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
It's a nice shot (looks great in the Spectre titles), but it also looks like an Evanescence video or something.
Bond's emotional conflict isn't all that apparent while he's running around shooting. He's straight-up angry. Some amount of conflict comes into play when he finds her drowning, but it's more a shift in his mood. In any case, it happens when he finds her anyway. And Vesper's motivations are pretty damn opaque in the moment, unless one reads the content of the novel into it, or thinks ahead to M's inadequate and inexplicable explanation.
I mean, did Vesper go out intending to kill herself or did she act spontaneously upon seeing James? She did leave the phone for him, so I guess it was planned? I guess she lucked out with that elevator? Why was it so important to her that her last act be handing over that money? Was she afraid they would kill her before she could do it herself? Did she still care about the boyfriend or not? Did she think these blackmailers are so honorable as to not kill her boyfriend or go after Bond even after she's dead? I don't think I'm being a Vulcan about it, it's really just not very clear, and M, who doesn't even know Vesper, doesn't really explain this well and shouldn't be the source of exposition on it anyway.
I know desperate people do weird, inexplicable things, but we've already applied that excuse to the host of nonsensical decisions made by Le Chiffre. The emotional beats all have the right vibe, and I admit that appears to carry the day for most viewers, but the fact that nobody ever seems able to lay out what Vesper or Le Chiffre thought they were doing suggests it could have been done more than a little better.
To be fair, I would say that the way the film leads into the action sequence does legitimately work in the sense that the audience learns of Vesper's betrayal with Bond. If you're not familiar with the novel's ending you'd probably feel that sense of what Bond is going through. And for what it's worth I do get that idea of Bond being conflicted (Craig's performance at the very least gives me more than just 'he's angry')
Also, I get what you're saying. The third act of Casino Royale has a lot of contrivances, and much of it is due to having to adapt the source material for a modern film. The problem is they aren't questions most viewers of this film think or feel, and I suspect it's because they're generally emotionally invested in what's going on. I mean, I figured Vesper still cared about the boyfriend, was put in a difficult situation/was forced to give over the money, and when the opportunity for an 'out' presented itself she took it. Is it contrived, even unbelievable to an extent on paper? Perhaps. But the film sells it. Again, I'm not a fan of the sinking house, but the way they portray Vesper's death onscreen, Green and Craig's acting, the music, cinematography etc. does have an impact on me.
At the end of the day, films can get away with a lot of these issues if the audience is emotionally invested. In that sense CR's last act works.
I sort of agree there. It certainly worked for me the first time!
There you go. I'd say the same, despite my problems with the film looking back. I suppose it's a fine line for most viewers between being invested and completely taken out of the movie when it comes to these things. And not everyone has the exact same reaction necessarily.
Yes, she acted spontaneously. She was either going to hand over the money and potentially be killed anyway, or fail and be caught which would arguably be worse as she would guarantee her boyfriend's demise. So yeah, it's a decision made in the moment.
The logical explanation for this is that Bond would have ended up with the phone anyway, irrespective of whether Vesper was killed, caught or committed suicide. Perhaps that could have been conveyed better, for sure, but it seemed pretty obvious to me that it was going to end up with Bond and lead him to White regardless of the outcome.
An odd way of putting it to say the least, but yes.
I'm not sure why this is even a question. The fact that she goes to hand over the money at all is obvious evidence that she did indeed care for her boyfriend. Her falling for Bond wouldn't negate that - unless you're going to imply that loving one person means she would be happy for another loved one to die, which would be weird. The fact that Yusef turned out to be an utter fraud is the twisted knife that makes her so tragic.
People being blackmailed, especially to the extent that Vesper was, don't think on these terms. They just do what they're told. There's no bad writing there at all, just human psychology. Why would a screenplay spend time on her thought process when these things are obvious? Vesper's emotional fragility throughout the entire film is obvious. It's also why, even more so than in the Fleming novel, her romance with Bond is understandable. A vulnerable person under extreme duress will seek warmth and comfort, and most importantly safety. Bond provided that for her, which is why she fell in love with him.
I think a reason people have issues with this is because they can't shake the novel's way of dealing with it out of their heads. The film handles it differently but no less effectively.
One thing I really love about Eva Green's performance is, if the audience is paying attention, she beautifully conveys she's on edge, as if she is hiding something. In the scene on the beach when Bond admits he loves her, she looks surprised, as if she never thought it would go that far. "You love me?" she asks. And she continues to hint at her inner turmoil during the Venice scenes, but Bond, infatuated with Vesper, doesn't pick up on her tension - her burden of guilt because she still has to deliver the money to the bad guys - she knows she still has to betray Bond.
