8 replies to this topic

[DR76]

Why did M deem it was necessary to meet Bond in a submarine, off the coast of Hong Kong? Surely, the MI-6 Section Chief in Hong Kong could have briefed 007. And why drag Moneypeeny along?

[Righty007]

Why did M deem it was necessary to meet Bond in a submarine, off the coast of Hong Kong? Surely, the MI-6 Section Chief in Hong Kong could have briefed 007. And why drag Moneypeeny along?

Because the screenwriters had to shoehorn in the obligatory M briefing scene somehow.

Who is Moneypeeny, by the way?

[Guy Haines]

And they kept using that shoehorn, didn't they? M briefing Bond in the kitchen (LALD), on a capsized ship (TMWTGG), in the Pyramids (TSWLM), in Brazil (MR), Ascot (AVTAK), on a C-130 over Gibraltar (TLD), the Florida Keys (LTK), kidnapped in Azerbaijan (TWINE), on the London underground and in an deep Korean bunker (DAD), The Bahamas (CR) and in Italy and Bolivia (QoS). He/she is almost as well travelled as 007, racking up those air miles. To say nothing of "Q" branch's mobile laboratories.

But if that is what's needed to keep the plot flowing, I expect it will keep happening. Whether it would in real life..........

[right idea, wrong pussy]

Why did M deem it was necessary to meet Bond in a submarine, off the coast of Hong Kong? Surely, the MI-6 Section Chief in Hong Kong could have briefed 007. And why drag Moneypeeny along?

Because the screenwriters had to shoehorn in the obligatory M briefing scene somehow.

Who is Moneypeeny, by the way?

I'm not certain that 'shoehorn' is quite the right term, since it implies M doesn't belong there and is simply being forced into the script. I agree with Guy Haines that no real head of MI6 would jet around the world to personally deliver information to one agent the way that M does. So, to that extent, these "M in the field" scenes are a bit ludicrous.

However, I think that from a filmmaking standpoint they work quite well. The more realistic option is to have a "head of section" or some local MI6 operative brief Bond in the field. The problem is that you now must introduce a new character to the audience. And if that character doesn't have a lot to do, then they can come across as a waste of screentime (think of Sadruddin from OP or Manuela from MR). Plus, the actor you have playing M not only is known to the audience, but tends to be a very experienced and accomplished actor/actress who is liable to do more with their screentime.

The only local MI6 head of section/field operative who I can think of as having a big impact was Kerim Bey in FRWL, and that was a combination of Fleming writing a brilliant character and Armindariz dlivering a marvelous performance (even as he suffered from terminal cancer). I can't even think of any other "local section" types who had any real screen presence at all, other than perhaps Saunders in TLD (because of his character arc and his death).

[Dustin]

Well, I agree that there are a number of reasons for the films to include such 'M abroad!' scenes. And within the world of film Bond it could be argued that Bond as a 00 is directly working under M's command and the briefing on the respective cases so sensitive that M doesn't want to include any go-between, station head or envoy. But the real absurdity is that M takes along Moneypenny for the ride and that she in turn brings her typewriter, hat-stand and some homework. These scenes are not merely intended to give Bernhard Lee and Lois Maxwell an excuse to appear wherever the script demands, they are much more intended as a fantastic, Kafkaesque element that bends reality in places you would not expect it in a Bond film. Prior to YOLT, that is. After that you could find M's office with his desk and Moneypenny's intercom and typewriter on board a submarine on the ground of Hong Kong harbour, on the alist wreck of the Queen Elizabeth (with the interior reflecting the askew state of the vessel) or inside a pyramid. And each time the impression given is that at the end of this working day M will be driven by his chauffeur in his Rolls, while Moneypenny will take the tube to her home.

Roald Dahl, inventor of the fashion and trendsetter for numerous follow-ups, had the intention to introduce the surreal and phantasmagoric into the Bond-side of things, which previously was a relatively stable and unspectacular affair. The place to be afraid of used to be the outside world, abroad and far from London's homely/dreary/familiar faces and places. Now, you could not be sure if behind a secret door or a moving panel there wasn't the old man waiting for Bond's mission report, and providing some additional briefing for 007 himself.

It's a device practically completely absent in Fleming's oeuvre (the closest perhaps being the periscope of FRWL), but nonetheless I daresay he would have been highly amused at the sheer absurdity and ingenuity involved. Unfortunately, it died with M's desk on board the Hercules prior to the training exercise of TLD's pts. Since then M has turned up in all kinds of places, generally in the company of a lazy bunch of expensively dressed third-class bodyguards. But her desk - or whatever we want to call that piece of furniture; it's probably twelve different models of ugliness, interpreted by today's top designers, but I digress - and her secretary are both absent, the latter not missed at all in recent times.

