14 replies to this topic

[StansCoffins]

Hi CBn! I've never posted here before, but I've had a couple of questions bugging me. I saw From Russia with Love for the first time the other day, and I loved it - top class stuff, and I wish there were more Bond films like it. The Cold War intrigue made for an excellent film which benefitted from a slow pace and actual tension rather than wall-to-wall action. But I've been having a couple of problems getting my head around SPECTRE's plot (bare in mind I've seen the film only once), and haven't been able to find any answers anywhere:

1. What is the point of SPECTRE pitting MI6 and the Russians against each other? Their plot is to steal the Lektor and sell it back to the Russians, which means they would be aware of SPECTRE anyway when making this contraction (Blofeld even says that SPECTRE's reputation relies on not breaking promises). I assume it is to weaken UK and Russian relations, but nobody mentions this as a motive in the film as far as I remember.

2. Even considering this, what is the point of Red Grant framing Bond for murdering the Soviet driver early on in the film? The only result is that the Russians retaliate by sending Krilencu, resulting in the mission nearly being jeapordised by Bond getting shot in the gypsy camp. Surely the fact that Bond waltzes into the Russian embassy with a smoke bomb and pinching their Lektor is enough to frame him for stealing it, which would accomplish their plan just as well?

3. Speaking of which, who ARE Krilencu and the Bulgarians working for? Bond says in the confrontation with Grant that none of what happened was because of SMERSH. I assumed that Krilencu WAS working for SMERSH (otherwise he wouldn't be trying to kill Bond which is the exact opposite of what SPECTRE want at this point). Wikipedia says "Despite his affiliation to SMERSH in the film, however, later in the film Grant revealed to Bond that the use of SMERSH in Istanbul is fake, and the real villain is SPECTRE, who assigned Rosa Klebb, a former SMERSH colonel and now secretly part of the SPECTRE high command, to lead Soviets and Bulgarians in Istanbul who doesn't know that SMERSH doesn't exist in Istanbul. So Krilencu could be either working for SPECTRE or working for Klebb without knowing that SMERSH is not in use in Istanbul." I'm confused.

That said, I did love the film, and usually in Bond films wouldn't think about these kind of things for a second (such as in the equally great Goldfinger). I guess it's a testament to the tightly plotted, genuinely gripping quality of the film that I actually care about parts of the plan that don't add up in my head. Definitely shot it's way to my Top 5.

[Dustin]

Welcome, StansCoffins!

1. What is the point of SPECTRE pitting MI6 and the Russians against each other? Their plot is to steal the Lektor and sell it back to the Russians, which means they would be aware of SPECTRE anyway when making this contraction (Blofeld even says that SPECTRE's reputation relies on not breaking promises). I assume it is to weaken UK and Russian relations, but nobody mentions this as a motive in the film as far as I remember.

Actually it's not SPECTRE stealing the Lektor, it's Bond on orders of the Secret Service who in turn was lured by Tanya (who in turn was tricked by the KGB deserter Klebb). From the Russian POV Bond turns up in Istanbul, kills some of their people and steals the Lektor. They would be glad about SPECTRE's offer to bring back the Lektor. For a price.

2. Even considering this, what is the point of Red Grant framing Bond for murdering the Soviet driver early on in the film? The only result is that the Russians retaliate by sending Krilencu, resulting in the mission nearly being jeapordised by Bond getting shot in the gypsy camp. Surely the fact that Bond waltzes into the Russian embassy with a smoke bomb and pinching their Lektor is enough to frame him for stealing it, which would accomplish their plan just as well?

Could be. But who's to say Bond is identified at the embassy? The attacks and counterattacks help keeping both sides from looking for thrid-party opposition.

3. Speaking of which, who ARE Krilencu and the Bulgarians working for? Bond says in the confrontation with Grant that none of what happened was because of SMERSH. I assumed that Krilencu WAS working for SMERSH (otherwise he wouldn't be trying to kill Bond which is the exact opposite of what SPECTRE want at this point). Wikipedia says "Despite his affiliation to SMERSH in the film, however, later in the film Grant revealed to Bond that the use of SMERSH in Istanbul is fake, and the real villain is SPECTRE, who assigned Rosa Klebb, a former SMERSH colonel and now secretly part of the SPECTRE high command, to lead Soviets and Bulgarians in Istanbul who doesn't know that SMERSH doesn't exist in Istanbul. So Krilencu could be either working for SPECTRE or working for Klebb without knowing that SMERSH is not in use in Istanbul." I'm confused.

I always just assumed Krilencu and his squad are simply working for the Russians in general, without affiliation to any three-to-five-letter abbreviation.

[StansCoffins]

Welcome, StansCoffins!

Thanks Dustin!

