68 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

Yes, I knew he had a spare. The script made sure we knew that.

But the script made it seem like she did not have a spare evening gown anywhere near as nice as the one she had on. Can someone tell me if she wore the same gown minutes after she had gotten it drenched?

Wow, for someone who keeps going on and on and on about women, how could you miss the fact that she went to bed that night?

She wore a different gown the following night...not "minutes later".

The cut and colour are completely different. The first is purple/lavendar with string type shoulder straps and the next night she's in black and the straps are much wider.

[This young British accountant still basically decides that the Americans will get to interrogate a suspect instead of MI6.]

I just realized that the scene where she denies him the extra 5Million is the biggest "fault" in the script. ;-)

Were we watching the same movie?

LOL

She's there to make sure Le Chiffre's organization gets the money.

[Stylo]

Just wanted to reiterate that yeah, Vesper didn't return to the table in the film; Bond did so after washing up post the stairwell fight and the shower scene came right after the quip about changing his shirt.

Also to add to Vesper's trauma: she might have had to help Mathis or at least show him where the bodies were hidden. When they first met Mathis he informs them that he is "it" as far as help went.

Bond gave Vesper a gown designed to distract the other players (or so he thought, hee) - it looked to me like it was the purple gown he was hanging on the back of the bathroom door, which she wore first. The black one she was wearing later had a better neckline in my opinion, I assume this is the one she brought with her. I don't think she would have gone off to this kind of job without having at least a couple with her. In regards to the book, it's interesting for long time Bond/Fleming fans to refer back and forth to the novel, but I'd suspect the filmmakers are hoping people accept the film as a stand-alone.

I haven't read anywhere that Green put her foot down or refused to do the scene as written, or rewrote it herself (which I find highly unlikely). I haven't read anywhere that she said she didn't want to be "typecast as a Bond girl", but that she didn't want to play a "bimbo" which a lot of Bond girls are, in my opinion. The Globe and Mail article is now password protected and available only for people who buy online subscriptions.

In fact, I seem to remember reading somewhere else (not vouching for its accuracy, either) that it was Craig himself who suggested that she be wearing the gown in the shower, and that originally it was written (again, for the movie) with her in her underwear. Knowing what I do about psychological trauma, I believe women in that state of mind could and would do either.

I think I made a very good point that 99% of the men whom you'll find in European casinos or 5 star hotels are not spies in 2006, but businessmen. I was also saying that the women with them are not always their financial equals nor should we be judging each other on whether they should be.

Nor should we assume that a woman and a man being "financial equals" is the only criterion to being considered "equal" in the world. Contact on the internet is often quite fraught and (for instance) many women know how quickly things can go from a man's apparently straightforward story about his extensive traveling, buying women expensive gowns to accompany him while traveling and subsequently hang around the hotel room in only underwear on a break .... to quite truly "creepy" exchanges. I am in Toronto, Canada, so perhaps things are different here, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being politically correct or women trying to control the men around them; sometimes it's just about setting limits for yourself. IMO.

[HildebrandRarity]

Wait a minute...do you mean I was wrong about the two of them having to return to the tables immediately after the shower scene?

If so, this thread is mostly bunk.

B.U.N.K. LOL

[Mr Woodpigeon]

Yeah that's true about the fight in the 1 hr break. And when he got back to the table it was mentioned that he had changed his shirt (because of the blood).

Just wanted to reiterate that yeah, Vesper didn't return to the table in the film; Bond did so after washing up post the stairwell fight and the shower scene came right after the quip about changing his shirt.

As he says.

[stamper]

Actually, it's Craig who asked her to wear the dress in the shower, saying she wouldn't stop to take it off, so shaken she was. The new Bond is a feminist then.

[Athena007]

It would be realistic however, if she removed the dress and cried in her underwear in the shower.

..um... I've done that, so um... actually... it was extremely realistic that she left her dress on and sat in the shower. She was so affected. Man... I really loved that scene, really loved. Totally emotional... wish we had the Casino Royale dvd already... I would watch that scene right now.

