Diamonds Are Forever question (Connery's graying hair)

Doctor WhoDoctor Who Posts: 62MI6 Agent
Why did the producers allow Connery's hair to be gray in Diamonds Are Forever? Was it an artistic choice? Was it Connery's decision? Or was it just plain laziness. I ask because Connery was only 41 when Diamonds Are Forever was filmed yet he could easily pass for a full ten years older in that film with the combination of his paunch, his untrimmed eyebrows, poor color, and gray hair. He looks twenty years older than the slim, tanned, brown haired Bond we meet in Dr. No. He looks tired and worn out. It's quite astounding, and jarring if you watch YOLT and DAF back to back. Moore was 3 years older than Connery yet looked a good ten years younger in Live and Let Die.
1971_diamonds-are_forever_2.jpg

Comments

  • BarbelBarbel ScotlandPosts: 36,060Chief of Staff
    Connery's own decision, I believe. He's never been one for hair dye.

    As for why the producers allowed it, he had a great deal of power at that point.
  • zaphod99zaphod99 Posts: 1,415MI6 Agent
    I'm old enough to recall tabloid stories that he refused to play ball on a number of fronts. After the Lazenby debacle (not the film itself but his post production look, his reluctance to even attend the premiere...) Connery was in 'take it or leave it 'mode. At one point he was apparently refusing to wear a hairpiece, or even attempt to get into shape. I think his attitude shows in the lazy performance. Sir Roger is my least favourite Bond, but he would have been preferable.
    Of that of which we cannot speak we must pass over in silence- Ludwig Wittgenstein.
  • ChriscoopChriscoop Belize Posts: 10,449MI6 Agent
    I don't mind a of greying, even Dc had a bit of grey in Spectre, I think attitudes are different now from when DAF was made.
    It was either that.....or the priesthood
  • Doctor WhoDoctor Who Posts: 62MI6 Agent
    Another thing with that film is it's color grading is very drab. It's got a very...dreary look. Very distinct from the vibrant colors of YOLT or Live and Let Die, or the warm technicolor of Dr. No.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Chriscoop wrote:
    I don't mind a of greying, even Dc had a bit of grey in Spectre, I think attitudes are different now from when DAF was made.
    considering the attitudes when DAF was made, I'm surprised they didn't give Connery a combover! Nowadays if a Bond actor went bald they would probably just shave his head and be done with it!
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • heartbroken_mr_draxheartbroken_mr_drax New Zealand Posts: 2,073MI6 Agent
    Matt S wrote:
    Chriscoop wrote:
    I don't mind a of greying, even Dc had a bit of grey in Spectre, I think attitudes are different now from when DAF was made.
    considering the attitudes when DAF was made, I'm surprised they didn't give Connery a combover! Nowadays if a Bond actor went bald they would probably just shave his head and be done with it!

    Transporter 007
    1. TWINE 2. FYEO 3. MR 4. TLD 5. TSWLM 6. OHMSS 7. DN 8. OP 9. AVTAK 10. TMWTGG 11. QoS 12. GE 13. CR 14. TB 15. FRWL 16. TND 17. LTK 18. GF 19. SF 20. LaLD 21. YOLT 22. NTTD 23. DAD 24. DAF. 25. SP

    "Better make that two."
  • Gassy ManGassy Man USAPosts: 2,972MI6 Agent
    Doctor Who wrote:
    Another thing with that film is it's color grading is very drab. It's got a very...dreary look. Very distinct from the vibrant colors of YOLT or Live and Let Die, or the warm technicolor of Dr. No.
    The very late 1960s through the mid 1970s was a period where the cinematography tried to be more muted and "gritty," not unlike the period we were in a bit ago where everything seemed to have a blue-gray cast. What's interesting is that it appears the blu-ray Bonds from that period were color-corrected to have the warmer cinematography of the 1950s and 1960s. The films look beautiful and much more appealing to the eye. I don't know if that's the way they originally were or not, but I doubt it because I have books and such from the era, and the photos mimic the dour cinematography of the time.
  • Doctor WhoDoctor Who Posts: 62MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    Doctor Who wrote:
    Another thing with that film is it's color grading is very drab. It's got a very...dreary look. Very distinct from the vibrant colors of YOLT or Live and Let Die, or the warm technicolor of Dr. No.
    The very late 1960s through the mid 1970s was a period where the cinematography tried to be more muted and "gritty," not unlike the period we were in a bit ago where everything seemed to have a blue-gray cast. What's interesting is that it appears the blu-ray Bonds from that period were color-corrected to have the warmer cinematography of the 1950s and 1960s. The films look beautiful and much more appealing to the eye. I don't know if that's the way they originally were or not, but I doubt it because I have books and such from the era, and the photos mimic the dour cinematography of the time.

