James Bond steals a tiny yellow car, flirts with Ms. Moneypenny, and is off to Amsterdam. We see a boat tour down the Amstel, a dead woman pulled from the river, and Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd cackling to themselves about sending pictures of the body to kids. The two henchmen walk away, James Bond drives past them and arrives at Tiffany Case’s house.
Jill St. John is controversial among Bond fans. Sure her character is a little uneven and she’s given odd dialogue. But as much as it pains me to say it, that’s Tom Mankiewicz’s fault. You can’t deny that St. John at least gives a performance. She’s picking up the slack where Connery is lacking.
BUT, with that said, even while Connery simply rolls out of bed and into his toupee, there’s no denying his charisma. As much as I love Roger Moore, there are times when I think “Sean could have delivered that line better.” And Bond’s first interaction with Tiffany Case highlights this point; She walks in and out of the room barely wearing anything, she’s confusing Bond with her constant wig changing, and she’s a total smartass. That’s a lot! Had Roger been in the scene, he would have raised an eyebrow, gawked at her, and looked like an absolute pervert. I would have never believed their chemistry. But Connery, in his detachment, plays it dumb and cool. He lets HER carry the scene. After Tiffany Case informs Bond that she’ll finish dressing, only Connery could have pulled off the line “oh please. Not on my account.”
Can you imagine if Roger said that? 🤢
What’s unfortunate about this scene is that very little of it carries into the film. Tiffany doesn’t become the strong female character she’s established to be and the wig changing plays an only a minor role later on. So the scene is confusing if not absurd. Then again so is the rest of the movie! But I think the biggest complaint is that many find Tiffany Case annoying.
I disagree wholeheartedly. The inconsistency in the character is ironed out by St. John. The strong face she puts on in her introduction immediately melts away once when bullets start flying. Where you find inconsistency, I find relatability. Where the screenwriters failed, St. John delivered nuance. So justice for Tiffany Case!
There’s an interesting scene after the Tiffany Case introduction when Bond returns to his hotel room and has a phone chat with Q. Bond commends him for the fake set of fingerprints and Q is flattered. I like little moments like this. The relationship between Q and Bond can sometimes be quarrelsome, particularly during the Connery era, but at the end of the day I like to think these guys like each other. But what’s confusing here is that Q kinda nonchalantly tells James Bond that the guy he’s impersonating has killed a guard, escaped prison, and is presumably on his way to Tiffany Case. I guess these things happen all the time at M16, but hell, even if I didn’t LIKE the guy, I’d still be a little urgent in a phone call to my coworker that a man is probably on his way to kill him! But that’s just one of the reasons why this film is so special: it’s explicitly telling you that we’re here to have fun.
This point is driven home in the following action sequence…
Guy Hamilton cut his teeth as an assistant to legendary directors like Carol Reed and John Huston. The commentary tracks on all Hamilton-helmed Bond pictures remind audiences that he was a stand in for Orson Welles in The Third Man. In the 1950s, Hamilton was elevated to director where he made nine films before being offered the job in 1961 for Dr. No. He turned it down and producers instead went with Terence Young. However, when Young stepped away from the franchise after From Russia With Love, Hamilton came in for Goldfinger (1964). The third James Bond film is often cited for establishing the template for subsequent films in the franchise, to which Hamilton is frequently credited for. After George Lazenby left the role after one picture, Connery returned and producers felt like they needed to re-establish the Goldfinger tone. Enter Hamilton for Diamonds Are Forever.
I’d like to take a moment to praise Terence Young. While there’s the James Bond of the Ian Fleming novels, there’s also the James Bond of the movies. The difference between the two (if we don’t count Sean Connery) is Terence Young. Before being cast in the role, Connery was just a Scottish roughneck actor. Young shaped him, and thus James Bond, into the character we’ve come to love. And James Bond is very much the focus of the action in the first two films,particularly Dr. No. This is what made Red Grant such a formidable opponent in From Russia With Love, because he was essentially James Bond’s equal. Their confrontation, the train fight towards the end, is cited as one of the hallmarks of the series. Young really knew how to build up this character. While the Young-directed films are very much post-war male fantasies, he still manages to ground the picture thus making them feel raw.
