18 replies to this topic

[Dell Deaton]

Present company excepted, of course.

But does it seem to anyone here that every time a new James Bond film comes out, or some other reason crops up for coverage, a few of the folks "inside" rise up to tell us why "this" is, or what "that" meant in "the original Ian Fleming"? Suddenly they are experts because they were involved or otherwise related to the most current incarnation.

Most recently:

• Statement regarding how much 007 got into killing
• Defining "quantum of solace"

Don't get me wrong. One can certainly enjoy the movies and count themselves among the most passionate of James Bond fans and not have ever read Fleming, nor even now have an interest in what he did way back when. Or maybe they argue he's irrelevant today. That's one thing.

But it's quite another to pontificate, as I see to often, as if they are experts. Just do what you do, be who you are, collect your paycheck; see you again in a few years. Bye-bye.

For the rest of us: Hooray that the Ian Fleming Centenary goes on!

Edited by Dell Deaton, 22 October 2008 - 05:48 PM.

[Revelator]

Well, 99% of everything that's been written on Fleming is utter bull[censored] in the first place, so it's not surprising that that supposed experts in the press are even more offensively wrong than everyone else. Take today's Independent article "'Ah, 007, we meet again...': A brief history of the Bond villain." The writer, some snide hack, casually informs us that if Bond "was emotionally repressed and had an inner vulnerability, this wasn't something that Fleming or his readers were much interested in."

It's hardly a secret to anyone who's actually read Fleming that book Bond is far more emotionally vulnerable than his movie version. But the writer is a lazy journo who probably hasn't read the books and has only the movies to rely on. We should also take into mind that many of the newspaper articles coming out now are essentially puff pieces where we're told that in QoS Bond is a far more complex character than he has ever been and that the Bond girls aren't just bimbos anywhere. This would hardly be news to anyone who knows that Bond was always more of a human being in the books, and that Fleming's women were never bimbos.

Some of the reviews for Faulks' sad Fleming pastiche were equally abhorrent, especially Charles McGrath's article in the New York Times, where he claimed that Faulks' book was plainly better than anything Fleming ever wrote because it was better written and drew on Bond's cultural history. And did he back this up with anything resembling evidence or critical insight? No, because obviously a high class author like Faulks would write better, and demonstrating how would be superfluous. In other words, critical snobbery. Fleming's heirs don't seem to care that by allowing such continuations they continue to hamper Fleming's reputation. But hey, they're making a truckload of money, so everyone's happy.

Since I'm beginning to sound too bitter, I should say that there are bright spots in the journalistic wasteland: Sinclair mcKay's recent article on the books was a pleasant surprise, and makes his upcoming book look all the more attractive.

Edited by Revelator, 20 October 2008 - 08:03 PM.

[Loomis]

Excellent post, Revelator. I found it infuriating how so many culture vultures and media pundits were blithely claiming that the abysmal DEVIL MAY CARE (and I write these words, BTW, as a huge admirer of some of Faulks' other books) was "pure Fleming" when anyone who was actually familiar with old Ian's works would know that it was nothing of the sort, and that it was indeed probably less Flemingian than something like, say, THE MAN WITH THE RED TATTOO.

A lot of people were really betraying their ignorance of Fleming and his style this summer, as though their real exposure to his work came simply from watching DR. NO or FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE on DVD and conjuring up a quick mental picture of how those stories might have been written as novels, i.e. "pretty much the same, really, except with more smoking and snobbery, some difficult words, lots of French names of food and drink, and a few expressions that would nowadays be considered highly non-PC".

Well, sorry, but that ain't Fleming, and neither is DMC.

[Dell Deaton]

Although a friend gave me Devil May Care as a gift, I must confess that I've not yet read it. Thus I must hold off on weighing in on what you guys have said about that here.

Moreover (if I may be blunt), the thinking that motivated this Thread for me was a good deal closer to the Quantum of Solace, and, before that, Casino Royale, film productions themselves. I don't have high expectations for reviewers and critics. For them, this is just a job to be quickly researched, snap summaries made, then verdicts rendered.