    I truly hate color correction. Only if it's done to fix a faded negative. But when you try to be creative and alter things from how they originally looked, that to me is like raping history, and it may sound hyperbolic, but it's how I feel. It's altering what was originally presented. Even if DAF's dreary tones are out of sync with the 1960s Connery films, that's part of it's appeal for me; the entire film is perhaps the weirdest entry in the entire series, and it has a very weird, dour mood to match its original color grading. Making this dour film look bright and warm doesn't jibe. The desaturated original colors give the film a gritty, sleazy feel...Which fits with Connery's tired, older looking Bond, sleazy 1970s Las Vegas and the dreary atmosphere of the film overall.
  • Matt SMatt S Oh Cult Voodoo ShopPosts: 6,596MI6 Agent
    Gassy Man wrote:
    Doctor Who wrote:
    Another thing with that film is it's color grading is very drab. It's got a very...dreary look. Very distinct from the vibrant colors of YOLT or Live and Let Die, or the warm technicolor of Dr. No.
    The very late 1960s through the mid 1970s was a period where the cinematography tried to be more muted and "gritty," not unlike the period we were in a bit ago where everything seemed to have a blue-gray cast. What's interesting is that it appears the blu-ray Bonds from that period were color-corrected to have the warmer cinematography of the 1950s and 1960s. The films look beautiful and much more appealing to the eye. I don't know if that's the way they originally were or not, but I doubt it because I have books and such from the era, and the photos mimic the dour cinematography of the time.

    I find that TMWTGG is actually more muted on the Blu-ray than it is on the VHS and DVD releases, though the new sharpness makes it look a lot more appealing regardless of the colours. Dr. No, on the other hand, was made more vibrant on the Blu-ray than it was on the VHS and DVD releases. DN has more vivid blues on the Blu-ray and FRWL has less vivid blues on the Blu-ray. Do you know, would the DVD or colour-corrected Blu-rays be more accurate?
    Visit my blog, Bond Suits
  • walther p99walther p99 NJPosts: 3,416MI6 Agent
    Connery was only 41 in DAF!? Thought he was near 50 at least. He looked like a mess in that movie. A far cry from being lean and mean in Thunderball five or so years earlier. His eyebrows were distractingly bushy and he clearly wasn't keeping himself in shape and as a result I cant really take him seriously as Bond in DAF but there's barely anything in DAF to be taken seriously anyway. He physically looked way better in Never Say Never Again.
  • ToTheRightToTheRight Posts: 314MI6 Agent
    Actually the cinematic prints I've seen of DAF have all been rich in color. Maybe not as colorful as DN, but still up to Bondian Ted Moore standards.
    Some of the DVD transfers have been muted, though. In some home video editions, the mud in the PTS has a kind of greenish hue. In others it's brown. Perhaps a slightly faded print was used as the source?

