17 replies to this topic

[plankattack]

If FRWL is a worthy adaptation of the novel, is QoS a strong enough film to have come from a lost Fleming manuscript?

I came to Bond from being taken by my father to LALD. I was hooked, and from there my fandom has taken the predictable route. I saw the films and read Fleming. Now as this post is specifically looking for opinions on the literature, let me expand on what it is that I’ve read and what I haven’t. I’ve read nearly all of Fleming – not all the short stories (Hildebrand Rarity, Quantum of Solace) and I’ve never cracked a page of TSWLM. I love Colonel Sun, but like many was disappointed in DMC (probably from too much anticipation – a notable fan affliction). I’ve dipped into Gardner, but the only Benson I’ve read is his Bedside Companion.

So that being said, I seek the opinions of those who really know their Fleming, and ask that they participate in a little experiment. Most would agree that five of the first six films do a pretty good job of adapting the novel on which they’re based to the big screen. I think anyone who’s read CR and seen the film would agree that it should join DN and others as a solid adaptation (and considering the fifty-year gap, not an unimpressive achievement). Many would agree that after that, films that had scraps of Fleming inserted (FYEO, LTK) do so well to enough to add to the overall experience. Then you’re left with films that are completely original in nature. OP for example (and with a successful author listed amongst the screen credits) could in my mind only have come from a Gardner novel, though if he’d written it, we might well have said it was one his better ones. TND, on the other hand, stuck very much in its setting of time and space, could only be seen as a Gardner novel though I suspect we might have been quite critical of it. "Gardner's novel seems only to share the spelling of the hero's name with those of his predecessors" might be a critical literary review.

Now before I continue, let me make clear, I’m not talking about novelizations of films (of which TND was one by Gardner). Christopher Wood’s TSWLM is apparently (never read it so correct me if I’m wrong) written in a Flemingesque style, but the plotting isn’t to my mind something that could be reverse engineered into a Fleming novel. Ergo, when we stepped out of the cinema from OHMSS, we identify the film as from the novel, but the cinematic TSWLM tale of stolen subs and henchmen with teeth, does not strike me as something that Fleming would have come up with (a Gardner maybe, but not a Fleming).

So, in regards to QoS, could this film have come from a Fleming novel? Does the central character ring true? The relationship between Bond and M? Camille (I do think of her as a character Fleming would have created – if not, certainly Amis). Green? So many of Fleming’s villains have Nemo-esque qualities – does Greene measure up? And the plot itself? Sure films take liberties, but the stock car race in OHMSS is more cinematic and, to me more dramatic, than Bond flipping the sign to send his pursuers off the cliff. We might still find a rooftop chase, but I suspect that an imaginary Fleming source novel would not have a boat chase, but fisticuffs on the dock and Bond escaping through the narrow streets in an old pick-up with Camille unconscious under a tarp in the back. No flight over the desert ending in a dogfight – instead perhaps Camille recounting to Bond what she knows:
“It’s the water he wants,” said Camille. Underwater dams? Bond snorted. The whole thing was incredulous, and all he had were the words of a girl blinkered by thoughts of vengeance etc (yes, it’s clear that I don’t dabble in fan fiction!)

So does the latest “original” film ring true? Not just does it feel Flemingesque, but could it have come from a Fleming novel? Does reverse engineering really work?
Fleming fans, your thoughts please?

[ImTheMoneypenny]

For me it totally could have come from Fleming. Of course with the sort of alterations you've imagined. Camille is very much to me, a Bond girl from Fleming's world. I can see her stepping right out of the pages. She's the bird with the wing down.

A little background on my literary Bond experiences, I've read every Bond book by Fleming except Moonraker (still on my list though.). I read only Role of Honour by Gardner and half of Zero Minus Ten by Benson which ended up flying across the room (that is a tale for another thread however!), and yes DMC was a disappointment to me as well.

[MattofSteel]

Long story attemptedly short.

I'm re-reading OHMSS right now, and it amazes me how the adapted Bond films (while marvellous) expand the stories in such interesting ways. They seem "bigger" when re-drafted for cinema, more layered, more complex. Fleming's books are quite often to the point, with a straightforward plot that doesn't deviate. OHMSS is a rather simple story, with brutally felt action scenes and a sense of humour born from the situations and circumstances themselves, rather than manufactured to be an amendment to them.

Much like QoS.

