Looking Back: Cold
John Gardner's fourteenth James Bond 007 novel
Looking Back: Cold
#1
Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:33 AM
#2
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:33 AM
And a hell of a book to collect.
#3
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:55 AM
#4
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:56 AM
#5
Posted 07 September 2005 - 03:00 AM
They'll be continuing with the Raymond Benson series next.
#6
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:03 AM
#7
Posted 07 September 2005 - 10:56 AM
I have always liked Cold. I like the structure and the continuity. Yes it is a break from typical Gardner (whom I generally like) and he was very ill when he "wrote" this book.
Two observations about (potential) inaccuracies in the round up:
1) HALO jump used in TND was an idea deleted in a different form from Goldeneye. In the way it is written, there may be an inference that one medium begat the other, which could be misleading. Of course, it is fine if it is just pointing out eventual similarities.
2) Elektra King did NOT suffer from Stockhom Syndrome. In fact, Victor Zokas fell for Elektra. This is not the same as what occurs in Cold.
Edited by ACE, 07 September 2005 - 01:06 PM.
#8
Posted 07 September 2005 - 12:45 PM
Spynovelfan, is such a low figure the norm in situations like this?
#10
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:11 PM
#11
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:22 PM
At some point, it can take sales of 400 copies in a week to make the Sunday Times Fiction Hardback bestseller lists.
Get 'em while you can...
ACE
#12
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:29 PM
#13
Posted 07 September 2005 - 01:35 PM
I might be able to parlay them into a Brioni suit. And a first of Colonel Sun!
#14
Posted 07 September 2005 - 04:51 PM
#16
Posted 07 September 2005 - 08:56 PM
Yes Victor Zokas did fall for Elektra. But I do believe that Elektra did suffer from Stockhom Syndrome as well.2) Elektra King did NOT suffer from Stockhom Syndrome. In fact, Victor Zokas fell for Elektra. This is not the same as what occurs in Cold.
[mra]It was only assumed the Elektra may have suffered from Stockholm Syndrome. It wasn
#17
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:01 PM
#18
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:10 PM
#19
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:14 PM
Been a while since I watched TWINE, but: I realise that the twist is that Renard loves her, but how does that alter the fact that Elektra had Stockholm Syndrome? He kidnapped her - yet she's loyal to him. That's the definition, I think. Or did I forget something? Did she only pretend to be kidnapped or something? Help me out - I'm intrigued.
But it is he who is loyal to her. Her sleeping with Bond is evidence that she was not loyal to him.
#20
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:16 PM
#21
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:23 PM
Hadn't thought of that. Is she disloyal to him otherwise, though? Isn't she still *on his side*? She sleeps with Bond, but she's not on Bond's side. Unless I've forgotten stuff. Which is possible. But sexual fidelity and loyalty aren't necessarily the same thing.
Renard was clearly shaken by the fact she was with Bond. I would say she never was truly loyal to him, but as I believe the film says she turned, seduced, and used Renard to gain her freedom and seek her revenge.
#22
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:27 PM
Man, TWINE was *complex*. Especially when you don't remember it well.
#23
Posted 07 September 2005 - 09:39 PM
Okay, interesting. I really can't remember enough of it. But didn't Renard kidnap her when she was a teenager or something? Perhaps this is all explained, but are we expected to believe that she faked that she hated Renard to everyone in the world, but faked that she had Stockholm Syndrome to Renard so she could, 10 years or whatever later, use him in a dastardly ploy to kill her father and nab some of the oil the Kuwaitis don't have, or whatever? Surely she *had* Stockholm Syndrome - but the twist is that in the interim the power dynamic has changed, and he's fallen for her, and she's recovered and plans to use that.
Man, TWINE was *complex*. Especially when you don't remember it well.
She never pretended to or actually had Stockholm Syndrome. Stockholm Syndrome was only the theory for why she would be working with Renard. In truth it was much more sinister. Renard suffered Feline Whippedness syndrome. She turned him against the other kidnappers involved after she was kidnapped. She was in control of him.
