It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ 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
In the following tale Bond indeed goes after the bad guys. But in Fleming's CR the end consists of a humiliated, angry, and powerless Bond shouting into a phone that the woman he once loved is nothing more than a traitorous bitch. It is the fulfillment of Mathis's line about Bond needing to remain a machine, but at the cost of his humanity. There is no consolation for the audience--Vesper does not leave an important clue that allows Bond to defeat a bad guy at the end and look cool in his three-piece suit wielding a monster-size gun as he lords it over the villain. As with OHMSS, CR ends in a moment of complete emotional defeat for Bond. The bad guys get away, Bond gets nothing but a broken heart.
I understand why the film of CR decided to go with an uplifting ending, even if I don't agree with it. Cutting to the "The End" right after "The bitch is dead now" would have shocked and blindsided mass audience used to conventional Bond films. So I appreciate OHMSS for having the sort of ending that we will never see in a Bond film again. No consolation, no bright side. Just tragedy.
Regarding no consolation, not so with Casino Royale the book. There is consolation through Bond redirecting to commit to MI6 and going after the bad guys. Understanding the Red Indian lecture. He's fully charged and ready for a mission, in part through rage. Effective in a different way for me.
[Also, the Vesper of the book does give clues for Bond as she can. The Paris number was Invalides 55200. Everything done through a newsagent at 450 Charing Cross Place. In line with the message left on the phone.]
It's my favorite Fleming novel, while I also recognize several improvements the filmmakers made to put it on screen. One is the torture scene where Bond isn't simply trying hold out long enough to survive, drifting in and out of consciousness, hoping against all hope to be saved. Instead, Bond in the film manipulates his torturer into losing control. The villain is not getting the password or the money. Bond wins.
It's also better storytelling for Bond to be confronted firsthand with Vesper's death, a suicide. He does everything possible to save her and fails absolutely, the sacrificial lamb of all time.
So that's how I took events.
Rather meager consolation though. Bond understands the Red Indians lecture because he now realizes he's made a fool of himself and Vesper has caused untold damage to the secret service. The book ends on a note of unrecoverable loss and rage, not triumph. The enemy is still victorious, even if Bond has realized he needs to fight Smersh rather than ordinary spies. He's less ready for a mission than consumed with excessive emotion.
And as I wrote, "Vesper does not leave an important clue that allows Bond to defeat a bad guy at the end." As she admits, "I can't tell you much to help you."
I recognize the torture scene as a disimprovement. Fleming's torture scene is scary because Bond is driven to a point of exhaustion and breakdown so thorough he can barely even speak. He's helpless and utterly at the mercy of his nemesis. But of course the film took the the Hollywood route and gave Bond various quips. Showing Bond alert enough to trade ripostes with the villain removes the sense of helplessness and despair that makes the book's torture sequence so nightmarish.
It's dramatically redundant, smothered in a big action sequence, and removes the shock of Vesper's death, especially after the couple seemed to have reconciled. Nor is Vesper a sacrificial lamb. She's a doomed character, a betrayer who knows no hope is left for her. The film pointlessly has Bond trying to save a character who can't be saved, and since he's failing to do what Brosnan did earlier in DAD and TND this Bond just comes out looking weaker. By contrast, in OHMSS there really isn't anything Bond could have done to save Tracy, since her death resulted from a surprise attack.
The film of CR is tonally mixed-up too. In the book, Bond's love for Vesper is extinguished when he learns of her betrayal. Yet in the film we're meant to feel Bond's sense of loss when he fails to save her, which implies some lingering love for her, after learning she's a traitor. But then the filmmakers crowbar in the "bitch is dead" line one scene later, which was originally meant to show his love for her was dead. I'm happy to acknowledge CR as one of the very best Bond movies, but as a Fleming adaptation I think it has some major flaws.
I will go with the controversial route and claim that CR is one of Fleming´s weaker novels and that the film is in fact an improvement on the story. Yes, there I said it. Sue me...
Perhaps in the case of the movie, but not in the book:
"He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later, perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sentimental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done. His professional mind was completely absorbed with the consequences--the covers which must have been blown over the years, the codes which the enemy must have broken, the secrets which must have leaked from the centre of the very section devoted to penetrating the Soviet Union."
The "wonderful machine" gets back to work.
That's true. Fleming's intimate, claustrophobic thriller, originally written for a sophisticated audience, was adapted into a franchise that had grown into a purveyor of larger-than-life mass-audience action film extravaganzas. Judged strictly as a modern Bond film, CR is one of the best of its kind. A more faithful adaptation would have puzzled much of the modern audience for Bond films, and probably would have possible only before the 1964 release of GF, which is when Ben Hecht wrote his relatively faithful adaptation of CR.
Movie Vesper is definitely a richer character than book Vesper, I'll happily grant that. "Insignificant" is not the right word for such an important character, but even Kingsley Amis thought Vesper was "insipid." But Amis also thought CR was probably Fleming's best book. And part of the shock of its last line is that there's no doubt Bond means it, whereas in the film it's not as convincing or startling, because of its awkward placement.
That's right, though it did take more than half a decade for Bond to lose his negative feelings. Vesper's later mention likely derived from Fleming having reread his previous books before starting GF.
I'm not sure if the filmmakers had Fleming's example very much in mind, Haggis was obviously more of a LeCarre man, whereas Purvis & Wade definitely knew their Fleming, but I believe most of their work was discarded for QoS. Putting all that aside, I do agree that the film did a good job of resolving Bond's feelings over Vesper. I certainly found the sequel aspects of QoS more interesting than the Bolivian water rights wrangle.
FYEO is fine if a bit vanilla. Still a good spy romp but its finale has always bored me a bit.
TND has that power of mass media angle, relevant even today, and up to the underwater scenes I enjoy it quite a lot. Then they get to Saigon and it's non-stop noisy action until the credits roll.
SP has a mysterious atmosphere and great locations, Rome is my favourite city on this planet, but when they get to Blofeld's lair it starts to fire one mishit after another, with Fostergate as its worst sin.
I guess I'm trying to express my appreciation for three films that I rate near the bottom but where I do find a lot to like despite poor choices near the end.
I also am not a fan of the last third of SF, save for the prologue, which feels pure Bond.
Yes absolutely true.
I think that's fair. The climaxes / third acts of the Craig era aren't their strong suit.
I'd argue climaxes/third acts is not a strong suit of the franchise as a whole. They are usually the weakest in most Bond films regardless of which era we're talking about.
Maybe, but there have been some great ones. FRWL, OHMSS, YOLT, FYEO, GE come to mind for me personally.
Speaking of great climaxes, LTK is surely among the greater ones, if not the very best of them.
Overseen by none other than Barbara Broccoli.
SF and GE, not so much!
Agreed. An area that the Craig era lacks. Why can’t we have a full LALD underwater sequence straight from the novel. It’s begging to be filmed IMO.
+1
Even though I like CR's climax, I do agree with this statement.
I'd argue climaxes/third acts is not a strong suit of the franchise as a whole. They are usually the weakest in most Bond films regardless of which era we're talking about.[/quote]
I've felt the same thing for years. SP is the biggest non-climactic offender, IMO. It's the ride getting there that I get the most pleasure from in a Bond film. Those examples from other posters above as to strong finishes I'll go with.
It makes one ponder why they don't just come up with something as captivating for the ending as far as huge stunt to cap the thing rather than for the precredit teaser.