The Problematics: Is ‘Diamonds Are Forever’ The Most Objectionable James Bond Picture?

By now most of you have seen No Time To Die, the final movie in the Bond franchise to feature Daniel Craig as the British secret agent with a license to kill. And, having seen the movie, you know that its makers took every story component imaginable to make sure you knew that this was Daniel Craig’s last outing as 007. Hell, for much of the movie he isn’t even 007. 

At the end of No Time To Die, a title came up saying “James Bond Will Return.” Well, yeah, of course he will, so long as there’s money to be made from the character. But how? And in what form? Social media, the hydra-headed entity that enables near-endless amplification of all opinions, no matter how far-fetched, has ideas; in turn, the people who make the films have their own ideas. The idea of a female James Bond has been floated. Daniel Craig, in an interview, rather mildly expressed his notion that a female character like Bond, rather than Bond itself, might be a better fit. (And indeed No Time To Die features a female agent who has the 007 designation, as Bond has ostensibly retired in this scenario.) This didn’t sit well with some, who said the most essential point in the Make-Bond-Female scheme is that an “equivalent” character would not have the marketing pull of a 100 percent female James Bond. And, in fact, Eon has tried to create something of a Bond “equivalent” with Blake Lively, in the 2020 film The Rhythm Section, based on the first novel in a series about a female espionage person. Not an entirely bad movie. And a complete box office disaster. So I guess they’re right. I’m not sure that doing as they suggest will have the results they envision, however. 

Just as Goodfellas demonstrated that a lot of the pull of gangster movies has to do with vicarious thrill of transgression, so too have the Bond films catered, or some would say pandered, to the least socially-constructive wish-fulfillment fantasies of men. Let’s go back to the first movie in what has become the Eon franchise, 1962’s Dr. No. Sean Connery’s Bond is fit, impeccably dressed, a successful gambler, can get attractive women to fall into bed with him without even raising an eyebrow (okay, he does raise an eyebrow), and has a license to kill. We don’t really think about that too much in movies where mayhem and murder are commonplace, but a license to kill is a big deal. Like Clint Eastwood’s William Munny says in Unforgiven, “It’s a helluva thing, killing a man.” 

In real life, in the United States of America these days, it’s a possibly open question as to whether one even needs a license to kill in order to get away with at least, um, homicide. But never mind that. The whole point is, regardless of the fact that Bond’s efforts are in the service of King (or Queen) and Country, he embodies a corrupt fantasy. He is inherently a Problematic. 

Which leads to the question: Which of the Bond movies is the most Problematic? 

In my book it’s long been Diamonds are Forever. A little backstory: Connery had left the Bond series after 1967’s You Only Live Twice. Which, speaking of problematic, featured Bond going “undercover” as a Japanese man, complete with makeup and hairpiece. 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service featured Australian George Lazenby as Bond, and while for many years Lazenby was a late-night punchline, signifying The Bond Who Failed, Service is now recognized as a cracking good installment in the series. And it is paid significant and almost persistent homage in No Time To Die, right down to the music under the closing credits. At any rate, the film was initially a box-office disappointment, but the producers wanted to stick with Lazenby, but he himself did not re-enlist. On the advice of his agent, apparently. Who gave bad advice. 

So producers Albert “Cubby” Broccoli and Harry Saltzman lured Connery back. Adapting the fourth Bond novel, from way back in 1956, they added tyro screenwriter Tom Mankiewicz to bolster the reliable structure sense of regular screen scenarist Richard Maibaum. And yes, Tom was from that family, the son of Joseph. Tom himself once observed “There was something terribly frightening about writing a screenplay when you have the last name of Mankiewicz. You say to yourself, ‘Oh, sh*t, no matter what I write, it sure ain’t any All About Eve, is it.” Action comedies became this Markiewicz’s niche.

Directed with not-quite-furious dispatch by Guy Hamilton, Diamonds — which celebrates its 50th anniversary this month — does a major reset from Service. This James Bond doesn’t cry or mourn. He’s first depicted in ruthless pursuit of master villain Blofeld. Who’s here played by Charles Gray, who, to confuse matters for cinematic universe connoisseurs, played a friendly (and doomed) contact for Bond in You Only Live Twice. 

