Although not precisely a good James
Bond film, 1974’s The Man with the Golden Gun is not as overtly or consistently unlikable
as Diamonds
Are Forever (1971), A View to a Kill (1985) or Die
Another Day (2002), the three worst franchise outings in 007 history.
Instead, The Man with the Golden Gun showcases the film series’ continuing
growing pains as producers attempt to accommodate a new era, a new pop culture,
and a new actor, Roger Moore, in the iconic role of British agent 007.
The
Man with the Golden Gun
is Moore’s second outing, and the formula is clearly not yet perfected. For example, the humor (which has
been developing and growing as a substantial factor since Diamonds…) is further highlighted
here, but there are also remnants of Connery’s tough guy or “brute” image, and
they don’t fit the dapper, suave Moore at all.
In terms of the pop culture, The
Man with the Golden Gun -- like
its predecessor Live and Let Die – also seems intent on aping other successful film
forms, rather than innovating within the pre-existing confines of the enduring
spy series.
Live
and Let Die’s
energy and life-blood emerged from the Blaxploitation film movement of the
early 1970s, and similarly, The Man with the Golden Gun is an
“Eastern” Bond film arriving in theaters just in time to capitalize on the
global box-office’s love affair with Bruce Lee and Kung-Fu films such as Enter
the Dragon (1973).
Although it would be easy to
scoff at The Man with the Golden Gun’s “energy crisis” plot-line, one
can see that the film is veritably loaded with pop culture references of a
similar stripe that attempt to keep Bond relevant. These references include the mention of Evel
Knievel, and the sinking of the Queen Elizabeth in 1973. Such touches,
actually, help to ground the film, especially when The Man with the Golden Gun
threatens to descend into slapstick. The
allusions remind us that the real world is still relevant to Bond’s increasingly
fantastic adventures.
Still, there are a number of
grievous creative missteps one must contend with in The Man with the Golden Gun,
most notably the re-appearance of a stock Southern sheriff, J.W. Pepper
(Clifton James) from Live and Let Die.
And yet, as noted above, the film
is not as painful to watch as many of the worst Bonds are. For example, the
photography, particularly at Scaramanga’s island paradise, is frequently
stunning.
Furthermore, some visual compositions
nicely (and covertly…) suggest a unique subtext; a sexual undertone to the action. Indeed, much the drama in the film emerges,
one might conclude, because of the acts of a sexually dissatisfied mistress
seeking liberation.
Also -- and this is entirely a personal conclusion -- I enjoy Moore’s
performance as Bond here (when he isn’t strong-arming women, anyway…) as a bit
of a cad, and a poor sportsman.
It’s pretty clear that his Bond
is a hedonist, and one who won’t expend valuable energy if he can gain an
advantage without doing so.
The later
Moore films downplayed this aesthetic, so that Bond was more of a traditional
“good guy” but The Man with the Golden Gun certainly showcases the secret
agent’s naughty side. Bond dispatches a
martial-arts opponent in sneaky, bad-sportsman-style, and I love it. After all, 007 isn’t playing for the title of
world’s nicest secret agent…he’s fighting for his life. Who cares if he bends the rules a bit?
“He
must have found me quite titillating.”
Agent 007, James Bond (Roger Moore)
receives a golden bullet with his number engraved on it, a sign that he is the
intended target of a high-priced assassin named Francisco Scaramanga (Christopher
Lee).
This grave situation precludes
Bond from continuing his hunt for the missing Solex Agitator, a miraculous
device that harnesses the energy of the sun, and could be the solution to the
ongoing Energy Crisis.
Instead, Bond tracks down the
golden bullet’s origin, and cuts a path from Beirut to Macau, to a Hong Kong
casino.
Bond soon learns that
Scaramanga’s mistress, Andrea Anders (Maud Adams) sent him the golden bullet in
hopes that 007 would rid her of a man she loathes and despises.
Bond also learns that Scaramanga
is after the critical Solex Agitator and 007 masquerades as the assassin in
Bangkok, attempting to learn more from the wealthy industrialist Hi-Fat, a ruse
which fails.
After Bond escapes from a karate
school where he is used as a real life training dummy by the students
Scaramanga captures Bond’s assistant, lovely Mary Goodnight (Ekland) and takes
her, via a flying car, to his private island.
There, Bond must recover the
Agitator, which Scaramanga intends to sell for a huge profit. But the man with
the golden gun is more interested in a duel with his greatest rival than the
energy crisis…
“You’re
the only man in the world that can kill him.”
