Live And Let Die Quirks

:) I guess it's Hedison's voice and delivery that sells it.

Another LALD quirk ... just WHO is it exactly that tips Bond off as to Rosie's treachery by leaving him the Queen Of Cups card to find? It's never made clear, IIRC.

It had to have been Solitaire - although, as you say, that was never made clear.

Great soundtrack. It wasn't Barry, but like everything else that was different about LALD, it fit the film perfectly.

I've always wanted a Glastron GT 150.

AMC Hornet wrote:

It had to have been Solitaire - although, as you say, that was never made clear.

Yes who else could it have been? Who left the hat and feather? Whisper? Maybe Whisper left the card too, to play with Bond's head.

The miniature hat was placed there - probably before Bond arrived - for Rosie to find and throw her whole "It's a warning! Don't leave me tonight, James!" routine.

("It used to be a convincing act, Rosie - it's wearing a bit thin now.")

I can't see that Whisper would leave the card, as it tipped Bond off to Rosie's duplicity.

But quite right, an explanation was missing, along the lines of "who do you think sent that bullet to London with your number on it? I did."

Well as "right pussy wrong cat" suggested a while ago, these little continuity gaps tend to pepper the Hamilton films;GF and LALD I think being the most grievous examples. Not so much DAF, as much of the little burps can be explained if one really ponders them through, except for "why did Tiffany leave the casino with Ernst" which is beyond explanation.

TMWTGG probably has a few Hamilton hiccups too, but I can't think of them off hand.

Hamilton was more concerned with the broader narrative it seems. He wanted to keep his films bouncing along from one outrageous scene to the next. I think he has said as much, about not sweating the details.

tiffanywint wrote:

Well as "right pussy wrong cat" suggested a while ago, these little continuity gaps tend to pepper the Hamilton films;GF and LALD I think being the most grievous examples. Not so much DAF, as much of the little burps can be explained if one really ponders them through, except for "why did Tiffany leave the casino with Ernst" which is beyond explanation.

TMWTGG probably has a few Hamilton hiccups too, but I can't think of them off hand.

Hamilton was more concerned with the broader narrative it seems. He wanted to keep his films bouncing along from one outrageous scene to the next. I think he has said as much, about not sweating the details.

I think the editing problem in TMWTGG is in the finale. It's not, in this case, that we have no idea how Bond defeats Scaramanga. That's obvious, and IMO fairly clever - Bond changes places with his own mannequin, waits until Scaramanga walks into view, and then shoots Scaramanga. That's clear enough. But the editing practically ruins the scene, at least for me, and I think it's an editing problem on the directorial level rather than exactly how the editor spliced the scenes together. Here's the sequence of events IIRC, and why they make little sense as presented in the final cut:

1. While Bond is still working his way through the Funhouse and wasting bullets, Scaramanga is waiting near the Bond mannequin, in a position where it would be fairly easy to see the mannequin.
2. Bond runs into the pane of glass at the edge of the Funhouse. He finds out that he can go around this pane of glass.
3. The very moment that Bond tuns into the glass, there's a totally bizarre cut back to Nick Nack, who has this weird look on his face. I assume this shot is meant to show his amusement on Bond making an ass of himself by running into the glass. However . . .
4. Bond is now climbing underneath the Funhouse amongst the scaffolding.
5. Cut back to Nick Nack, who seems totally confused as to where Bond just went. Nick Nack furiously fiddles with dials and knobs, opens the door to the Al Capone dummies, etc. This makes no sense given the shot we last saw of Nick Nack looking mildly amused.
6. Cut back to Bond, who loses his gun after it falls out of his waistline.
7. Cut to a montage of Nick Nack, panning cameras and Scaramanga. There's no sign of Bond at all. Scaramanga looks befuddled. He takes a few paces forward, and BANG, he's dead.

This is a case where Mank and Maibaum had a brilliant concept (Bond replacing his own dummy), and Hamilton blew it. The way the shots are currently put together, there's no chance that Bond had time to switch places with the dummy, and dispose of the dummy, and put on the dummy's coat. Furthermore, how did he do all of this without Scaramanga noticing when Scaramanga was a few feet away? Also, did Scaramanga really have a James Bond mannequin holding a loaded Walther PPK?!?!

