Diamonds r 4eva commentary (part XII)

There comes a point in every Bond movie where one tends to forget the plot and just sits back and enjoys the action. For me, and perhaps for many others, that moment comes at the arrival in Los Angeles. But if it doesn’t come there then it DEFINITELY comes during the Circus Circus sequence. And as a result, to my knowledge, I don’t think anyone has ever questioned the logic of this scene.

To set it up, after Plenty O’Toole is dispensed with, Tiffany seduces Bond into giving up the diamonds by convincing him that she’ll run off with him to Hong Kong. Bond plays along with this deception by instructing her to pick up the diamonds at Circus Circus, a major hotel and casino. To make any sort of sense in what follows, here’s what I think the plan was (which is never explicitly stated): Bond, a British Intelligence agent, was operating on US soil. For a foreign agent to legally do that, they must do so under the supervision of American intelligence which, in the case here, is the CIA and Felix Leiter. The rendezvous at Circus Circus was the contact point where Bond was to turn over the operation to Felix with Bond acting as a fail safe option should the CIA lose track of Tiffany Case by meeting her at the car rental agency. But Bond plainly stated that this is a 50/50 shot which explains why he was on Felix’s ass; if the CIA lost track of her, there was no guarantee that Bond would catch up with her. So when the inevitable happened and the Felix lost track of her and she subsequently failed to show up at the car rental agency, Bond took a blind guess and found her at her house.

If this is the case then the CIA did a piss poor job. Why would they make it painfully obvious to Tiffany Case that she was being followed? Was the plan to follow her or apprehend her? To my reasoning, it had to of been the latter in order to get her to cooperate with Bond in the British intelligence investigation. In that case, why not apprehended her immediately after she collected the diamonds? Did the CIA not want to make a scene?

I know what Cubby Broccoli’s response is: who gives a shit?

This is what they call in the biz “movie magic” where we don’t have to worry about things like “realism” or “plot”. We just have to shut our brains off and enjoy the spectacle.

And what a spectacle it is! Within the stretch of just over four minutes, we’re exposed to trapeze artists, elephants playing slot machines, human women transforming into gorillas, and even a cameo by the owner of Circus Circus himself as a mad scientist. It’s no wonder we lose track of the plot! This scene isn’t so much a part of a movie as it is an advertisement for the Circus Circus Hotel and Casino.

But there’s two moments I’d like to highlight. First is the moment where Tiffany collects the diamonds hidden in a stuffed animal. While at the blackjack table, she’s instructed to play the water balloons. She wins the “prize” (the diamonds) and a kid correctly calls out that the game was rigged. Tiffany tells the kid to “blow up his pants”, which is a line that could have only been written by Mankiewicz. To be honest, I’ve seen this movie more times than I care to admit but each time I think she’s gonna say “fart out your ass kid!”.

That’s all I got to say about that.

The second moment is when Tiffany realizes she’s being followed and enters the “Zambora” exhibit to elude her pursuers. An announcer explains “Zambora” as the “strangest woman ever born to live” which seems like a redundant statement.

But anyway! Back to the plot…

TO BE CONTINUED…

Diamonds r 4eva (part x)

I wish the bathtub scene was cut. It would have been far more effective had James Bond waltzed out of the funeral home announcing he would be at the hotel Tropicana, Mr. Slumber slamming the coffin cover closed, THEN cut to that glorious matte painting of the Whyte House elevated by John Barry’s bombastic score. That would have been amazing. Instead we’re saddled with a brief exposition scene of Bond explaining to Leiter that he needs the real diamonds. Something about this scene seems superfluous. It’s already established that the smuggled diamonds are fake and it would be obvious that the bad guys would be after the real ones. Were they trying to establish who had the real diamonds at this point of the story? Who gives a shit? That would have been established minutes later anyway in the Circus Circus sequence.

Nevertheless Bond visits the Whyte House, a fictional hotel and casino owned by Willard Whyte. He walks past the comedian who saved him from a fiery death and he’s giving a show. The comedian’s name is Shady Tree and he’s flanked on both sides by scantily clad women played by Cassandra Peterson (of Elvira fame) and Academy Award nominated actress Valerie Perrine. Also in attendance is Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd. The jokes are godawful.

After the performance, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd visit Shady Tree in his dressing room and kill him (off screen). Afterwards, the casino manager Bert Saxby informs the two henchmen that they need to keep Shady Tree alive much to their chagrin. Bond ventures backstage to find the comedian’s lifeless body on the floor.