Rather uniquely for the
male-driven Bond series, most of the action in the Man with the Golden Gun
is driven by the actions of a woman, Andrea Anders (Maud Adams). She is Scaramanga’s mistress, and an
unsatisfied one at that.
Trapped in her unhappy life
with Scaramanga, Anders executes a strategy to rid herself of the assassin and her oppressor. She sends one of his gold
bullets to the only man in the world who can kill him: James Bond.
Although Scaramanga possesses
three nipples -- and men with three nipples are legendarily supposed to possess remarkablesexual prowess -- it is clear that this is a myth in terms of Scaramanga...not a reality.
As the film opens, we see Andrea bend down on her knees to
towel him off after a swim. She kneels before his crotch…and the film cuts immediately
to Nick Nack (Herve Villechaize) popping a champagne cork.
The one-two punch of this edit suggests, quite
simply, that Scaramanga can’t hold his wad. He’s a poor lover. Andrea not only hates Scaramanga, she feel s he is a rotten lover.
On at least two other occasions,
the camera registers sympathetic close-ups of Andrea Anders during foreplay and
love-making, as she practically blanches at Scaramanga’s closeness and touch.
At one point he fondles her aggressively with his gun, and
she turns away in displeasure. Again, the concept here
is one of dissatisfaction, and Bond is the antidote in two ways. First, he will provide sexual excitement, and
second, he will actually kill Scaramanga.
We know Bond is a better lover,
in part, because the film shows us that fact. For example, we witness 007's foreplay with a belly-dancer in Beirut. He kisses her belly, attempting to extract a golden bullet from her navel. But what does it look like he's really doing?
It’s clear that Bond is not a stranger then, to
using his mouth. By contrast -- as we have
seen -- Scaramanga always leads with his “golden” gun. And he pops his cork too soon!
Given Andrea’s crucial role in
the film and the fact that she literally brings Bond into the action, it’s a
shame that the remainder of the film doesn’t score too highly in terms of its treatment
of female characters.
Mary Goodnight, while absolutely gorgeous, is a dumb blond. One minute she refuses to be another of Bond’s
“passing fancies,” and literally the next moment she has undressed for him in
his hotel room and is ready to bed him. She also ends up trapped in a car's trunk for much of the film's last act.
Similarly, the scene in which Bond questions
Andrea and threatens to break her arm is literally cringe-inducing. Roger Moore absolutely has his talents and skills as
007, but he just looks mean -- and horrible -- slapping Andrea and twisting her
arm. These moments play as horribly
anachronistic today, and they are wrong, tonally, for a Moore picture. This Bond shouldn't be violent towards women.
Moore is much better, I feel, when his
Bond cleverly pinpoints an easy advantage, and plays it out.
For instance, I love how he turns a bullet-maker’s gun around on him. Bond then tells him to spill
his guts or “forever hold his piece/peace,” meaning his genitalia…which the
rifle is aimed at.
Similarly, I like how Bond stuffs Goodnight into a hotel room closet and makes her listen there while he beds
Andrea. Such caddish, wicked, and rotten behavior...and yet this seems like the perfect Bond aesthetic for the 1970s. This Bond is on the side
of right, yet isn’t going to go out of his way to reach the moral
high-ground. He's sort of...sleazy.
The moment in which Bond
head-butts an opponent during a bow of respect is classic in that regard. Indeed, this is how I would have liked to see the
less-than-physically-intimidating Moore interpret Bond in all his pictures. As a guy who seeks the advantage, whether it
is noble or not.
While we’re discussing
performances, some mention should be made of Christopher Lee. He’s a great actor, but he doesn’t seem to
project much menace, or much character in Man with the Golden Gun.
His Scaramanga is unfailingly polite and charming, the “anti-Bond”/Bond,
but he’s sort of a big black hole at the center of the movie. Some blame must go to the writers, I suspect. Why is a laid-back, happy-go-lucky, well-paid
assassin even bothering with the Solex when he is living in paradise?
And why do his confrontations with Bond seem
so casual and off-handed, if he is so obsessed with beating 007 in a duel?
The screenplay never manages to bridge this
contradiction. Again, I love Lee. He’s a great actor. But his Scaramanga doesn’t rank as a great
Bond villain, or even a particularly good one.
The
Man with the Golden Gun possesses a negative reputation
with Bond film lovers, in part, because it possesses few memorable stunts or
set-pieces.
