PHENOMENALITY: *marvelous*
MYTHICITY: *poor*
FRYEAN MYTHOS: *adventure*
CAMPBELLIAN FUNCTION: *sociological,
psychological*
The fourth James Bond novel
boasted one of the most evocative titles in the series. Roughly fifteen years later, that title would
provide the germ of the theme song for the 1971 film. The theme song “Diamonds are Forever,” along
with the one from GOLDFINGER—both sung by Shirley Bassey— are possibly the most
recognizable songs to be associated with the Bond franchise.
However, the novel is not one of
the best Bond books, nor is the movie one of the better films, despite its
being the last such film from the “Eon Productions” team to feature Sean
Connery as Bond. Both do have certain
strengths, and neither is the worst in their respective categories, but their
negatives tend to exceed their positives.
Whereas the second and third Bond
novels emphasized larger-than-life villains, DIAMONDS the novel leans back
toward the purely naturalistic world seen in CASINO ROYALE. The book had its genesis in Ian Fleming’s
readings on the real-life diamond smuggling trade, which he later used as the
basis of a nonfiction work as well.
Sadly, though Fleming’s attention
to verisimilitude is admirable as he has 007 follow a diamond smuggling
pipeline in defense of British economy, verisimilude alone does not make a good
novel. The villains of the previous two
novels are defined by their ethnic and/or cultural characteristics, and Fleming
produced memorable Bond-foes in Mr. Big and Hugo Drax. But in DIAMONDS Bond’s
main opponents are the two Italian-American gangsters who control the smuggling
operation. And though Felix Leiter
repeatedly warns Bond as to how savvy American hoods can be, Bond shows little
regard for this breed of American gangster, regarding them as vulgar and
stupid, maybe only a grade better than the Bulgarian thugs excoriated in
CASINO. One of the master planners, Jack
Spang, doesn’t appear on stage under the novel’s end, while the overt villain,
his brother Serrafimo, has little personality and doesn’t even have the traditional
hero-villain verbal exchange with Bond.
His only odd characteristic is that for no clear reason Serrafimo is a
nut about the Old West, so much so that he maintains his own western ghost
town, named “Spectreville.” Apart from
foreshadowing Fleming’s use of the word “spectre” for a criminal organization
in a later book, the word here suggests to me the famous first line from DAS
KAPITAL, in which Europe was haunted by the spectre of capitalism. Of course Bond is hardly anti-capitalist
given his defense of Great Britain’s right to exploit the diamond mines of
Africa. At most Bond merely dislikes
American capitalism for being less classy than the European breed.
I’ve mentioned elsewhere that
Fleming frequently portrays some of his villains as virtual freaks of nature,
which can under the right circumstances lend an uncanny strangeness to some of
his Bond narratives. The author does
this twice in DIAMONDS, making one gangster into a hunchback while another is
described as looking “like a villain in a horror-comic.” (Was Fleming aware of the censorship rage
about horror comics in both his country and the United States?) However, there’s nothing “strange” about
these mundane hoods, so the “freakish flesh” trope remains naturalistic, in
keeping with the rest of the novel. Even
the homosexual hit men Wint and Kidd, who provide some of the better moments in
the film adaptation, are rather colorless.
Despite all this, though, the vulgar American thugs come very close to
killing Bond, thanks to his foolish decision to provoke them, and the only thing
that saves 007 is the book’s heroine Tiffany Case.
Though Tiffany’s name might
conjure the feminist bugaboo of “making women into property,” the character is
fairly independent despite being a cog in the smuggling ring, and doesn’t allow
Bond, masquerading as a gem-smuggler, to take any liberties with her. As she’s patently named after the famous
diamond-dealing jewelry franchise, one might presume that Fleming meant her to
have a mental toughness akin to the physical hardness of diamonds. Her backstory establishes that she acquires
this toughness the hard way, after having been ravaged by several thugs sent to
terrorize a cathouse owned by Tiffany’s mother.
She is therefore one of Fleming’s favorite character-types, the woman
who closes herself off from men because of an early encounter with poor
specimens of that gender. This sort of
melodrama is legitimate enough in Fleming’s world, but he cheats on his own
ground rules. Bond makes a pass or two
while under cover, but he really does nothing to melt down her icy
reserve. Yet, by novel’s end, Tiffany
has very conveniently fallen in love with Bond, and so risks her own life to
save him from Serrafimo. He later
rescues her in turn from Wint and Kidd, but the novel ends with the suggestion
that Tiffany may still go to jail for past misdeeds.
