Monday 7 March 2022

"Diamonds are Forever" and "Live and Let Die" as Films of Transition



After George Lazenby made On Her Majesty's Secret Service he was convinced by his agent that James Bond was fast becoming a relic of the 60s and would not last in to the 70s. This led to Lazenby leaving the role, which would prove to be big mistake since the series did last in to the 70s and beyond. But the series transition from the 60s in to the 70s is a conspicuous one, with Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die showing the struggle to remodel the franchise for the 70s. These films took the James Bond series from the glamorous 60s to the rougher, grittier 70s, from cloak and dagger to camp, from Japan to Las Vegas, from baccarat to blaxploitation. This is when the series pretty much shifted from Ian Fleming's original conception to something more offbeat and strange. 

After Lazenby left the role  Bond producers Harry Saltzman and Albert R. Broccoli persuaded Sean Connery to return to the role he abdicated after You Only Live Twice. Connery was paid 1.25 million (the most any actor was ever paid at the time) and came back for what is essentially a one-off before Roger Moore inherited the role, playing it for 12 years and 7 movies. It's perhaps appropriate that after beginning the character's cinematic legacy in the 60s, Connery would bring us in to the 70s before passing the torch to Moore, the Bond of the 70s. 

The contrast between Diamonds are Forever and its predecessor OHMSS is important when examining the transition the series made from the 60s in to the 70s. OHMSS was grand and romantic, hopeful and happy until it turned tragic at the conclusion with the death of Bond's wife Tracy (Diana Rigg) After the shattering of Bond's world,  Diamonds are Forever's world is a marked departure from the universe of OHMSS and the other previous Bond films. It's sleazier, grittier, chintzier. But it's not just Bond's world that has changed, it's that the real world because increasingly more cynical and morally uncertain as we transitioned in to the 70s.As Xan Brooks discusses in his essay on why Diamonds are Forever is his favourite Bond film: 

Cubby Broccoli's franchise started out in the early 60s fired by a sleek moral certitude, prowling a        world of clearly defined good and evil before slipping into a jokey self-parody during the mid-to-late     70s. Diamonds, though, is the missing link, the crucial transition; ideally placed at the turn of the      decade and implicitly haunted off in the nation at large. Here is a Bond film in which the old glamour has lost its sparkle and resolute hero has lost his way. It's jaded, uncertain and disillusioned.

I'd argue the self-parody begins here and gives way to what the Moore films became. Blofeld (Charles Gray) is in drag in one scene and Bond drives a moon buggy. There's even a sheriff who may have been the model for Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James in Live and Let Die and The Man With the Golden Gun. But I do agree with Brooks that there is a more cynical feel to the film and Connery's portrayal. The death of Plenty O'Toole (Lana Wood)- drowned at bottom of a pool- feels cruel even by the standards of the previous Bond films. And Bond may not be having as much fun as he was in Goldfinger. Part of that is because Connery was pretty much here for a paycheck. 

Another way Diamonds are Forever is transitional film is it puts a capper on the Blofeld/SPECTRE storyline that ran through the first five Connery films, with the exception of Goldfinger. This would be Blofeld's last official appearance in the series until Spectre in 2015. This is due to a legal battle with producer Kevin McClory, who worked with Ian Fleming on a screenplay that would be the basis for the book Thunderball. McClory was able to attain the rights to the Blofeld character but an unnamed version of the character would appear in For Your Eyes Only and be killed by Bond as revenge for the death of his wife. And Max von Sydow would appear as the character in the McClory produced Never Say Never Again, a remake of Thunderball starring Connery. Blofeld was the villain in three straight Bond films- You Only Live Twice, OHMSS and Diamonds are Forever. But moving in to the Moore films and beyond, Blofeld and SPECTRE do not officially appear. 

After Connery declined the offer to return once again for Live and Let Die, Moore was chosen and established his Bond as the proper English gentleman to Connery's more rough-and-tumble version. After Lazenby left and Connery brought it felt like the producers saying "Well we tried with a new guy and it didn't work so here's the real James Bond again." But Moore's distinct take on the character  helped the series flourish through the 70s and 80s. I'd argue the main reason Live and Let Die is a transitional film because is it proved Bond could survive beyond Connery.  

As I mentioned before the Moore films also marked the transition away from Blofeld and SPECTRE being a ongoing threat throughout the series Moreover, the villain's scheme is on smaller scale than the last three plots. Dr. Kanaga (Yaphet Kotto) plans to distribute 2 tonnes of heroin free of charge through his restaurants, putting drug dealers out of business and increasing the amount of addicts, which he would exploit for his new monopoly. The series was going smaller; Even Diamonds are Forever's climax feels miniature compared to YOLT and OHMSS. It wouldn't be until The Spy Who Loved Me that we got back to epic Bond.

Live and Let Die would also be where the Bond series started to borrow from different genres. It is often said that the Bond series went from being a trendsetter to being a trend follower. The next film, The Man With the Golden Gun, would have a kung-fu sequence due to Enter the Dragon and other such films. Licence to Kill is often compared to other 80s action films and the Craig films took inspiration from Jason Bourne (Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace) and The Dark Knight (Skyfall). And Spectre has been theorized to be an attempt at something equivalent to the Marvel Cinematic Universe in regard to connecting the previous three Craig films together. But Live and Let Die is where we begin to see Bond being influenced by popular culture.

In the case of Live and Let Die, the filmmakers looked at the blaxploitation films of the era, a subgenre that had black characters as the leads and black communities as the settings. Harlem is a setting in this film. Bond being white provides a juxtaposition between Bond's race and the black communities in which he occupies. And even more so than Diamonds are Forever, Live and Let Die has a gritty aesthetic that stands in contrast to the cleaner and more glamorous look of the 60s films. This also makes Moore's very polished feel even more of an outsider when he's in New York and Harlem. It's a little awkward placing a white character as the lead in what is a black subgenre, especially with the introduction of the aforementioned J.W. Pepper as comedic relief, which relies on his racist nature. All in all, the experiment in genre appropriation doesn't completely work.  

Diamonds are Forever and Live and Let Die show the Bond series awkwardly entering a new era, and it wouldn't be until TSWLM that the series would truly find it's footing in the decade with a more authentically feeling 70s update of the Bond formula. So, what are your thoughts on these two transitional films? Where do they rank for you in the Bond series? Comment and let me know.