Actually it's not SPECTRE stealing the Lektor, it's Bond on orders of the Secret Service who in turn was lured by Tanya (who in turn was tricked by the KGB deserter Klebb). From the Russian POV Bond turns up in Istanbul, kills some of their people and steals the Lektor. They would be glad about SPECTRE's offer to bring back the Lektor. For a price.

That's what I'd thought had happened, but I guess I thought SPECTRE saying "We have this, give us millions of pounds" would make them look suspicious and antagonistic, rendering the whole coverup pointless. But as you pointed out, I was just overthinking. The Russians would see the money as paying for the effort to recover the Lektor.

Could be. But who's to say Bond is identified at the embassy? The attacks and counterattacks help keeping both sides from looking for thrid-party opposition.

True, again I was just overthinking. It was Krilencu's attack that threw me off, as it seemed to go against what they wanted to do.

I always just assumed Krilencu and his squad are simply working for the Russians in general, without affiliation to any three-to-five-letter abbreviation.

Again, that's what I thought. Though I was unclear on his motive: was he carrying out a personal vendetta on Karim, or getting revenge on the British for the operative's murder.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!

[Dustin]

You're welcome, StansCoffins. On Krilencu's motivation, well that's probably a mix of old/new vendetta, orders from above and perhaps the odd fit of personal initiative. Much good did it do him...

[AMC Hornet]

What puzzles me is that MI6 is offered a chance to have a Lector delivered to them by a defector, saving them the trouble of conspiring to steal one, yet when the time comes that's just what Bond does. I (and SPECTRE, apparently) couldn't have thought of a better way to antagonize the Soviets in Istanbul.

The only logical reason for Bond stealing the Lector himself would be to double-cross Tatiana; once he has it, who needs her? Cinematically, the reason was to provide a thrilling scene full of smoke, confusion and rats. Certainly better than just rolling up and giving her a lift as she leaves the building lugging an incriminating package (as happened in the novel).

Adding SPECTRE to the story was a brilliant way of presenting a cold-war story without blaming anything on the Russians, and I, like SC and Dustin, am willing to forgive this oversight in appreciation for the sequence of events that followed. Like in Where Eagles Dare, why did Schaeffer have to try to knife the radio operator in the Junkraum? He had a silenced pistol. A: Because watching our heroes escaping in a hail of gunfire is more entertaining than watching them slip out unnoticed.

To allude to another film outside the canon, there is a line in My Favorite Year that I think encapsulates my attitude towards lapses in logic and continuity in the 007 films:

"With Swann you forgive a lot, y'know?"

Just change 'Swann' to 'Bond' and that could be me speaking.

Of course, I wouldn't want EON to get the idea that I - or we - don't care at all, and that we'll swallow anything they throw at us; that's how we periodically end up with films like MR and AVTAK or (insert title of least favorite film here).

Edited by AMC Hornet, 05 December 2011 - 10:18 PM.

[freemo]

Don't forget that Kromsteen mentions at the beining that SPECTRE want revenge on Bond for the "murdering of our operative, Dr No".

[MajorB]

What puzzles me is that MI6 is offered a chance to have a Lector delivered to them by a defector, saving them the trouble of conspiring to steal one, yet when the time comes that's just what Bond does. I (and SPECTRE, apparently) couldn't have thought of a better way to antagonize the Soviets in Istanbul.

The way I understand it, Tania contacts the SIS and says "I want to defect, and I can also help you get a Lektor. But James Bond has to help steal it and get me to England, or there's no deal." (No wonder M says "Well, obviously it's a trap.") The British aren't getting it handed to them--they have to pitch in.

[Guy Haines]

And behind all of this was the producers ulterior - and far sighted - motive. That one day they could sell these films to the Russians! Hence they were hardly ever the real bad guys.

(Curiously, the producers had no such qualms regarding Red China. Goldfinger's allies (complete with "atomic device" - an in joke, because that's what the Chinese called their nuclear bomb tested in 1964!), almost certainly the ones behind SPECTRE's entry into the space race in YOLT, Scaramanga's protectors in TMWTGG. But then, I suppose at the time the film makers couldn't have foreseen just what a market China could become.)

[DR76]

Why did Red Grant take his time in getting his gloves on and waiting for Bond to regain conscious before killing the latter? Why did he even bother to tell Bond about SPECTRE's plot? The whole scene between Grant and Bond was first-class, as far as acting skills are concerned. Plotwise, I thought it sucked.

[larrythefatcat]

Why did Red Grant take his time in getting his gloves on and waiting for Bond to regain conscious before killing the latter? Why did he even bother to tell Bond about SPECTRE's plot? The whole scene between Grant and Bond was first-class, as far as acting skills are concerned. Plotwise, I thought it sucked.

