The Living Daylights premiered 25 years ago today.

Or yesterday, depending on your time zone. =P June 29.

Last autumn, I wrote a short essay about the film. Not the greatest writing, but give it a read if you like:

The Finger on the Trigger: James Bond and The Living Daylights

When the first James Bond adventure hit theatres in the 1960s, it was an oasis of fantasy in a field filled with earthly drama. Moviegoers came in droves to sample Bond’s cocktail of danger, sex, and elegance. These surface elements were emphasized, subsequent films rarely going beneath Bond's skin. However, the creativity and integrity of the films ran dry when the gates were opened to recycling of past Bond movies and the adoption of elements from other escapist fare. It was 1987, and the franchise needed rejuvenating. Enter The Living Daylights, Timothy Dalton's first Bond film and, ultimately, the best of them all.

Imagine not a cold-blooded smooth operator living Bond’s life, but a real man. This is Dalton: weary from living dangerously, he rewards his close shaves with nicotine, drink, and women. While this approach takes some sheen off the property, it is worth the glimpses afforded into Bond's psyche. In a key sequence, Bond is tasked with protecting a Soviet defector from sniper fire. His tea-and-crumpets contact, Saunders, tries asserting a leadership role; right when the longwinded bureaucrat’s last syllable is spoken, Bond cocks his rifle noisily. And that's the only assertion 007 needs to make. Despite all of Saunders' planning, Bond is the one with a finger on the trigger, and any potential murder is on him. A ball of tension exists beneath the gentleman.

Despite the atypicality of Dalton's emotionally vulnerable portrayal, he restores an essential Bond ingredient: playing it straight. Sean Connery’s original Bond inhabited a ridiculous world, but never showed the slightest awareness of it. This dared audiences to use Bond as a stepping-stone into the fantasy. In contrast, Roger Moore never denied the absurdity of the films and asked audiences to laugh with him, rather than at him. As revolutionary Bond editor Peter Hunt once said, however, "one should make the films seriously, but never TAKE them seriously." Dalton knew this, and he wears the face of combat when evading mortar fire in a gadget-filled Aston Martin. Descriptions of such a scene make it sound funny; it's even more entertaining in the film, because Dalton makes the danger real.

Dalton lacks Connery's animal sexuality, but the void is filled with enigmatic charm. His profile recalls the Hollywood stars of yesteryear – it was no mistake that he was cast as Rhett Butler in a Gone With the Wind sequel and as a thinly veiled send-up of Errol Flynn in The Rocketeer. His cold eyes and unexpected lupine smile together suggest a man who is both distant and passionate, who leaves women wondering. Unlike his predecessors, Dalton could never be dismissed as a lecher. His relative chastity is understandable, anyway, when one considers where the series was coming from (Moore's womanizing 58-year-old joke) and where Dalton wanted to take it (back to a Bond more interested in the mission than in sleeping around). Instead of having the character succumb to libido, the film peels back another layer by showing us exactly why Bond is such a flighty lover. Entanglement can endanger him and, more importantly, others. After Bond chooses to spend time wooing the "Bond girl" instead of assassinating a target he knows is not the villain, the real villain murders Saunders and then frames Bond's target in an attempt to spur Bond into action. When Bond’s professionalism gives way to sentimentality, the result is a colleague’s death.

A more complex Bond is not all the film boasts. After years of being fed repackaged stories diluted with elements lifted from the passing cinema bandwagon, Bond audiences were treated to an installment that subverted the franchise’s tired expectations while also maintaining its distinct flavour. A couple clichés subverted: the villain commands his henchmen not to shoot at Bond in order to avoid damaging a precious plane, which the hero is piloting. It is revealed, however, that gunfire did indeed puncture the plane, and with no small consequence - the engines cut out in midflight from fuel loss! Dalton also subverts the iconic "shaken, not stirred" martini request by giving it such conviction that it feels less like a stale catchphrase and more like a genuine character quirk. In an era of action blockbusters like Lethal Weapon and Die Hard, The Living Daylights also stood out for its elegance. It rarely submits to bloody realism, nor does it delve into stylized brutality; rather, it assumes an almost old-fashioned classiness. There is a stark contrast between its Afghanistan action and equivalent scenes in Rambo III. The movie's well-measured, accessible combination of cloak-and-dagger espionage and comic strip adventure proved serendipitous. Just as in 1962, Bond offered a definitive alternative to the surrounding cinematic landscape.

