40 replies to this topic

[Four Aces]

SPOILER IF YOU HAVEN'T READ CR


I just finished re-reading CR.

I would say that the real hero in Fleming's CR is the unamed SMERSH agent that kills LeChiffre and sets Bond free. The unamed SMERSH agent not only accomplishes his mission [Bond doesn't], but also shows some compassion in letting Bond live. Obviously a professional.

Bond is a screw-up in CR. He loses the money gambling, only to be saved by Felix Leiter giving him more money with a jocular Marshall Aid note. Bond then lets himself be captured by LeChiffre and in the process is almost beaten to death. Furthermore, he acts against his instincts regarding Vesper, and in short is taken in by her being a double-agent.

He should have been fired, but then has the audacity to contemplate resigning with righteous indignation. Go figure. Our man Bond has a long way to go yet. Perhaps Jason Bourne should cross-train him!

He's laughable and pathetic. That's my newly adjusted opinion after re-reading CR.

4A

Edited by Four Aces, 05 November 2005 - 08:30 PM.

[Lionheart]

The unamed SMERSH agent not only accomplishes his mission [Bond doesn't]

Wasn't Bond's mission to make sure that Le Chiffre doesn't win the money back so that his own organisation (SMERSH) will kill Le Chiffre?

Or did I get it all wrong....?

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

The unamed SMERSH agent not only accomplishes his mission [Bond doesn't]

Wasn't Bond's mission to make sure that Le Chiffre doesn't win the money back so that his own organisation (SMERSH) will kill Le Chiffre?

Or did I get it all wrong....?

Yep...Bond, though he was indeed bailed out by Felix, did accomplish he mission in bankrupting Le Chiffre so SMERSH would eliminate him. If he had failed his mission entirely, he would've broken and given Le Chiffre the money but he held out.

That said, he did screw up but it came off in the end.

[Four Aces]

That said, he did screw up but it came off in the end.

This is my point. "It" came of in the end, not Bond pulled it off in the end. The Leiter money, and the anonymous SMERSH agent are the ones that pulled it off.

I doubt the movie will adapt the story line completely, or Bond would look like a real Goober.

Nevertheless, great plot, etc., just a new prespective

4A

Edited by Four Aces, 05 November 2005 - 11:33 PM.

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

That said, he did screw up but it came off in the end.

This is my point. "It" came of in the end, not Bond pulled it off in the end. The Leiter money, and the anonymous SMERSH agent are the ones that pulled it off.

Right, I see what you're saying. Still though, Bond was the one who hid the money and resisted the torture.

[Pussfeller]

I don't think the film has to change it around to make Bond look more competent. Bond has been rescued before. For instance, in GF, the bomb would have gone off had it not been for some anonymous CIA technician. Bond has been at the mercy of villains many, many times. His life has frequently been spared on a whim.

[Mister Asterix]

That said, he did screw up but it came off in the end.

This is my point. "It" came of in the end, not Bond pulled it off in the end. The Leiter money, and the anonymous SMERSH agent are the ones that pulled it off.

I doubt the movie will adapt the story line completely, or Bond would look like a real Goober.

Nevertheless, great plot, etc., just a new prespective

4A

[mra]I would take the approach the

[Harmsway]

I don't think the film has to change it around to make Bond look more competent. Bond has been rescued before. For instance, in GF, the bomb would have gone off had it not been for some anonymous CIA technician. Bond has been at the mercy of villains many, many times. His life has frequently been spared on a whim.

Yeah - Bond makes plenty of mistakes in the films, and is unable to save himself in other moments also. Not a big deal.

[Lounge Lizard]

Well, Bond is supposed to be a bit of a -up in CR the movie as well, if we have to take Martin Campbell's word for it.

'My dear boy,' Le Chiffre spoke like a father, 'the game of Red Indians is over, quite over. You have stumbled by mischance into a game for grown-ups and you have already found it a painful experience. You are not equipped, my dear boy, to play games with adults and it was very foolish of your nanny in London to have sent you out here with your spade and bucket. Very foolish indeed and most unfortunate for you.'

I love those words. I hope Haggis, Purvis and Wade have left them in.

[Harmsway]

I love those words. I hope Haggis, Purvis and Wade have left them in.

Indeed! CASINO ROYALE as a novel really does show a sort of rookie Bond, which is points for how the movie is portraying him.