I think that had Fleming ever sent Bond to Bolivia, with a good amount jetting about the arid desert, it would have come across much in the same way it did in the film. There are someshots that feel like they're coming from a Fleming sentence that never existed. And contrary to some critics' opinions, I feel the film is deceptively simple in concept. There's something to be said for conciseness. It's almost as if previous adaptations have expanded onward from the books (in good ways), and yet QoS is sort of retracting the cinematic Bond back in the other direction, much like CR did.

That's my reflection on how Flemingesque it "feels," but I haven't really thought about whether or not the story would have had the makings for a good novel.

[MovieMaestro]

Definitely could have come from Fleming.

Bond's relationship with a female M would've been different, though, that's for sure. It's hard to imagine Sir Miles Messervy in the same role.

[Leon]

No, is the simple answer.

Quantum of Solace is quite different to Fleming.

I think a lot of people seem to confuse dark and serious with Fleming-esque. The original Bond novels had a very particular style of both character and narrative which QoS has neither of. It tries but the narrative is not Fleming-esque and the characters are very modern.

The action is far too top heavy also. Fleming built the action in carefully and generally anything big was near the end of the book. The Bond of the books wouldn't have been so needlessly cold when Mathis died. Argue all you like about the necessity of dumping his body, but the way he tosses the wallet back at the body and various other little things are undeniably un-fleming.

I will say this though, it is more Fleming-esque than most Bond films have been in recent history save for Casino Royale (obviously). I still don't think any of the writers understand Fleming's books properly. It's very evident that Daniel Craig gets the character of Bond pretty well but there's so much bulldozing and bruising written into the scripts that it get's overpowered. I already hear people saying they are getting fed up with the way this Bond is such a brutish plough of a character.

The next film really needs to take a break from this sort of thing and flesh out DC's Bond a bit more with the softer character elements.

[MattofSteel]

Well said, Leon. I definitely think the amount of pure "action" in Fleming's novels is misconstrued by the films' reputation, and most of the material in Quantum certainly wouldn't have appeared in the books. But I'd consider most of the film adaptations, even relatively faithful ones like FRWL or OHMSS, to embellish the action to a certain extent. After all, it's the cinema!

The bullyish elements I think are just a trademark of the "harder cinematic Bond" they're going for. It's not necessarily a bad thing, IMO. Cinematic Bond and literary Bond are still two different vehicles (whilst the character might be identical), the same as comic book Superman should be different from cinematic Superman in order for the two to co-exist and simultaneously entertain.

Personally, I like the way Daniel's Bond gets things done. Contemporary Connery, in a sense. The one guy in the room you absolutely don't want to piss off, because he isn't just smarter than you, but you won't win the ensuing fight, either.

[blueman]

In a word, yes. A few more words: very much so. Modern, sure, but the most Fleming non-Fleming story in the series - and a damn sight more Fleming than most of the filmed Flemings (everything from YOLT on with the obvious exception of OHMSS). One could even argue QOS is more Fleming than GF and TB, those two giants of the series yet both with a a definitely non-Fleming veneer of EON-created Playboy-Bond, something QOS completely lacks. Hell, go one further: EON never cared to depict Fleming's Bond, they were far more interested in the character as a coat hanger upon which they could skewer their uber-man, Connery, for all to see and worship (and make gazillions doing so). In that sense QOS, like OHMSS, is Fleming's Bond defined for the big screen as both story lines are Bond - no other films depict the inner man so well (honorable nods to CR and LTK).

But in just one word, yes.

[plankattack]

One could even argue QOS is more Fleming than GF and TB, those two giants of the series yet both with a a definitely non-Fleming veneer of EON-created Playboy-Bond, something QOS completely lacks.

What a great point. TB is a great read - I enjoy that very basic page-turner experience that it provides - but yes in retrospect, while both film versions may be true to the spirit of the plot, the central character had long since morphed into the EON twin/half brother that he should be regarded as.

[dogmanstar]

I say yes and the reasons why:the Leiter/Bond relationship is better than almost any film in the series and closely mirrors the drinking buddies that we see in the novels;
Camille is driven by revenge in a way similar to Judy Havelock in FYEO;
the Mathis/Bond conversation on the airplane strikes me as very Fleming-like; Bolivia and the desert-scenes seem like an homage to the no-man's land is Risico;
Greene is mad but not in the Hugo Drax of the films mad (and he's genuinely scary);
the movie seems to have a somewhat complicated political plot with the General/Greene, etc which reminds me of what Benson called "the Fleming Sweep."
Finally, the movie has a lot of suspense in it--and that is what comes through to me in almost all of Fleming's books--he's a master and making you turn the page. QoS is all about suspense.