But it just seems to me that the whole "I know James Bond" thing is not just wrong, it's so unnecessary. Suddenly we "know" 007 because he's given a PPK in Quantum of Solace? Or, to my area of expertise: The move to an Omega Planet Ocean to get back as close as we can to the "authentic" Rolex Submariner? (Not according to Mr. Fleming was James Bond's watch choice a Sub, nor even a diver's model! So what we're really talking about here is one actor copying another; akin to what happens w/ Xerox machines, I guess.)

And, like I said before: Could someone actually read "Quantum of Solace" before pretending like they're gonna explain that meaning to me? There is absolutely nothing about the Vesper Lynd relationship that can be shoehorned into making Ian Fleming's definition work here. Ugh!

Edited by Dell Deaton, 22 October 2008 - 05:51 PM.

[clinkeroo]

Agreed, agreed, agreed. There seems to be a whole school of thinking that is based on reading modern articles about Fleming and Bond (sexist, racist, misogynist, pampered, wish-fulfilment)and watching the films (as if IF had anything to do with 95% of the tripe) rather than being based on actually reading the novels and shorts. They tend to focus on the sexier angles of Fleming's life, or statements or sentiments that he allegedly made that don't live up to some modern litmus test of political correctness.

That being said, in a few weeks, there will be a whole new generation of Bond fans being born because of the hype, and hopefully, the quality of the new film. They will search out sites like this one, and a few will actually be compelled to pick up one of the novels, and then their eyes will be opened. I would like to believe that Fleming is best served when the readership discovers him at a young age, before they become jaded by the mass media.

Maybe fifty years from now, Fleming will get the credit he deserves, as the films fade from popular culture and become nostalgia. There was a time when Chandler's Marlowe and Hammet's Spade were pop icons due to their radio shows, but these days the characters are more adored for the skill of their creators, and everything else is just a footnote. Sherlock Holmes was reborn in the 40's thanks to the Rothbone-Bruce films (fourteen films in seven years) but today they are footnotes because the premise of a 19th century consulting detective fighting Nazis seems rather silly and dated (please don't attack me, my fellow Sherlockians, I love them too, but it was silly), and yet these days, ACD is considered a master and one of the fathers of detective fiction.

Every few years, I write something along these lines, and the film folks line up to slap me like the hysterical lady in the original Airplane film, but I think history will eventually be kinder to the books, and to Fleming, that it will be to the films.

[Revelator]

That being said, in a few weeks, there will be a whole new generation of Bond fans being born because of the hype, and hopefully, the quality of the new film. They will search out sites like this one, and a few will actually be compelled to pick up one of the novels, and then their eyes will be opened.

I'd be eager to know how well that Quantum of Solace short story collection has been selling, and what readers' reactions have been. I know that Casino Royale enjoyed some kind of boost thanks to the movie, and I also wonder how many new literary Bond fans it helped create.

Maybe fifty years from now, Fleming will get the credit he deserves, as the films fade from popular culture and become nostalgia. There was a time when Chandler's Marlowe and Hammet's Spade were pop icons due to their radio shows, but these days the characters are more adored for the skill of their creators, and everything else is just a footnote.

I mostly agree, but would point out that Howard Hawks's film of The Big Sleep and John Huston's The Maltese Falcon are both esteemed and famous film classics. But no one has made a memorable film from either of these authors for decades, and they're still going strong.
This brings up the problem of erasure. What happened to the Bond books has simply never happened before in the history of books or movies: a series of movies have been made from a series of books continuously for five decades. This has not happened to any other author that I know of, and it has meant that the films have essentially pushed the books out of the public consciousness. Imagine what would have happened to Sam Spade or Sherlock Holmes if people never stopped making movies of them, movies that were mostly grotesque self-parodies of the original books or of the preceding movies, thus warping the original image of the books. And yet this unprecedented event has happened with Fleming.

Sherlock Holmes was reborn in the 40's thanks to the Rathbone-Bruce films...and yet these days, ACD is considered a master and one of the fathers of detective fiction.

