Why does Tiffany follow Blofeld-in-Drag from the casino

I can't for the life of me figure out why Tiffany is suddenly compelled to follow Blofeld out of the casino.

They have never met so she wouldn't recognize him. The cat he is carrying is just that, a cat. It is not sporting a diamond studded necklace. There is nothing unusual about it.

When she is shoved into the car, Blofeld remarks "Look what the cat dragged in," suggesting possibly that it was the cat that she was following.

This is the only explanation that I can fathom -that something about the sight of a cat being carried through the casino caused her to follow.

But why? No-one else followed. No-one else cared.

Yet still, Blofeld was not in the least surprised when she appeared in the car. As if he knew she would follow, but HOW? :affraid:

I've only seen the movie about a hundred times and I can't figure this scene out.

Bizarre. The scene defies any clear explanation.

Honestly, I don't derange myself over the plot of DAF, TLD and OP. Each is an unholy mess. I just go along for the ride.

To get to the other side.

tiffanywint wrote:

I can't for the life of me figure out why Tiffany is suddenly compelled to follow Blofeld out of the casino.

I've only seen the movie about a hundred times and I can't figure this scene out.

Bizarre. The scene defies any clear explanation.

Are you sure? I thought Blofeld or the cat was wearing jewelry that attracted Tiffany. But I agree, the movie is a hard one to figure out. For years, because of so many edits by ABC, I could never understand why Plenty ended up in Tiffany's pool or even what Leiter meant when Bond asked where the diamonds were on Peter Franks' body. I thought Felix meant that they were stuffed in the brain. I also got completely lost at the funeral home when the cash and the diamonds and the check got switched (or not switched).

The movie almost works better as a comedy; it certainly has some of the best dialogue and some campy, funny performances.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

I can't for the life of me figure out why Tiffany is suddenly compelled to follow Blofeld out of the casino.

I've only seen the movie about a hundred times and I can't figure this scene out.

Bizarre. The scene defies any clear explanation.

Are you sure? I thought Blofeld or the cat was wearing jewelry that attracted Tiffany. But I agree, the movie is a hard one to figure out. For years, because of so many edits by ABC, I could never understand why Plenty ended up in Tiffany's pool or even what Leiter meant when Bond asked where the diamonds were on Peter Franks' body. I thought Felix meant that they were stuffed in the brain. I also got completely lost at the funeral home when the cash and the diamonds and the check got switched (or not switched).

The movie almost works better as a comedy; it certainly has some of the best dialogue and some campy, funny performances.

"I thought Blofeld or the cat was wearing jewelry that attracted Tiffany" This would appear to be the explanation, but I've played the scene back on super slo-mo and there is nothing around that cat's neck. There do not appear to be any obvious diamonds on Blofeld either.

I can explain the rest of your items though.

Plenty ended up in the pool because Wint and Kidd, the dumbass killers, thought she was Tiffany. Plenty was at Tiff's house, because she wanted an explanation as to what the hell happened with her being tossed from a hotel window into the pool, by Tiff's hoodlum friends.

The Alimentary line is very odd. I take this to be Bond's way of saying, the diamonds are in the body's innards, where food gets digested. It seems they shoved the diamonds down his throat. An odd line though, because most viewers would have to look up alimentary, except for Leiter of course, who uses the word in everyday conversation apparently.


alimentary canal (alimentary tract) the portion of the "digestive system consisting of the organs making up the route taken by food as it passes through the body from mouth to anus; this includes the esophagus, stomach, and small and large intestines. ( and Plate 9.) Called also digestive tract."


The cash and diamond switching can be followed if you concentrate.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Honestly, I don't derange myself over the plot of DAF, TLD and OP. Each is an unholy mess. I just go along for the ride.

The whole business with the Snow Leopards and the loading and unloading of the opium does require intense concentration in order to follow, it but it can be done.

The OP machinations vis-a-vis the fake and real jewellery and the location of the bomb at any given time, can cause the head to spin as well. But with yoda-like powers of concentration, these movements too can be followed and made sense of.