#24
Posted 07 September 2005 - 10:07 PM
Elektra was kidnapped by Renard. Renard fell for Elektra during the kidnapping (perhaps he raped her or something to that effect during that time as well). Then as a defense mechanism Elektra fell to Stockholm Syndrome. This causes her to become angry with her father (and M, obviously) for not saving her from Renard sooner.
So Elektra, having Stockholm Syndrome, also used Renard to get revenge on her father for letting her fall victim to Renard. She's not loyal to him (though he is to her) because she doesn't love him, but that doesn't mean she doesn't show signs of Stockholm Syndrome: the psychological tendency of a hostage to bond with, identify with, or sympathize with his or her captor. "There's no point in living if you can't feel alive." That quote alone shows that Elektra has identified with Renard. It all ads up to one sick and twisted relationship.
#25
Posted 07 September 2005 - 10:11 PM
#26
Posted 08 September 2005 - 12:56 AM
1) It is assumed, by Bond, that Elektra suffered Stockholm Syndrome, but this scene assumes that she is following Renard's orders. It turns out Renard is following hers to the point of sacrifice.
2) In the scene on the chair, Bond reveals "You turned him." It is said in a revelatory manner and the line reading is the twist (see points 1 and 5)
3) Elektra claims she has a power over men. She used her body to convert Renard. She doesn't fall in love with him or submit to Stockholm Syndrome. She knows exactly what she is doing. This is echoed in her relationship with Bond.
4) Assuming she had issues with her father before she was kidnapped (she feels her family was swindled of their oil reserves - I think the novelization picks up on this), the fact that her father did not rescue her immediately only strengthened her resolve.
5) "There's no point in living if you can't feel alive" is Elektra's motto. She is a wild, wayward, spoiled child. She was never the pampered, shut away princess - P&W are on record saying they wrote her with Tracy in mind, a point echoed in her ski costume. Renard has taken her words and in his present condition, has real empathy with them. The quote is presented in the film at first to seem like Renard's but if 2 above is correct then he has actually followed her thoughts.
6) Elektra probably planned this whole scheme when she was kidnapped and afterwards. Having her kidnapper fall in love with her and being a terrorist, he was handy to have around. As a puppy dog lover to enforce against other pipelines perhaps and when wounded (eventually fatally) the perfect person to perform the ultimate suicide mission of manning the doomed submarine.
7) Elektra is effectively the main villain and Renard the henchperson.
8) The whole film is somewhat based on the fact that SHE turned HIM. Hence, the opposite of Stockholm Syndrome. Helsinki Syndrome, perhaps? I don't think it is confusing (but it obviously must be considering the debate here and the persons debating it) but I always thought it was one of the clever things in the film. But please see it again and re-evaluate your response.
Edited by ACE, 08 September 2005 - 01:06 AM.
#27
Posted 08 September 2005 - 08:17 AM
Finally - and it is a while! - I seem to remember the implication that she'd been 13 or something when she was kidnapped. The idea that at that age Elektra could have submitted to rape and used *that* as her own power against her abuser, and that in fact Renard has Stockholm Syndrome (because it's loyalty to someone who dominates you) is seriously scary, and quite brilliant. That this didn't come across to me when I watched the film could be because I was just being a bit slow, or it could be something to do with expectation - other parts of the script weren't nearly as clever as that. Sophie Marceau in the role also didn't seem to me so villainous - the scenario you and MIster* have outlined would make her character so seriously evil, but I just can't see it in the way she played it. Again, possibly a problem with having a late twist, because the audience (or me!) is so used to Elektra being the sexy French damsel that to have us imagine the above in a couple of lines of dialogue, no flashbacks to it or anything, in the midst of the usual set scenes and one-liners, is perhaps too much to hope for. I'll have to watch it again, though, because I think I've probably understimated the script - I do like the idea that she's *that* evil. Didn't occur to me at all.