Bond films used to be a revelation. Modern moviegoers, however, can get their Bondian fix anywhere, and Connery's brawler-beneath-the-tuxedo appears quaint next to the undisguised brawlers crowding the marquee. After every other blockbuster has regurgitated the Bond cocktail, only one option remains: letting audiences peer through the cracks of the character's veneer. Timothy Dalton was the first Bond to allow this, and it is now taken for granted that 007 is an emotionally vulnerable hero. In 2012, The Living Daylights will celebrate its 25th anniversary, and a new Bond film, Skyfall, will be released to coincide with the franchise's 50th. Old issues have unfortunately recrystallized – the character has stagnated in yet another tired formula (one of increasingly personal plotlines and Bond-myth destruction), and recent outings have mimicked such fare as The Matrix, Batman Begins, and The Bourne Ultimatum. Daniel Craig has all the sex and danger required, and his films have contained a decent dose of elegance. It will be Skyfall's challenge to carry this identity forward while simultaneously carving out its own spot amongst the competition and the legacy behind it. Perhaps next year, Bond will once again be popular cinema's best entertainment.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

and recent outings have mimicked such fare as The Matrix, Batman Begins, and The Bourne Ultimatum.

I get the references to Batman Begins and The Bourne films, but where does The Matrix come in?

American audiences didn't get to see the film until July 31st, 1987, so our 25th anniversary celebration can't begin just yet. I went to the 10:00 showing that night with my girlfriend and 3 friends....good times! I don't know see any of them anymore, but I still held onto Bond!!

There was one decent sized plot hole that was never addressed in what was an otherwise tightly-scripted film, but it is worth mentioning nonetheless: if Necros and Koskov knew enough to go to Austria and assassinate Saunders, why didn't they know Kara was still alive? I'm not sure if her existence would have made any difference in the overall scheme of the plot, but it would obviously take away from the scene where Koskov is stunned to hear she is still alive.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

Louis Armstrong wrote:

and recent outings have mimicked such fare as The Matrix, Batman Begins, and The Bourne Ultimatum.

I get the references to Batman Begins and The Bourne films, but where does The Matrix come in?

I think he's referring to Christian Wagner's speed ramps in DIE ANOTHER DAY.

TLD remains one of my best picks after 25 years...one of the few I never get tired of...

Good read, Louis.

In my mind, TLD is the only post-60's Bond film that can go toe-to-toe with the Terence Young trilogy.

In honor of TLD, I listened to the score yesterday. Simply marvelous stuff by Barry, Ah ha and The Pretenders.

The track Air Bond, incidentally, perfectly captures the epic feel of this most epic of all Bond films.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_5oDF567IE&t=1m40s



TLD was the last great Bond film, in my opinion. Dalton's debut performance was right up there with Connery's in DN.

Great film. And a great post there, Louis.

A good read, TLD is certainly top ten material for me, Dalton really hits the ground running something uniquely shared between him and Connery imho.

I used to hate TLD, because it was never really clear what the plot was. The film never really spells it out (not unlike LETHAL WEAPON 2), and this is a double blow given that Koskov is hardly the series' strongest villain. However, as I got older, I began to appreciate it more. I was able to deduce what Koskov was doing, even without the film making it clear, and I actually think Koskov's insipidness, sliminess and near-cowardice make him an intersting villain, even if he's not particularly strong.

As a result, TLD sits firmly in my "Cold War trilogy" of Bond films - the other two being FRWL and FYEO - the three films where Bond is a spy first and everything else second. Not coincidentally, the "Cold War trilogy" account for three of my four favourite films.