Guy Hamilton changes that in Goldfinger. Hamilton’s conception of the character is essentially that of a comic book hero. This is where we see the introduction of over the top gadgets, cartoonish villains, and (let’s be honest) blatant misogynistic attitudes towards women. This is the point in the franchise where the series recognizes itself as a cultural phenomenon. It was an overwhelming success but for whatever reasons Hamilton didn’t return until DAF.
Connery’s biggest complaint for Goldfinger was that Bond was always one step behind the villain, which is a valid criticism. This is remedied in DAF thanks to Mankiewicz’s script and Hamilton mostly sidelines the misogyny, though not entirely (it will make a BIG comeback in Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun), but the plot still remains over the top.
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.
M is a stone cold bastard. Think about his introduction from the perspective of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. James Bond’s new wife is murdered. He goes on a rampage to kill Blofeld, does so, then comes back to work not long after. M blabbering to Bond about some stupid fucking diamond takes place what? Maybe a MONTH after his wife’s death?! M was at the wedding for Christ sake! Then the head of MI6 has the GALL to demand that Bond move on and provide some “plain, solid work”!
What an asshole!
Of course I don’t KNOW for a fact that this takes place immediately after OHMSS. Maybe Bond managed to squeeze in a couple of missions before deciding to take a holiday to pursue Blofeld. But I have a hard time believing that James Bond would watch his wife die, maybe take a grieving period before returning to work, wait for more information to trickle out about Blofeld’s whereabouts, then beg M to allow him to go after him, M refusing, then taking vacation time to enact vengeance. The more credible explanation is that after Tracy is killed, Bond…who was already on PTO for his wedding and honeymoon…immediately jumped into action. And this first interaction with M in Diamonds Are Forever takes place right after James Bond comes back from vacation because a minute later, Sir Donald, who provides an exposition dump for the plot, says to Bond “I hear you’ve been on holiday.” In other words, M is a fucking dickhead.
But maybe not!
As I’ve already (successfully) argued, part of the purpose behind the cold open was to erase OHMSS altogether. So in the world of DAF and Sean Connery, James Bond was never married. His beef with Blofeld stems from the events of You Only Live Twice, meaning the mission wasn’t finished. Bond had to take a “holiday” to complete the job. So from this perspective, M is somewhat justified in his annoyance with Bond. Although Blofeld got away at the conclusion of YOLT, his plan was thwarted which could mean the mission was a success. But James Bond wasn’t satisfied so M had to begrudgingly grant him time off (meaning he had to temporarily lose his best agent) even though killing Blofeld was a secondary objective. Yet Bond got his way and now he was back and all M wanted him to do was listen to him yammer on about diamonds. So it’s just another example of OHMSS erasure.
This can be the only plausible explanation for M’s behavior and not at all a result of a lack of attention from the writers.
The script was produced by longtime James Bond screenwriter Richard Maibaum and newcomer Tom Mankiewicz, son of legendary Hollywood director Joseph Mankiewicz. Maibaum wrote the initial drafts while Mankiewicz came in to polish it up. The latter was retained for the next two films: Live and Let Die and The Man With The Golden Gun. It’s unclear to me who wrote what but there’s little doubt about Mankiewicz’s influence as DAF is a marked departure from the previous films where Maibaum played a huge role (with the exception of YOLT which was written by Roald Dahl for some reason). The most obvious difference in the films written by Mankiewicz is that they feel more Americanized. This was probably a deliberate choice by Cubby Broccoli as American actor John Gavin was originally cast to play James Bond in DAF before Connery announced his return. But there’s another commonality between the three Mankiewicz-penned Bond films: they all introduce James Bond to the plot in the most mundane way.
In From Russia With Love, arguably the best in the series and one of the more unusually structured, there’s a solid 15 minute set up before 007 is introduced. This is an interesting device that establishes intrigue but is used intermittently throughout the series. It is almost entirely neglected for the films in the 70s, all of which Mankiewicz had a hand in writing (three credited with DAF, Live and Let Die, and The Man With The Golden Gun. Two uncredited with The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker). In all these films, intrigue is only established with set pieces lasting a minute or two, usually in the cold open. Neglecting an element of mystery in the introduction leads to a clumsy exposition dump post-main titles in Diamonds Are Forever, and it’s this trend that I think hampered the films of the 70s.
