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
Though I take the point that the defection sequence following it is certainly also a series high in terms of tension and atmosphere. But overall, it's a testament to how strong TLD is as a film that it has those two sequences back to back.
And the scene itself is just outstanding! Definitely ranks as a top five pts in the series for me. You could even make the case it is the best pts outright!
Glen gets a lot of flack around these parts, but the way I see it, 3.5 of his 5 movies were substantially above average (OP gets the .5).
In truth that sequence doesn't really work as well as it does in the book: why would the KGB use a sniper when someone is just crossing a road? If they really thought he was really going to defect by walking to that side of the road, why not have some guys with guns just standing on that side of the road? :D
As a side-note:
Admittedly, I used to be confused by the presence of Pushkin's right hand man in that scene - the goon who rushes into the bathroom and the same guy who Bond later immobilises in Pushkin's hotel room. But, considering Pushkin later states that Koskov was about to be arrested for misusing state funds in any case, that explains why he was there and why he rushes out of the bathroom once Koskov does his runner - though I think the goon is assuming that he's simply evading arrest rather than defecting. It's rather clever on Koskov's part, even if it's a tad reliant on luck and hinges on absolutely perfect timing. But Glen's direction makes it all work, the pacing of it is spot-on. The editing combined with Barry's suspenseful scoring really elevate the entire thing.
The only thing nitpick I really have with the scene, and that's only because I've used a fair bit of them in my time, is the use of a PVS-4 as Bond's night vision scope, or rather more generally the use of any night vision at all; it is completely unnecessary and would have actually hindered him when trying to shoot anything (of course, the audience won't pay much heed to it; they're used to the borderline sci-fi use of such tech in film). He would almost certainly be using a regular scope in those street-lit conditions, for the sake of his eyesight.
Yeah because making strawberry jam of him in the middle of the road is really discreet! :))
That's my point, it doesn't look at all realistic. If they suspected him of escaping across that particular bit of the road so much that they put a sniper right there, they'd have just had another guy standing on the pavement to arrest him, and they wouldn't have allowed him to hop out of the window in the first place. As it was, clearly the sniper knew something which his bodyguards didn't, which doesn't make sense if they're supposed to be working for the same people. Bond should have twigged that. I expect you disagree.
Well, yes, it is - in the sense that it allows the assassin to get away cleaner than it would if they were standing in the middle of a potentially busy street outside a venue. Getting away clean is pretty important, even if they are in friendly-enough territory.
Well, no....in a sense I agree as Bond does twig that, too. His mistrust of Koskov pretty much drives the way he investigates the whole story from that point forward - starting with almost instant recognition that Kara "didn't know one end of a rifle from the other". But even at that, he's not exactly going to stop in the middle of a mission and say "hang on, this is clearly nonsense. Forget about the high-value target, pack it up Saunders." As for people in the organisation not being on the same page (bearing in mind Bond only sees the two in the box and then Kara); that happened quite often, so it's not really unfeasible that the bodyguards wouldn't know about it - had Kara been an actual KGB sniper, of course.
That's the crux of it ultimately, yeah! :)
But it's supposed to look like they are: that's the point. If you present the other side with two sets of people, who are both supposed to be KGB, who don't have the info that the other ones have, it's rather obvious that they're not KGB. One set of KGB are too stupid to stop him hopping out of a bog window, the other set of 'KGB' know for certain that he's going to escape out of there and station a sniper to stop him. It's a shoddy job, and not just because they picked Kara.
Oh look, you disagree.
The KGB don't need to kill him, just grab him. They 'apparently' know exactly where he's making his escape (because 'they' put a sniper right there) so why wouldn't 'they' just grab him and put him in a car, just like the real KGB do later with Kara? Or if they supposedly knew he was going to make a break for it (enough for them to supposedly put a sniper there) why take him to the opera at all? Or is Bond supposed to think they station snipers everywhere Koskov goes?
The scene, as Koskov and Whittaker present MI6 with, doesn't make sense. The sole reason Bond thinks it's wrong is that Kara isn't a sniper, but he doesn't notice that the whole situation is nonsense.
I'll grant you that. But surely that sin is offset by that absolutely brilliant Walther WA 2000? Rare as hen's teeth, those things, and absolutely the business for a 1980s Bond.
I agree with that, certainly.
Oh lord. There's really no need for the narcissism, @mtm. Keep it friendly. I'm only offering up what I believe are reasonable enough explanations based on what I know about the way these things were done, which certainly influenced the sequence. And I did agree with you on the other paragraph. And I agree with you about the pre-titles sequence. So, take it easy for once, yeah?
They didn't "need" to do anything, really. It's not really about what they "need". There are a lot of people that they killed that they didn't need to. They almost always killed assassinated defectors - especially military ones. Modern Russia still does it to civilians today, for heaven's sake! :) If you were really unlucky - or if you were a political prisoner - you got sent to the camps outside Perm. But usually it was quicker to just have them knocked off, usually without warning and with a minimum of fuss (i.e. through sniping, poisoning, or car bombing). So the practicalities of it are not really something that Bond would think too much about. It's not so much "well, why aren't they doing it this way?", more, "well, we know they do this a lot!", so why wouldn't he buy the situation as presented in front of him? Of course he eventually cops on to it, but in isolation, while it is sexed up to add drama, it's not really nonsensical as a hypothetical situation.