[VeteransAbroad]

Yes, it is clear that Vesper refused to give Bond the extra $5M because she was already being blackmailed and, thus, working for Le Chiffre. It still would have been odd to Bond to be refused like that, but the movie made the CIA offer come so quickly that it was realistic to imagine Bond forgetting that the young associate had just made a major decision that MI6 would never have realistically given her (or a 26 year old man). Imagine a scenario where the CIA never made their offer and Bond just went home because Vesper said the mission could not go on. Does MI6 really let 26 year olds decide such matters? The movie implies that this would have been the case.

The Globe and Mail article says that Craig agreed on the shower scene change with Green and I agree with both of them now that I realize that Vesper wasn't going back to the card game that night. My entire thesis rested on the idea that everyone was taking an hour break.

Believe me, if I could do so, I would edit the title of this thread. The scriptwriters were still probably thinking straight when they assumed a woman who was retiring for the night might pull a restrictive dress off, but this is getting so BORING to discuss. I MEAN REALLY BORING.

In fact, I've changed the original post to wipe out comments I made because I've already been convinced I was wrong. The title of the thread, I repeat, would be rewritten if I could do that.

The more "interesting" element of the thread was the personal criticism I took for what was really a very mild tie in to real life experiences where I did not actually go into my "personal sex life".

Ian Fleming embraced 50's feminism to the degree that it would get women out into the work world where they could be interracted with (and slept with by his character). He would not, however, embrace a society 53 years later where victorianism has been brought back in many ways and where bosses cannot sleep with their personal assistants or where Andrea Dworkin presumably speaks for women (she's dead now). Fleming obviously wouldn't think it strange for a man to buy a woman an evening gown. Vesper borrowed a gown in the book (Bond didn't provide her with any clothing). But he bought her a gown in the movie. If anyone has a problem with men buying women evening gowns, take it to the CR scriptwriters please. ;-)

And a James Bond forum is not a place to argue about feminism. Male chauvinists are an endangered species. Let them leave on the free range of a James Bond forum. ;-)

The rude remark "For someone who talks on and on and on about women" was way out of place on a James Bond forum. Personal attacks just aren't necessary on any forum. But here, they are really anachronistic if they mean to admonish suspected "male chauvinists".

The phrase that referred to the buying of a dress for a woman "slightly creepy" was not meant by the poster to imply that I might be a pervert, but rather, more likely, it meant that she felt it was "unequal" for a man to buy a dress for a woman to accompany him on a business trip. I just noted that "creepy" should never be used to describe the male in a suspected "unequal" adult relationship. Craig is 12 years older than Green in real life and the book made their economic situations vastly different. To me, "creepy" describes the Ashton Kutscher-Demi Moore marriage where Ashton is best friends with Demi's teenage daughters...but I will hold my tongue on that.

If the unofficial rule of this forum is that nobody should talk about their own experiences in similar situations to Bond movie situations, then that makes the site lame. If its supposed to be a "turn off" to certain female site members that some guy actually sees the Bond lifestyle parallel in the business world...then one has to ask what the purpose of these forum members is to being here: discredit Ian Fleming's philosophy on how a man should behave?

Obviously, James Bond wouldn't talk about his own sex life in front of a woman he wants to seduce or befriend (but if the Internet existed in the 50s, he'd probably would make some remarks about dating situations anonymously on a forum before getting bored). But he did say in the film CR "You're not my type. You're single." to a woman he later ended up with.

So if some guy shows up tomorrow on this forum and says "I only sleep with married women," I wouldn't be amused if I saw forum members start to insult him as a "creep." This is a James Bond forum.

If you have a problem with such behavior, take it to the screenwriters or write "slightly creepy" across Ian Fleming's grave.

There are examples where James Bond tells women he wants to seduce about his sex life and they are not turned off. All the more reason not to criticize someone on this forum who mentions he's simply been on accompanied business trips before. It is way out of line to conduct personal character attacks for something as lame and boring as a discussion of the CR shower scene. If I could edit the title of the thread, I would not label Eva Green anymore either.

We were all voyeurs to James Bond's actual escapades. So, in the end, Ian Fleming told us all about it, going "on and on and on about women".