The film DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER
takes the opposite phenomenal approach to the novel. The script keeps Wint and Kidd, a few minor
gangsters (or just their names), and a version of Tiffany Case, who becomes a
standard bimbo with no backstory. But
the Spangs are replaced by a bonafide Bond supervillain. Ernst Stavro Blofeld, this time essayed by
actor Charles Gray, repeats THUNDERBALL’s “hold-the-world-hostage” routine by
launching an orbiting laser-satellite, which alone propels this film into the
category of the marvelous. Bond and
Blofeld both use a fair number of other marvelous gadgets as well, but the
satellite is one of the film’s best moments, capturing, even in its limited
screen-time, the poetic horror of “death from the skies.”
As one DVD commentary puts it,
DIAMONDS—which followed the largely serious Bondfilm ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET
SERVICE—offered Eon’s producers the chance to retool the Bond franchise. One
change involved the inclusion of more burlesque-style humor in the
franchise. DIAMONDS bad jokes aren’t as
numerous as those of the early Roger Moore films. Still, 007’s trademark anonymity—the raison
d’etre of a spy—is cavalierly tossed to the winds when Tiffany Case apparently
recognizes the name of James Bond as if he were a full-fledged celebrity.
It’s also said that the producers
attempted in many respects to copy the model of their first thoroughgoing
success GOLDFINGER. What they seem to
have copied most about GOLDFINGER was that film’s excision of all the drudgery
of a spy’s work—tailing people, gathering information. One didn’t expect a lot of that drudgery to
appear in the film GOLDFINGER, but there’s still a tenous connective tissue
between the plot’s events. In DIAMONDS
Bond pursues Blofeld’s trail in an erratic fashion, as the filmmakers seek to
work in as many rapid-fire Michael Bay-style location-changes as possible. I’ve seen 1940s superhero serials that showed
more attention to verisimilitude than DIAMONDS evinces.
Whereas the novel strove to build
an exacting model as to how the diamond smuggling operation took
place—extending even to the means used by the gang-bosses to pay off their
employees—the film DIAMONDS follows the diamond pipeline for the purpose of
killing off the people associated with it.
Apparently (though this isn’t stated) Blofeld has pretty much acquired
all the diamonds he needs for his gem-powered satellite, and sends assassins
Wint and Kidd to follow the pipeline and kill off anyone who might be an
unnecessary loose end. By this time,
however, British Intelligence has already assigned James Bond to the case, so
Bond is also able to follow the pipeline and engage in contretemps not only
with the two gay killers, but also various other Blofeld flunkies.
Thus, in contrast to the novel,
here Tiffany Case’s life is in danger by her own employers. This is illustrated about halfway through the
film by the gruesome death of the comically named bimbo “Plenty O’Toole,” whom
Blofeld’s hoods mistake for Tiffany.
Despite having been sentenced to death, though, Tiffany is later
captured by Blofeld’s gang, but for some reason she isn’t simply knocked off.
Instead Blofeld brings him to his sanctum sanctorum, where she proves to be of
more ambivalent aid to Bond than she was in the novel. Apparently we’re to assume that Blofeld took
a shine to the girl once he met her, though this is still an insufficient
reason to explain her survival.
Still, if one abandons any
expectations of verisimilitude in viewing DIAMONDS, parts of it work very well
as a kinetic assault on the senses.
Bond’s encounter with a faux “moon-landing crew” is poorly mounted, as
is Bond’s escape from “death by cremation.” However, as noted earlier, I liked
the film’s treatment of Wint and Kidd.
Their bland appearance makes them more credible as practiced stone
killers, and their lines to one another evoke something in the line of a gay
Laurel and Hardy. The diamond-satellite
provides the film’s best scene, though my second-favorite is the scene in which
007 nearly has his ass handed to him by two athletic Blofeld henchwomen,
“Bambi” and “Thumper.” Bond’s trouncing
at their hands is not unlike the many beatdowns the prose-Bond suffers
throughout that series, though I suspect Fleming would have stopped short of letting
his hero get beat up by two women.
Still, Tiffany and Plenty are given such short shrift as characters that
the near-victory of these two tuff girls might be seen as the revenge of the
fair sex.
Finally, heresy though it may be,
I liked Charles Gray’s icy take on Blofeld better than the previous two
incarnations. It’s interesting that
there’s no mention in this film of Bond’s short-lived bride Tracy Draco,
gunned down at the end of MAJESTY’S by Blofeld. Perhaps the filmmakers
were seeking to distance themselves from anything that suggested the more
serious side of James Bond’s world—a mood they would later seek to exploit in
FOR YOUR EYES ONLY.
No comments:
Post a Comment