#28
Posted 08 September 2005 - 09:18 AM
1) He has fallen for her: Before the Stockholm Syndrome speech, he has got to know about her. Beginning with his guilt over not saving King, her bravery at the funeral, the weight of M's support, the way she handles the rioting villagers, the way she skis, her vulnerability post avalanche, her passion, "there's no point in living if you can't feel alive" - surely a motto he himself could use, her powerful beauty, her exquisite, Louis XV love-making. By the time he encounters Renard, he is hooked. He justifies her allegiance without perceiving it could be the other way round. There is an essential truth (yes, I know this is a Bond film) about his relationship with Elektra that makes it the best thing in the film. Elektra (and Tracy) are certainly the best female characters in the series.
2) She was not 13 when kidnapped. The news footage shows her a couple of years younger at most. She is probably the same age as Renard. I know Renard says she was innocent when he first met her but I think he has love goggles on. She blinded him. She mesmerized him. He was a [censored]ed up punk who suddenly has such rich, softness in his life.
3) She is that manipulative and warped. Hell, she's going to neutralize Istanbul to publicize her family tree!
Observations.
The TWINE script is detailed and layered but not particularly well told i.e. the storytelling aspect is slightly muddled. It has a dense, confusing story overwrought in backstory for some and completely underwritten (Dr Christmas Jones, anyone?) in others.
It highlights the problems with all the Brosnan films.
a) They have great, well worked-out plots
b ) They do not take the time to properly explain them
c) They do not take the time to explain the consequences of what will
occur
d) They do not take the time to explain the villain's motivation
To wit
I) So proud is Elektra of her mother/family's name that we never find
it out in the movie (an early draft of the script had her family name as
Vavra - same as Kerim Bey's gypsy pal in FRWL)
II) We do not know the value of the oil in understandable terms. Same early
draft had a reference to trillions of dollars of oil. We GET the word
"trillion"! "Bright, starry oil driven future" is not enough.
III)The fact that the oil is non-Arab breaks the Middle East hold on supply
which is better for the West. King's concentration of power is not.
IV) Arab oil stocks are dwindling. King's oil opens up a new future.
V) King's sympathies may lie with enemies of the West.
VI) King and her family and people, long undervalued between the wars and their
ravaged land will suddenly become power brokers forcing the world to reckon
with them.
It is a GREAT, Bondian plot but badly under-explained. It has the genius of the Goldfinger "Mint-Julep-Moment" about it but for the lack of a couple of simple dialogue scenes, this is not really explained to us.
Yes, we get it upon forensic analysis, but as the saying goes KISS - Keep It Simple, Stupid. We need to be told in ways we understand and hopefully, in a visually stimulating way so we remember and can mull over the significance of the story elements.
Instead of the parahawk scene, I would have had Bond and Elektra fly over her land (2nd Unit establishing the Azerbaijan/Baku location sorely underused), as she explains where she comes from and the meaning of her family name.
We know the communists raped the land but we need to hear how Elektra feels about it. "A generation of my family perished. It was a personal holocaust for the Vavras. My people will never be treated that we again. We shall tell the world, 'Enough!'". There, we GET it.
She needs to say "There is a trillion dollars of non-Arab oil down there in the land of my mother. The oil in the Middle East is fast diminishing. Soon there will be a new future and I alone can alleviate the oil choke hold of the Middle East." There, done it. We GET it.
I know Bond directors feel they do not like their villains to grandstand (hear Martin Campbell's commentary on GE). They feel it is a bit too Pandora's Box-ish. This trick has been made fun of by Austin Powers.
But, good story telling not only requires the plot elements to be in place but requires time for their significance to be understood by the audience.
I know it is a bit arrogant of me re-writing TWINE but I have spent a long, long time pondering why this excellent and prescient and original idea of a Bond movie left me feeling underwhelmed.
It would have taken 10 lines of dialogue.
Edited by Mister Asterix, 08 September 2005 - 01:48 PM.
#29
Posted 08 September 2005 - 09:28 AM
#30
Posted 08 September 2005 - 09:29 AM