[Mr_Wint]

If this is Fleming, then anything can be Fleming.

[blueman]

If this is Fleming, then anything can be Fleming.

Cubby "Mr. Kitchen Sink Bond" would agree with you.

[Leon]

The bullyish elements I think are just a trademark of the "harder cinematic Bond" they're going for. It's not necessarily a bad thing, IMO.

I think that if they continue to push this side of Craig's Bond without tempering it and exploring other less hot-headed sides of his Bond then it will be a bad thing. A very bad thing in fact.

I for one would lose interest in the films if this happened; it would be throwing away the great possibilities they opened up with CR and simply becoming lazy and creating dull films about a bulldozer of a Bond who lacks the class and intelligence of Fleming's creation. The million-miles-an-hour narrative style is not very Bond. Someone said above that this makes it like Fleming, no it does not. Fleming wrote with pace, yes, not withbreak-neck action packed speed. When it is said that he wrote with pace that's a different thing, just because he kept things moving doesn't mean they moved super fast. If you have actually read the books you should know how much of them take place sitting down to dinner, having long winded discussions over politics, mulling over events, carrying out detective work and actual espionage.

You can say as often as you like, oh "movie Bond" is different, but this is an integral part of the cinematic 007 as well as the literary. In my view the film character should not be seperate from the literary one as they are one and the same.

Casino Royale's success proves that this slower paced narrative and more suspense-driven plot is the winner. This Bond is more loved than the flat action man that crops up so often in many of the films. Sorry but no, that idiot doesn't interest me and while I did enjoy QoS I recognised a lot of dangers in falling back into that pattern and completely wasting the opportunities they have in front of them right now.

[dogmanstar]

Granted a lot of this is personal taste. But, I didn't see a lot of hot-headedness in QoS--Bond is intelligently chasing down Yusef to get answers about Vesper. A revenge-minded Bond would have killed him for betraying Vesper.

Pacing is a different issue and I have been critical of QoS as too quickly edited. But does it make it any less Fleming like than say the country hopping of MR or the speed of DAD? It may move fast--faster than we would like, but the actual events, as one follows another is certainly more like Fleming than the globe hopping 100 countries in a two hour movie!

Just another point--and again--this is a taste thing. I read a lot of mulling over the events, etc. in the acting of Craig. We can't on film see Bond's inner narrative but I see it in his relationship with Mathis/his discussions with Camille/the outstanding scenes with M.

[Publius]

If Ian Fleming was brought back to life, familiarized himself with film-making in general and with the modern standards of action movies in particular, I could easily see him constructing most of what we got with QoS.

[Flash1087]

Granted a lot of this is personal taste. But, I didn't see a lot of hot-headedness in QoS--Bond is intelligently chasing down Yusef to get answers about Vesper. A revenge-minded Bond would have killed him for betraying Vesper.

I actually see this as something of a development for him in QoS. I agree that Bond is basically a bulldozer for most of this movie, he embodies the 'blunt instrument' part of his description in the novels very well with little else happening. But I think the fact that he left Yusef alive at the end of the film indicates another stop along the way in the development of Craig's Bond. I truly think now, more so than at the end of CR, that he's once again "Bond, James Bond" and (hopefully) in the next one he'll be a bit more well-rounded, like the literary Bond of old.

[Hitmonk]

Just a few further thoughts on this. To reverse engineer this then it would have to be imagined as a “missing” Fleming novel between CR and LALD in order to fit into the canon. Also, there would be no Quantum and Greene would instead be a puppet of SMERSH, with perhaps White as the SMERSH puppet master. In this context, Bolivia becomes caught in a geo-political battle between the USSR and the West. All of this I think could be made to work well.

I like Greene as an understated villain and I see more evil in the character each time I view the film, however, Fleming generally went for more largesse. In a similar vein, the lame henchman Elvis is very much a post modern creation and not something I could see Fleming writing.

As has been pointed out, Camille is something straight from the page of Fleming. Fields too has innocence about her which rings true of certain Fleming elements, though I’m inclined to think this character would have been dropped altogether or at least given a radically different role. The literary Bond tends to be a one woman per book, and in any case, the supposed emotional and his later “hands off” Camille stance when compared to his bedding of Fields is for me one of the most jarring aspects the film’s plot as it originally stands.

