Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
FRWL question...
AgentJamesBond007
Vesper’s grave
Red Grant, Rosa Klebb, or Blofeld... who was the main villain in the film? Seriously, I have no clue ~X(
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Primary: Red Grant as he is in the film more than Klebb
Secondary: Klebb is secondary as she had less screentime and finally appears in the end to stop Bond and steal the Leitor(Sp?).......
I'd actually say Kronsteen, because the entire plan of stealing the Lektor, letting Bond acquire it, kill him, and then take the Lektor to sell back to the Soviets was made by him. In fact, at that first meeting aboard Blofeld's yacht, Blofeld says, "Welcome, let's hear what #5 (Kronsteen) has planned for us." Everything that went on was because of Kronsteen's plan; Rosa Klebb and Red Grant were just pieces on the game board to carry out the plan.
I still say Grant, because a plan is only as good as the pawns upon which it relies upon. And Kronsteen was arrogant and paid for it, so he wasn't villainous at all, he just had a high upon of himself that in the end made him believe he was superior over Bond. Grant was on site getting the plan to work, while Kronsteen merely wrote the plan up. The true villainy of a plot is in the enactment, not in the planning.
The others were merely following orders, Shaw had the most screen time possibly, Lenya must rival that, Sheybal was not on screen for long, the least of the trio by some distance. Both Shaw and Lenya had golden opportunites at one stage or another to kill Connery but blew it. It was an interesting question by the author though that aroused some debate, and a variety of answers
Most Bond films have that larger than life bad guy. He may be an imposing character like Auric Goldfinger or Blofeld or he may be soft and weak (Georgi Koskov, Whitaker).
FRWL is unique that it has such a great gallery of rogues with no definitive and classic bad guy.
Blofeld, Kronsteen and Klebb were part of the bigger picture as the higher up villains but they weren't the main villains for the movie. That's like saying, the prime minister or M is the real hero of the Bond movies but that's not the case at all.
When I see the movie, I always think of Grant as the main villain -as the one Bond no matter what have to defeat to complete the mission. However, thinking about the plan on it's own, you can come to the conclusion, like @OHMSS69 has. You can say that Bond has to defeat an organisation, not a person - or an evil mastermind, if you like.
I was just about to say that Blofeld is surely the main villain but the point you make about M is a very good one which therefore rules him out.
It has to be Klebb then. She is the main person in charge. Grant and Morzeny answer to her even if Kronsteen doesnt. Kronsteen is more a consultant than part of the direct chain of command and Grant (despite his longer screen time) is basically Klebbs hencman - a thinking mans Stamper if you like. Certainly in the book he comes across very much as SMERSHs blunt instrument and in the film he does a lot of menial tasks at Klebbs behest - killing the guy in the car, the Bulgarian in the mosque, watching Bonds back.
I also have a couple of other questions:
1. Who is the guy in the photo that Klebb instructs Tania to 'Do whatever he says?' - the only person I can think of is some intermediary of Klebbs at the Russian Embassy who passes orders to Tania and we never see.
2. What is M supposed to have said in between walking through the door from Moneypennys office to his own that elicits the reponse from Bond'But I've even never heard of a Tatiana Romanava?'.
If he'd said 'Have you ever heard of Tatiana Romanava 007?', Bond would just say 'Yes or 'No I've never heard of her.'
Nitpicking to the extreme I know and I'm aware its there for the audiences benefit but I've always found this a clunky piece of dialogue.
don't forget about Kronsteen too - who came up with the plan...
it depends on how you view things, in terms of screen time, Grant would be the main villain, as he's the first threat we see (during his training) and his pursuit of Bond through the film.....
but in terms of the story, Blofeld is the one calling the shots - Grant answers to Klebb, and Klebb and Kronsteen both answer to Blofeld.
I think he's got a valid point.
the picture is of Bond, the conversation about "lovers" and "being in love", and if she wasn't in love, then having a casual affair would depend on the man - which leads to Klebb showing her the photo of Bond..... much like the photo M gave him of Romanova.... Bond even makes light of situation by saying something along the lines of "... a Russian cipher clerk falling in love with a file photo of British agent.. unless she's mental."... i can't remember the exact line.
it would've had to been something along the lines of "we were contacted by a Russian clerk named Tatiana Romanova, who says she knows you." - or something close to those lines.. i can only imagine dialog close to that, to get that response from Bond.
I think it's something more like "it sounds so delusional it might just be true". To which Bond then looks at a picture of Romanova and you could argue the exact same thing happens to him.
They're Bond being played - a great plot device.
i had the same reaction Bond did in his head when seeing the photo.... "DAAMN!" lmao. :-D
I would also have assumed that the photo would be of Bond but why would Klebb say 'from now on you are to do whatever he says'.
I know Tanias effectively a honey trap and Klebbs a bitch but surely you would phrase the mission a bit differently?
because the mission (or so Romanova thought) was to mislead british intelligence... for how long was uncertain - but it was more or less, her being instructed to go along with whatever Bond tells her to - to keep up the appearance of her defection.
Anyway heres another one then:- Why does Grant say 'the first wont kill you, not the second, not even the third'?
Its supposed to look like suicide. Why would Bond shoot himself in the kneecap first? Is Grant drunk on his own power and has lost his professionalism or is he just taunting Bond?
- well, technically, it would be Bond giving her orders would it not? or instructions.... regardless, it IS Bond in the photograph - after all, Klebb pretty much asks if she'd be willing to sleep with him based off his photograph... i doubt she would ask the same for a ranking contact..... also keep in mind - according to Klebb, no one else knows of the 'mission' not even within Smersh - as she told Tania that no one not even at the Russian consulate is to know that she is there, or else Tania will be shot - and the only person Tania is supposed to report to is her, no one else....
EDIT** - i just looked at the quote, and your right....
"Wish you could see the headlines, "British agent murders beautiful Russian spy, then commits suicide."
so yes... i think at the point where Grant tells Bond "the first one wont kill you.." and so on... he is getting drunk off his own ego and pride - and is now set out to humilate Bond more than making it look like he committed suicide... to prove that he is superior to 007.
The old Pan Fleming paperbacks promote Klebb as the lead villain as well.
I agree, Dimi.
I think we are mixing the terms Antagonist, and Villain here.
To me, the main antagonist is Grant whereas the Villain is SPECTRE