In contrast, all I said was that restrictive business clothing tends to come off in hotel rooms on breaks and I made it clear that there was nothing sexual about it (email normally needs to be read on such breaks). Was I supposed to be bragging about my own sex life by saying that? Or was I supposed to be bragging that I would even go with a woman on a business trip? What if I said I was married? Would that be OK or is the forum too prude even for that?

God forbid I would I have said that I was with another man's wife. Heavens! And on a James Bond forum to boot. :-(

I should go to an evangelical Christian website to talk like that.

Or maybe its just "going off on a tangent" to compare real life with the shower scene in CR. After all, I don't normally kill terrorists in the stairwells of the hotels we stay at.

Although I realize that the left likes to pretend that George Orwell was one of them (Orwell was actually pro-Nixon and pro-Vietnam War), the idea is ridiculous that an Ian Fleming/James Bond forum is any place for prudes or the type of people who keep a close eye out for playboys, perverts or braggarts and stand ready to insult those whom they falsely believe are such.

Fleming was against evil and against political correctness. Unlike Jane Austen, he wasn't into condemning men for not saying the right thing to a woman at the right time. But even Jane Austen, in "Pride and Prejudice", noted how stupid it is to condemn a man for what he says before you really know him.

Incidentally, "Pride and Prejudice" was originally titled "First Impressions."

Edited by VeteransAbroad, 30 November 2006 - 12:12 AM.

[Angel]

Feminism has nothing to do with someone's opinion on nudity. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, feminism is "1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes 2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests."

That's all. Now, I'm sure there are feminists who disapprove of nudity, and equally sure that there are feminist nudists, and feminists who fall on all points inbetween those two extremes. Just as there are feminsts vegetarians and feminists who enjoy a juicy steak every night of the week. And all of these other opinions have nothing to do with feminism. When you say "Feminist Green" in the title, you're using a term as unrelated to the topic as if you'd said "Left-handed Green."

I debated with myself about making this post, and then I recalled the words of the great Solomon Burke: "If you don't say it's wrong then that says it right."

What you did *is* wrong. Mischaracterizing a group of people is discrimination, and you don't get to do that. You don't get to make me and all the other people who identify as feminist feel unwelcome and degraded.

You seem to think this forum is a safe space for bigotry. It isn't.

Edited by Angel, 01 December 2006 - 04:06 AM.

[Pam Bouvier]

Well said, Angel. I consider may self to be a feminist and am proud of it. However, one doesn't have to be one to have the good taste to be uncomfortable with, nudity just for nudity's sake, in a film. If indeed that is even the case with Eva Green.

Wearing gown makes total sense to me as a woman. If you've ever been in shock, you know you don't worry about such trival matters (yes, the dress was expensive, but she just saw people die. She's NOT MI 6).

Also, as 007 bought the dress, it's not like it was $$ out of Vesper's pocket. That being the case, she had packed, not expected the purple number to appear- she had another dress.

I am kind of suprised this thread has stayed so active. I thought it would fade quickly, which is why I hadn't posted, until now.

Edited by Pam Bouvier, 01 December 2006 - 10:40 AM.

[Stylo]

He would not, however, embrace a society 53 years later where victorianism has been brought back in many ways and where bosses cannot sleep with their personal assistants or where Andrea Dworkin presumably speaks for women (she's dead now).

Eek. I see the problem here. It is a very BIG mistake to assume that Andrea Dworkin speaks for women. That could be the root of your problem understanding a few simple points. Dworkin no more represents me or my version of feminism than does Hilary Clinton.

Also, I completely disagree that a James Bond forum is not the place to discuss feminism. The phenomenon of James Bond and the attitudes about and towards women in the books and films have long been a popular topic of discussion for cultural critics of all stripes.

As a matter of fact -
"Bond Turns Feminist" - http://www.news.com....5001026,00.html

[VeteransAbroad]

[When you say "Feminist Green" in the title, you're using a term as unrelated to the topic as if you'd said "Left-handed Green."]

I said many, many times that I wish I could edit the title of the thread but could not. The original sources implied that Green didn't want to be "typecast" as the type of actress who would use her body to further her career. That concept isn't owned by "feminists" nor would I have cared to argue about it, because it isn't an important issue.

