What I found to be the most interesting thing about The Man With the Golden Gun is how the facts surrounding 007's reputation in the story coincide the facts surrounding James Bond's reputation to audiences. In other words, just as Bond does quite little within this movie to justify his being the world's top secret agent and seems to be riding the waves from his past, so does Roger Moore's popularity ride on the coattails of the legend created by Sean Connery. And Bond's being the best is quite central to the story, as this is the very reason Francisco Scaramanga wants to kill him; that is, to prove that he himself is the best. What is woefully missing from the movie is any demonstration of how either of these two men of action is the best at what they do. There are three examples of Scaramanga performing his occupation. The first is during the opening sequence in which his small butler, Nick Nack, pays an assassin to kill Scaramanga. The fact that Scaramanga is able to defeat his would-be assassin seems to rely more on rigged trickery rather than elite skills. The second is a short-range sniper shot. The third is a point blank shooting in cold blood. None of these killings is very impressive. As for Bond (and this seems to be a theme among the Moore era), it seems that his ability to survive rests more upon luck and the incompetence of his adversaries than anything else. Though it is necessary and proper that Scaramanga intentionally spares Bond until he can face him in a duel, the case in which Bond gets captured and not killed fits the stereotype that Bond should be dead but for villains wanting him to die in over-the-top traps. He cannot even credit Q Branch with this escape. (It is curious that though Q is in multiple scenes in this film, he doesn't provide Bond with any gadgets that I can recall.) Also interesting to me is when Bond is confronted with the nature of his work by Scaramanga: "You work for peanuts, a hearty 'Well done!' from her Majesty, the Queen, and a pittance of a pension. After that, we are the same." Though the story about compensation seems to conflict with Bond's taste in wine and choice of automobiles, it is the case that he assassinates with the blessing of the State. Does such a blessing change the moral nature of his acts? Clearly, there are situations in which Bond justly kills in self-defense or to prevent mass murders. But there are also times in which if he had not had his license to kill, he would be considered criminal. Bond seems somewhat defensive when called out regarding this. This subject will be explored in more detail as we continue with this review series. In sum, what is memorable about The Man with the Golden Gun is the dwarf, the three nipples, the Stuntman-reminiscent corkscrew jump, and that silly golden one-shooter. Not much else.