This may not be the fault of Mankiewicz, who would later unfairly criticize himself as being a Hollywood failson. But it was with the James Bond franchise where he cut his teeth and established a near legendary career as a script doctor and creative consultant. Instead I’d like to point the finger at director Guy Hamilton…
I’ve never had a bad word to say about 1971’s Diamonds Are Forever. To be honest, I classify it as an art form in and of itself. It’s not a movie; it remains a historical artifact of what happens when film producers have an infinite amount of money and zero fucks to give.
Even its leading man, the late great Sean Connery, couldn’t be bothered to lie about why he returned to the role. It was for the money, obviously, then a record sum. And when you watch the movie, it is obvious that no other person in the history of the planet made an easier $1 million. Producers and audiences didn’t care. They didn’t need Connery to act. They only needed him to show up.
So let’s hop right into the “film”:
If you think about it, this is actually a good cold open: James Bond throws a Japanese man through a paper wall, punches an Egyptian man in the face, and strangles a hooker with her bikini. And that brings us to roughly the minute and half mark. Now I know it sounds racist and misogynistic when I explain that way. But this is Connery’s Bond. I’m just telling you what happened.
As an interesting side note, if you notice in the Cairo casino scene, multiple people, including the man whom Bond punches, are wearing a hat called a fez. While the fez has historically been a popular piece of headgear in places like the Middle East and North Africa, where in the latter it was seen as a symbol of resistance against French occupation, something about its use in Diamonds Are Forever didn’t sit right with me. So I did a little digging and found out that the fez was actually banned in Egypt in 1958, 13 years before this movie was filmed. Insofar as I can tell the ban has been lifted but it is no longer a popular piece to wear in Egypt and it probably hasn’t been since 1958. However, the fez is still commonly worn in MOROCCO. It’s this little piece oversight and careless consideration that I really appreciate about this movie and the early Bond films as a whole.
But back to the hooker strangulation part, it’s important to point out that that Connery was roughly 4 years out from his previous Bond film You Only Live Twice. But it looks closer to 40 years. Usually when actors are cast in physically demanding roles, they do things like, you know, get in shape. But this is the genius of Connery: he didn’t. And good for him. He provided us with the greatest dad bod, the likes of which would not be seen again until Kelsey Grammar in Frasier. What’s more alarming is that Connery looked noticeably younger and fitter 12 years later in Never Say Never Again. So I applaud Connery. It’s nice to see him get in one more fuck you to Eon Productions before leaving them for good.
It was painfully obvious that Connery was in no way committed to the role. Again, back to the strangulation scene, this was where the actor reveals his face and reintroduces the character: my name’s Bond…James Bond. It’s important to note that everyone…audiences and producers alike…wanted Connery back. This introduction was to give the audience exactly what they wanted. But Connery and director Guy Hamilton zigged when perhaps they should have zagged. Instead of appearing as the cool and suave spy that we came to love, Bond introduces himself like he’s your new pervy neighbor. If I could go back in time and be a fly on the wall, I wouldn’t go see the Pyramids being built or Caesar crossing the Rubicon or any of that shit. I would go back in time to watch this scene be filmed. The reveal of Bond’s face seems like it was a first take. Maybe Connery refused to do a second. Now I’m no Steven Spielberg, but if I were Guy Hamilton, I would have taken the actor aside and said “hey, with this scene, we’re telling the audience that Sean Connery is BACK as James Bond. So when you walk down those steps in that godawful Terry cloth button-up, play it a little cool, ya know? Just like you did in Dr. No.” But that’s not what we got. Instead the whole presentation felt rushed and careless which was an ominous sign of things to come…
But on second thought, maybe Connery’s lackadaisical introduction was a deliberate one. At the time audiences felt that the prior film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, sorely missed the original Bond’s presence. Critics today are far more generous to George Lazenby’s first and only portrayal of 007, but being that this was the first time the character had been recast, audiences weren’t so sympathetic. With Connery lazily introducing Bond in the cold open, perhaps this was the filmmakers’ way of telling the audience that the Scottish actor had always been James Bond.