The Australian article "Bond Turns Feminist" says in a sentence at the bottom: "in this film Bond is less of a chauvinist." And that is the end of the discussion. It seems that the person who wrote the title to the article is not the person who wrote the article itself, but no matter. Male journalists are often afraid to actually discuss "feminism" because they are afraid that someone will get upset with the definition the journalist provides or doesn't provide (unless it is the dictionary definition).

Which goes to show that, yes, there are lots of definitions of feminism (which are put forward by various feminist writers like Naomi Wolfe and Germaine Greer as well as many organizations, half of whom refuse to call themselves "feminists" for political reasons) and it is therefore meaningless to both describe someone simply as a feminist, to describe oneself as simply a feminist or to call someone a bigot for not liking a certain type of feminist that he or she might have an entirely different definition for.

In fact, last year the Bush fans over at the FreeRepublic.com revised their definition of "feminist" to mean only someone who is OK with abortion and lesbianism...which is a ridiculous categorization reflecting the IQ level of that forum and pressure from Security Moms to narrow the definition so as not to offend them and cause them to leave the Republican Party.

That said, it is extremely instructive to see the interest in self-described "feminists" in a Bond forum in what many call a post-feminist era (my sisters and women friends would not bother calling themselves "feminists" although they would be according to Angel's dictionary definition). Ian Fleming would probably, if he were alive, take a special interest in what it is about his work that would be attracting those who say "I am proud to be feminist" in 2006. One would assume that it is not to do what I described earlier as having been done with George Orwell. I am assuming such Bond fans really like Bond and Fleming.

I didn't see Bond as much of a chauvinist in the book CR. I know he made an outrageous comment in the book "The Spy Who Loved Me". Fleming was originally the scorn of the US Republicans, however, not the Democrats.

In the early 60s, Fleming's attitude would have been considered liberal and pro-feminist because feminists were pushing for the sexual revolutiona and women getting more and more into the workplace which was what Fleming wanted.

But if Fleming were alive today, he'd probably have some choice comments to make regarding how some people would want Miss Moneypenny to sue James Bond for sexual harrassment.

Anyone who puts an "ist" at the back of their self-identification had better be doing so for professional reasons (podiatrist for example) or else intellectual criticism of the "ism" isn't bigotry. Bigotry would be like saying all Danish people are boring.

Now one can argue all day about whether one is bigoted in not liking Bush-voting Christian "evangelists". The reason is that these "ist" people have a choice on whether or not to be who they are.

Webster's dictionary is NOT an accepted authority for defining "isms" or "ists". You can go to www.IFeminists.net to get one definition of feminists and to the NOW to get another. But, with the latter, you have to look into the various court cases and depositions to get a true picture of an organization that says one thing on their website and literature and another thing when trying to get laws passed or upheld or whatever.

But very little of this has to do with a shower scene and, unless one wants to discuss the outrageous Fleming remark Viv made in the book "The Spy Who Loved Me", I cannot see much the Bond franchise may have of interest to dictionary-defined "feminists" except that the women characters be given good jobs and non-sexist names in future Bond films.

What Bond does with married women and whether he buys anyone a dress...has nothing to do with the dictionary definition above described.

Edited by VeteransAbroad, 07 December 2006 - 07:23 PM.

[Angel]

[When you say "Feminist Green" in the title, you're using a term as unrelated to the topic as if you'd said "Left-handed Green."]

Hi Angel: I said 1000 times that I wish I could edit the title of the thread but could not. Did you go from the title to your posting? cool.gif

Hello. To answer your question: No. I didn't just glance at the title and then reply. In an effort to be fair to you, I read your first post and every subsequent comment you made within the thread. When I saw that you had continued to use the word "feminist" as a catch-all pejorative throughout, I decided to say something.

I found many other objectionable things in what you said, but I picked out what seemed to me the most salient evil, and addressed it. Let me say that again, I addressed it, not you. My posting doesn't mean that I want to have an exchange with you, and after this post, I don't intend to comment in this thread again. Why? Because, from reading your meandering, offensive stream-of-consciousness comments here, I don't expect it's possible to have a reasonable exchange with you. Your logic doesn't appear to resemble our earth logic. At least, none that I'm familiar with.