[hartley_bond]

'My dear boy,' Le Chiffre spoke like a father, 'the game of Red Indians is over, quite over. You have stumbled by mischance into a game for grown-ups and you have already found it a painful experience. You are not equipped, my dear boy, to play games with adults and it was very foolish of your nanny in London to have sent you out here with your spade and bucket. Very foolish indeed and most unfortunate for you.'

That reads like it was written to be delivered by Ian McKellen for some reason.

[David Schofield]

That said, he did screw up but it came off in the end.

This is my point. "It" came of in the end, not Bond pulled it off in the end. The Leiter money, and the anonymous SMERSH agent are the ones that pulled it off.

I doubt the movie will adapt the story line completely, or Bond would look like a real Goober.

Nevertheless, great plot, etc., just a new prespective

4A

Bond doesn't achieve much in many of the novels and films without help, though. That's what stops him being Rambo or Superman. And what I suspect the filmakers seen in the apparent ordinariness/anonimity of Craig.

[spynovelfan]

Indeed - where would he have been without Solitaire deciding to defect in LALD? Or Gala Brand pick-pocketing Drax in MOONRAKER? Or Leiter and his massive military back-up in THUNDERBALL?

Doesn't Bond almost always misjudge something, get captured by the enemy and then have to make amends for it and save the day? I think this is true of many of the films, too - Elektra in TWINE and Miranda Frost in DAD both spring to mind. Bond missed that both of them were traitors for a good part of the films. I know Frost was meant to be a Gala Brand rewrite, but surely she's actually a Vesper rewrite? Gala wasn't a traitor.

[marktmurphy]

Doesn't Bond almost always misjudge something, get captured by the enemy and then have to make amends for it and save the day?

Absolutely- he's saved by luck in pretty much every novel. I think his vulnerability was a little more apparent in the early Seans- Bond crashing his car in GF is one of the biggest slip-ups that springs to mind.

[morganhavoc]

It would make sense from a screenwriting point of view to have Vesper be the agent who kills LeChiffre and save Bond. Bond wouldn't see her in the scene or perhaps he does and that's how he finds out she is a double. Didn't like the suicide letter bit in the book. Make a bigger impact that she risks her double agent status to save Bond.

[Lounge Lizard]

It would make sense from a screenwriting point of view to have Vesper be the agent who kills LeChiffre and save Bond. Bond wouldn't see her in the scene or perhaps he does and that's how he finds out she is a double. Didn't like the suicide letter bit in the book. Make a bigger impact that she risks her double agent status to save Bond.

Would be Hitchcockian if we, the audience, could see it's Vesper, and Bond does not. That would be suspenseful. Sleeping with the enemy...

However, this would mean Vesper is not kidnapped along with Bond. Or she IS kidnapped, but manages to free herself and then kills Le Chiffre.

[spynovelfan]

I think the story would be seriously weakened without her suicide and the note - she confesses all, confesses loving Bond, and he blocks it all out through grief and rage and proclaims "The bitch is dead". It's the extremity of that that works - if she lives, well, she's just a turned agent. Bond kills her? So what? We've seen all that. This is a woman wracked by guilt who loves him and who he loves in return and who takes her own life. It's much higher stakes stuff.

And when the stakes are high, always bet on Bond.

[morganhavoc]

I think the story would be seriously weakened without her suicide and the note - she confesses all, confesses loving Bond, and he blocks it all out through grief and rage and proclaims "The bitch is dead". It's the extremity of that that works - if she lives, well, she's just a turned agent. Bond kills her? So what? We've seen all that. This is a woman wracked by guilt who loves him and who he loves in return and who takes her own life. It's much higher stakes stuff.

And when the stakes are high, always bet on Bond.

I agree in the novel the note works, but in a movie , where it is a visual medium, Bond sitting reading her confession isn't very cinematic. The rule of film is show , don't tell. So if she confronts Bond face to face about her betrayal of him and the service and is then killed by him or by someone attempting to kill Bond, then we would get the visual impact of the loss to Bond and the audience would feel it too.
Having Bond kill her in cold blood and then saying "The bitch is dead" would be a great scene.
And yes we have seen it all before, there are no new plots, just new , inventive ways to tell those stories. Hopefully the film makers will find new and inventive ways to tell this story.

[spynovelfan]

I immediately recoiled on reading that Morgan, but yes, it could work very well indeed. If Vesper breaks down and confesses everything to Bond but says she's willing to do anything, go against SMERSH and turn triple, leave the Service and be with Bond, *anything* because she loves him so much and he, instead of calling London and saying he has a traitor and let's turn her, coldly shoots her through the head, then makes the call and says 'She was a traitor. Yes, I said "was". The bitch is dead now" - yes, I think it could be quite something to see.

