For years, Bond fans have claimed that Bond
Beyond Fleming
Started by
spynovelfan
, Nov 22 2006 11:24 AM
10 replies to this topic
#2
1q2w3e4r
-
- Veterans
-
- 1336 posts
Lt. Commander
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:47 AM
Yeah, except in Fleming's novels he travels to Vesper's grave site every year to lay flowers for her.
#3
Odyssey
-
- Crew
- 23 posts
Midshipman
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:51 AM
Superb post, spynovelfan, really highlighting something that shouldn't have been overlooked for so long! I suppose that, over the course of the novels, we do begin to see glimpses of the "damaged" Bond who should really have emerged immediately after "Casino Royale" - his meditation on life and death during the opening of "Goldfinger", for example. Off the top of my head, where Fleming did begin to explore this side of Bond was, of course, after OHMSS, especially in the opening half of YOLT, where JB is in a real mess, both physically and psychologically. And, sadly, what we see of Fleming's Bong in TMWTGG is left tantalizingly unresolved. (It was Amis who finished off this novel, wasn't it?)
Thanks for highlighting what is almost a "missed opportunity" in the books - one I totally missed, despite reading them in order this summer! It's almost as though Fleming had taken an attitude similar to the filmmakers in using his character to tell different types of stories, and delving into the darkness as and when he felt like it, rather than crafting a strict psychological continuity.
Thanks for highlighting what is almost a "missed opportunity" in the books - one I totally missed, despite reading them in order this summer! It's almost as though Fleming had taken an attitude similar to the filmmakers in using his character to tell different types of stories, and delving into the darkness as and when he felt like it, rather than crafting a strict psychological continuity.
#4
David Schofield
-
- Discharged
-
- 3026 posts
Commander
Posted 22 November 2006 - 11:57 AM
I think the impact of Vesper's death on both the Bond of the book and, potentially, of the movie, is overplayed among fans.
I am at work for the moment (yes, it involves replying to CBN threads, that's what I do for a living
), but at the end of CR - the novel - I am pretty certain Bond has turned away from grief to anger at Vesper's betrayal. The impression I have is that Bond blames (whether as an excuse or to ease his upset) Vesper for falling for SMERSH's ruse that they would free her boyfriend, and for basically being stupid. In the hardness that is Bond, there is no sympathy for any torment she might have gone through because of her boyfriend predicament. Doesn't Bond imagine all the decent MI6 people who would have gone to their death as a result if Vesper's betrayal? This Bond is already hardened, perfectly formed: WW2 has at least done that to him. Doesn't he reflect that he will put Vesper's memories away in his cold,hard heart to be retrieved only occasionally? He does not grieve. He finishes with the "bitch is dead" and that is it for Vesper.
Sure, Bond visits Vesper's grave in OHMSS but this seems more of Fleming's prelude to the Tracy affair. Vesper is not mentioned between CR and now. And after CR, Bond makes his target SMERSH and its methods and its people. At no point, however, is that as revenge for Vesper, merely that SMERSH are evil (they tortured him, remember) and in their actions they have reminded him why he needs to continue playing Red Indians.
If the Bond of CR the movie sets out on revenge for Vesper, IMO, the true intent of the novel's conclusion will be betrayed. LALD is not, as Spy points out, a CR sequel. Sure, Craig has got inside Fleming's Bond's head in CR, but it will be a further betrayal of that if Bond 22 is simply a revenge story because EON didn't do YOLT properly. Craig Bond should now have a target and that should be Le Chiffre's people. Because of what they are and what they have done, not because of Vesper, if they are indeed to continue to be true to Fleming.
I am at work for the moment (yes, it involves replying to CBN threads, that's what I do for a living
), but at the end of CR - the novel - I am pretty certain Bond has turned away from grief to anger at Vesper's betrayal. The impression I have is that Bond blames (whether as an excuse or to ease his upset) Vesper for falling for SMERSH's ruse that they would free her boyfriend, and for basically being stupid. In the hardness that is Bond, there is no sympathy for any torment she might have gone through because of her boyfriend predicament. Doesn't Bond imagine all the decent MI6 people who would have gone to their death as a result if Vesper's betrayal? This Bond is already hardened, perfectly formed: WW2 has at least done that to him. Doesn't he reflect that he will put Vesper's memories away in his cold,hard heart to be retrieved only occasionally? He does not grieve. He finishes with the "bitch is dead" and that is it for Vesper.Sure, Bond visits Vesper's grave in OHMSS but this seems more of Fleming's prelude to the Tracy affair. Vesper is not mentioned between CR and now. And after CR, Bond makes his target SMERSH and its methods and its people. At no point, however, is that as revenge for Vesper, merely that SMERSH are evil (they tortured him, remember) and in their actions they have reminded him why he needs to continue playing Red Indians.