There is however no clear explanation for Tiffany following Blofeld. She was intrigued by the sight of a matronly "woman" carrying a cat through a casino for some reason and just had to investigate. But this explanation doesn't make any sense.

Therefore I think its just a big screw-up by Guy Hamilton. He forgot to include a shot of the cat sporting a diamond collar, or a shot of Blofeld flashing the ice.

She's a lesbian.

CJB wrote:

She's a lesbian.

You mean she chases "pussy"?

tiffanywint wrote:

The Alimentary line is very odd. I take this to be Bond's way of saying, the diamonds are in the body's innards, where food gets digested. It seems they shoved the diamonds down his throat.

No, up his arse. Common smuggling trick.

Erica Ambler wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

The Alimentary line is very odd. I take this to be Bond's way of saying, the diamonds are in the body's innards, where food gets digested. It seems they shoved the diamonds down his throat.

No, up his arse. Common smuggling trick.

Wouldn't it be easier to shove them down his throat, but I'll take your word for it, but how do you explain the alimentary "joke" then. Alimentary refers to the digestive system doesn't it?

Quote :

Therefore I think its just a big screw-up by Guy Hamilton. He forgot to include a shot of the cat sporting a diamond collar, or a shot of Blofeld flashing the ice.

Actually I'm not sure about this explanation either. Why would Blofeld still have diamonds on him? Didn't he have them all sent into orbit? Aiieee.

I'm back to thinking she simply took notice of the pussy-cat. Why that should drag her out into the parking lot still defies explanation. I think there was an oversight here on the part of the director and writer. They simply overlooked the "why" of this scene, and went ahead with "Blofeld-in-drag carrying cat, catches Tiff's attention and she follows him out to curb."

tiffanywint wrote:

Alimentary refers to the digestive system doesn't it?

That includes the anus.

Sharky wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Alimentary refers to the digestive system doesn't it?

That includes the anus.

Thanks! Bond films can be so educational. But wouldn't the anus be part of the waste-disposal system, rather than the digestive system, or is the disposal system, a part of the broader digestive system? :scratch:

I could look this up, but that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back. There are so many other ways to waste 10 minutes.

Do we really know what alimentary means? Did Tom Mank even know?

Did Sean have a clue, or even care when he uttered the line? DAF is my favourite Bond but it's quite odd in parts too.

tiffanywint wrote:

Sharky wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

Alimentary refers to the digestive system doesn't it?

That includes the anus.

I could look this up, but that's 10 minutes of my life I will never get back.

It's late. I'm tired. And there's so much work to be done.

tiffanywint wrote:

But wouldn't the anus be part of the waste-disposal system, rather than the digestive system, or is the disposal system, a part of the broader digestive system? :scratch:

The anus/rectum is at the end of the large intestine, so yes it's part of the broader digestive system.

Quote :

Do we really know what alimentary means?

From about.com:

Quote :

Imagine that you put one end of a hose in your mouth and kept threading it through until it came out of your butt. That's more or less what the alimentary canal is.

"Alimentary, Dr. Leiter" is also a play Sherlock Holmes's catchphrase, "Elementary, my dear Watson." Another classic Mankiewicz pun.

You have noticed that, on that line, Felix stops frisking the body's flanks and reaches his right hand down to somewhere around the center seam of Franks' trousers? He nods, then sends Bond on his way.

I wonder who had the enviable job of stuffing the diamonds up there in the first place?

When I was younger, I'd always thought his line about the Slumber hearse attendants was "Someone sent their Brinks' truck to meet you." Only later, after I'd heard the term 'brain trust' did I understand the line, but I still think 'Brinks' truck' makes more sense, under the circumstances.

Then I'd always wondered how they managed to cremate the body and bring Bond the 'ashes' so quickly. Then it finally occured to me that Franks' body had to be transfered from the shipping casket into the one at Slumbers'. That would be when the diamonds were removed - presumably from some sort of plastic wrapper.

Things like that, and the topic that this thread started with, shouldn't have to take years to figure out. DAF is still near the top of my favories list, though.

tiffanywint wrote:

Do we really know what alimentary means? Did Tom Mank even know?