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

I think the editing problem in TMWTGG is in the finale. It's not, in this case, that we have no idea how Bond defeats Scaramanga. That's obvious, and IMO fairly clever - Bond changes places with his own mannequin, waits until Scaramanga walks into view, and then shoots Scaramanga. That's clear enough. But the editing practically ruins the scene, at least for me, and I think it's an editing problem on the directorial level rather than exactly how the editor spliced the scenes together. Here's the sequence of events IIRC, and why they make little sense as presented in the final cut:

1. While Bond is still working his way through the Funhouse and wasting bullets, Scaramanga is waiting near the Bond mannequin, in a position where it would be fairly easy to see the mannequin.
2. Bond runs into the pane of glass at the edge of the Funhouse. He finds out that he can go around this pane of glass.
3. The very moment that Bond tuns into the glass, there's a totally bizarre cut back to Nick Nack, who has this weird look on his face. I assume this shot is meant to show his amusement on Bond making an ass of himself by running into the glass. However . . .
4. Bond is now climbing underneath the Funhouse amongst the scaffolding.
5. Cut back to Nick Nack, who seems totally confused as to where Bond just went. Nick Nack furiously fiddles with dials and knobs, opens the door to the Al Capone dummies, etc. This makes no sense given the shot we last saw of Nick Nack looking mildly amused.
6. Cut back to Bond, who loses his gun after it falls out of his waistline.
7. Cut to a montage of Nick Nack, panning cameras and Scaramanga. There's no sign of Bond at all. Scaramanga looks befuddled. He takes a few paces forward, and BANG, he's dead.

This is a case where Mank and Maibaum had a brilliant concept (Bond replacing his own dummy), and Hamilton blew it. The way the shots are currently put together, there's no chance that Bond had time to switch places with the dummy, and dispose of the dummy, and put on the dummy's coat. Furthermore, how did he do all of this without Scaramanga noticing when Scaramanga was a few feet away? Also, did Scaramanga really have a James Bond mannequin holding a loaded Walther PPK?!?!

Yes the finale of Golden Gun has always been a blur. I've never been able to quite make sense of it either, other than the general idea, that Bond substituted himself for the dummy. I'm not sure Hamilton "blew it" though as I don't think he cared. I think he simply wanted to create suspense, with a big bang payoff. The maze construction is purposely vague, I think, so that we can't really navigate it ourselves, or truly have an idea where Bond might be in relation to Scaramanga. We are asked to simply much our popcorn and play along. That is the Hamilton way.

I'll have to watch my Remo Williams, The Adventure Begins dvd, to see if he's playing these little games in that film too, which is a bit of a Bond derivative.

And either Scaramanga left the gun loaded for authenticity purposes, or maybe Bond found his original gun. We shall not know, and Guy I believe, intends it that way.

tiffanywint wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

I think the editing problem in TMWTGG is in the finale. It's not, in this case, that we have no idea how Bond defeats Scaramanga. That's obvious, and IMO fairly clever - Bond changes places with his own mannequin, waits until Scaramanga walks into view, and then shoots Scaramanga. That's clear enough. But the editing practically ruins the scene, at least for me, and I think it's an editing problem on the directorial level rather than exactly how the editor spliced the scenes together. Here's the sequence of events IIRC, and why they make little sense as presented in the final cut:

1. While Bond is still working his way through the Funhouse and wasting bullets, Scaramanga is waiting near the Bond mannequin, in a position where it would be fairly easy to see the mannequin.
2. Bond runs into the pane of glass at the edge of the Funhouse. He finds out that he can go around this pane of glass.
3. The very moment that Bond tuns into the glass, there's a totally bizarre cut back to Nick Nack, who has this weird look on his face. I assume this shot is meant to show his amusement on Bond making an ass of himself by running into the glass. However . . .
4. Bond is now climbing underneath the Funhouse amongst the scaffolding.
5. Cut back to Nick Nack, who seems totally confused as to where Bond just went. Nick Nack furiously fiddles with dials and knobs, opens the door to the Al Capone dummies, etc. This makes no sense given the shot we last saw of Nick Nack looking mildly amused.
6. Cut back to Bond, who loses his gun after it falls out of his waistline.
7. Cut to a montage of Nick Nack, panning cameras and Scaramanga. There's no sign of Bond at all. Scaramanga looks befuddled. He takes a few paces forward, and BANG, he's dead.