If the Bond of CR the movie sets out on revenge for Vesper, IMO, the true intent of the novel's conclusion will be betrayed. LALD is not, as Spy points out, a CR sequel. Sure, Craig has got inside Fleming's Bond's head in CR, but it will be a further betrayal of that if Bond 22 is simply a revenge story because EON didn't do YOLT properly. Craig Bond should now have a target and that should be Le Chiffre's people. Because of what they are and what they have done, not because of Vesper, if they are indeed to continue to be true to Fleming.
#5
spynovelfan
-
- Discharged
-
- 5855 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 22 November 2006 - 12:20 PM
Yeah, except in Fleming's novels he travels to Vesper's grave site every year to lay flowers for her.
But that's just my point. Does the man who in the novel after CASINO ROYALE falls for someone who looks and acts almost identically to Vesper - and is the villain's moll! - without a thought seem like the same man who we are told several books later (in a few lines) still pays tribute to 'the bitch' who died in the first novel? He doesn't to me. Fleming picked where he could add to Bond's character pretty randomly, I think - why does he get a cop out but the film-makers don't? The way the events of ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE are dealt with in YOU ONLY LIVE TWICE seems pretty thin to me, despite protestations to the contrary. Fleming had a habit of ending his books on fantastic cliffhangers. He clears these up unsatisfactorily in a chapter or two in the next book, and then takes Bond on to his next mission, almost always as though nothing has happened.
#6
spynovelfan
-
- Discharged
-
- 5855 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 22 November 2006 - 12:47 PM
Thanks, Odyssey. 
Certainly the former; we'll see about the latter. But all the indications are that the next film will at least continue the plot of this one. In LIVE AND LET DIE, Mr Big appears to be a SMERSH agent only to create a tenuous link to CASINO ROYALE. It's very tenuous, though: SMERSH was a real organisation, and Fleming described it reasonably accurately in his first novel. Its role was to find traitors to the Soviet Union. That's why Le Chiffre is in trouble, because he's embezzled and lost their money, and that's why they kill him. How does Mr Big fit into that? He doesn't, really! It's about as convincing and satisfying as the opening of the film DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is as a coda for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. But because it's Fleming, we tend to give him a pass.
That is *almost* exactly how it ends. He does have some compassion. I don't have the novel with me or I'd quote it , but he vows to go after the people who prey on the likes of Vesper, and who make such betrayals happen. (Perhaps someone who does have it near at hand could quote the relevant passage?)
It still doesn't make much sense that any man could place his memories away to retrieve only occasionally - and not do that a few months later when meeting a woman who looks almost the same, wearing almost the same clothes, on the arm of another villain. Not only does he not retrieve any memory of Vesper - he falls for Solitaite immediately. All the things we pick apart in the films (and this one) - Fleming made a lot of the same mistakes. Just because he was writing in the 50s and 60s doesn't mean he was infallible, and I sometimes think Bond fans feels he was. He had holes in his plots much greater than any in the current film (Blofeld being Shatterhand for one). Another improvement to CR I didn't mention - Bond has reasons to go after Le Chiffre that are much stronger than the 'let's just blow all our money on making sure a guy loses at a casino' of the book. People always lose at casinos! So let the guy lose! In the film, Bond is *led* to Le Chiffre in the early scenes, and M says that, shamed, he may be able to offer them vital information. It's still slightly implausible, sure - but then they work with that by having Vesper call into the question the mission's viability. As a result, it goes from being a crazily contrived idea of Fleming's to a crazily contrived idea of MI6's, and particularly Bond's, and we get that whole 'it's a long shot but it might just work' vibe. 'Can he pull it off?' Not 'Why are they even doing this?' There are lots of very clever touches like this in the film.
Except in Chapter Two of LIVE AND LET DIE, Bond hopes that his appointment with M will set him off on a
I think the impact of Vesper's death on both the Bond of the book and, potentially, of the movie, is overplayed among fans.
Certainly the former; we'll see about the latter. But all the indications are that the next film will at least continue the plot of this one. In LIVE AND LET DIE, Mr Big appears to be a SMERSH agent only to create a tenuous link to CASINO ROYALE. It's very tenuous, though: SMERSH was a real organisation, and Fleming described it reasonably accurately in his first novel. Its role was to find traitors to the Soviet Union. That's why Le Chiffre is in trouble, because he's embezzled and lost their money, and that's why they kill him. How does Mr Big fit into that? He doesn't, really! It's about as convincing and satisfying as the opening of the film DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER is as a coda for ON HER MAJESTY'S SECRET SERVICE. But because it's Fleming, we tend to give him a pass.
