21 replies to this topic

[YouKnowTheName]

So, I'm talking about films with two friends recently and I get on to extoling how brilliant Casino Royale is and when it's the best Bond film and a fantastic film, and I get the response "Yeah, but the ending was rubbish"

 

"Why?"

 

"She just killed herself for no reason. Why didn't they stay together?"

 

I tried explaining that it was obviously part of a carefully constructed story and arc and integral to Bond's character development, but I kept getting responses like "She should have dies while he was trying to save her" (Doesn't work, as there's clearly a possibility that an enraged and disillusioned Bond will kill her for her betrayal) "She should have sacrificed herself saving Bond" (Also doesn't work, as it redeems the betrayal that forges Bond's character) and other such talk about her motives weren't clear and it didn't add up.

 

Normally I'd dismiss such a person as the kind of person who shouldn't hold anything sharper than a crayon but he was quickly backed up by another friend had the same problems, and both of them are talented and respected film makers in their own right, so I was somewhat shocked.

 

Having heard a few other people having had trouble with the ending and seen videos such as this (stick around to the end):

 

 

I have to wonder if the film I've always held in such regard actually has a flaw I simply don't see, or if it's just one of those divisive films that separates the dedicated film watcher from the kind of person who thought The Matrix was deep and complex. I, for one, think it works perfectly within the context of the film, is fully justified and vital to both main plot threads, and works far better than it did in the novel, however I'm making my glorious return to CBN to ask your thoughts.

 

[Hansen]

She killed herself because she could not chose between Bond and her Algerian lover.

She had to chose between the two and could not and she could not live with the idea of being responsible for the death of someone she loved. Suicide was the only choice.

Casino Royale is probably the best script for a Bond.

[tdalton]

She killed herself because she could not chose between Bond and her Algerian lover.

She had to chose between the two and could not and she could not live with the idea of being responsible for the death of someone she loved. Suicide was the only choice.

Casino Royale is probably the best script for a Bond.

 

That's not why she did it.  

 

Vesper did what she did because she knew that, despite the fact that she wants to start a new life far away from the problems that haunt her with regards to SMERSH (or Quantum, in this case), she can't leave that behind, which is revealed to her when Gettler appears towards the end of the story.  She knows that all she's doing is drawing another man that she loves into danger, so she takes the easy way out and, in her mind, spare Bond any hardship as well.

 

With that said, I definitely understand complaints that are levied against the ending of this film.  The film's ending completely undermines the integrity and the impact of the novel's ending, leaving Vesper's death to come as the suffix to an overblown action sequence rather than making it the impactful moment it should have been.  Heck, they came closer to getting Vesper's death right with what they did with Fields in QOS than they did with Vesper in CR. 

Edited by tdalton, 11 April 2013 - 09:15 PM.

[glidrose]

Hansen and TDalton are both right. CR'06 has the best script the series has ever had, miles ahead of Skyfall's, the ending makes perfect sense, and that overblown final action sequence if atrocious.

[plankattack]

Agreed that CR's script is one of the series' best (personally think that Maibaum's OHMSS is the best), but I get why viewers with only a passing interest in Bond might feel that Vesper didn't have to kill herself. In 99% of stories, the leading lady is saved by the hero, or escapes with/to the hero, so by regular story-telling standards, she didn't need to die.

Of course, if people think that this CR makes no sense, show them Niven-Sellers-Allen, and watch their heads explode....!!!

[trevanian]

Even ignoring the painful dialog in CR, which for me is on par with low-brainers like TOP GUN, the script is utterly idiotic, just on the basis that so much of the plot hinges on Bond acquiring information by killing people and taking their cellphones. Even George Clooney's relative doesn't keep his info on her cellphone or computer out of fear of the equipment being stolen or hacked ... so intelligence professionals aren't going to keep this info in their heads, which is the only place it should be in the first place? 

[Leon]

She killed herself because she could not chose between Bond and her Algerian lover.

She had to chose between the two and could not and she could not live with the idea of being responsible for the death of someone she loved. Suicide was the only choice.

Casino Royale is probably the best script for a Bond.

 

That's not why she did it.  

 

Vesper did what she did because she knew that, despite the fact that she wants to start a new life far away from the problems that haunt her with regards to SMERSH (or Quantum, in this case), she can't leave that behind, which is revealed to her when Gettler appears towards the end of the story.  She knows that all she's doing is drawing another man that she loves into danger, so she takes the easy way out and, in her mind, spare Bond any hardship as well.