Yet this might not have been the only attempt at erasing On Her Majesty’s Secret Service within the first minute and a half. Obviously nowhere in the cold open or in the rest of the film is Tracy Bond’s death mentioned. But also, recall where the Diamonds Are Forever starts: (presumably) in Japan. And where did Connery’s prior Bond film, You Only Live Twice, end? That’s right: Japan. You Only Live Twice ends and Diamonds Are Forever begins with Bond chasing Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Japan. Coincidence? I think not. There’s obvious problems with my theory, namely James Bond looks 50 years older, but you could almost assume that Diamonds Are Forever picks up right where You Only Live Twice ends, therefore bypassing On Her Majesty’s Secret Service altogether.
Unfortunately none of this matters. The franchise is noticeably absent of continuity which has led to many asinine fan theories, the most egregious one being that James Bond is a “code name”. So allow me to digress a moment to dispel this dumb ass idea. First off, the death of Tracy Bond is a major event in the series. It is also referenced numerous times in other films staring four different Bond actors: Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. This would lead us to assume that James Bond is the same man across all the Eon produced films. Additionally, it is nonsensical to believe that each secret agent that takes up the mantle of “James Bond” would ALSO have been married to a woman named Tracy who was later killed. What are the odds? Of course Lazenby infamously breaks the fourth wall in OHMSS by referring to Connery (“this never happened to the other fellow”) but later he is seen going through various trinkets seen in prior films, implying that he and Connery are in fact the same James Bond. Therefore all pre-Daniel Craig actors, from Connery to Brosnan, are the same James Bond. The Craig era is a hard reboot of the series and therefore exists in a timeline of its own. It would make zero sense for MI6 to assign various agents across the decades the same name and code. That’s fucking stupid and this theory needs to be put to bed.
Anyways, back to the erasure of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Now I have zero proof of what I’m about to allege, but it is well known that by this time, the relationship between producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Salzman was on the fritz. At this point in production history, the two were alternating lead producer responsibilities from one film to the next. Saltzman produced On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. That means Broccoli produced Diamonds Are Forever. I know what you’re thinking: “so you’re saying Broccoli tried to fuck over Saltzman by trying to make audiences forget On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?”. And the answer is yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
And folks, I’ve only discussed the first minute and half of this film. Now’s let’s move on to the other hour and 58 minutes….
Truth be told, I don’t have much to say about Charles Gray’s Blofeld. His casting and acting choices encapsulate the movie perfectly. Counter balancing Connery’s carefree performance, Gray actually worked for his paycheck. He made his interpretation a marked difference from Donald Pleasence and Telly Savalas who preceded him in the role. It’s probably my favorite Blofeld. Gray’s acting may not be to everyone’s taste. In fact, some are even distracted by his casting given he played a Bond ally in the previous Connery outing, You Only Live Twice, as Mr. Henderson.
This further lends credence to my theory that Diamonds Are Forever is a direct sequel to You Only Live Twice. If true, then this would be a groundbreaking moment in the series that would not be seen again until Casino Royale/Quantum of Solace over 35 years later. Hear me out: after the events of You Only Live Twice, Blofeld changed his appearance to fit not just anyone, but Mr. Henderson specifically. Why Mr. Henderson? Who knows. To be honest, Roald Dahl’s script was so batshitthat I don’t recall if Mr. Henderson’s background was ever explained. I believe it was hinted that he knew of SPECTRE; so he appeared to be a well-connected guy. Perhaps he knew Willard Whyte? That might explain how Blofeld managed to infiltrate Whyte’s organization for DAF. But whatever the case, I’m sure there’s no need to inspect for holes in my theory as it is ironclad.
