46 replies to this topic

[Professor Pi]

I think they would like to see his attitudes develop and evolve, yes.  Do we want to see a return to the casual Fleming affairs or those of the 60s and 70s movies?  No.  CR set it up so that Bond leaves Solange as soon as he gets his next lead.  And Craig's comment to Vesper about not being his type because she's single may allude to that attitude from Moonraker.  Now that film audiences have seen what he went through with Vesper, they understand him more without condoning his actions.  So I think we are seeing some of that evolution in the past three films.  Certainly how they handled his relationship to Camille has been different than any previous Bond movie.

[saint mark]

The success of the first four film adaptations of Ian Fleming's James Bond novels, beginning with Dr. No (1962), ignited a world-wide explosion of spy movies, fueled by the realities and anxieties of the Cold War. But movies made from spy novels had been around since the silent days.

 

E. Phillip Oppenheim (1866-1946), the Ian Fleming of his era, had several dozen of his works adapted to the screen before the advent of sound. In 1936, both Joseph Conrad and W. Somerset Maugham were source material for Alfred Hitchcock during his British years - Sabotage from Conrad's Secret Agent (1907) and, confusingly, Secret Agent adapted from Maugham's Ashendon: Or the British Agent.

 

British author Eric Ambler - more the John Le Carre of his day than the Ian Fleming - provided the source novels for such films as The Mask of Dimitrios (1939), Journey into Fear (1943) and Topaki (1964), parodied in The Pink Panther (1963). A screenwriter himself (notably A Night to Remember, 1958), Ambler's success as a master of fictional espionage undoubtedly inspired many other novelists and filmmakers, but did not spark a craze in the manner of Fleming. Of course, in fairness to Ambler, neither has anyone before or since.

 

Fleming had little if any basis in the espionage novelists just mentioned. Despite Fleming's own WW 2 service in counter-espionage, James Bond was derived in large part from fanciful UK sources - the jingoistic adventures of Sapper's Bulldog Drummond, the sophisticated crime-fighting of Leslie Charteris' the Saint, and the super-villainy of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu. American tough guy fiction played a big role, as well, in the development of Bond - Fleming was much an admirer of Raymond Chandler and his private eye Phillip Marlowe, though the guns-and-girls approach of Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer was the major commercial influence.

 

The first Bond novel, Casino Royale, with its extreme violence and casual sexuality, frankly imitates Spillane with an abrupt and arguably misogynistic ending that recalls I, the Jury (1947). Spillane's popularity extended to Great Britain and beyond, but Fleming at first was a flop in the States. Despite UK success, the early Bond novels tanked at two American paperback houses. When Spillane took an inexplicable near 10-year hiatus (1952-1961) at his popular peak, his paperback publisher New American Library turned to Fleming as a substitute, presenting Bond as the British equivalent of Hammer. The publisher even used the same cover artist, Barye Phillips.

 

When Spillane made his 1961 comeback with The Girl Hunters (1961), Fleming was finally hitting his stateside stride. Director Blake Edwards' Hammer variation, TV's Peter Gunn, with its suave P.I. and jazzy Henry Mancini music, had paved the way for a more sophisticated tough guy. President Kennedy was talking up the Bond novels, and soon Spillane himself would be imitating Fleming with secret agent Tiger Mann, who never approached the popularity of either Hammer or Bond.

The irony of Fleming's triumph as the most famous espionage novelist of all time is that his secret agent hero seems famous, too - the spy the bad guys all want to kill. Maybe it's his habit of announcing himself: "Bond. James Bond." As Archer says on FX, after announcing he's a secret agent, "I probably shouldn't advertise that." A spy who was about as low-key as Batman, Bond initiated a craze so outrageously over-the-top that his imitators were immediately parodies whether they meant to be or not.

 

Few of Bond's would-be clones emerged from the pages of spy novelists - James Coburn's Our Man Flint and In Like Flint were born on the big screen, and The Man from U.N.C.L.E. on the small (although Fleming had minimal input into the creation of the latter). When source novels were used, the adaptations frequently thumbed their nose at the books. Donald Hamilton's Matt Helm novels are effectively noir-ish and tough, having little in common with the guilty-pleasure Dean Martin movie versions, whose Rat Pack approach was so obviously a major source for the "Austin Powers" Bond parodies.

