Nov 12 2008
Bond Fever
For the past two nights, Mr. Hall and I have been watching James Bond movies. We’re getting in the mood for the upcoming film. I imagine that, tomorrow night, we’ll finally watch Casino Royale so that it will be fresh in our minds for Friday (or Tuesday, 
depending on when we see it).
Monday night, we watched Diamonds Are Forever. This is a somewhat peculiar James Bond movie in that it’s sandwiched between the first non-Sean Connery Bond film (On Her Majesty’s Secret Service) and the first Roger Moore Bond film. Mr. Bond wasn’t looking as young as he used to be, as Sean Connery had aged a lot in the years he’d been doing Bond (which was odd, since - after this aging spurt - he then stopped aging from about 1985-2005) - and the sleazy seventies had begun, in which Mr. Bond’s dinner-jacketed suavity looked out-of-place. (When I think of the 70’s, the first things that spring to mind are “wacka-chicka” music and people with seriously oily skin. The 1970’s were possibly one of the oiliest decades of all time…)
There are several bizarre elements in this film. It features Mr. Bond’s first (and only?) blatantly homosexual villains, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd (who hold hands after killing a man with a scorpion); a cross-dressing Blofeld; and a special appearance by the sausage king, Mr. Jimmy Dean himself, as a scientist millionaire. It was a kind of an odd note for Sean Connery to go out on, which may have been why he agreed to be in the only official “unofficial”James Bond movie, Never Say Never Again, in the 1980’s. IGN apparently voted Diamonds are Forever as the worst James Bond movie, which is grossly unfair. Hands down, that honor must go to the truly appalling The World is Not Enough.
Last night, Mr. Hall and I watched the first of the two Timothy Dalton Bond films, The Living Daylights. It’s not the best James Bond movie ever, but it’s enjoyable. The worst criticisms I have are that it is a little slow in spots and that — due to the eighties and all that feminist “You can’t have a woman as a sex symbol! She has to be strong, independent, intelligent…” stuff that was going on at the time — the poor Bond girl has to wear the frumpiest clothing ever. I mean, it’s not just that they didn’t dress her “sexy” - it’s that they dressed her in outright unnattractive clothing. It’s almost embarrassing how unnattractive her clothes were; they were baggy, shapeless, and unflattering. And it’s not just that it was the eighties and everything was ugly back then. This is just plain ugly clothing, regardless of era. See that revealing night gown in the poster at the left? NOTHING LIKE THAT in the film. Now, let me emphasize that I’m not advocating women being used as sex symbols: in fact, I’d much rather that the Bond girls not walk around in skimpy, revealing clothing. But that doesn’t mean they have to be dressed like grandmas. (No offense, grandmas.) An outfit can be flattering without being revealing.
But to get back to the real point - The Living Daylights was a decent movie. Of course, I think Mr. Dalton’s second (and last) Bond film, License to Kill, was better (despite some odd elements which I will discuss at a later time).
It remains to be seen if Mr. Hall and I will watch another James Bond movie tonight - although it’s distinctly possible.