So I don’t have much to say on Gray’s Blofeld but I do have a lot to say about his introduction, specifically the set. Let me preface this by saying that Ken Adam might be the greatest production designer of all time. He’s certainly the most iconic of the James Bond franchise. But that set, where Bond confronts Blofeld for the first time in the film, looks like shit. Literally. Everything is dark and brown, right down to Connery’s suit. I’m willing to give Adam the benefit of the doubt. As you all know, I don’t do research. So it’s possible that this “set” isn’t a set at all but is actually someone’s house, specifically Guy Hamilton’s. I’m making this assumption based on no proof, but it feels like Cubby Broccoli went into Hamilton’s basement and said “this would be the perfect place to shoot a Bond film.” Hamilton, being the English gentleman that he is (or was), simply shrugged and said “whatever you say Cubby.” Meanwhile Adam, along with set decorator Peter Lamont, threw up a bunch of rock to conceal the dreariness of the room, leaving cinematographer Ted Moore with the unenviable task of lighting it. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to given the talent involved. Adam, Lamont, and Moore have all won Academy Awards.
But it’s in this scene where Connery has to do a little bit of work, probably the most he’ll do throughout the film. It appears he did his own stunt work by doing a front roll then pulling a switch that dumps a bunch of shit onto a guy pointing a gun at him. Then he briefly tangles with two guards before jumping slightly to the side to avoid a knife attack from Blofeld. I’m surprised they convinced Connery to do as much. It’s probably the laziest fight scene in the whole series.
With Blofeld “dead”, this leads us into the main title sequence…
I don’t remember what I told you the last time I was here. Probably something to do with wanting to explore other creative pursuits blah blah blah. And I did do that while I was away but those ideas are gonna need to spend more time in the oven. The problem is I felt stalled out here because I didn’t know what else to write about. There’s only so much penis and fart jokes to go around. I was thinking too much. I was too concerned with being “different” from everyone else.
But now I know. The answer was under my nose the entire time: I want to write extended commentaries on ALL the James Bond films. And I mean an entire book-length for each movie.
And I mean EVERY. GOD. DAMN. FILM.
This problem occurred to me while watching Tomorrow Never Dies for the 300th time. Is it a bad movie? Is it the film that the writer, director, producers, and Pierce Brosnan wanted to make? For being a very by-the-numbers Bond film, it is strangely one of the most controversial in the series. I went to bed tortured by the thought that Roger Spottiswoode is to blame. Was it possible that Bruce Feirstein wrote a pretty solid script? Was the project hampered by an unimaginative director with an actor and producers trying to find their footing in the franchise since Cubby Broccoli was dead? I don’t know. I just don’t know. But these are questions begging to be answered, especially considering the franchise’s influence and longevity.
I’ve already started this process with Diamonds Are Forever, one of my personal faves. So in this next phase of The Internet Ruined Everything, I ask you to join me on this very personal journey where I will explore the history of this franchise and what it means to me and to filmgoers around the world.
I’m Beau Montana and I’m a raging alcoholic in Akron, Ohio. This is my story….
But on second thought, maybe Connery’s lackadaisical introduction was a deliberate one. At the time audiences felt that the prior film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, sorely missed the original Bond’s presence. Critics today are far more generous to George Lazenby’s first and only portrayal of 007, but being that this was the first time the character had been recast, audiences weren’t so sympathetic. With Connery lazily introducing Bond in the cold open, perhaps this was the filmmakers’ way of telling the audience that the Scottish actor had always been James Bond.
Yet this might not have been the only attempt at erasing On Her Majesty’s Secret Service within the first minute and a half. Obviously nowhere in the cold open or in the rest of the film is Tracy Bond’s death mentioned. But also, recall where the Diamonds Are Forever starts: (presumably) in Japan. And where did Connery’s prior Bond film, You Only Live Twice, end? That’s right: Japan. You Only Live Twice ends and Diamonds Are Forever begins with Bond chasing Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Japan. Coincidence? I think not. There’s obvious problems with my theory, namely James Bond looks 50 years older, but you could almost assume that Diamonds Are Forever picks up right where You Only Live Twice ends, therefore bypassing On Her Majesty’s Secret Service altogether.