Holmes's screen history is especially interesting, because most of the Rathbone films threw away Doyle as much as the later Bond films threw out Fleming. But decades after the Rathbone series ended, Jeremy Brett starred in a terrific TV series that was extremely faithful to Doyle's stories. I wonder if that would have happened if Rathbone had found a Roger Moore-type successor, followed by Holmesian equivalents of Dalton, Brosnan, and Craig! I also wonder if one day, after the EON series has ended, James Bond will one day find his own Jeremy Brett, and a textually faithful series for him to star in...

(Trivia: Roger Moore once played Sherlock Holmes in Sherlock Holmes in New York, with John Huston as Moriarty. And Jeremy Brett auditioned for James Bond in 1969. Imagine him in OHMSS instead of George Lazenby!!)

Edited by Revelator, 23 October 2008 - 08:35 PM.

[Dell Deaton]

Interesting angles. And parallels.

Maybe the struggle I'm having is some perceived obligation on the part of these folks to reconsile the two paths. We can speculate "why" and "where" they diverged, but the consensus seems to be that there's little doubt that they did; that the movies and books are not on the same trajectory. Perhaps never were.

Just recently on CBn, there came a Thread that cited actors who were almost Bond on the big screen. Ian Fleming's choices, at least for two. And before them, Berry Nelson on TV. From a blank sheet of paper, that's what the creator of 007 saw and chose. Nothing there takes leads me to today.

Fine.

Also, too, there's the difference in the medium. Today someone Posted a Thread where those related to the franchise put questions to Daniel Craig. At one point, Mr. Craig cites Fleming and two pages of detail on making eggs. True enough. Works in a book. But, when you compare it to Bond making coffee on screen (Roger Moore, Live and Let Die), it comes across so differently. What is vital to one in "putting you there" is exhausting and unnecessary in a medium that can show it all to you in one glance.

Maybe we're trying to do Shakespeare here. Brilliant literature, wonderful when read. Similarly so, and richly consistent when performed on stage. But a different approach than a novel or short story.

Thus the films claiming to "honor the original" are left w/ trying to match that drawing of Bond from way back when, or doggedly looking for consistency in name brand acknowledgments, like Aston Martin (I know: Shoulda been Bentley).

[Revelator]

the movies and books are not on the same trajectory. Perhaps never were.

I don't know about that--the first three Bond films and OHMSS all strike me as being within hailing spirit of the written works, despite their differences. I would even throw in FYEO, LTK and CR in that list. It seems to me that the books and films often diverge and tend to re-converge when the movies feel the need to correct their excesses. The books are the movie's Shrublands--it goes there after it's become too fattened on a diet of Moonrakers or Die Another Days.

Ian Fleming's choices, at least for two.

I assume you're referring to Richard Burton, Fleming's first recorded choice, and David Niven, who came later. As Empire admits, Burton would have been a terrific choice, and I choose to view Niven as Flmeing half-seriously recommending a friend.

Also, too, there's the difference in the medium. Today someone Posted a Thread where those related to the franchise put questions to Daniel Craig. At one point, Mr. Craig cites Fleming and two pages of detail on making eggs. True enough.

No, it's not. There's a scrambled eggs recipe in 007 in New York, but the Bond books do not consist of or lengthily depict the process of meals being made. They have frequent mentions of and references to meals, but that is not the same thing, and it's hardly an unbridgeable divide between media. Instead of mentioning scrambled eggs and how they were cooked, you have a quick cut-in shot of the eggs before Bond tucks in his fork and that's all--a split second of screentime. Similarly, you do not need to recite Flemingian detail if you're filming, say, a submarine or bomber. You don't need to mention the make and model of the craft, you just show it and the viewer believes it. Fleming's details are simply there to create a credible world that incredible events can happen in. In movies we are seeing the world through a camera, and it thus gains instant credibility. There's no need for descriptive detail. You can cut right to the incredible events. The details in Fleming are what sets the stage for his fantasies--with film the stage is easier to set, and you can get down to the fantasies right away. And if the fantasies still come across as to fantastic, you can always beguile the audience with a throwaway line, as they did in the first and most influential Bond films. The devil may be in the details, but the angels aren't.

But, when you compare it to Bond making coffee on screen (Roger Moore, Live and Let Die), it comes across so differently.