It seems I'm in the minority, but I absolutely love the Afghanistan segment of TLD. This section of the film really heightens the film's exotic and epic feel. It also features the most excellent Kamran Shah and some of the best action in series history. I love the aerial shots and the arid, mountainous landscape too.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

It seems I'm in the minority, but I absolutely love the Afghanistan segment of TLD. This section of the film really heightens the film's exotic and epic feel. It also features the most excellent Kamran Shah and some of the best action in series history. I love the aerial shots and the arid, mountainous landscape too.

I'd echo those sentiments, its a great contrast with the earlier section of the film also.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

It seems I'm in the minority, but I absolutely love the Afghanistan segment of TLD. This section of the film really heightens the film's exotic and epic feel. It also features the most excellent Kamran Shah and some of the best action in series history. I love the aerial shots and the arid, mountainous landscape too.

Dalton in turban, kicking bad guys out of back of plane, and then shooting up Koskov and Necros on the airfield is more intense and dangerous than anything Craig has tried to pull off.

"shooting up Koskov and Necros on the airfield"

I think TND's PTS borrowed fairly heavily from this segment.

Quote :

Dalton lacks Connery's animal sexuality

This is a problem IMO. I much prefer Connery the animal. Dalton's goofy grinning gives me nightmares (ferris-wheel-with-Kara scene)

Timbo was much better in LTK IMO. A little puppy-dogish in the drifting-motor-boat-with-Pam scene, but otherwise, he had some Sean-The-Animal moments

But otherwise a solid Bond entry. Dalts at least is a serious and convincing Bond, even if he might have benefited from studying the Connery-method a little closer.

Quote :

Despite the atypicality of Dalton's emotionally vulnerable portrayal, he restores an essential Bond ingredient: playing it straight. Sean Connery’s original Bond inhabited a ridiculous world, but never showed the slightest awareness of it. This dared audiences to use Bond as a stepping-stone into the fantasy. In contrast, Roger Moore never denied the absurdity of the films and asked audiences to laugh with him, rather than at him. As revolutionary Bond editor Peter Hunt once said, however, "one should make the films seriously, but never TAKE them seriously." Dalton knew this, and he wears the face of combat when evading mortar fire in a gadget-filled Aston Martin. Descriptions of such a scene make it sound funny; it's even more entertaining in the film, because Dalton makes the danger real.

This is bang-on. The fantastical escapist world of 007 only works if the actor plays things straight, as Connery did. Otherwise no tension, suspense or wonder. The Rog films suffered somewhat as Rog didn't always seem to be a serious Bond. Dalton brought back the gravitas and danger. But where both the Dalts and Craig films suffer somewhat IMO, is that while both are serious Bonds, neither gets to apply their talents to the escapist world that Connery experienced, or at least not to the same extent. Meanwhile the Rog and Broz films were tour-de-force escapist flights of fancy, but were hampered by lighter-weight Bonds.

I would really like to see a return to the serious Bond in the escapist setting. That's what we got with Sean. The best of both worlds. eg A serious Bond doing battle with the forces of Spectre in a volcano rocket base. Post Sean, Eon seems to think, the serious Bonds have to do lower-key more "realistic" films, while the lighter-weight wink-wink Bonds get the fun stuff. Maddening, I tell you.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

"shooting up Koskov and Necros on the airfield"

I think TND's PTS borrowed fairly heavily from this segment.

That may be a reason TND's PTS is my favorite of the Brosnan-era PTSs. Plus, it's got shades of OP's PTS with Bond's escape in the plane.

Anyhow, hard to believe it's been 1/4 of a century since TLD premiered. My how time flies.

Happy Silver Anniversary to the best Bond film post-TB. This is a cool tribute to it:

When is Waldek gonna finish that TLD trailer? :x

A happy birthday to my favoutite James Bond film :)

Thanks for reading my essay y'all :)

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

There was one decent sized plot hole that was never addressed in what was an otherwise tightly-scripted film, but it is worth mentioning nonetheless: if Necros and Koskov knew enough to go to Austria and assassinate Saunders, why didn't they know Kara was still alive? I'm not sure if her existence would have made any difference in the overall scheme of the plot, but it would obviously take away from the scene where Koskov is stunned to hear she is still alive.