That's why the ending works so well, because the audience has been given clues before Bond knows that Vesper has done a deal with Mr. White's side, but, once she's trapped in the sinking lift, she knows there is no coming back from what she did - even if she did it for Bond and to save their lives and relationship. She basically did a deal with the Devil from which there is no escape - hence her haunted and frightened look as she sinks to her death with Bond struggling to reach her. It's brilliantly staged, acted and directed. The audience is emotionally and dramatically invested in these climatic scenes. And that's always the most important thing.
And it's a bit sad that Madeleine followed this woman, which was disappointing.
Because all of those written above (your comment), that's really Vesper, that's how her character was written, she had an inner depth, that suddenly Madeleine lacked
That's one of the reasons why the relationship worked with Vesper and Bond, while not with Bond and Madeleine, and it will always be compared to the former.
As much as I'm not that a fan of ending (the handling of it, especially the sinking house, and Eva Green's scary face), if one may look at Vesper's arc (her story), it really worked.
Well, it's widely thought that she left the phone behind to help Bond (it says 'For James'!) and knew she was going out to die. M seems to have thought so, even though she has even less of a chance of knowing than we do. The Wikipedia explanation of the plot even says it. People do not even know when she decided to kill herself, not you, not me, not the Wiki editor. I'm not sure why it should be that way.
And I tried to explain that I understand that desperate people do weird things, such as believe that murderous blackmailers have an honor system they follow even after their blackmail victim is dead, but we've already explained away so much goofy behavior from Le Chiffre (talking to the audience, thinking he should use the Treasury's account number), that I wonder if we couldn't just have characters who practice explicable decision making? The book tells a pretty similar story, but there I get why people are doing things.
Sure, I get that. Except, emotionally hysterical or not, it seems really bizarre to think that these guys are honoring commitments after you're dead. Like really weird. "Let him go, boys, Vesper paid the money!" "But he's seen all of our faces, we should really just kill him, because we have no issues killing people!" "No, no, I made a promise to this lady who is now dead, and I'm gonna keep it." It's just weird.
No. I wouldn't want a straight adaptation of the novel, just something that has an explanation for what the characters are thinking beyond 'oh, they're not thinking clearly.'
You don't have to pay attention to see this! It's done repeatedly, and is as clear as Le Chiffre's direct address to the audience.
Not just in CR, it happened in many films that's faithfully adapted from the source material (FRWL, GF and OHMSS) for example also did this.
They're very much explained.
Which is why it’s too bad the film version never allows her to tell her side of the story. It all has to come from M’s conjecture. So even though we’re supposed to take her word and wisdom on why Vesper did what she did, it’s still only conjecture.
Oh yes, suddenly putting them both in the watery depths isolated from the world above was pretty much genius. No less Bond confronted with her death first hand, him committing absolutely to saving her and failing completely.
An epic screen death for the ages.
You don't have to pay attention to see this! It's done repeatedly, and is as clear as Le Chiffre's direct address to the audience.
[/quote]
It's just that your comments, as they are, don't seem to reflect what is actually played out on screen.
Exactly. And thank you for all your posts on this topic. Pointing out the blemishes on a sacred cow is not the most popular job in the world but someone has to do it.
You're right, there is no 'tonal shift' in the end sequence. Bond is in a fight for his life in a sinking house, then has a fight to save the woman he loves who betrayed him. There's no jokes or humour in the entire third act.
Of all the Craig films, CR with regards to tone is the most consistent.
Agreed. She is fantastic in the film and the script does her justice. Also she has really great chemistry with Craig.
I think I could watch an entire Bond film of just those two talking on the train...
For example?
My favourite scene in CR, mate. Which is saying something as there are so many! Fantastic seeing it on the big screen again last week, simply sublime Bond film!
Glad you got to see it on the big screen again mate. The film demands it!
I have a ticket for the CR in concert at the Albert Hall in November. Really looking forward to it, as I missed the last one.
Or was it the King Charles Theatre.
I'm a little confused.
Oh, I disagree. I think she made a bold acting choice. It's very haunting.
Yes, it's very hard to watch, in a good way.
Good to know @CraigMooreOHMSS
I was gutted I missed it, so I've made sure I get to experience it this year 👍