The pre-title sequence -- usually
a brilliant, self-contained action show-stopper -- is instead but a trip through
Scaramanga’s hokey, low-scale fun-house/shooting gallery. We get a very clichéd looking gangster
exploring the attraction, and even making a joke about Al Capone. One might wonder what all this is about until
one remembers that The Man with the Golden Gun came out just two years after The
Godfather’s blockbuster success.
And if The Man with the Golden Gun can be said to concern anything, it
is exploiting pop culture trends.
In terms of action, the film’s
big stunt is a car jump featuring a rather unromantic automobile: an AMC
Hornet. While incredibly impressive, the
stunt is over very quickly, and is accompanied by the ludicrous sound of a
slide whistle, a “note” which totally undercuts any sense of shock and awe
regarding the spectacular flip.
Similarly, Scaramanga oversees a
huge island fortress and a giant complex that operates an impressive solar
laser. And he has precisely one henchman (other than Nick-Nack) to control all
that machinery.
Budget cuts?
The greatest problem with The Man
with Golden Gun is not its largely forgettable action, however, it is the
return of an unnecessary and distasteful character. Sheriff J.W. Pepper (Clifton James) is a Louisiana policeman, a raging racist and Southern by the grace of God. And he shows up in The
Man with the Golden Gun…shopping for a new with his wife while on
vacation in Thailand.
So, first of all, why shop for a
car while on your vacation in a foreign country?
And secondly, who believes for
one second that a bigoted, ignorant character like Pepper would leave the
confines of ‘Murica and visit a country in the Far East? (Especially during the Vietnam War...).
It makes no sense, and Pepper’s
presence in the film’s big action scene is a pandering move to bring the
inexplicably popular Archie Bunker-type character back for an encore
performance.
Despite these myriad flaws, what The Man with the Golden Gun does possess in spades is a sense
of timeliness. The film’s McGuffin is
the Solex Agitator, a device that can adapt the power of the sun, and the
ongoing Energy Crisis is name-dropped in the film on at least one occasion.
The film’s action plays in a
world that had just endured the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, with all its
repercussions and frissons. M (Bernard Lee) makes a speech about peak oil, and the need for an alternative energy source if the West is to survive. In the 1980s and 1990s, perhaps this felt like a relic from a different time. Today it seems relevant again.
The Solex
Agitator thus represents one of the most focused attempts by the Bond franchise to
be overtly topical in presentation, though The Living Daylights (1987) involves
an Iran-Contra-type arms deal, and Quantum of Solace (2008) carries an environmental
message.
Although it is widely considered
one of the worst films in the Bond franchise, The Man with the Golden Gun
moves with relative agility and pace, and is more often than not entertaining.
In fact, The Man with the Golden Gun is a whole lot more seamless than
the bloated Diamonds are Forever. This one is close in tone and shape to Moonraker
(1979), perhaps, a Bond film that is sort of funny and sharp, even while at the
same time it is hopelessly silly.
I agree with more-or-less everything you wrote in your very enjoyable post above.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot to like in this much-maligned film, I think. I first saw it on TV as a teenager in the 1980s, right around the time one of the worst films in the series (as you noted above) was released, 1985's "A View to a Kill." But for a film co-starring Christopher Lee and Britt Ekland (reunited after 1973's "Wicker Man"), it's ultimately disappointing for all of the reasons you noted.
As a long-time James Bond fan, I'd only quibble slightly with this introductory sentence in your post. "Although not precisely a good James Bond film, 1974’s The Man with the Golden Gun is not as overtly or consistently unlikable as Diamonds Are Forever (1971), A View to a Kill (1985) or Die Another Day (2002), the three worst franchise outings in 007 history."
Today I base my subjective personal opinions about the various Bond films' quality based primarily on my inclination to watch them again when they're re-aired on TV now. By that measure, 1989's "License To Kill" is far and away the least distinguished film of the series. I've only ever watched it twice. Wayne Newton as the televangelist drug dealer? What a hackneyed (and miscast) Bond villain, with a scheme ripped straight from a middling episode of Miami Vice.
And while I know that "Die Another Day" is a consensus stinker among fans, as with "Man with the Golden Gun," I actually find many things to like about it and would personally replace that film in your Trifecta of Worst with "License to Kill."
Hi anonymous, I'm a big fan of Licence to Kill, so we part opinions on that one. For me, that was a trail-blazer anticipating the Craig Era, and a call for a more realistic Bond film. I like your rubric of judging quality by how often you go back to re-visit. I think the very worst of the bunch is Die Another Day. I've only returned to that one once, and turned it off half-way through. Truly dreadful. A View to a Kill I can get into...perhaps because of Walken. Thank you for the comment.