    I believe the Blu-ray does look reasonably true to the original film in contrasts and hues. In the cinema that Mustang red really sticks out in the gas station sequence. Also the scene by Tiffany's pool- the sky was really bright. Gives the impression it was a very hot day when Plenty was drowned.
    As far as Connery's appearance, I believe he signed on fairly late in the game and really didn't have time to get into Bond shape like he would later for NSNA. Also, the trend then was for a more natural leading man look, hence the bushy brows and slightly longer hair. He's not as neatly tapered at the neck in this film compared to the others, but then again by the early 70's tapered necklines were stating to become out of fashion for a more blocked look.
    I sometimes wonder if Guy Hamilton had anything to do with the toupee chosen in this film, as Bond's hairline is more akin to the way it looked in GF.
  • Doctor WhoDoctor Who Posts: 62MI6 Agent
    ToTheRight wrote:
    Actually the cinematic prints I've seen of DAF have all been rich in color. Maybe not as colorful as DN, but still up to Bondian Ted Moore standards.
    Some of the DVD transfers have been muted, though. In some home video editions, the mud in the PTS has a kind of greenish hue. In others it's brown. Perhaps a slightly faded print was used as the source?

    I believe the Blu-ray does look reasonably true to the original film in contrasts and hues. In the cinema that Mustang red really sticks out in the gas station sequence. Also the scene by Tiffany's pool- the sky was really bright. Gives the impression it was a very hot day when Plenty was drowned.
    As far as Connery's appearance, I believe he signed on fairly late in the game and really didn't have time to get into Bond shape like he would later for NSNA. Also, the trend then was for a more natural leading man look, hence the bushy brows and slightly longer hair. He's not as neatly tapered at the neck in this film compared to the others, but then again by the early 70's tapered necklines were stating to become out of fashion for a more blocked look.
    I sometimes wonder if Guy Hamilton had anything to do with the toupee chosen in this film, as Bond's hairline is more akin to the way it looked in GF.

    Also the longer, bushy sideburns. Not Hippie long, but definitely not conservatively short.
  • VesperMelogranoVesperMelograno The SouthPosts: 901MI6 Agent
    SC looks good with gray hair. Even with it thinning it looks good. As he has shown he can literally be in a red nappy and still look good. The brows could have been a bit more under control but lots of lady like men who are not over groomed.
    I've always wanted to have Christmas in Turkey
  • CmdrAtticusCmdrAtticus United StatesPosts: 1,102MI6 Agent
    I will always had not a "love/hate" feeling about DAF but merely a "slightly like/hate" relationship with it. I hated the weak retreaded Blofeld-ransom the world- plot tacked onto the threads of Fleming's novel. That they went back to Connery just because the previous film didn't make the mountains of cash the previous ones had. That after the wonderful OHMSS they decided to not take the Bonds seriously anymore and just go for stunts and laughs (which paved the way for the Moore era). On first viewing it seemed like I was watching one of Dean Martin's Matt Helm entries with Bond and Blofeld inserted in it.

    Connery's perfomance and appearence in it only dragged it down further for me. He was clearly phoning it in and obviously tired of the character and just played it for the money and yuks. Sure there were a few small ghost scenes from the past, such as the great fight in the elevator - but that was it. Here he was overweight - not in any kind of obviously grotesque way - but enough to clearly not be in the sort of shape for a 00. Even his tailor made suits could not hide this fact. As for his hair? Just as bad. The strange thing to me is that when middle aged men have very dark or black hair and are overweight the dark hair seems to makes their age and weight even more obvious and if they are sporting a toupee it's even more obvious. This is where photography can sometimes save the day.

    In some scenes that are lit in a particular manner and where Connery is framed in the right way, the camera does a better job of flattering his image. In others (and here I mean most of them in the film), he just looks like an out of shape, middle aged office manager - hardly the James Bond of the earlier years. Now contrast that with how he appears in NSNA. Even though he sports a greying toupee (which strangely gets less grey in interior shots and really grey in the outside shots) - he obviously lost weight and is in better shape. I was actually a little shocked when I first saw the film at how much better he appeared than he had in DAF (I liked his performance better in it as well) - and he's twelve years older.
  • walther p99walther p99 NJPosts: 3,416MI6 Agent
    he just looks like an out of shape, middle aged office manager - hardly the James Bond of the earlier years.
    Exactly why I don't care for him at all in this film. He clearly doesn't care to represent the character appropriately in a physical sense so I cant take him seriously as James Bond even if he is Sean Connery.
Sign In or Register to comment.