I am at work for the moment (yes, it involves replying to CBN threads, that's what I do for a living
That is *almost* exactly how it ends. He does have some compassion. I don't have the novel with me or I'd quote it , but he vows to go after the people who prey on the likes of Vesper, and who make such betrayals happen. (Perhaps someone who does have it near at hand could quote the relevant passage?)
It still doesn't make much sense that any man could place his memories away to retrieve only occasionally - and not do that a few months later when meeting a woman who looks almost the same, wearing almost the same clothes, on the arm of another villain. Not only does he not retrieve any memory of Vesper - he falls for Solitaite immediately. All the things we pick apart in the films (and this one) - Fleming made a lot of the same mistakes. Just because he was writing in the 50s and 60s doesn't mean he was infallible, and I sometimes think Bond fans feels he was. He had holes in his plots much greater than any in the current film (Blofeld being Shatterhand for one). Another improvement to CR I didn't mention - Bond has reasons to go after Le Chiffre that are much stronger than the 'let's just blow all our money on making sure a guy loses at a casino' of the book. People always lose at casinos! So let the guy lose! In the film, Bond is *led* to Le Chiffre in the early scenes, and M says that, shamed, he may be able to offer them vital information. It's still slightly implausible, sure - but then they work with that by having Vesper call into the question the mission's viability. As a result, it goes from being a crazily contrived idea of Fleming's to a crazily contrived idea of MI6's, and particularly Bond's, and we get that whole 'it's a long shot but it might just work' vibe. 'Can he pull it off?' Not 'Why are they even doing this?' There are lots of very clever touches like this in the film.
And after CR, Bond makes his target SMERSH and its methods and its people. At no point, however, is that as revenge for Vesper, merely that SMERSH are evil (they tortured him, remember) and in their actions they have reminded him why he needs to continue playing Red Indians.
Except in Chapter Two of LIVE AND LET DIE, Bond hopes that his appointment with M will set him off on a
#7
spynovelfan
-
- Discharged
-
- 5855 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 23 November 2006 - 12:58 PM
Here are a few excerpts from the ending of Ian Fleming's CASINO ROYALE:
'He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later, perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sentimental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done.'
'He suddenly had a vision of Vesper walking down a corridor with documents in her hand. On a tray. They just got it on a tray while the cool secret agent with a Double O number was gallivanting round the world - playing Red Indians.'
'Well, it was not too late. Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down. Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies, no better and no worse than any of the western services.
SMERSH was the spur. Be faithful, spy well, or you die. Inevitably and without any question, you will be hunted down and killed.
It was the same with the whole Russian machine. Fear was the impulse. For them it was always safer to advance than to retreat. Advance against the enemy, and the bullet might miss you. Retreat, evade, betray, and the bullet would never miss.
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.'
I think the link is that Vesper would not have betrayed anyone - retreated, evaded, betrayed - were it not for her fear of the MWD's internal organisation SMERSH. SMERSH is so terrifying that it manipulates everyone into doing wrong, so if he removes them from the equation, Vesper and those like her in future will end up missing the bullet, and the Russians will be reduced to being no better or worse than MI6 and others.
This doesn't *quite* make sense in the book, though, because Bond has already told Vesper that *he* has killed two people who were traitors. The Double O Section to which he belongs, then, also appears to be a cold weapon of death. This is exacerbated in the film, I think, by our seeing Bond kill Dryden. He's a traitor, sure. But he just gets a bullet through the head. No trial. No questions. No jail sentence. Bang. We skirt over this issue because he's one of us and the term 'licence to kill' is so familiar we don't think about its moral dimensions. It's cool, it's James Bond, and I'm a bit strange even bringing it up. I know.
Where I think the film uses this to its advantage is that we see Bond's motivation much more clearly. In the novel, it's not clear how much force 'now' has in the following sentence:
'Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done.'
Natural reaction. But we have little idea of how much Vesper has meant to him. How often is he going to drag his love and grief out of that boxroom in his mind? It appears not at all from the next novel; it appears once a year in OHMSS. But in the film we see him try to save Vesper even after he knows she has betrayed him. So we know that he has compassion for her. We know he is using the term 'bitch' deliberately casually; that his 'now' is a front, and that he will never show his grief. We know why he goes after Mr White. And hopefully, we will see a continuation of this story in the next film - something Fleming never gave us.