Unfortunately none of this matters. The franchise is noticeably absent of continuity which has led to many asinine fan theories, the most egregious one being that James Bond is a “code name”. So allow me to digress a moment to dispel this dumb ass idea. First off, the death of Tracy Bond is a major event in the series. It is also referenced numerous times in other films staring four different Bond actors: Lazenby, Moore, Dalton, and Brosnan. This would lead us to assume that James Bond is the same man across all the Eon produced films. Additionally, it is nonsensical to believe that each secret agent that takes up the mantle of “James Bond” would ALSO have been married to a woman named Tracy who was later killed. What are the odds? Of course Lazenby infamously breaks the fourth wall in OHMSS by referring to Connery (“this never happened to the other fellow”) but later he is seen going through various trinkets seen in prior films, implying that he and Connery are in fact the same James Bond. Therefore all pre-Daniel Craig actors, from Connery to Brosnan, are the same James Bond. The Craig era is a hard reboot of the series and therefore exists in a timeline of its own. It would make zero sense for MI6 to assign various agents across the decades the same name and code. That’s fucking stupid and this theory needs to be put to bed.
Anyways, back to the erasure of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Now I have zero proof of what I’m about to allege, but it is well known that by this time, the relationship between producers Cubby Broccoli and Harry Salzman was on the fritz. At this point in production history, the two were alternating lead producer responsibilities from one film to the next. Saltzman produced On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. That means Broccoli produced Diamonds Are Forever. I know what you’re thinking: “so you’re saying Broccoli tried to fuck over Saltzman by trying to make audiences forget On Her Majesty’s Secret Service?”. And the answer is yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.
And folks, I’ve only discussed the first minute and half of this film. Now’s let’s move on to the other hour and 58 minutes….
I don’t like what I ultimately named my HBO-based series based on the world of James Bond. I initially figured it would be called 00 (Double O), but that sounds too bland. But for the moment, it’s titled On His Majesty’s Secret Service until something better comes along.
But the first season focused on the more brutal and realistic Terry Hamilton 002. In the second season, I want things to be a bit more loose with the cannon and lighthearted in the style of Roger Moore. Enter agent Alistair Lewis 008. I said previously that I imagined Bill Nighy in the role, but with him clearly too old, next in line is David Tennant. Tennant was strangely almost James Bond before Daniel Craig was announced. As hard as that is for me to imagine, at least producers could see him believably play a British spy. However, Tennant is now in his 50s, so it is unlikely that he would ever play the part. Nevertheless the role calls for a David Tennant-like actor.
The Terry Hamilton character terrified the usual MI6 crew with him ignoring Moneypenny altogether and discarding Q’s gadgets outright. But I want Alistair Lewis to be a bit more cordial albeit awkward. I find it amusing to find new ways for 00 agents to annoy M; M begrudgingly respects Bond, he’s terrified of Hamilton, and he’s simply embarrassed for Lewis. 008 doesn’t know how to shut up and can’t contain his excitement when discussing certain particulars of his next assignment.
I want the impression that Lewis failed his way upward; his only redeeming qualities being he’s a lethal sniper and can effortlessly gather intelligence without being detected. These are useful skills in modern espionage but in the world of the 00s, he is found lacking. But Lewis tries his best to keep up, often emulating Bond’s proclivity for gambling (though without Bond’s success). He even attempts to flirt with Moneypenny, though she fails to pick up on his advances. However he finds a kindred spirit in Q where they both express their fondness in gadgetry (and often annoying Q’s underlings).
I also want to revisit some previously established characters in the franchise. While gambling late into the night at some posh London casino, Lewis runs into Sylvia Trench. After he takes her to bone zone, he learns that she’s on the rebound because her previous boyfriend (presumably James Bond) went to Istanbul and never came back. Lewis assumes that it one was a one night stand and he’d never hear from her again. Of course, he’s wrong.