Had we any detailed passages of Bond making coffee in the books they might have come across as equally boring. We don't. It's a false analogy (and anyway, that scene is entirely there to show off the gadget).
The entire history of film has been of bloodyminded directors overcoming objections that such and such is too theatrical or literary or unfilmable. Fleming isn't Shakespeare--Shakespeare is poetry set to drama, and it's difficult to make film people reciting poetry. And even so, people like Olivier and Orson Welles have made great Shakespeare films.

Edited by Revelator, 24 October 2008 - 03:44 AM.

[clinkeroo]

The books are the movie's Shrublands--it goes there after it's become too fattened on a diet of Moonrakers or Die Another Days.

Great line, that .

Yes, I do pray that someday Fleming's novels will find their Brett. Another firm example would be Tim Hutton's work on the Nero Wolfe series (based on Fleming's friend Rex Stout's stories.) Wolfe had gone the radio show/film/bad television series route, only to have Hutton breathe it back to life.

Alas, I am getting older, and with quality Bond films like CR being made now, it moves back any prospective timeline on a period-based, faithful adaption of Fleming. I feel like a Holmes fan in the 40's, in his 40's, pining away for someone like Brett and the Granada productions to come along. I will not live long enough to see it, so I will be content with the lot I'm dealt, and currently it's not a very bad lot.

I can't remember the author he made reference to, but Stephen King once paraphrased another author (Graham Greene, maybe?) whose works had been turned into some God-awful films. When asked by a reporter how he felt about how Hollywood had ruined his novels, the author simply turned to his bookshelf and said, "No, they haven't, they're still all right there."

[Revelator]

Another firm example would be Tim Hutton's work on the Nero Wolfe series (based on Fleming's friend Rex Stout's stories.)

I didn't know Fleming and Stout were friends--now that shout-out Fleming gave Stout in OHMSS makes even more sense. Now that I think about it, Bond is also shown reading Raymond Chandler, Patrick Leigh Fermor, and Eric Ambler, all of whom were also friends of Fleming's. So I guess it's pretty easy to guess what sort of writers Bond liked--any who were friends of Ian Fleming!

[spynovelfan]

And Jeremy Brett auditioned for James Bond in 1969. Imagine him in OHMSS instead of George Lazenby!!)

I just realised who Fleming's commissioned illustration of Bond reminded me of: a cruelly handsome old Etonian who smoked sixty a day called Brett, Jeremy Brett.

[Revelator]

I just realised who Fleming's commissioned illustration of Bond reminded me of: a cruelly handsome old Etonian who smoked sixty a day called Brett, Jeremy Brett.

Ah! This makes me wonder even more what would have happened if it had been Brett instead of Lazenby. Let's see, he might have had even better chemistry with Diana Rigg, but he would have been much less impressive in the fight scenes. He would have gotten the Byronian aspects of Bond's character down to a T, but he might have come off as too smart or too eccentric to be an action hero. As an actor he was dynamic and smart and could have easily handled anything the script threw at him. On the other hand, had he been Bond, he might have never been Sherlock. I feel to some extent that he was better suited to Sherlock, but that's only the wisdom of hindsight. In any case, he would have been a stylish, whip-smart, wiry Bond, though whether the public would have accepted him any more than Lazenby is anybody's guess. But it would have been a daring and exciting piece of casting!

Edited by Revelator, 03 January 2009 - 02:52 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Wonderful!

I just realised who Fleming's commissioned illustration of Bond reminded me of: a cruelly handsome old Etonian who smoked sixty a day called Brett, Jeremy Brett.

Ah! This makes me wonder even more what would have happened if it had been Brett instead of Lazenby. Let's see, he might have had even better chemistry with Diana Rigg, but he would have been much less impressive in the fight scenes. He would have gotten the Byronian aspects of Bond's character down to a T, but he might have come off as too smart or too eccentric to be an action hero.

In any case, he would have been a stylish, whip-smart, wiry Bond, though whether the public would have accepted him any more than Lazenby is anybody's guess. But it would have been a daring and exciting piece of casting!

Well, whether or not he would have been accepted by Joe and Jane Average is an interesting piece of speculation.

