’re definitely one of the more memorable characters in the James Bond universe.
But their introduction is a little strange to say the least. Sir Donald’s exposition to Bond and M is broken up by jump cuts to Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd and their shenanigans. Their scenes are good, which includes blowing up helicopters and dropping scorpions down people’s shirts, but the narrative is very clunky. I kinda get the joke: as Sir Donald explains the situation and the “pride and devotion” of his employees, the audience is keyed into the actual corruption within the diamond industry while the stuffy Brit obliviously blabbers on. Additionally, these scenes establish the tone of the film as a campy joy ride. I get it. There’s a lot that needs to be explained in these scenes because we want to jump into the action as soon as possible.
I just think it could have been told better. So what would I have done?
Glad you asked.
Perhaps start with the dentist extracting a diamond from the tooth of one of the miners and stashing it away. Cut to Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd philosophizing over a scorpion in the desert, meeting the dentist, killing him, then blowing up the helicopter to take the money. That takes what? Two minutes of screen time? This also streamlines the introduction to intrigue which is sorely missed in the films of the 70s. Then we cut to the exposition dump with Sir Donald, Bond, and M. After M tells Bond that he’s going to Holland, we cut to Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd handing the diamonds off to the corrupt missionary where she’s told she’s going to Amsterdam. BAM! The plot begins.
And now let me tell you about Guy Hamilton..
TO BE CONTINUED…