I've thought about this before, too. It is a decent-sized problem, in a way. I suppose one can assume that Necros had never met Kara and was never briefed on her.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I used to hate TLD, because it was never really clear what the plot was. The film never really spells it out (not unlike LETHAL WEAPON 2), and this is a double blow given that Koskov is hardly the series' strongest villain. However, as I got older, I began to appreciate it more. I was able to deduce what Koskov was doing, even without the film making it clear, and I actually think Koskov's insipidness, sliminess and near-cowardice make him an intersting villain, even if he's not particularly strong.

The plot IS confusing. On one hand, it could be praised for its Le Carre-esque complexity. But on the other hand, it could just be called f***ing confusing. The business with Kamran Shah talking up the Snow Leopard Brotherhood only for them to not matter is pretty pointless. It's also unclear for too long that the diamonds are subbing for money, IMO. It might have been better if we were invited to follow the plot exclusively from Bond's POV, eg. we wouldn't see or hear about the diamonds until the moment Bond does.

The plot never reaches a real turning point, either, so it doesn't have much thrust. The villains seem to "change the goal posts" (as some reviewer once said). Someone once suggested in another piece on TLD that the reveal of Whitaker and Koskov as partners should have been a dramatic moment, and I agree with that. Perhaps that would've given the plot something to turn on.

I like Koskov, too. He's a Manipulator. I think he's not given enough credit as a unique Bond villain. But that's understandable. His schtick is undermined by Joe Don Baker not taking a more obviously different tack as Whitaker. Both Koskov and Whitaker are very jovial... To balance things out, one of them needed genuine menace. Maybe even just a moment of menace. Maybe Whitaker could've turned ugly for a minute and killed an underling who displeased him. Necros lends some menace, but between Koskov and Whitaker, the villains are too cheerful.

tiffanywint wrote:

Quote :

Dalton lacks Connery's animal sexuality

This is a problem IMO. I much prefer Connery the animal. Dalton's goofy grinning gives me nightmares (ferris-wheel-with-Kara scene)

It's not something I got into in my essay, but TLD definitely doesn't tick the "sex" box. What's interesting is that TLD plugs that hole (lol) with the series' biggest dose of romance instead, whereas most post-60s Bond films (save Campbell's and perhaps Hamilton's) are happy to dribble along without any real sense of sex or romance. Interesting implications, particularly in TLD's appeal to women.

tiffanywint wrote:

But where both the Dalts and Craig films suffer somewhat IMO, is that while both are serious Bonds, neither gets to apply their talents to the escapist world that Connery experienced, or at least not to the same extent.

Well-said. If only Dalton could have played on a Ken Adam set. I think Moonraker was the last of that escapist breed of Bond film, although the two efforts of Campbell should (again) be applauded, IMO. The ice palace in DAD was a nice try, too. I'm excited to see if Skyfall will finally bring back that sense of fantasy that permeated the early Bonds.

tiffanywint wrote:

Meanwhile the Rog and Broz films were tour-de-force escapist flights of fancy, but were hampered by lighter-weight Bonds.

For me, the Moore and Brosnan films never reach the heights of the 60s iconography. Something like FYEO or TND is just an Action Movie to me.

Prince Kamal Khan wrote:

That may be a reason TND's PTS is my favorite of the Brosnan-era PTSs.

Wait, why are we talking about TND? How dare you talk about TND in this thread!!

Louis Armstrong wrote:

The plot IS confusing. On one hand, it could be praised for its Le Carre-esque complexity. But on the other hand, it could just be called f***ing confusing.

When you know what's going on, it's actually pretty simple - Koskov has been laundering KGB money to keep the war in Afghanistan going. When he gets found out by Pushkin, Koskov stages his own defection to trick MI6 into assassinating him.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

The business with Kamran Shah talking up the Snow Leopard Brotherhood only for them to not matter is pretty pointless.

I believe early drafts of LICENCE TO KILL had the Snow Leopard Brotherhood returning in some way. It probably would have involved Bond and Leiter shutting down Franz Sanchez's operations, with Sanchez relocating to Central Asia once he escaped.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

The plot never reaches a real turning point, either, so it doesn't have much thrust. The villains seem to "change the goal posts" (as some reviewer once said). Someone once suggested in another piece on TLD that the reveal of Whitaker and Koskov as partners should have been a dramatic moment, and I agree with that. Perhaps that would've given the plot something to turn on.