 

Contemporaries of Fleming, some of whom had fairly long-running novel series of their own, often found their would-be Bonds brought to screen once, without success - witness James Mayo's Charles Hood in Hammerhead (1964), James Leasor's Jason Love in Where the Spies Are (1966), and John Gardner's Boysie Oakes in The Liquidator (1966). (Gardner would later be one of the writers to officially continue the Bond novels for the Fleming estate). That the starring actors in these three films were, respectively, Vince Edwards, David Niven and Rod Taylor indicates how little the producers understood the importance of Sean Connery in the mix.

 

If Fleming had an outrageous Ripping Yarns view of modern espionage, those contemporaries of his with a grittier view of spycraft ironically benefitted most from Bond's success - their novels, and the films adapted from them, often presented a real-world alternative (or perhaps antidote) to Fleming's macho fantasy. John Le Carre's The Spy Who Came in From the Cold won critical praise, a huge audience, and respectful translation to the screen. Deighton's Harry Palmer series - actually, the character is nameless in the novels, perhaps a nod to Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op - made a star of Michael Caine as a bespectacled bureaucrat with a gun. Adventure novelist Alistair MacLean increasingly wove espionage threads into his thrillers, which were frequently adapted to the screen.

Fleming's novels, and those of many of his contemporaries, were presented as genre pieces, often relatively quick reads of short 50-60,000 words. Such writers as Frederick Forsythe (Day of the Jackal), Jack Higgins (The Eagle Has Landed), and Ken Follett (Eye of the Needle) would move espionage onto a bigger landscape, and the bestseller list, and movie screens. Le Carre and Deighton would follow.

 

As the Cold War wound down, such bestselling espionage specialists as Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy and David Morrell would continue down the path of lengthy, big-landscape bestsellers. Ludlum's 1980 novel The Bourne Identity launched the hugely successful Bourne film franchise in the 21st Century, so popular its amped-up North by Northwest approach would be felt by James Bond himself, in the recent Daniel Craig iteration of the series.

 

Still, it's no surprise that, after the dust of the Cold War era settles, the two spy novelists still standing high above the rest - with a continuing presence on film - are Ian Fleming and John Le Carre.

 

Written by Max Allan Collins (Writer)

[Revelator]

Thanks for posting the article by Max Allan Collins--where did you find it? I'm familiar with his work on Dick Tracy (a comic Fleming referenced several times in the Bond novels and short stories) and Collins was also a friend and literary executor of Mickey Spillane, which explains why he's eager to say Fleming was influenced by the latter.

 

However, Collins's grasp of Fleming's influences is not accurate. The idea that Fleming owed nothing to Ambler is baloney--From Russia With Love is deeply in the Ambler mode (and even contains a shout-out to him). Nor does Casino Royale "frankly imitate Spillane"--as Jeremy Duns has shown, Dennis Wheatley was a far more likely influence, along with the British tough-guy thriller-writers like Peter Cheyney. Fleming actually disliked Spillane, as Lycett's biography demonstrates, and that dislike seems to have been widespread throughout the British literary establishment.

 

Determining who truly influenced Fleming is difficult, because he wasn't the sort of writer who produces only one type of book. Yes, Doctor No is obviously influenced by Sax Rohmer--but not the Amblerian FRWL. And the bleak Wheatley-influenced Casino Royale is very different from the adventure-story mood of Live and Let Die or the self-parodic Goldfinger. What makes Fleming interesting is that he could switch gears so noticeably.

 

Collins is belittling when he says Fleming "had an outrageous Ripping Yarns view of modern espionage." He seems to be confusing the books with the films, as if they were the same. And as we are increasingly learning, much of the background and many of the incidents in the Bond novels were derived from Fleming's own experiences in intelligence or actual incidents from the Cold War.