This is a case where Mank and Maibaum had a brilliant concept (Bond replacing his own dummy), and Hamilton blew it. The way the shots are currently put together, there's no chance that Bond had time to switch places with the dummy, and dispose of the dummy, and put on the dummy's coat. Furthermore, how did he do all of this without Scaramanga noticing when Scaramanga was a few feet away? Also, did Scaramanga really have a James Bond mannequin holding a loaded Walther PPK?!?!

Yes the finale of Golden Gun has always been a blur. I've never been able to quite make sense of it either, other than the general idea, that Bond substituted himself for the dummy. I'm not sure Hamilton "blew it" though as I don't think he cared. I think he simply wanted to create suspense, with a big bang payoff. The maze construction is purposely vague, I think, so that we can't really navigate it ourselves, or truly have an idea where Bond might be in relation to Scaramanga. We are asked to simply much our popcorn and play along. That is the Hamilton way.

I'll have to watch my Remo Williams, The Adventure Begins dvd, to see if he's playing these little games in that film too, which is a bit of a Bond derivative.

And either Scaramanga left the gun loaded for authenticity purposes, or maybe Bond found his original gun. We shall not know, and Guy I believe, intends it that way.

You're probably right that at least some of this is intentional, Tiff, especially as I noticed myself that the maze construction is never made clear. If that's the case, I'd say that I find Hamilton's approach great in terms of setting a mood, but irritating when you rewatch the movie and give it some thought. Doubt Hamilton was caring much about home video when he directed these movies, though.

The nerve of the man. Not taking into account us Bond-philes who insist on watching these films over-and-over-again, analyzing all the minutiae. ;)

tiffanywint wrote:

The nerve of the man. Not taking into account us Bond-philes who insist on watching these films over-and-over-again, analyzing all the minutiae. ;)

Fair enough, and I'm hardly an opponent of Hamilton's approach per se. I find all of his movies to be at least entertaining and in most cases quite enjoyable. However, I think it's fair to argue that an action/adventure movie should have action that makes sense, and Hamilton often fails on this mark. By contrast, Terence Young and Jon Glen had much tighter plotting, though both could be tedious at times, which Hamilton never was. I suppose it depends on what you're in the mood for Bond-wise. If you want ligerter entertainment, then the perfectly crafted atmosphere of Hamilton is perfect. But if you want a want something more emotionally involving, then Young and Glen are better because they build tension in the plot more effectively.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

The nerve of the man. Not taking into account us Bond-philes who insist on watching these films over-and-over-again, analyzing all the minutiae. ;)

Fair enough, and I'm hardly an opponent of Hamilton's approach per se. I find all of his movies to be at least entertaining and in most cases quite enjoyable. However, I think it's fair to argue that an action/adventure movie should have action that makes sense, and Hamilton often fails on this mark. By contrast, Terence Young and Jon Glen had much tighter plotting, though both could be tedious at times, which Hamilton never was. I suppose it depends on what you're in the mood for Bond-wise. If you want ligerter entertainment, then the perfectly crafted atmosphere of Hamilton is perfect. But if you want a want something more emotionally involving, then Young and Glen are better because they build tension in the plot more effectively.

What Hamilton did well I think is that he combined the high-camp with palpable danger. He wanted escapism and fantasy but not farce or spoof. He wanted it grounded in believeable danger and suspense. I don't think Hamilton for example, would have agreed to the Rog-and-Anya-yuks-with-Jaws-at-the-pyramids, although he would have loved working with a character like Jaws. But I think he would have kept Jaws consistently menacing, much like he did with Oddjob and even Wint and Kidd. He would have found the humour, but not in way that made Jaws at all loveable or cute.