 

With that said, I definitely understand complaints that are levied against the ending of this film.  The film's ending completely undermines the integrity and the impact of the novel's ending, leaving Vesper's death to come as the suffix to an overblown action sequence rather than making it the impactful moment it should have been.  Heck, they came closer to getting Vesper's death right with what they did with Fields in QOS than they did with Vesper in CR. 

You both make good cases for it, so it seems logical that you'd both be right. Suicide for a character seems more plausible when it is due to a multitude of problems, and nobody who's ever been in love can deny that it would certainly be a notable contributor to the equation as well.

 

I also am not a fan of the ending of CR - being the Venice scenes that is. It felt like a strange change of tone. I have no good argument for my disslike but it's again down to a lot of things. I felt the airport sequence was unnecessary also. I get that it's to add more action, but that's the very reason I don't like it. It feels tacked on. The PTS was awesome, the Madagascar chase scenes action packed and great.There was no need for that airport malarkey, they should have just had a nice chilled Bahamas scene, perhaps culminating in the BodyWorks museum. Then straight to business with the Casino job. I strongly doubt anyone would have complained there wasn't enough action in the first act had that not been there, and the film would have been more around the 2 hour or so mark. The Venice stuff could have been done better, but I did like the general idea and the location choice.

[Guy Haines]

She was being blackmailed by Quantum (or Smersh in the novel), she wanted to save the life of her Algerian (or in the book, Polish) boyfriend, and she probably didn't want to draw Bond further in and hurt him. One other reason. She probably thought that, eventually, she'd be found out by MI6 and be facing a long time in "clink". In the film she was the one who entered the password - her name - to transfer the money. At that point only she, Bond and the bank - and Quantum? - knew where it was. It seems she had access to it, and short of the bad guys hacking into the bank and moving it electronically, or Bond himself drawing it all out - unlikely - only one person could have handed it over to the villains.

 

She was under a lot of pressure - divided loyalties, emotional blackmail, thinking she had committed a crime by handing over the money to Gettler. She didn't strike me as a bad person, despite Bond's famously dismissive comment - "the bitch is dead" - which he makes in the novel because he feels personally betrayed and believes that she betrayed the service.

 

Some above mention the link to QoS. One quibble I have with the sequel is that it almost buries Bond's desire for closure - tracking down Vesper's supposedly dead "lover" - in a story that takes him in several directions before finally confronting Yusef Kabira. A sequel which had featured Bond in a more linear story of tracking down the escaped Mr White and Kabira might have worked a bit better, I think.

[Hansen]

Some above mention the link to QoS. One quibble I have with the sequel is that it almost buries Bond's desire for closure - tracking down Vesper's supposedly dead "lover" - in a story that takes him in several directions before finally confronting Yusef Kabira. A sequel which had featured Bond in a more linear story of tracking down the escaped Mr White and Kabira might have worked a bit better, I think.

Fully agree on that.

I always felt the "bitch is dead" line as a bitter comment. I think that Bond understands the pressure under which Vesper was but he truly feels personnaly betrayed as Vesper looks like his first true love. The bitch is dead so are his capabilities / rights to fall in love. Pretty explicit in the movie where he cancels his resignation and confirmed in the books with the death of Tracy (considering timeline)

[YouKnowTheName]

Interesting ideas. Vesper's death seems to have made perfect sense to most people but for different reasons, which could arguably be considered a flaw in the writing- that a plot point wasn't clear so everyone rationalised it differently. However, of all the different ideas and explanations given for Vesper's actions, no one has said anything that could be considered 'wrong'. Everything works within the story and the information given, and I think the parts we all homed in on probably says something more about the individual viewer than the script. And something that works perfectly well for everyone but allows space for each individual to interpret it differently is the mark of extremely good writing (however I doubt this was exactly what they had in mind when they wrote it).

 

Another issue is- how much are we rationalising it ourselves with our knowledge of the novel? (which, while not working quite as well as it does in the film, is at least more explicit in it's explanations.) The people I know who had trouble with it had never read the book, which leads me to question how well the film might stand up on it's own merits. I think it all works. Bond chambering a round while following her and "I'll kill her!" "Allow me" make it clear that Bond is in an emotional place where killing Vesper is at least possible, and that their relationship is over is a certainty, and all the info about Vesper's boyfriend and backstory in the next scene explains everything fully, but I'm not really capable of completely divorcing the film from the book in my head.