He gets off on gloating to and crushing the hopes of those he's about to kill?

I'm not sure, but it was a Bond film tradition started in Dr. No when Julius found it necessary to go on and on about giving every detail concerning the process of toppling missiles and expositing SPECTRE information when he could have just killed Bond.


"Scott, you just don't get it, do ya? You don't."

[Dustin]

Why did Red Grant take his time in getting his gloves on and waiting for Bond to regain conscious before killing the latter? Why did he even bother to tell Bond about SPECTRE's plot? The whole scene between Grant and Bond was first-class, as far as acting skills are concerned. Plotwise, I thought it sucked.

Red Grant is a pathological sadist in the film. The difference to the book's version is that Fleming's original had a pathological urge to kill connected to the moon phases and peaking at the full moon. Basically that guy was asexual with only killing giving him a kind of release, not so much in a climax as in a depressurisation, easing his tension.

That certainly is a scary enough creation but the film even tops it by having Grant as a guy whose main interest isn't the kill but the amount of pain, humiliation and despair he can arrange for his victim. This guy wants to see the fear in his victim's eye, wants to make it plead and beg and enjoys the whole despicable exercise more than the final coup de grace. This serves two ends, to make the creature even more heinous and abominable, and to give a reason for Grant to explain the whole plot to Bond and the audience.

Today sadly Grant's behaviour and very particular tastes would be traits of the 'hero' and the audience is expected to indulge themselves in similar ways.

[larrythefatcat]

Why did Red Grant take his time in getting his gloves on and waiting for Bond to regain conscious before killing the latter? Why did he even bother to tell Bond about SPECTRE's plot? The whole scene between Grant and Bond was first-class, as far as acting skills are concerned. Plotwise, I thought it sucked.

Red Grant is a pathological sadist in the film. The difference to the book's version is that Fleming's original had a pathological urge to kill connected to the moon phases and peaking at the full moon. Basically that guy was asexual with only killing giving him a kind of release, not so much in a climax as in a depressurisation, easing his tension.

That certainly is a scary enough creation but the film even tops it by having Grant as a guy whose main interest isn't the kill but the amount of pain, humiliation and despair he can arrange for his victim. This guy wants to see the fear in his victim's eye, wants to make it plead and beg and enjoys the whole despicable exercise more than the final coup de grace. This serves two ends, to make the creature even more heinous and abominable, and to give a reason for Grant to explain the whole plot to Bond and the audience.

Today sadly Grant's behaviour and very particular tastes would be traits of the 'hero' and the audience is expected to indulge themselves in similar ways.

I'm glad to see that someone fully agrees with me, but has taken the time to actually analyze the character (and plot point) slightly more thoroughly than I have above.

I must add that I feel it's made fairly clear (or at least strongly suggested) that Grant is asexual in the film as well, while Klebb is blatantly portrayed as being a lesbian. When one really thinks about it, the fact that Klebb was kept a lesbian for the film is quite a risque choice (even though it's limited to her flirting with Tatiana) for a film made in the early sixties.

I forgot about the Grant details from the novel and your post has merely made me that much more eager to crack open the Fleming novels again... thanks!

Edited by larrythefatcat, 07 December 2011 - 11:31 PM.

[Dustin]

I suppose there might initially have been some sexual element in the film's version of Grant. But as you already noted, there was already the lesbian Klebb and that was risqué enough for the times. Today Grant would certainly have that element, even TV shows use it.

It's a bit sad the moon/loup garou connection of the book was dropped. These chapters in FRWL are a condensed case story of a psychotic beast awaking and learning to cope with its needs. From the first transgressions with animals to the first human victims to the rumours and the need to hunt in an ever expanding territory, taking great pains to hide his secret and to indulge far from his home. This part of the book could still make a case study for modern profiling. Perpetrators reading it would doubtless be amazed how much of it they have experienced themselves.

[StansCoffins]

What puzzles me is that MI6 is offered a chance to have a Lector delivered to them by a defector, saving them the trouble of conspiring to steal one, yet when the time comes that's just what Bond does. I (and SPECTRE, apparently) couldn't have thought of a better way to antagonize the Soviets in Istanbul.

The only logical reason for Bond stealing the Lector himself would be to double-cross Tatiana; once he has it, who needs her? Cinematically, the reason was to provide a thrilling scene full of smoke, confusion and rats. Certainly better than just rolling up and giving her a lift as she leaves the building lugging an incriminating package (as happened in the novel).

True, and I might add that I was confused as to how Bond could wander into the Russian embassy without the slightest hint of resistance, when the Soviets had been trailing him since he arrived in Istanbul, and even sent assassins after him! Was this explained at all in the film?

[Dustin]

No, it wasn't. Necessities of the script, one supposes. Always good to have that on your side.