[Dustin]

Thanks for posting the article by Max Allan Collins--where did you find it?

 

I think this is it: http://www.huffingto...tm_hp_ref=books

[archer1949]

Let's see:

 

CR: Book: Narrowly. But I really dug the world weary feel that Fleming's Bond had in this one

 

LALD: Book by far.

 

Moonraker: Book by far. Gala Brand should show up in a future movie.

 

Diamonds Are Forever: Book. I really liked this book. I think it's very underrated.

 

From Russia, WIth Love: Book.

 

Dr. No. Close, but I'd give the book the edge.

 

Goldfinger. Movie, actually. Mostly due to the fact that the movie addresses the ludicrousness of someone actually trying to raid Fort Knox and stealing it's gold supply.

 

TB: Book

 

TSWLM: Movie. I respected the book, but I didn't find the protagonist all that interesting and the fact that Bond doesn't show up until the last third doesn't help.

 

OHMSS: Book

 

YOLT: Book by a wide, wide, WIDE, galactic-sized margin.

 

MWTGG: Book, but that still doesn't change the fact that i found the novel a crushing disappointment. The beginning is amazing and then it just dribbles away. Nevertheless, i give the book the edge due to the awesome first chapter and a non-bimbo Mary Goodnight.

 

I don't think it's fair to judge the short stories to the movies, except to say that the AVTAK story set up a premise FAR more interesting than the thuddingly indifferent Roger Moore geriatric swan song we got.

 

 

[glidrose]

Ambler's success as a master of fictional espionage undoubtedly inspired many other novelists and filmmakers, but did not spark a craze in the manner of Fleming. Of course, in fairness to Ambler, neither has anyone before or since.

Gotta disagree there. Tom Clancy inspired many tech writers in the 1980s and 1990s. Not that this trend was worth anything.

 

Deighton's Harry Palmer series - actually, the character is nameless in the novels, perhaps a nod to Dashiell Hammett's Continental Op - made a star of Michael Caine as a bespectacled bureaucrat with a gun.

Not true. I believe Deighton claims that he only noticed he'd forgotten to name his hero after the book was published.
 

Such writers as Frederick Forsythe

Whose surname has no "e".
 

Fleming actually disliked Spillane, as Lycett's biography demonstrates, and that dislike seems to have been widespread throughout the British literary establishment.

I thought Kingsley Amis liked Spillane's work.

[Mr_Wint]

Casino Royale - book

Live And Let Die - film

Moonraker - film

Diamonds Are Forever - film

From Russia With Love - tie

Doctor No - tie

Goldfinger - film

Thunderball - film

The Spy Who Loved Me - film

On Her Majestys Secret Service - tie

You Only Live Twice - film

The Man With The Golden Gun - film

[Revelator]

I thought Kingsley Amis liked Spillane's work.

 

 

That's quite possible--Amis was more broad-minded in dealing with genre fiction than most other members of the literary establishment. My own feeling is that Spillane was seen as rather down-market and seedy on both sides of the pond. An example is from Simon Raven, who often reviewed and championed Fleming's work but knocked Spillane by saying that Mike Hammer was an unlikable fanatic. I'll be posting Raven's Bond reviews soon.

[glidrose]

 

I thought Kingsley Amis liked Spillane's work.

 
That's quite possible--Amis was more broad-minded in dealing with genre fiction than most other members of the literary establishment. My own feeling is that Spillane was seen as rather down-market and seedy on both sides of the pond. An example is from Simon Raven, who often reviewed and championed Fleming's work but knocked Spillane by saying that Mike Hammer was an unlikable fanatic. I'll be posting Raven's Bond reviews soon.

 
Looking forward to them!

[DominicGreene]

Having just read Casino Royale over the past few hours, I've got to say that the film definitely pales in comparison.  The opening half of the film very much clashes in tone with the story that is told in the novel, and the reboot nonsense that is presented in the film has no basis in the novel.  Bond is not a rookie in this novel, and openly talks about having chased spies before the Casino Royale mission.  Vesper is a much more compelling character in the novel, and the way the character is written in the film sharply contrasts with what Fleming wrote on the page.  The film would have been much better off had it axed an action sequence from the beginning of the film and used that time to show Bond and Vesper at the seaside villa (or the Venice equivalent) and how their relationship deteriorates over the course of a week as Vesper's psyche crumbles).