So dogged is Bond in his tracking that he almost strangles a woman with her bikini top, which he’s roughly wrested from her. This is only a little eye-opening. One of the key characteristics of Connery’s Bond is his sadism. Going back to Dr. No, when he tells Anthony Dawson’s character “You’ve had your six” — as in shots — before plugging the guy. But the bikini-top strangling takes sadism to a level that’s a little tacky, to say the least. 

And it’s the tackiness, in the final analysis, that makes Diamonds the Bond movie with the least pleasant aftertaste. James Bond in Vegas might have looked like a good idea on paper, but this supposed avatar of suavity in the World’s Capital of Vulgarity is an awkward fit. (In the book, the Vegas interlude is just that, an interlude; in the movie Bond spends most of his time there.) When a movie’s most understated aspect is its Shirley-Bassey-sung theme tune, you know you’ve got a different kind of brash going on. 

The cast sure is interesting. Bruce Cabot from King Kong is one of the bad guys. Natalie Wood’s younger sister, whom buffs may remember as a young Natalie Wood in The Searchers, chips in as party girl Plenty O’Toole (in case you thought the name Pussy Galore was cringe), and my, has she grown. Gangster movie stalwart Mark Lawrence plays a Nobel Prize winning poet. No, he plays the world’s shadiest hearse driver. Valerie Perrine and future Elvira Cassandra Peterson play showgirls. And Bruce Glover, Crispin’s dad, plays one half of a duo of gay assassins, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd.

These characters, who did originate in Fleming’s book, are arguably the most objectionable in the Bond canon. Gay killers, even duos of gay killers, aren’t uncommon in genre film, And they’re not even always objectionably/stereotypically portrayed — look at Lee Van Cleef and Earl Holliman in the great 1955 noir The Big Combo for an unusually layered (although not inordinately sympathetic) conception. And truth to tell, Wint and Kidd are more goofy here than offensive. Glover’s Wint is constantly spraying himself with cologne, while Kidd enjoys making dry observations, such as “I must say Miss Case seems quite attractive. For a lady.” 

Kidd was played by Putter Smith. Not an actor, but a jazz bassist who Guy Hamilton saw at an L.A. jazz club when Smith was in the rhythm section for none other than Thelonious Monk. After making his film debut, he went right back to being a jazz bassist, appearing in only two more pictures.  

Prior to Diamonds, homosexuality only existed in Bond world among buxom, discipline-minded women, as in the aforementioned Pussy Galore. And that’s how the male fantasy liked it. Although who knows. In this movie, when Lana Wood’s character introduces herself, it’s initially by her first name. “I’m Plenty,” she says, and Connery looks at her decolletage and says, “Of course you are.” She elaborates with “Plenty O’Toole,” and Connery replies “Named after your father perhaps.” Hmm. Gender fluidity in Bond, that’ll be my next thesis. Anyway, when poor Miss O’Toole winds up dead at the bottom of Jill St. John’s swimming pool (St. John is the aforementioned Miss Case, Tiffany Case that is, oy), the camera lingers on her ample assets, revealed in see-through clothing. Essentially inviting the viewer to ogle a corpse. A make-believe corpse, yes. But come on now. 

It’s aspects such as these that led Michael Weldon, in his Psychotronic Encyclopedia of Film, to say of Diamonds, “It’s the worst.” He does go on to note that “Everything leads to sausage king Jimmy Dean.” And yes, that is absolutely correct. For all its bad qualities, Diamonds does have odd undercurrents that make it Never Boring, at least. In one scene Charles Gray’s Blofeld runs around in rather bad drag. If the Rocky Horror Picture Show generation had seen Gray in this state, maybe they would not have shouted “asshole” at him when he turned up in Rocky Horror as “The Criminologist.” 

Veteran critic Glenn Kenny reviews‎ new releases at RogerEbert.com, the New York Times, and, as befits someone of his advanced age, the AARP magazine. He blogs, very occasionally, at Some Came Running and tweets, mostly in jest, at @glenn__kenny. He is the author of the acclaimed 2020 book Made Men: The Story of Goodfellas, published by Hanover Square Press.

Where to stream Diamonds Are Forever