Did they take him to the opera? It would be a mighty coincidence for the KGB to take him to the same opera that his secret girlfriend was performing at (and one that he went to before), so I'm assuming that it was Koskov himself who went there of free will with his usual minders (who are terrible, by the way - they seemingly just disappear!) who he has with him everywhere he goes. The other KGB agents, who were there to arrest him on the charges Pushkin later relays to us, weren't part of the same group/unit, whatever you would like to call it. We don't see Pushkin's right hand man until he walks into the toilet, and it's possible Koskov was completely unaware of his presence as he was already in the cubicle! They're not all going to be clued in on things, the same way most MI6 operatives aren't going to be clued in on what Bond is doing at any one time.
Grabbing Kara isn't really comparable, as they grabbed her for a specific reason that necessitated her staying alive (the same reason Bond is after her): finding Koskov. Plus, she's a woman and a civilian, not a Russian general like he is. She's important enough to be kept alive, but not important enough to be assassinated when she could be useful.
Granted, you're right in that the book keeps things a lot simpler and that it has the luxury of being able to make itself fully clear. Though, for me, the film does an admirable job of the sequence.
A beautiful looking gun, that's absolutely true. And even though I make the point about the night-vision, they at least got a couple of very neat shots of Bond looking down the barrel in the scene that wouldn't have been nearly as dramatic with a conventional scope!
The beginning of the film proper departs from the usual briefing sequence that had been the norm since, what, DAF? Instead, we go straight to Bond on a mission and we follow along with him in some real spy work. And even get a Q in the field for something substantial. That was the Bond and atmosphere I'd been longing for as a fan.
I hadn't thought of that, @BT3366! That's interesting.
Yeah yeah, everything I say is wrong. I didn’t read it all I’m afraid.
The crux is, if the KGB were so sure he was going to defect that night (by crossing the road!) they simply would have just arrested him as they were already guarding him. Argue all you like.
It’s a great sequence to watch: like most things in Bond you’re not supposed to think about it so heavily. I only did it for a bit of fun, but that fun has been drained out of it now.
I always think if he’s dressed as a gent, the great big white cuffs he’s showing would be a giveaway! :D I know he gets a mitt to wear but perhaps gauntlets would be better :)
Did you know Tim was pretty much the only Bond to wear off-the-peg suits where all the others got bespoke? His casting really was so last minute they didn’t have time to make them for him.
Man, this is so sad. No wonder you have the reputation you do. This wasn't an argument (I think you had already decided in your head that it was one for no reason), but if you're going to continue with the narcissism then more power to you.
The talk of the bullets, soft nosed versus steel tipped. The "bring the chair" comment. Even the inclusion of "Section 26, paragraph five" as a humorous touch in the dialogue, all great details. I would like to see more of it, too. Quite a lot of Bond's time is spent being reactionary (especially these days), whereas that TLD is him being part of a plan that has been designed and executed by his side, and features him as a part in a well-oiled espionage machine. I love that stuff.
I think the only sequence that comes close in terms of stealthy spymanship is when he is following Patrice in Shanghai in SF, and even that is a different kettle of fish altogether.
I'd agree with you there. A smaller scale approach allows the film to breathe momentarily and to build towards a stronger narrative than guns and explosions. Of course by the time TWINE came along the idea of returning to a 1960s or early 1970s style Bond PTS had gone out of the window. It must've been felt that that sort of opening for a Bond film didn't quite cut the mustard any more. This was in the context of each Bond PTS frantically trying to be bigger and better than the one that immediately preceded it. The problem with the TWINE PTS is that I think too many ideas and too much action was crammed into it. It became a mini movie in itself rather than the start of a movie. I agree that it would've been nice had the TWINE PTS ended in Bilbao but that just wasn't the done thing at the time. I suppose many cinemagoers would have been disappointed at how "tame" the PTS was if it had ended there.
It's interesting to think that in only two films later with CR we had a return to the smaller scale PTS again, not really seen since the early 1970s in Guy Hamilton's last three Bond films. In that sense CR was a reboot in more ways than one.
Yes, another aspect I love about that Bratslava sequence. That assassin tux outfit was such a cool little detail during that first viewing. All those touches are a nice nod to Fleming, just one of the standout sequences in the series. Makes me want to watch this film again right now and hope for more of those little details in the future as well. I'll trade a big action sequence for some of those memorable touches any time.
Much obliged @CommanderRoss. Your addition is quite right! :)
I might just end up watching it again tonight, too!
I completely agree! Not with the brother thing, which is always lazy in my opinion, but with Blofeld not being the proper guy for this. Considering the tone of the film, heck even Willard Whyte would've made a better and more suitable villain. DAF feels to me like a '70s TV production anyway, and that whole "it's Blofeld doing all of it in the shadows" plot just doesn't fit the tone of the movie. A Bobby Ewing kinda guy would have been more suitable. The diamond-powered satellite is a lame excuse for a climax anyway. Just a simple case of diamond smuggling would have sufficed. (LALD was just about drugs being smuggled into the States too.) And for that, we don't need a Blofeld and not even a Goldfinger but just a rich man trying to get richer.
Oh don't get me wrong: Goldfinger's twin would have been a terrible idea in it's own right, I'm just saying that a Goldfinger type character suits Vegas better. As much as I'm not a fan of evil businessmen, one would have worked better here. Blofeld is a villain for remote locations like Piz Gloria or inconspicuous ones like that Paris meeting place. Not for Vegas.
Good point, and as I think of it, I agree. I prefer the PTS to be more about style than bombast. I like a moment that shows us a bit of flair, or cheek, or luck - from a cocked eyebrow to a union jack parachute - rather than a longer, pulse-pounding chase or fight.
Some fisticuffs are fine. And you could argue that skiing off the cliff in the TSWLM was a huge stunt. But it's also the way it was pulled off - it's actually a brief scene, and the jump itself is silent . . . the payoff isn't an explosion or a death, but the style moment of the parachute.
Should have been a mafia run plot point.