Did Sean have a clue, or even care when he uttered the line? DAF is my favourite Bond but it's quite odd in parts too.

It is an odd film, but it's made all the more odd because it doesn't feel like a Sean Connery movie as much as a Roger Moore film, yet it stars Sean Connery. I think this film would be better suited having starred Moore. Maybe in the year 2032, when everyone will have the tools to completely re-edit their favorite films, some of us can slide Roger Moore into this film, and Sean Connery into OHMSS.

I love DAF, don't get me wrong. But it surely doesn't work as a revenge piece; you almost forget that Bond is pursuing Blofeld at the beginning of the film because of killing Tracy. I'm not even suggesting that DAF is a revenge piece, but the parts of it that are meant to deal with Bond's relationship to Blofeld are disjointed when compared to the film that came before it.

I disagree. I think it works so well (for me at at least) but you've got this tough-as-shit, middle aged, working class, ex-milkman from Edinburgh amid all this American weirdness.

Re: DAF as a revenge piece. It makes more sense as a sequel to YOLT than to OHMSS - note the beginning set in Japan. 90% of Bond flicks work by hitting the "reset" button at the end of each film.

Sharky wrote:

90% of Bond flicks work by hitting the "reset" button at the end of each film.

Absolutely. And IMO, it's a disability for a film to be tied to tightly to its predecessor. A really good film can be enjoyed on its own and without prior knowledge.

Sharky wrote:

The anus/rectum is at the end of the large intestine, so yes it's part of the broader digestive system.

Sharky wrote:

From about.com:

Quote :

Imagine that you put one end of a hose in your mouth and kept threading it through until it came out of your butt. That's more or less what the alimentary canal is.

Thank you Professor Shark for the above two nuggests of info. Very enligtening.

Sharky wrote:

"Alimentary, Dr. Leiter" is also a play Sherlock Holmes's catchphrase, "Elementary, my dear Watson." Another classic Mankiewicz pun.

Brilliant writing. Genius even.

Bond films are special films. They ask us to think and to educate ourselves.

AMC Hornet wrote:

You have noticed that, on that line, Felix stops frisking the body's flanks and reaches his right hand down to somewhere around the center seam of Franks' trousers? He nods, then sends Bond on his way.

Nice catch! Good eye. It's all falling into place.

AMC Hornet wrote:

I'd always wondered how they managed to cremate the body and bring Bond the 'ashes' so quickly. Then it finally occured to me that Franks' body had to be transfered from the shipping casket into the one at Slumbers'. That would be when the diamonds were removed - presumably from some sort of plastic wrapper.

Another good catch!I had not pondered that mystery. I've wrongly assumed the diamonds were retrieved from the ashes of the dead body.

I think these conundrums are what help make DAF such a great Bond. The movie doesn't get bogged down in exposition. Scenes are so deftly and smartly executed that one is happy to indulge the filmmakers. Even Tiff's seemingly inexplicable, yet very earnest determination to follow cat-lugging, Ernst-in-drag, out of the casino, really ruffles no feathers. We've long ago suspended disbelief and bought into the filmmakers competence to tell this outlandish tale. Clearly she had some reason. We can trust the film. Or more to the point, we are so engaged with the sheer thrill of the presentation, that we want to trust the film.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

It is an odd film, but it's made all the more odd because it doesn't feel like a Sean Connery movie as much as a Roger Moore film, yet it stars Sean Connery. I think this film would be better suited having starred Moore.

Aiee. Blasphemy. Sean is the best part about DAF. He anchors proceedings and brings a menance that Moore could never provide. DAF, IMO ,is a Connery tour de force.

The camp goings-on are nicely contrasted by Sean's malevolent presence. This was part of Sean's genius - to play Bond straight and deadly dangerous, despite the outlandish surroundingings and circumstances, he regularly found himself in.

The Craig films IMO would also benefit from surrounding Craig's dangerous persona with some campier more fantastical elements. Even FRWL featured Spectre Island and DN featured No's very surreal lair. Bond entered a whole new world on Crab Key.