And fuck it, bring back Felix Leiter too. I remember hearing about a comic book featuring Leiter where he was no longer in the CIA and was working as a private detective. I think this works well for Jeffrey Wright’s version. Wright’s Felix seems like a bit of an alcoholic and disgruntled with the CIA. So in the show, Leiter flames out of the intelligence community and is working as a private investigator and maintains his connections with MI6. Lewis is sent to the US for his next mission with Felix being his first contact. Felix, meanwhile, is exited by the prospect of working with 007 again but is disappointed when Lewis arrives. Like everyone at MI6, Felix is annoyed by Alistair Lewis’ naive enthusiasm for the mission. The second season partly becomes a buddy cop story with Wright’s world weary Felix contrasting with the ever joyful, yet confidence-lacking Alistair Lewis. The two bounce around Key West before uncovering a world-ending plot by the villain. Though the CIA is initially skeptical of their claims, it reawakens Felix’s enthusiasm for espionage and M begins to respect Lewis as an elite spy. Finally 008 is called to London to finish the mission where Sylvia Trench has inadvertently involved herself into Lewis’s affairs.
James Bond is dead. Of course he will return, presumably resurrected like our lord and savior Jesus H Christ for the next installment. But where does the franchise go from here?
“Why not a television series for HBO?” you ask.
Thankfully I’ve already thought of this. So I’m imploring all my readers to bombard Barbara Broccoli and Michael G Wilson with nonstop emails begging them to read my pitch:
After the events of Spectre and before No Time to Die, Nomi is named James Bond’s replacement for the coveted code name of 007. Nomi is an accomplished killer in her own right, but M wants to get her acclimated to the world of being a 00 agent. So the head of MI6 activates Terry Hamilton aka 002, a brutish but seasoned 00, to assist her in her first assignment.
First off, I think it’s important to establish that James Bond is not dead. Though it is unlikely that the world’s most famous secret agent will appear in the first season, I don’t want audiences to feel that Bond may never appear. If they feel that way, then they may not tune in. Secondly, 002 needs to be the polar opposite of Bond: working class, not favorable to the comforts and niceties that Bond is accustomed to, a cheap whiskey and lager drinker exclusively, and has difficulty in connecting with women. In other words, he’s an old school throwback even in the eyes of MI6. Because he lacks the subtleties and skills of Bond, he is only brought in for select missions where his sheer brutality and strength can be best utilized. When Hamilton is finally recalled to assist 007, he hadn’t been on a mission in nearly a year. This is a cause of great consternation between 002 and M, with the latter being genuinely intimidated.
In fact, in Terry Hamilton’s introduction with M explaining his mission with 007, 002 should talk absolute shit about Bond. “I would never work with a dandy like that,” he should utter, with maybe a few other colorful words thrown in before M informs him that Bond has resigned and is being replaced by Nomi. Understanding that he will be working with an even less experienced agent than James Bond, Hamilton is even more infuriated.
Of course Lashana Lynch, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Ben Whishaw all return to their respective roles in the franchise. But who will play Terry Hamilton 002? Ideally, I imagine a shorter, stalkier, and older actor than Daniel Craig but one who could plausibly pass as a 00 agent. But then I remembered Rory McCann of Game of Thrones fame and realized he would be perfect for the hot-headed and brutish spy.
And yes, I purposely chose an uncool yet decidedly British name for this new character (as sort of a shout out to the first two Bond directors, Terrence Young and Guy Hamilton). And the number 2 is no where near as cool as the number 7, hence 002. Yet I want to character to feel as though he could plausibly kick James Bond’s ass.
At the first season’s conclusion, 002’s arc should be closed, leaving room to explore the world of the 00s. And strangely, I have Bill Nighy in mind for the role of 008 in season 2, but I’ll explore that later.
In honor of Pride Month, I’m giving a shout out to the most under appreciated filmmaker of our time: Peter Roger Hunt. While going through my latest obsession with the James Bond film franchise, it’s becoming clear that Hunt essentially invented how modern action should move.
Hunt was the editor for the first five films before being named the director of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service which is now largely considered the best Bond movie. While director Terrance Young (Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Thunderball) is credited as developing the look and feel of the James Bond character for the screen, Hunt, largely out of necessity, developed the “crash cut” editing style now widely used across the industry.
Hunt, who was openly gay, arguably left the biggest impact on filmmaking from the franchise making him one of the great unsung heroes in movie history. In the interview below, he stated that he wanted to make these movies “paperback films” which is probably the most apt description of those early Connery outings.