'He saw her now only as a spy. Their love and his grief were relegated to the boxroom of his mind. Later, perhaps they would be dragged out, dispassionately examined, and then bitterly thrust back with other sentimental baggage he would rather forget. Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done.'
'He suddenly had a vision of Vesper walking down a corridor with documents in her hand. On a tray. They just got it on a tray while the cool secret agent with a Double O number was gallivanting round the world - playing Red Indians.'
'Well, it was not too late. Here was a target for him, right to hand. He would take on SMERSH and hunt it down. Without SMERSH, without this cold weapon of death and revenge, the MWD would be just another bunch of civil servant spies, no better and no worse than any of the western services.
SMERSH was the spur. Be faithful, spy well, or you die. Inevitably and without any question, you will be hunted down and killed.
It was the same with the whole Russian machine. Fear was the impulse. For them it was always safer to advance than to retreat. Advance against the enemy, and the bullet might miss you. Retreat, evade, betray, and the bullet would never miss.
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.'
I think the link is that Vesper would not have betrayed anyone - retreated, evaded, betrayed - were it not for her fear of the MWD's internal organisation SMERSH. SMERSH is so terrifying that it manipulates everyone into doing wrong, so if he removes them from the equation, Vesper and those like her in future will end up missing the bullet, and the Russians will be reduced to being no better or worse than MI6 and others.
This doesn't *quite* make sense in the book, though, because Bond has already told Vesper that *he* has killed two people who were traitors. The Double O Section to which he belongs, then, also appears to be a cold weapon of death. This is exacerbated in the film, I think, by our seeing Bond kill Dryden. He's a traitor, sure. But he just gets a bullet through the head. No trial. No questions. No jail sentence. Bang. We skirt over this issue because he's one of us and the term 'licence to kill' is so familiar we don't think about its moral dimensions. It's cool, it's James Bond, and I'm a bit strange even bringing it up.
I know.Where I think the film uses this to its advantage is that we see Bond's motivation much more clearly. In the novel, it's not clear how much force 'now' has in the following sentence:
'Now he could only think of her treachery to the Service and to her country and of the damage it had done.'
Natural reaction. But we have little idea of how much Vesper has meant to him. How often is he going to drag his love and grief out of that boxroom in his mind? It appears not at all from the next novel; it appears once a year in OHMSS. But in the film we see him try to save Vesper even after he knows she has betrayed him. So we know that he has compassion for her. We know he is using the term 'bitch' deliberately casually; that his 'now' is a front, and that he will never show his grief. We know why he goes after Mr White. And hopefully, we will see a continuation of this story in the next film - something Fleming never gave us.
#8
Loomis
-
- Veterans
-
- 21862 posts
Commander CMG
Posted 31 December 2006 - 05:04 PM
[quote name='spynovelfan' post='654071' date='22 November 2006 - 11:24']For years, Bond fans have claimed that Bond
#9
Harmsway
-
- Veterans
-
- 13293 posts
Commander
Posted 31 December 2006 - 11:41 PM
I quite agree with this, and had the same thought after I saw CASINO ROYALE for the second time.As with GOLDFINGER (e.g. nuking the gold, not nicking it), it seems that the Eon version once again improves on the plot of the novel. Yes, considerably (sorry).
#10
dinovelvet
-
- Veterans
-
- 8038 posts
Commander
- Location:Jupiter and beyond the infinite
Posted 01 January 2007 - 05:28 AM
I quite agree with this, and had the same thought after I saw CASINO ROYALE for the second time.As with GOLDFINGER (e.g. nuking the gold, not nicking it), it seems that the Eon version once again improves on the plot of the novel. Yes, considerably (sorry).
Yes, considerably (yikes!). Casino Royale the novel is not exactly plot heavy is it. The Fleming story is essentially Act Two and some of Act Three of the movie; the new material created for the screen is all gold!
#11
tdalton
-
- Veterans
-
- 11680 posts
Commander
Posted 01 January 2007 - 06:26 AM
I quite agree with this, and had the same thought after I saw CASINO ROYALE for the second time.As with GOLDFINGER (e.g. nuking the gold, not nicking it), it seems that the Eon version once again improves on the plot of the novel. Yes, considerably (sorry).
Yes, considerably (yikes!). Casino Royale the novel is not exactly plot heavy is it. The Fleming story is essentially Act Two and some of Act Three of the movie; the new material created for the screen is all gold!
Agreed. I thought that they did a fantastic job of faithfully adapting Fleming's novel for the screen while both expanding it and updating it for modern times. I always thought that it would be a very difficult thing to achieve, and they did quite well with it.