Something would definitely have to be done with the character of Mathis – as many have noted - I don’t think that Fleming would have dispatched with an ally in such an uncaring way (the book Bond always tends to have his moments when a friend is killed), and his death would have simply set the British and French services at loggerheads with each other, which is simply too much of a distraction to the main plot. If anyone goes with Bond to Bolivia then it needs to be a different character altogether. It would possibly work better if Bond turns in some way to Mathis as a father figure for help and advice, and then Mathis puts him on to a reliable contact in Boliva who in turn becomes the fall guy.

The pace of the book would obviously be a whole lot slower. I could see it starting with the interrogation of White and then a toned down version of the rooftop chase, perhaps with White himself, rather than an MI6 traitor, which is not really Fleming’s kind of thing. White would have given enough leads to take Bond to Haiti, keeping the mission central and the personal vendetta angle more to the background, although still done in such a way to give M to have doubts about Bond’s motivations. Once in Haiti Bond would be given a little more breathing space and time for some detective work to suss out Slate and establish the link to Greene. Here he would be aided by Felix who (not having yet having encountered the sharks) is already working on the case on behalf of the CIA. Instead of the boat chase, Fleming would have probably included some kind of battle of wills between Bond and Greene to firmly establish their dislike for each other. This is one traditional Fleming element that the film definitely lacks (though admittedly there are some great moments between Bond and Greene).

Having probably omitted the Austria portion as one country too many, events would move on to Bolivia and the film’s climax. No dogfight (especially since the book Bond generally hated flying) but perhaps a race against time to reach the desert hideout in time to thwart Greene’s plans. I like the climax of the film, but I’m not sure Fleming’s Bond would have placed Greene in a potentially escapable situation (however remote the possibility) in this way. It’s a mistake generally best left to the villains. I also like the way Bond comes face to face with Yusef, but I’m inclined to think Fleming would have handled it differently, with maybe Bond demonstrating to M that he had no intention of going after Yusef since he was of no importance to the mission. Certainly, there would be no debrief outside Yusef’s front door!

In summary, I’d say that QOS is top a draw Bond film, and the closest EON has yet come to capturing the essence of Fleming’s Bond in an original screenplay. The fact that it is stuffed full of little moments which could have come from Fleming’s pen is rightly a cause for great celebration. However, looking at the wider picture quite a bit of work is needed to retrofit this as a Fleming novel as part of the original canon, which is barely surprising given that 50 plus years separate the two worlds and the different motivations of the respective creators.

[Sir James Molony]

Great question. I think that QoS fits within Fleming's early period (first 4 books) much more than the later ones.

That said, QoS (the movie) follows logically from Bond's feelings at the end of CR (Fleming's book).

I was re-reading Casino Royale after seeing QoS and was struck by this passage on the final page (in which Bond is reflecting on SMERSH and Vesper):

"Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down..But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun. The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy, and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."

The book ends with Bond saying (angrily): "Yes, dammit, I said 'was.' The bitch is dead now."

So, Bond is angry and wants to go after SMERSH. Fleming didn't follow up this theme as LALD was the next book. In the later books, Fleming started to develop the character of Bond and have events carry over from book-to-book. If Fleming had taken that approach at the start, then I could very well imagine Fleming writing a book much like QoS after CR.

Edited by Sir James Molony, 14 March 2009 - 06:29 PM.

[blueman]

Great question. I think that QoS fits within Fleming's early period (first 4 books) much more than the later ones.

That said, QoS (the movie) follows logically from Bond's feelings at the end of CR (Fleming's book).

I was re-reading Casino Royale after seeing QoS and was struck by this passage on the final page (in which Bond is reflecting on SMERSH and Vesper):

"Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down..But now he would attack the arm that held the whip and the gun. The business of espionage could be left to the white-collar boys. They could spy, and catch the spies. He would go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."

The book ends with Bond saying (angrily): "Yes, dammit, I said 'was.' The bitch is dead now."

So, Bond is angry and wants to go after SMERSH. Fleming didn't follow up this theme as LALD was the next book. In the later books, Fleming started to develop the character of Bond and have events carry over from book-to-book. If Fleming had taken that approach at the start, then I could very well imagine Fleming writing a book much like QoS after CR.

Yep yep yep. Re-read CR recently and had similar thoughts, that if Fleming had continued the character arc he began in his first novel and developed it in the second, we might very well have had a Bond novel from him much like the film Forster just gave us. In that sense QOS is the missing piece of Bond, much like Fleming's YOLT, while a very different type of novel for him, expertly but in a much different vein continues Bond's journey begun in OHMSS (and by extension, TB). Kinda thrilling that after all these years, we finally have such a story about Bond. Good on Forster and co.