This, for instance, is a sort of communicative nihilism:

Which goes to show that, yes, there are lots of definitions of feminism and its meaningless to both describe someone simply as a feminist, to describe oneself as simply a feminist or to call someone a bigot for not liking a certain type of feminist that he or she might have an entirely different definition for.

Communicating with others requires that we submit to shared definitions. We don't get to make up our own. We certainly don't get to make up our own without telling people that we're using a word to represent a completely unrelated idea. When you do things like that, you annihilate the social contract of communication, and become a person it's *impossible* to have a reasonable talk with. Why? Because you'll constantly be moving the linguistic "ground beneath our feet," forever shifting the meaning of words whenever it suits you. Never playing fair by the rules of communication. That's a recipe for a conversation straight out of "Alice in Wonderland." I don't care to take part in that.

At the very least, if you're going to use the word "feminist" to mean purple elephant, or prude, or bitch, or what have you, you should alert your readers to the fact that you've thrown your dictionary out and are now twisting the word to suit your own pathology.

ETA: It damn well *is* bigotry to use a word to mischaracterize a group of people when you could *easily* use a more accurate word instead. When you use "feminist" in a context where it means prude, bitch, opressive force, etc, etc, as you have, you're being a bigot. You're taking the very word that defines a group of people and turning it into a slur.

You're producing your very own propaganda. I mean, for God's sakes, man, it's a method made infamous by George Orwell in "1984" with the repetition of "War is peace / freedom is slavery / ignorance is strength." Only, instead of saying "feminist is prude," "feminist is oppressive," or "feminist is bitch," you just use the word to mean those, and other negative things, over and over. Sneaky, huh? Now, whether or not you're conscious of what you're doing, I won't say. Maybe you picked up the habit somewhere. I don't know. But you *are* doing it.

Edited by Angel, 02 December 2006 - 01:26 AM.

[zencat]

I love the shower scene. I think it's perfect (the fact that she still has her dress on just shows how freaked she is). Green's performance here is particularly amazing. I really watched her on viewing 2. Spectacular.

[Melanie]

I went and read everything, that's been said here. Some interesting points have been raised. I am not going to get into the feminist discussion, so this is just meant to be another female POV on the initial discussion. I have seen the scene once and this is how I interpret it.

When Bond enters the room, he notices a broken glass on the table and the closed door probably has him wondering what is going on. I initially suspected more trouble and bad guys, Vesper trying to defend herself with the glass. But it turns out Vesper poured herself some wine, after she told Mathis about the bodies. Probably tried to calm down.

Since it is not known when Vesper got approached by Mr. White, I have a theory. Maybe the wine triggered something. The train ride, when Bond and her were sharing a bottle of wine for the first time, but her life was still without a brutal fight and murder infront of her eyes. And I have to say the killing of the last African was tough to watch, it seemed like ages, the way he just didn't want to die. And I was as horrified as the emotions displayed by Eva Green in the scene. So in her room it is all quiet and probably only now sinks in what just happened. Maybe the wine is supposed to have a soothing effect, but it triggers an instant flashback and she runs into the shower and breaks down.

Why would she stop to make sure her dress doesn't get wet? After all her hands feel like there is blood on them. Was there any real blood or just in her mind? Does it matter? Underwear or naked wouldn't have been credible to me, again because she feels like there is blood on her hands. Not her body. Was there any blood on her dress after the fight?

I am a woman and I would have needed trauma therapy. And I couldn't care less about a dress in that second, because it is not important anymore. She got all dressed up, to distract, but now it's not what matters anymore.

First she almost goofs, because she wants to take the lift again, Bond tells her to take the stairs. So her causing the slight delay, the kiss, the reveal, the fight was a little her fault, as Bond all by himself would have probably been out of that hallway before the Africans noticed anything. And why would anyone mind about the dress? Water doesn't ruin the fabric, just shrinks it maybe. Heh. And it's not like Bond hasn't gotten his clothes ruined numerous times before.

This scene felt very real. But also very endearing and it is unpredictable, if you haven't seen the trailer. Cudos to the actors. And the tracking back of the camera out of the bathroom is a great asset.