Unbothered by this, Bond decides to shoot some craps. The mumbling dealer objects to Bond raising the table limit and calls over Bert Saxby. 007 flashes an envelope from Morton Slumber’s Funeral Home, indicating that he’s the man with the real diamonds. Saxby agrees to raise the limit and a woman thrusts herself onto James Bond. Her name is Plenty O’Toole (“named after your father perhaps?”) and she’s played by Natalie Wood’s sister, Lana. The two naturally go back to his room for a boink fest (as the actors did in real life) but it is interrupted by the mobsters we met in LA. It is here where we’re exposed to the best double entendre in the entire series: a mostly naked Plenty steps away to the bathroom, Bond picks up her dress, flicks on a light and is greeted by a mobster with a gun. Bond responds with “It seems you caught me with more than my hands up.” Whatever Tom Mankiewicz got paid for this picture, it wasn’t enough.

Plenty, only in her underwear, gets dumped out a window and into a pool. Bond attacks a mobster but quickly realizes they’re not there to fight. They meekly retreat from the hotel room and Bond finds Tiffany Case in his bed. Naturally she’s there for the real diamonds, a fact she doesn’t deny, but to make it worth his while he begins undressing. I’ve said time and time again that while I immensely enjoy watching Daniel Craig’s ripped body, I wish that they would go back to the dad bod era of James Bond best exhibited here:

TO BE CONTINUED…

Diamonds r 4eva: written commentary (part III)

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…

TO BE CONTINUED…

Bond 26: “The Skin of Your Teeth”

When I was growing up, I wanted to be only one thing: the next Tom Mankiewicz. The man who brought you gems like Hart to Hart wrote three James Bond films early in his career. After Peter Hunt controversially changed the formula with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Mankiewicz was brought in to update the franchise for what is perhaps the greatest decade in cinema: the 1970s.

The results were a mixed bag: Diamonds Are Forever, Live and Let Die, and The Man With The Golden Gun. But I think Mankiewicz largely succeeded. While most films from the decade zigged into gritty realism, Bond movies zagged in favor of over-the-top campiness. While this is a controversial opinion, I truly think this helped save the franchise. While Roger Moore isn’t my favorite Bond (or second, or third), I wouldn’t trade his portrayal or Guy Hamilton and Lewis Gilbert’s directorial contributions for any other alternative that might’ve better suited the times. Most Bond fans would agree with that sentiment. And we largely have Tom Mankiewicz to thank for that.

Which leads me to our current times. James Bond is dead. Of course he’ll come back. But how?

News is slim. While initially I put weight into the rumor that Aaron Taylor Johnson would be the next Bond, that now seems unlikely. I don’t expect the announcement of a new James Bond actor anytime soon.

But more importantly, where should the series go from here? While Daniel Craig’s portrayal was universally praised, I think it is generally accepted that producers need to aim for a lighter tone in the next era. That means no more renegade agents hellbent on revenge. Fans and audiences want a return to basics: a spy on a mission fuckin and killin for England.

The series has been in this position before. The end of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service had James Bond nearly in tears over the death of his wife. Saltzman, Broccoli, and head of United Artist David Picker said ‘fuck this! Bring Connery and Guy Hamilton back!”. Enter Tom Mankiewicz to punch up the script and the result was Diamonds Are Forever. It was two hours of Sean Connery lazily walking through cheap sets and even cheaper SFXs as Bond attempts to thwart the latest stupid plot from Ernst Stavro Blofeld. It was insane and bordered on parody. It was genius (and the third highest grossing movie of 1971).

So my advice to Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli is this: go the Diamonds Are Forever route. Americanize the setting a bit, bring in a comical and/or over the top actor for the villain and let’s have some fun for christ sake! And no need to address Bond’s “death” in the previous film. There’s no continuity to these movies anyway! Just do what you did in DAF. While it is assumed that Bond was avenging his wife’s death in the cold open, Connery was playing it as though he just enjoyed throwing guys through walls and strangling women with their bikini tops. The events of OHMSS aren’t addressed at all! And that’s what needs to happen in the next film, which I have titled The Skin of Your Teeth. Because one of the coolest James Bond moments was in The Living Daylights when Timothy Dalton says “whoever she was I must have scared the living daylights out of her”.

That was dope.

So in the new cold open, Bond barely escapes and M says “you escaped by the skin of your teeth.” Then the screen fades into the title sequence with naked women spinning around in silhouette and Adele returning to sing the theme.

Hell yeah dude 👍

That’s why I’m the next Tom Mankiewicz