I'm on board for that idea.

[Harmsway]

Bond would never kill Vesper - that ruins the whole point of it. I will be pissed if Bond kills Vesper in cold blood, especially after she offers to help him. Bond isn't *that* coldhearted, let's be honest. That's so coldhearted, it's quite alienating.

That's something a Bond villain would do. You still have to *like* James Bond. And that's something so alienating people will walk out of the theatre hating him for. Besides, Bond visits Vesper's grave in the books. I doubt he'd do that if he shot her.

As far as I'm concerned, it HAS to be a suicide.

[JameswpBond]

Keep it the way it is.

[Scrambled Eggs]

Bond can't kill Vesper.
It's her death which turns him into a cold, hard professional. If he's already cold enough to murder his lover, the point of her death is lost.

[Four Aces]

Bond can't kill Vesper.
It's her death which turns him into a cold, hard professional. If he's already cold enough to murder his lover, the point of her death is lost.

Have you read the book? Bond is already described as hard and cold before Vesper even meets him.

4A

[ComplimentsOfSharky]

Yeah it's kind of pointless to have Bond kill Vesper...especially with the talk of this movie being 'what makes Bond, Bond'. Killing her shows he's already accepted everything as is, especially in a manner so cold as was spelled out above.

In that case we might as well just put TWINE in a new package and rerelease it. 'I never miss.' And all that.

Scrambled Eggs, your name makes me so hungry....welcome to CBn though....

[Scrambled Eggs]

Bond can't kill Vesper.
It's her death which turns him into a cold, hard professional. If he's already cold enough to murder his lover, the point of her death is lost.

Have you read the book? Bond is already described as hard and cold before Vesper even meets him.

4A

I've read the book. You're quite right actually, I think Bond is described as cold and hard from the start and he's obviously killed before as he's a 00 (or will he start out as a 00 in this film version?).
The death changes him. It gives him focus and resolve. Prior to the death of Vesper, Bond is hard but flakey. He makes arrogant, rash decisions and thinks about leaving the secret service. He's also full of vengeance, how can he swear vengeance if he's the killer? If this movie is to have the theme of Bond learning and changing after her death then he can't be the man responsible.

I think the idea of Vesper being the assassin could work well. Bond being spared because the assassin is in love with him makes more sense than the reason given in the novel (it isn't in his orders?!! If he's such a pro why not show some initiative and kill him?! It would have saved SMERSH a lot of hassle in the long run!). But then is Vesper capable of killng at all? She's a tragic character rather than an evil one. She becomes a double agent because she's blackmailed, rather than paid off... as I remember it?

Edited by Scrambled Eggs, 09 November 2005 - 01:08 AM.

[Four Aces]

Yes, it will be interesting to compare the script with the novel. Yes, indeed!

4A

[spynovelfan]

I've read the book. You're quite right actually, I think Bond is described as cold and hard from the start and he's obviously killed before as he's a 00 (or will he start out as a 00 in this film version?).
The death changes him. It gives him focus and resolve. Prior to the death of Vesper, Bond is hard but flakey. He makes arrogant, rash decisions and thinks about leaving the secret service. He's also full of vengeance, how can he swear vengeance if he's the killer? If this movie is to have the theme of Bond learning and changing after her death then he can't be the man responsible.

I think the idea of Vesper being the assassin could work well. Bond being spared because the assassin is in love with him makes more sense than the reason given in the novel (it isn't in his orders?!! If he's such a pro why not show some initiative and kill him?! It would have saved SMERSH a lot of hassle in the long run!). But then is Vesper capable of killng at all? She's a tragic character rather than an evil one. She becomes a double agent because she's blackmailed, rather than paid off... as I remember it?

Damn, that's a good post.

Yes, she's blackmailed - she's more Domino than Elektra. And yes, it's very odd that the SMERSH chap doesn't kill Bond. I wonder if Fleming wasn't trying to be a bit Graham Greene there - the absurdity of the espionage game, where you can have your life saved by one of the most ruthless Russian agents just because his packet of papers didn't specify he kill you. It's a very odd touch, and if you think about it a lot doesn't really seem plausible, but somehow you accept that this is the strange kind of thing that might happenin the middle of a dangerous mission - so odd that it's real. There's a very good moment at the start of Len Deighton's AN EXPENSIVE WAY TO DIE where the laconic British agent who is basically an older version of Harry Palmer has his contact at the British embassy come over to his flat in Paris for a debrief, and the contact gives the agent some documents and tells him to give them back. 'Why, are they that important?' the agent asks (or words to this effect). No, comes the answer - they're the only copy and the Xerox machine was bust. I think Bond being saved in CR is a little in that line.