[Vesperlover]

I know this might be a little bit late and a little useless but i have read that it was Craig that wanted the change and nothing to do with Eva Green. I think it original was supposed to be in the film with her undressing but Craig protested that and believed it would be better for her to have the dress on and so it was left in!

[EWKDSMB]

i'm not sure if it is true or not that green had it changed.

i think if anyone was going to have it changed it would have been paul haggis.

he polished up the script, and to me given how traumatised she is it makes more sense for her to be in the shower with her clothes on.

[Roger Moore's Bad Facelift]

I think the shower scene is Campbell indulging in his most melodramatic syrupy excesses.
We've now gone from wierdly vampiric necking (Brosnan) to Freudian-rooted digit suckling (Craig).
Fair trade off?
I'll let you decide.

Personally, i think the scene is cut from the same cloth as the ham-fisted introspective moments that hampered "Goldeneye".

[dodge]

It would be realistic however, if she removed the dress and cried in her underwear in the shower.

..um... I've done that, so um... actually... it was extremely realistic that she left her dress on and sat in the shower. She was so affected. Man... I really loved that scene, really loved. Totally emotional... wish we had the Casino Royale dvd already... I would watch that scene right now.

The scene seemed totally natural. Whether Green, Craig or Haggis called for the dress in the shower, the touch was surprising and right and just light. Who thinks of their dress or their suit or their keys in an emotional meltdown?

[notnerb]

Considering how she handled the amount of flack she got for casting Daniel Craig I seriously doubt that Barbara Brocolli is the type to let herself be pushed around, least of all by an actress. That said she appears to be open to resonable suggestions, which I think Green made in this case.

Firstly, if Green had done the scene in her underwear as originally written then that would inevitably be what people focused on. It would automatically inject an element of sex into the scene and Bonds action of getting in the shower next to her would potentially be seen as an attempt to take advantage of her fragile emotional state in order to seduce her, rather than comforting someone he has feelings for.

Secondly it also shows her mental state at the time. Not only is she a treasury agent in WAY out of her depth she is dealing with the fact that she witnessed two men being killed, as well as almost being killed herself. Add to this, the man she loves has been kidnapped and is in danger of being killed. Emotionally she is at the end of her rope, so I doubt that she could care less about ruining her dress.

[cricket99999]

Sorry I'm late.

Reading through these posts, I see mention of The Spy Who Loved Me and Viv's "outrageous" comment. I loved the book but it's been thirtysomething years since I read it. What did she say that was so outrageous?

[bond_girl_double07]

Considering how she handled the amount of flack she got for casting Daniel Craig I seriously doubt that Barbara Brocolli is the type to let herself be pushed around, least of all by an actress. That said she appears to be open to resonable suggestions, which I think Green made in this case.

Firstly, if Green had done the scene in her underwear as originally written then that would inevitably be what people focused on. It would automatically inject an element of sex into the scene and Bonds action of getting in the shower next to her would potentially be seen as an attempt to take advantage of her fragile emotional state in order to seduce her, rather than comforting someone he has feelings for.

Secondly it also shows her mental state at the time. Not only is she a treasury agent in WAY out of her depth she is dealing with the fact that she witnessed two men being killed, as well as almost being killed herself. Add to this, the man she loves has been kidnapped and is in danger of being killed. Emotionally she is at the end of her rope, so I doubt that she could care less about ruining her dress.

Agreed.. if she'd been naked/scantily clad, that's the only thing anybody would have focused on in this scene. I don't think she's being a crazy feminist for making the decision to stay true to the emotional impact of that scene. It was the right decision for that scene, regardless of her motive.

And I couldn't disagree more, Roger Moore's Bad Facelift.. I don't think this is syrupy at all. Who hasn't broken down at some point.. I thought the minimal dialog really added to the emotion of the scene, and it was one of the most poignant moments of the film for me.

[00Twelve]

Replying to the title of the thread, how could someone care about their material evening gown when they've just seen a man get violently choked to death about 3 feet away, then had to hide his and another dead man's bodies?