What, however, would have happened is that he wouldn't have bothered listening to some 'advisor' - even if he did have one - and Eon would have soldiered on with him (instead of re-signing Connery as replacement for their resigned OO) and given us a true follow-up to OHMSS (and resolution to the final scene) instead of the Diamonds Are Forever we did get!

PS

BTW, where's Dell? He's been absent from the forums. One would have thought the Craig-Sued-By-Omega-For-Pro-Rolex/Anti-Omega-Comments thread would have smoked him out!

[spynovelfan]

I just realised who Fleming's commissioned illustration of Bond reminded me of: a cruelly handsome old Etonian who smoked sixty a day called Brett, Jeremy Brett.

Ah! This makes me wonder even more what would have happened if it had been Brett instead of Lazenby. Let's see, he might have had even better chemistry with Diana Rigg, but he would have been much less impressive in the fight scenes. He would have gotten the Byronian aspects of Bond's character down to a T, but he might have come off as too smart or too eccentric to be an action hero. As an actor he was dynamic and smart and could have easily handled anything the script threw at him. On the other hand, had he been Bond, he might have never been Sherlock. I feel to some extent that he was better suited to Sherlock, but that's only the wisdom of hindsight. In any case, he would have been a stylish, whip-smart, wiry Bond, though whether the public would have accepted him any more than Lazenby is anybody's guess. But it would have been a daring and exciting piece of casting!

My guess is that he would not have been nearly as convincing, as you say, in the fight scenes, and I wonder how he'd have handled the kind of womanising bravado that Lazenby pulled off with the girls at Piz Gloria... but other than that I think he might well have been brilliant, and fitted very well into the 'back to Fleming' feel of the film. I love Lazenby's performance, but he was nevertheless a great hulking Australian, albeit very charismatic, male model. Brett looked and spoke much more like one would imagine Fleming's character to have done - and more than Connery, too. I don't think we'd necessarily have seen his eccentric side, but I imagine he'd have had some of the dandyish English cad nature of Moore crossed with the cruel sternness of Dalton. Whether the public would have been ready for it is another thing, of course.

Someone put this together on Youtube: a bit swooningly fannish, and his hair is rather too long and he's playing a villain... but I can really see how he could have done it.

[Professor Pi]

I remember back in 1989 the LA Times reviewed Licence to Kill and the critic wrote, "It's the first Bond film to not be named after a Fleming novel, and the furthest in spirit from them."

I thought, has she even read a Fleming book? Or seen Moonraker? Thanks for posting the thread!

[eddychaput]

I remember back in 1989 the LA Times reviewed Licence to Kill and the critic wrote, "It's the first Bond film to not be named after a Fleming novel, and the furthest in spirit from them."

I thought, has she even read a Fleming book? Or seen Moonraker? Thanks for posting the thread!

Terrible. Absolutely terrible. LTK is essentially the Live and Let Die novel but with a different setting and villain. There are scenes from Live and Let Die that were ripped from the pages and put to the screen for LTK.

[Jeff007]

I remember back in 1989 the LA Times reviewed Licence to Kill and the critic wrote, "It's the first Bond film to not be named after a Fleming novel, and the furthest in spirit from them."

I thought, has she even read a Fleming book? Or seen Moonraker? Thanks for posting the thread!

She must of just been jumping on the critic band wagon bashing Licence to Kill and didn't bother to do any research.

[HH007]

I remember back in 1989 the LA Times reviewed Licence to Kill and the critic wrote, "It's the first Bond film to not be named after a Fleming novel, and the furthest in spirit from them."

I thought, has she even read a Fleming book? Or seen Moonraker? Thanks for posting the thread!

She must of just been jumping on the critic band wagon bashing Licence to Kill and didn't bother to do any research.

Remember that LTK was made in the days before the Internet. Cyberspace has made research so much easier.

[Revelator]

Terrible. Absolutely terrible. LTK is essentially the Live and Let Die novel but with a different setting and villain. There are scenes from Live and Let Die that were ripped from the pages and put to the screen for LTK.

It also incorporates elements from TMWTGG--and I can add that despite the similarities it handles the Bond/Sanchez relationship better than Fleming handled the Bond/Scaramanga relationship.