Lustring on: restoring the critical sparkle of a 50 year old classic
I’m never one to avoid flying in the face of convention so I make no secret of my love for Diamonds Are Forever and I’m always eager to proselytise in its favour. To mark the release of surely the film’s most detailed review ever on the Really, 007! podcast, I take a look back at the wavering reputation of this unfairly maligned gem and the reasons behind this changeability.
There are some opinions among the critical mass of Bond fans which appear to be not for turning. Such opinions are entrenched to the extent that, if someone suggests an alternative view, they risk a fate worse than being shut up alive in a pipeline with only a rat as company: opprobrium. A seemingly immovable view which cuts right to my heart and hurts me is that Diamonds Are Forever is one of the worst Bond films. Conventional wisdom has it that: it’s scuzzy and a bit cheap-looking in places; the locations lack glamour; it’s tonally all over the place; the villain is not a physical threat; there are many ‘problematic’ elements.
All of these things are true and all of these are reasons why I love it.
To each their own, of course, and everyone has their personal Bond preferences. That’s what’s great about Bond films: there’s something for everyone.
But there are other criticisms of the film which I just can’t just buy: principally that Sean is sleep-walking through it. Yes, he rarely looks like he’s breaking a sweat, but that’s the whole point. It’s a masterclass in studied nonchalance. The Italians have a word for putting in a lot of effort to make things look effortless: sprezzatura. Sean’s saunter through Willard Whyte’s penthouse, sporting a pink tie, accompanied by one of Barry’s best ever cues, is the epitome of sprezzatura.
When I was invited to discuss Diamonds Are Forever on Really, 007!, a podcast I had admired since its inception, I was aware that I may have to adopt some sprezzatura myself: was I walking into a trap? Would I be recording with three people whose hearts had been hardened against the film by the endlessley recycled opinions they had heard from others?
I needn’t have been concerned of course. Tom, Chris and John are people who think for themselves. We all had so much fun that we had to split up the recording into four sessions over a couple of months. The finished six parts add up to more than 10 hours!
I don’t usually listen back to podcasts I appear on, but I’m in the process of working my way through this because it’s a genuinely hilarous listen. I’m always critical of myself and I do bang on too much in the first episode (guys - I won’t be offended in the slightest if you edit me down next time). In my defence, I was excited to find people who were as passionate about discussing the film as I was and I got a bit carried away. Fortunately, this was the Really, 007! podcast and regular listeners will know that going off on tangents and having the odd distribe is all part of the fun.
We leave no stone unturned. It’s less of a review and more of a dissection. One of the threads that runs through all of the episodes is the film’s wavering critical reputation.
At one point, I talk about the first ever issue of the James Bond Fan Club from 1979, which the lovely David Stephens tracked down and sent me. In a survey of its members, they placed Diamonds Are Forever ahead of every other Bond film released up to that point (Moonraker was about to hit cinemas).
In the second issue (below), after surveying non-Bond fan club members, Diamonds slipped to fourth place, but that still put it above films which are generally looked on more favourably more than 40 years later, including On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and From Russia With Love.
It just goes to show that what people want from a Bond film has changed quite a lot over the decades.
A thread which keeps coming up in the podcast is Diamonds’ relationship to the previous film, On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. As we talked, we hypothesised that as the reputation of the once-maligned has OHMSS climbed, the reputation of Diamonds has declined; those who pine for a continuation story, with a revenge-fuelled Bond out to get Blofeld at any cost, might feel cheated by what they get in Diamonds, which brushes the whole dead wife thing under the carpet within minutes. I think there’s a lot of truth in that.
In the podcast, I refer to Sam Rogers’ video, which reimagines Diamonds’ main titles with returning cast and crew. You can view this here:
Dislodged from its original 1970s setting, it’s not hard to see why Diamonds is difficult to stomach for many today: brazen sexism and homophobia are hard to swallow. But this is arguably tempered by the portrayals of the characters who are simultaneously the locus of our discomfort. Although they are mistreated by Bond, Tiffany Case and Wint & Kidd are also presented in positive ways.
While discussing Diamonds’ gay hitmen, I refer to a review of the film from January 1979, sent to me by Dr Llewella Chapman, whose discovered it while researching her forthcoming book on Bond fashion.
The short review (below) appeared in the publication Gay News shortly after the film was premiered on UK television. It was entitled ‘Burn faggot, burn’. Needless to say, the review is less then complimentary. I totally understand where Gay News’ anger was coming from: the ending is nothing less than a symbolic attack on gay people and their apparent perversity (I may have become emotional by this point of the podcast!). If I had been living as a gay man in 1979, I would have felt like I was under attack too. Although I don’t take it this way from the relative safe distance of 2021, it still leaves me with an unpleasant aftertaste whenever I watch the film.
Incidentally, if you have no idea why this scene if so offensive, you may wish to brush up on your knowledge of male anatomy, especially the prostate (or listen to my family-friendly explanation in Episode 6 of the podcast).
For all the film’s homophobia, I strongly suspect that a few people’s dislike of Diamonds Are Forever today is because Wint and Kidd are, for the majority of the film, presented sympathetically, which was virtually unheard of in 1971. Maybe it still makes homophobic viewers uncomfortable.
There will be others who feel that it’s wrong to admire a film because it contains so many problematic elements. Let us resist such simplicitly and embrace some doublethink, holding two seemingly contradictory thoughts in our heads simultaneously: yes, we find the film uncomfortable to watch at times. Yes, this is good for us, because it forces us to challenge our own entrenched opinions and question society’s prejudices. Being critical of something we love, despite its flaws, can be fun. It’s nothing to feel guilty about.
Most of us watch a Bond film because it’s the cinematic equivalent of comfort food. But sometimes it’s good to mix it up. Diamonds Are Forever is not always an easy ride. But I maintain it is, at the very least, a diamond in the rough, and sometimes you need to take the rough with the smooth.
The Really 007! podcast is available wherever you get podcasts.
Some direct links:
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/really-007/id1529857992#episodeGuid=608847b03810613cf839fd27…
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0jwWqnu5NjJdCALmWQL17N?si=zL4Epne4S1mDyX4aNgOO7g…
Diamonds Are Forever makes regular appearances on Licence To Queer.
The queer re-view of the film was the first one I wrote: https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/diamondsareforever
Jack Bell has written a queer appreciation of Tiffany Case:
https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/a-queer-appreciation-of-tiffany-case
My enthusiasm for Charles Gray’s Blofeld knows no bounds:
https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/15-shades-of-gray
I attempted to impersonate the cat-obsessed super villain in Jack Lugo’s Bond and Banter podcast:
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ernst-stavro-blofeld-david-lowbridge-ellis/id1554162563?i=1000512416796
My detailed examination of Wint and Kidd is here:
https://www.licencetoqueer.com/blog/homos-make-the-worst-killers