If there is a turning point, it is the staged assassination of Pushkin. The entire point of that plan was to trick Koskov into showing his hand. He acquires the diamonds and trades them for raw opium, which he intends to sell on the street to replace the laundered funds. The film is very clever in that it doesn't really give Bond or the audience a reason to suspect Koskov's duplicity until Pushkin convinces Bond that that he has no knowledge of Smiert Spionam. The film would have worked better if Walter Gotell was well enough to play Anatoly Gogol in Pushkin's place, since Gogol was established as an occasional ally, and it would have resonated more with the audience if he was presented as have reverted to an enemy.

Unfortunately, this cleverness is something of a double-edged sword. While it holds back the big reveal that Pushkin is innocent, it also does not foreshadow anything in the early stages of the film. Consequently, there is a lot to get through when Koskov is revealed to be a villain, so it does feel a little rushed.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

I like Koskov, too. He's a Manipulator. I think he's not given enough credit as a unique Bond villain. But that's understandable. His schtick is undermined by Joe Don Baker not taking a more obviously different tack as Whitaker. Both Koskov and Whitaker are very jovial... To balance things out, one of them needed genuine menace. Maybe even just a moment of menace. Maybe Whitaker could've turned ugly for a minute and killed an underling who displeased him. Necros lends some menace, but between Koskov and Whitaker, the villains are too cheerful.

I like the way they're upbeat, but you are right in saying that maybe there could have been more to them. Perhaps a power struggle between them once Pushkin is "dead". They both clearly want different things - Whittaker wants to keep the war in Afghanistan going to make profits, while Koskov simply wants to cover up his crimes. I could see Whittaker using Necros to kill one of Koskov's allies, thereby forcing Koskov to deal with Whittaker's people and giving Whittaker the upper hand. When Bond discovers the dead ally, he realises he can manipulate Koskov and play him off Whittaker.

I agree that TLD is the most romantic Bond film of them all. Even moreso than OHMSS.

GE is a good contender too, though Prisoner Monkeys wouldn't know romance if it came up and sat on him.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

When you know what's going on, it's actually pretty simple - Koskov has been laundering KGB money to keep the war in Afghanistan going. When he gets found out by Pushkin, Koskov stages his own defection to trick MI6 into assassinating him.

Isn't the whole thing just about Koskov and Whitaker, "borrowing" Soviet money which was intended for arms purchases, but instead buying opium and re-selling the drugs for a huge profit. There is no laundering going on here but rather a misappropriation of government money intended for arms purchases. Presumably if Koskov and Whitaker had managed to re-sell their drug haul, they would have also passed on the weapons purchase to the Soviets as agreed, whilst reaping a windfall from the proceeds of the drug sale. Koskov stages his defection and subsequent re-capture in order to convince Mi6 that Pushkin is behind Smiert Spionam. This works for him, as he fears that Pushkin is onto his misappropriation caper.

Le Chiffre pulled the same stunt in CR. He tried to do a stock scam with money that had been entrusted with him for safe-keeping and safe investment.

Yes, GE does spray the estrogen around pretty good.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Yes, GE does spray the estrogen around pretty good.

Sprinkle in TND too with the Paris Carver affair.

OHMSS, TLD and CR are the great romance Bonds, although the romances in the two latter films both ring hollow for me. I was more impressed with Bond and Dink in GF.

Honorable romance mention to GE and TND and even LTK. Dalts does get rather puppy-doggish with Pam, especially in the final scene, where he dramatically demonstrates his loyalty --jumps into pool and ruins perfectly good tux for yet another goofy grin moment. Gag.

Personally my favourite Bond "romances" (with deference to Bond and Tracy which was legit) are Bond and Tiffany Case (the all-time best), Bond and Pussy, Bond and Tania and Bond and Jill Masterson. Bond and Christmas Jones had a nice chemistry as well. These are the quintisential Bond "romances," in my humble romantic opinion.