DeleteI happened to see a quote from Pierce Brosnan recently wherein he dismissed "Die Another Day" as well (and in terms not for off from "truly dreadful," either).
DeleteCoincidentally, I happened to re-watch "A View To A Kill" on TV a year or so ago, for the first time in maybe 20 years. I enjoyed it well enough. But relative to the other Bond films, I think it's fair to place it at or near the bottom. From my perspective, the concept of Zorin as a villain was a good one, and his plot to flood Silicon Valley had a lot of promise as well. But I thought the film was fatally miscast and thereby saddled with a bad actor (Tanya Roberts as a geologist?!?), an over-actor (Grace Jones doing her scenery chewing 'Grace Jones Act' with disruptive gusto), and a Roger Moore who was way too old for the part by that time. (His seduction scenes were particularly cringe-inducing, I remember.)
Live and Let Die was the first Bond movie I ever saw and my reaction to it was similar to what many say about seeing Star Wars for the first time. It was exciting, exhilarating, and mind-blowing to an eight year old tired of cop dramas on TV. I couldn't wait to see The Man with the Golden Gun and dragged my father out on a cold winter's night to see it. I was so disappointed. It seemed so drab, gray, and lifeless. The one high point in the movie was the car flip, but it flashed by so quickly and with so little fanfare, I thought it was faked with a model car. Today, they would have shown it from multiple angles in real speed and slow motion. The penny whistle just put the nail in the coffin! Today I look at it as a middle-of-the-road entry. Watchable, but not memorable. I think Live and Let Die did a nice job of defining the Moore version of Bond and this was kind of a step backward, throwing in some Connery elements that didn't belong. They got back on track with The Spy Who Loved Me.
ReplyDeleteHi Neal,
DeleteI've always really liked Live and Let Die, and need to cover it here for a James Bond Friday at some point. Despite its exploitation of blaxploitation, the film is pretty good, I think. I agree with your assessment of Man with the Golden Gun as watchable but not very memorable. It's okay, but not much more...
I agree with you on this one. Of the three early 70s Bond films, this is the best. It moves at a better pace than "Diamonds", and "Live and Let Die". In addition, Moore fits a bit better in the role in this film.
ReplyDeleteBut as you pointed out the writers still didn't have a handle on what type of humor worked best with Moore. They got the mix perfect in "The Spy Who Loved Me'. Here, it is still hit and miss, especially with his treatment of Andrea.
I think I like Lee in the role better than you did, but I agree his motivations are murky at best. Such great potential here, and they really kind of blew it. I think Lee does a fine job with what he had to work with.
Finally, you are so right about the location shoot in this film. It really is gorgeous looking at times. And Barry's score is pretty nice too. But that song.. man... wow... hilariously bad, as I believe it was supposed to be.
Hi Roman,
DeleteI also think this one is worlds better than Diamonds are Forever...which is just atrocious. I need to re-watch Live and Let Die again. I have always really liked that one (and Moore's Bond is also a bit of a cad in that one...). I feel that Man with the Golden Gun has a lot of interesting ingredients but they don't seem to fit together well in the same movie! Thank you for the comment!
"Diamonds Are Forever" really is bad. I enjoyed reading your prior critique of it, which I thought was spot on. The film definitely fails my personal 'Do I watch it again when it's on TV' test as well.
DeleteHas Las Vegas ever looked less glamorous on film? The scene where Bond catches Willard Whyte on the toilet typifies for me the base and juvenile tone of the entire film. And Willard White himself seemed to be an ill-conceived hybrid of Howard Hughes and the fat, bumbling southern sheriff who appeared in several Bond films of this era, himself a grotesque European caricature of an American.
That being said, I do like a couple of scenes at the end of the film. I thought the mix-up with the tape that Connery sticks in the girl's bikini was vintage Bond. I also liked the very last scene, when Bond and she are on a cruise ship and you think they're sailing off into the sunset (maybe to be interrupted in flagrante delicto by M or Q) only to be attacked by a maniacal Wint and Kidd.
"Golden Gun" is what I like to call a "Franklin Pierce Film". Its inoffensive and unremarkable without being all out bad. My memories of it include being bored with so much padding and the disappointment that Christopher Lee wasn't a "bigger" threat.
ReplyDelete