Hamilton's style worked best with Sean I think, as Connery effortlessly brought the menance needed to balance the escapist element. It seems that Hamilton kind of tried to force Rog to be as dangerous as Sean. It worked somewhat well enough in LALD I thought. Not as well in TMWTGG though. Rog was later able to fully relax in his Bond skin by TSWLM, where he probably had a little more say-so with Gilbert.

Still I really do like both LALD and TMWTGG, even minus the Sean presence, as they've both got Hamilton's stamp all over them; bizarre escapist fantasy grounded in danger and suspense. Rog plays his role well enough. I think Hamilton got what he could out of him.

What you said about Hamilton 'not sweating the details', tiff ... yeah, I've seen it said elsewhere that all his Bonds tend to treat the plot more-or-less as something to hang the set-pieces from.

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Terence Young and Jon Glen had much tighter plotting, though both could be tedious at times, which Hamilton never was.

Glen and Young's Bond films are tedious? Really? I find much more excitement, thrill and intrigue when watching DN, FRWL, TB, FYEO, OP and TLD than TMWTGG and LALD. GF has its moments of Bondian brilliance, but its second half doesn't match the sleek smoothness of the first. DAF is a mix of style and then cringe. AVTAK is like GF. Glen and Young's efforts rank higher than Hamilton's for me.

FieldsMan wrote:

right idea, wrong pussy wrote:

Terence Young and Jon Glen had much tighter plotting, though both could be tedious at times, which Hamilton never was.

Glen and Young's Bond films are tedious? Really? I find much more excitement, thrill and intrigue when watching DN, FRWL, TB, FYEO, OP and TLD than TMWTGG and LALD. GF has its moments of Bondian brilliance, but its second half doesn't match the sleek smoothness of the first. DAF is a mix of style and then cringe. AVTAK is like GF. Glen and Young's efforts rank higher than Hamilton's for me.

I would say that Glen and Young's best efforts are better than Hamilton's best efforts, but that their worst efforts are worse than Hamilton at his worst. FRWL, FYEO and TLD are far and away superior to anything Hamilton ever did. However, I find TB utterly tedious (a minority opinion, I know), and I find AVTAK and LTK to be chores to slog through as well. Hamilton is very middle of the road, for the most part. His movies are always engaging at a certain, slightly mindless level, but they never hook me in the way Young and Glen can at their best.

LTK gets better on most rewatches. Certainly a lot easier then days gone by. Dalton rising to the fore on the wave of superiority.

Loomis wrote:

Don't forget that Scorpion Girl (DIE ANOTHER DAY) also gets off unpunished. She tortures Bond for an entire year sans consequences.

There were definitely consequences. Remember when Bond made a joke about the concierge, and General Moon said "still you jest"? Obviously Bond had been making horrible jokes over the year to punish his captors. Purvis & Wade one-liners were his only weapon: https://bondandbeyond.forumotion.com/t669-how-to-survive-14-months-of-torture-in-north-korea

'At's quality, that is! :lol!:

Perhaps, like Limbani in The Wild Geese, Bond was trying to taunt his captors into killing him.

In which case, the 'Concierge' definitely had a sado-masochistic thing going for her there (along with that "slutty little Asian thing" (Wayne Newton to Lucy Liu on Ally McBeal)). :oops:

Excellent question @tiffanywint about "killing one of the brothers." I was watching LALD last night and had the same question. Once again, it's kind of a Guy Hamilton Bond movie thing, there's always a plot hole, strange dialogue which contradicts previous scenes, or loose ends. I love both DAF and LALD from Hamilton, but most of my James Bond questions stem from his movies, unfortunately. I'd like to offer my theories too, but after reading the post above by @right idea, wrong pussy, I think it's pretty well figured out!

As for the knife villain, I'd never thought of that before! I really have never included him in a list of LALD villains because he gets such little screen-time and no contact whatsoever with Bond. I would have liked to see how Bond would dispatch of this foe!