[Double-Oh Agent]

You have to keep in mind that we're dealing with Stalinist Russia here where you did what you were told or else. And the same could very well go for exceeding one's mission parameters. Do that once (or at least too often) and you'd find yourself being sent to the gulag or Siberia. Would the agent (named Oborin in John Pearson's book) go back to SMERSH and say: "I killed Le Chiffre and his men, and oh, by the way, I also killed another guy they had tied up too who also happened to be a British agent?" While SMERSH was created to kill spies, I don't know how the powers that be at the agency would take one of their operatives showing initiative and killing without orders. From Oborin's perspective it does make sense for him to let Bond live. But while Oborin doesn't kill Bond, he still leaves a lasting impression on 007's hand so it wasn't as if he did nothing to Bond.

I also think spynovelfan's take on this scene is also probably correct, that Ian Fleming wrote it that way so as to make the circumstances of Bond surviving ironic--he was saved by the enemy, the very same enemy that a few pages later he would swear to destroy.

[David Schofield]

You have to keep in mind that we're dealing with Stalinist Russia here where you did what you were told or else. And the same could very well go for exceeding one's mission parameters. Do that once (or at least too often) and you'd find yourself being sent to the gulag or Siberia. Would the agent (named Oborin in John Pearson's book) go back to SMERSH and say: "I killed Le Chiffre and his men, and oh, by the way, I also killed another guy they had tied up too who also happened to be a British agent?" While SMERSH was created to kill spies, I don't know how the powers that be at the agency would take one of their operatives showing initiative and killing without orders. From Oborin's perspective it does make sense for him to let Bond live. But while Oborin doesn't kill Bond, he still leaves a lasting impression on 007's hand so it wasn't as if he did nothing to Bond.

I also think spynovelfan's take on this scene is also probably correct, that Ian Fleming wrote it that way so as to make the circumstances of Bond surviving ironic--he was saved by the enemy, the very same enemy that a few pages later he would swear to destroy.

Yes, this works on two counts - compare Doube-0 Agents comments - with which I agree - and the meeting at SMERSH in FRWL. The intimation there is that a big splash project - killing/embarrassing a top enemy agent - is a rare occurance and needs justification and a fair amount of approval. The consequence of Bond murder by SMERSH would be possibly - the words (vaguely) of Koskov in TLD - "agent killinga agent, murder following murder. This could lead to nuclear war". Okay, a little OTT, but I think there is a point of not stoking the fire too much unnecessarily.

Also, Fleming having a series in mind, it was a good idea not to kill his main character, no?

[spynovelfan]

You have to keep in mind that we're dealing with Stalinist Russia here where you did what you were told or else.

I think what we're dealing with more is a former English naval intelligence officer's perception of Stalinist Russia, channelled through the thriller genre. In real life, SMERSH was not nearly the kind of organisation it is painted as in Fleming. There were small groups of hunter-killer cells in the dying days of World War Two who combed through the DP camps assassinating traitors and others (ie Ukrainians, many of which were members of the SS units responsible for killing women and children). But the organisation had already disbanded by 1948, and even if you buy the story of it continuing regardless, there's no evidence they killed anyone at all. In reality, Le Chiffre would have been summoned to Paris or somewhere and put in a nasty little room and asked a lot of questions by SMERSH officers, and if found guilty, yes, packed away to Siberia. If you read the only serious memoir of anyone who worked for SMERSH - NIGHTS ARE LONGEST THERE - you'll soon revise your view of this organisation. It was feared, yes, but because they could send you to the gulag. The people who worked for it were almost to a man military desk men. It's much more similar to the work of the British in the London Cage than some kind of assasination agency.

The idea that Oborin (why not call him that?) wouldn't have countermanded his order for the reasons you state is, I'm sure, absolutely what Fleming was getting at, and in the context of the novel works. But in real life Oborin would not have been there, so would not have feared going to the gulag. SMERSH were the group who recommended sending people to the gulag, and that is what they would have done in this case with Le Chiffre.