 

Funny, I had just finished Casino Royale a couple of hours ago (my first Bond novel) and I have to say I agree with you there. The book had much more meaning and depth than the movie did. I especially liked Vesper's character and her death. Also, the emotional breakdown in the last few chapters was much better than the quick chase at the end of the CR film. But, it was a good adaption. If I had to do it, it would have been closer to the book.

[tdalton]

  The only film that I can think of that I'd take over the novel would be Live and Let Die.  

 

Having just finally finished Fleming's Live and Let Die for the first time, I've got to say that I'm changing my vote on this one.  The novel is vastly superior to the film, which I've found myself liking a bit less the last couple of times I've watched it.  For whatever reason, the other attempts I'd made to read Fleming's LALD novel hadn't amounted to much, as I had found the opening chapter or two to be quite dull (and still do, to be honest), but instead of putting it down with the intention of returning to it but never actually doing it, this time I made an effort to push forward and was glad that I did.  After a slow opening, the rest of Fleming's novel blows EON's film out of the water.

[Hansen]

You should also read TMWTGG.

The two most 'faithful' adpatations in Moore-era gave his worst films. I would love to see them rede. Hard for LALD, but definitely do-able for the second.

[Walecs]

You should also read TMWTGG.

The two most 'faithful' adpatations in Moore-era gave his worst films. I would love to see them rede. Hard for LALD, but definitely do-able for the second.

None of Moore movies were faithful adaptations

[Revelator]

None of Moore movies were faithful adaptations

 

For Your Eyes Only would probably come closest to being somewhat faithful, given its treatment of the original FYEO and "Risico." It also does a good job of tying them together. Perhaps more faithful to the spirit than the letter, but that's what counts.

[tdalton]

You should also read TMWTGG.

The two most 'faithful' adpatations in Moore-era gave his worst films. I would love to see them rede. Hard for LALD, but definitely do-able for the second.

 

I have read The Man With the Golden Gun.  To this point, Live and Let Die was the only one that I hadn't completed. 

 

Neither Live and Let Die or The Man With the Golden Gun are faithful adaptations of their source material.  They share character names and a title, and that's pretty much it.  Live and Let Die (the film) is a shockingly bad adaptation of Fleming's novel.  I understand, and support 110%, the necessary decision to steer the film away from Fleming's views on race.  That said, the film still manages to be offensive on a few levels and it gets harder and harder to watch each time out.

 

The Man With the Golden Gun is just a terrible film and holds so few similarities to its source material that it can't be called a "faithful" adaptation.

[Hansen]

I fully agree and that is precisely why I used quote marks.

[FOX MULDER]

Casino Royale - Personally I think this is one of the best thriller novels ever written, or certainly one of the best debut novels at least. The 2006 film is very good but is let down by an overcomplicated dénouement involving Vesper's death. I thnk the film is too complicated in general, and thus too long. The simplicity and brevity of the novel wins for me. The film is too Hollywood.

 

  The only film that I can think of that I'd take over the novel would be Live and Let Die.  

 

Having just finally finished Fleming's Live and Let Die for the first time, I've got to say that I'm changing my vote on this one.  The novel is vastly superior to the film, which I've found myself liking a bit less the last couple of times I've watched it.  For whatever reason, the other attempts I'd made to read Fleming's LALD novel hadn't amounted to much, as I had found the opening chapter or two to be quite dull (and still do, to be honest), but instead of putting it down with the intention of returning to it but never actually doing it, this time I made an effort to push forward and was glad that I did.  After a slow opening, the rest of Fleming's novel blows EON's film out of the water.

 

 

Good!

 

I must say I was surprised to read that you preferred the film over the novel.

 

For me this is a no-brainer, probably the clearest case in the series. The novel is far superior.