I love both LALD and TMWTGG because of Hamilton's stylistic surreal touch,but I think both films would also have benefitted from Sean's more grounded dangerous approach.

DAF is like a diamond in the rough, every viewing gives you some new little nugget of creativity. The alimentary gag is brilliant and never fails to crack people up when I show them the film, but I usually have to explain it.
And this isn't even mentioning the 007 self-make out session, matching collars and cuffs, tart's handkerchief, Plenty's father, "I do so hate marshal music." and all the other great lines.

I view the OPs questioned scene this way: Tiffany is shown to have essentially swapped sides and is attempting to worm information out of Q about her impending legal incarceration. At that moment she spots the cat which looks just like Blofeld's. Cats can be pretty distinctive, so it needn't wear the diamonds for her to recognize it. So wherever the cat is going, Blofeld must be going. Tiffany think that by following the cat's trial she can then find Blofeld's whereabouts, turn him in and reap the reward of not being thrown in prison. It doesn't matter that some old lady is carrying the cat out.

But, she has never seen or heard Blofeld, only the recorded voice on the telephone. How would she know about Blofeld or the cat? She must have been filled in by Bond and Leiter.

hegottheboot wrote:

Tiffany is shown to have essentially swapped sides and is attempting to worm information out of Q about her impending legal incarceration. At that moment she spots the cat which looks just like Blofeld's. Cats can be pretty distinctive, so it needn't wear the diamonds for her to recognize it. So wherever the cat is going, Blofeld must be going. Tiffany think that by following the cat's trial she can then find Blofeld's whereabouts, turn him in and reap the reward of not being thrown in prison. It doesn't matter that some old lady is carrying the cat out.

But, she has never seen or heard Blofeld, only the recorded voice on the telephone. How would she know about Blofeld or the cat? She must have been filled in by Bond and Leiter.

Eureka!!! This could very well be the explanation! Yes, Bond and Leiter could very well have filled her in, on who and what Blofeld was. So she spots the cat, and even the badly disguised "woman" carrying it, and goes on the trail of the bad guy.
Mystery solved. Thank-you to hegottheboot!

Thanks, that's what I've always thought the scene meant, but wholeheartedly agree that on the surface it seems very confusing as to why Tiffany would follow the cat. Look at all the dimes she passed up!

hegottheboot wrote:

Thanks, that's what I've always thought the scene meant, but wholeheartedly agree that on the surface it seems very confusing as to why Tiffany would follow the cat. Look at all the dimes she passed up!

This really is a major breakthrough in unraveling this 41 year old Bond film mystery. This is the first plausible explanation I've heard offered up on any message board or Bond discussion forum, anywhere anyplace and it's been discussed many times. The mystery has stumped Bond-philes for decades.

Congratulations, this is a momentous occasion; for Bond-aholics, it's akin to the discovery of the Titanic wreck. :cheers:

I think M might consider awarding you a BAB Exemplary Achievement Award.

Ah, the plot of DAF.

Ya know, if Blofeld had simply used Whyte's extensive funds to buy some diamonds, rather than use an elaborate smuggling operation, he'd have probably won the movie.

As for hiding diamonds in Peter Franks' behind, that's a deleted scene I don't need to see. Perhaps Sharky could be arsed to write a fanfic about it titled "The Pipeline".

I think Blofeld preferred to smuggle/steal the diamonds. Simply buying them would be oh so gauche for a supervillain. Plus the smuggle/steal routine avoids the hassle of dealing with purchase taxes and other red tape, not to mention it's all very secret and criminal thus pissing off big western governments (always a bonus).

And it allowed for his old rival Bond to maybe sniff out his trail. Post YOLT, you know Blofeld lived for his little tete-a-tetes with Bond. Blofeld sure talked up a storm with Bond in their two lengthy pow wows in the main movie. If Bond wasn't such a grouch, I'm sure Ernst was ready to bring out Willard's best bone china and put out a nice dinner spread like Dr. No did.

The two had catching up to do, what with Bond ruining what looked like a promising pts re-union, with his decidedly anti-social mousetrap and "Welcome to Hell" routine.