Edited by Dustin, 11 July 2011 - 10:56 AM.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

Well, I agree that there are a number of reasons for the films to include such 'M abroad!' scenes. And within the world of film Bond it could be argued that Bond as a 00 is directly working under M's command and the briefing on the respective cases so sensitive that M doesn't want to include any go-between, station head or envoy. But the real absurdity is that M takes along Moneypenny for the ride and that she in turn brings her typewriter, hat-stand and some homework. These scenes are not merely intended to give Bernhard Lee and Lois Maxwell an excuse to appear wherever the script demands, they are much more intended as a fantastic, Kafkaesque element that bends reality in places you would not expect it in a Bond film. Prior to YOLT, that is. After that you could find M's office with his desk and Moneypenny's intercom and typewriter on board a submarine on the ground of Hong Kong harbour, on the alist wreck of the Queen Elizabeth (with the interior reflecting the askew state of the vessel) or inside a pyramid. And each time the impression given is that at the end of this working day M will be driven by his chauffeur in his Rolls, while Moneypenny will take the tube to her home.

Roald Dahl, inventor of the fashion and trendsetter for numerous follow-ups, had the intention to introduce the surreal and phantasmagoric into the Bond-side of things, which previously was a relatively stable and unspectacular affair. The place to be afraid of used to be the outside world, abroad and far from London's homely/dreary/familiar faces and places. Now, you could not be sure if behind a secret door or a moving panel there wasn't the old man waiting for Bond's mission report, and providing some additional briefing for 007 himself.

It's a device practically completely absent in Fleming's oeuvre (the closest perhaps being the periscope of FRWL), but nonetheless I daresay he would have been highly amused at the sheer absurdity and ingenuity involved. Unfortunately, it died with M's desk on board the Hercules prior to the training exercise of TLD's pts. Since then M has turned up in all kinds of places, generally in the company of a lazy bunch of expensively dressed third-class bodyguards. But her desk - or whatever we want to call that piece of furniture; it's probably twelve different models of ugliness, interpreted by today's top designers, but I digress - and her secretary are both absent, the latter not missed at all in recent times.

Very good points! I wonder if, given all he added to the series for good or ill (world domination plots, the fooling powers into fighting wars ploy, the outlandish base and the end battle in that base) if Dahl ought not to be considered one of the main influences on the cinematic Bond as we know him, right up there with Ian Fleming and Terence Young. Thoughts?

[Mr_Wint]

Very good points! I wonder if, given all he added to the series for good or ill (world domination plots, the fooling powers into fighting wars ploy, the outlandish base and the end battle in that base) if Dahl ought not to be considered one of the main influences on the cinematic Bond as we know him, right up there with Ian Fleming and Terence Young. Thoughts?

Most of the elements we see in YOLT were already introduced in DN-TB. Even Fleming wrote about a big end battle in his TB. I would rather give more credit to Lewis Gilbert...

... then they can come across as a waste of screentime (think of Sadruddin from OP or Manuela from MR).

You think Manuela (Emily Bolton) was a waste of screentime?

[Dustin]

Very good points! I wonder if, given all he added to the series for good or ill (world domination plots, the fooling powers into fighting wars ploy, the outlandish base and the end battle in that base) if Dahl ought not to be considered one of the main influences on the cinematic Bond as we know him, right up there with Ian Fleming and Terence Young. Thoughts?

Well, perhaps not intentionally, it was probably more a case of all involved parties pushing roughly in the same direction, Broccoli/Salzman with their decision to think big and put the funds onto the screen (and keep the cheaper competitors at bay), politics with the space race and the threat of nuclear annihilation, science fiction's themes and heroes becoming highly topical throughout the decade, the race to the moon and the visions of life in 2000 A.D. with flying cars and cities in space. With that background it was perhaps not such a surprise that Dahl - who had no experience as a script writer - arrived where he finally did. But he undoubtedly shaped the genre of the superspy with his influence and I daresay today YOLT with its world domination scheme, volcano, ninja army and stylish production design is probably more iconic and a trademark of the series than the comparatively low-key TB.

[right idea, wrong pussy]

... then they can come across as a waste of screentime (think of Sadruddin from OP or Manuela from MR).

You think Manuela (Emily Bolton) was a waste of screentime?

Yeah, I do. Her only real reason to exist in the script is to tell Bond two pieces of information - what C&W stands for and where their warehouse is. In CR or QOS M would have told that info to Bond over his cell phone/mobile, which is a much faster way to go about a pretty simple piece of detective work. Other than that Manuela is just eye candy - and frankly, I've always found her first scene with Bond to be creepy. She shows up to meet a fellow MI6 agent wearing next to nothing and lets him undress her less than one minute after they've met. That and she's terribly stupid. She's a tiny woman and for her self-defense picks not a gun or mace, but . . . a switchblade?