[Daddy Bond]

I think it worked better as is. As others mentioned, she is so traumatized that she is not thinking "Oh, I had better not get this evening gown wet!"

It makes for more drama IMO - that she's SO shaken up that she doesn't think about the dress.

- Regards

[tdalton]

I think it worked better as is. As others mentioned, she is so traumatized that she is not thinking "Oh, I had better not get this evening gown wet!"

It makes for more drama IMO - that she's SO shaken up that she doesn't think about the dress.

- Regards

Agreed. I think that the scene is perfect as is, and is one of the best scenes in the entire movie.

[Daddy Bond]

One other thought by the way - I think it adds to the drama of Bond comforting Vesper by removing any hint of a sexual innuendo - that MIGHT have occurred otherwise. In other words, Bond is truly focused on ONE thing - comforting Vesper - and nothing else. So concerned, that he too is willing to get his tux wet.

Regards

[Santa]

How did I miss this delightful thread?! VeteransAbroad. What a weirdo . I'll add in as everyone else has.
1) Like Athena, I've been known to jump in the shower/pool/mud wrestling pit in my evening gown. It happens all the time and the scene was perfect.
2) In that kind of gown she's unlikely to be wearing any underwear, so that debunks your whole knowing about women .
3) If you're buying women evening gowns for 120 euros it explains why you're so obviously sexually frustrated. 120 euros?!!! I bet these women spit in your drink when you're not looking. Actually you've gone on a fair amount about the price of things and, frankly, talking about money is such bad form.

4) Yes, in fact, you are pretty creepy.

To the others, I apologise for being knowingly offensive here, but if he can't take it he shouldn't give it out.

[HildebrandRarity]

I was going to tell the guy he was a creep back in November but, as I had been banned by the administrators in the past for rattling peoples' cages, I figured i'd watch my words given they'd given me a third (or fourth...i've forgotten now) lease on life.

;-)

Yes, the scene is outstanding as is and is one of my favourites in the movie. No one has mentioned David Arnold's work in this scene and in the Dinner Jackets scene.

The score adds to this scene and the movie as a whole.

Well done to the producers, the writers, the actors, the director, the DP and to David Arnold for giving us this unique moment in James Bond history.

[kneelbeforezod]

I just wanted to say that I thoroughly enjoyed this thread back in November, particularly how Angel took VeteransAbroad to the cleaners...

If I were an obnoxious internet geek (oh god... I'm not am I?) I would probably say "OWNED".

[byline]

Yes, it is clear that Vesper refused to give Bond the extra $5M because she was already being blackmailed and, thus, working for Le Chiffre. It still would have been odd to Bond to be refused like that, but the movie made the CIA offer come so quickly that it was realistic to imagine Bond forgetting that the young associate had just made a major decision that MI6 would never have realistically given her (or a 26 year old man).

Except that you have to remember Vesper's comment to Bond on the train. Remember, she's not working for MI6; she's a Treasury agent sent along to safeguard the government's money. She told Bond that $5 million more would be made available to him if she deemed it a prudent investment. That was part of the deal, and he knew it. So, like it or not, he knew he that had to convince her that he wouldn't lose more of the government's money, but realized that he had failed to do so. Given her multiple comments about his ego, he would have known that her assessment of him was a reasonable one.

Bond gave Vesper a gown designed to distract the other players (or so he thought, hee) - it looked to me like it was the purple gown he was hanging on the back of the bathroom door, which she wore first.

I'm pretty sure that you are correct; she wore the purple dress with sequins (or something glittery along the neckline) first, and that's the dress Bond gave her.

[byline]

Well said, Angel. I consider may self to be a feminist and am proud of it. However, one doesn't have to be one to have the good taste to be uncomfortable with, nudity just for nudity's sake, in a film. If indeed that is even the case with Eva Green.

Absolutely. I think that the scene as presented in the film makes perfect sense. I was actually dreading what had become the standard "sex after a violent altercation" Bond scene . . . mainly because in reality, it makes so little sense. Especially for someone like Vesper, who was a Treasury agent, not an MI6 agent. So she was not prepared for the violence she had to witness and, as such, was in shock. The shower scene, and Bond's response to her plight (as well as his own), depicted this perfectly.