Edited by YouKnowTheName, 12 April 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Major Tallon]

I also am not a fan of the ending of CR - being the Venice scenes that is. It felt like a strange change of tone. I have no good argument for my disslike but it's again down to a lot of things. I felt the airport sequence was unnecessary also. I get that it's to add more action, but that's the very reason I don't like it. It feels tacked on. The PTS was awesome, the Madagascar chase scenes action packed and great.There was no need for that airport malarkey, they should have just had a nice chilled Bahamas scene, perhaps culminating in the BodyWorks museum. Then straight to business with the Casino job. I strongly doubt anyone would have complained there wasn't enough action in the first act had that not been there, and the film would have been more around the 2 hour or so mark. The Venice stuff could have been done better, but I did like the general idea and the location choice.

They needed to explain that LeChiffre had a plan to "invest" his client's funds and to explain why the plan failed.  The plot from the novel, that he'd bought into a string of subsequently-outlawed bordellos, obviously wouldn't work today.  So, since terrorism is the big evil in the film, why not have a plot where a spectacular terror attack, calcualed to have a side-effect of making the terrorist wealthy, failed?  Thus, the airport scene, which I find terrifically exciting.

 

As for the Venice sequence, this was apparently the inspiration of Paul Haggis.  P & W had actually planned an ending closer to the one in the book, but Haggis told the producers that "you don't have a third act" and wanted a big action scene.  Fans of the book might have preferred it otherwise, but they were aiming to please today's cinemagoing audiences, which expect something more than Fleming's simpler but very emotional ending.  I can go either way on this, but I think it works in the film (and, by the way, it isn't actually possible for a house to sink that far into the subsoil in Venice).

[trevanian]

As for the Venice sequence, this was apparently the inspiration of Paul Haggis.  P & W had actually planned an ending closer to the one in the book, but Haggis told the producers that "you don't have a third act" and wanted a big action scene. 

I didn't think I'd ever use these words, but I agree with Haggis here. The structure of the novel is off, and wouldn't have worked for the movie without embellishment. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this idea on this board about 9 or 10 years back, well pre-Craig but after Eon had gotten CR, but I came up with a third act taking place while Bond is recovering with MI6 being attacked and a partly recovered Bond assisting -5 or SAS in taking back the place, in the process discovering Vesper is responsible for all these leaks. Kind of wish I had written it all down on paper ... 

[Leon]

I also am not a fan of the ending of CR - being the Venice scenes that is. It felt like a strange change of tone. I have no good argument for my disslike but it's again down to a lot of things. I felt the airport sequence was unnecessary also. I get that it's to add more action, but that's the very reason I don't like it. It feels tacked on. The PTS was awesome, the Madagascar chase scenes action packed and great.There was no need for that airport malarkey, they should have just had a nice chilled Bahamas scene, perhaps culminating in the BodyWorks museum. Then straight to business with the Casino job. I strongly doubt anyone would have complained there wasn't enough action in the first act had that not been there, and the film would have been more around the 2 hour or so mark. The Venice stuff could have been done better, but I did like the general idea and the location choice.

They needed to explain that LeChiffre had a plan to "invest" his client's funds and to explain why the plan failed.

 

Yea sure, I know that. All I'm saying is they could have explained that a lot easier, quicker and without all that overblown nonsense. I remember when a writer was able to explain something to an audience without a big overblown action sequence, and as I already said there was more than enough action already in that first act of the film. The film was also too long for it's own good.

[The Shark]

Also, having the French authorities close down Le Chiffre's chain of brothels is much more Bondian and telling of his character,  than Le Chiffre's attempt at shorting an airliner's stock being foiled. The later of which is fairly dull and generic, and could have come from any post-9/11 action-thriller.

[Gt Munn]

Also, having the French authorities close down Le Chiffre's chain of brothels is much more Bondian and telling of his character,  than Le Chiffre's attempt at shorting an airliner's stock being foiled. The later of which is fairly dull and generic, and could have come from any post-9/11 action-thriller.

I would have preferred they stuck with the 'Bondian' former, but the fact that is comes off as a post-9/11 action-thriller plot was obviously their intention to make the plot accessible to the terrorism and post-9/11 minded mass audience. At least it wasn't as lifeless and one-dimensional as QOS's story.

 

 

She killed herself because she could not chose between Bond and her Algerian lover.

She had to chose between the two and could not and she could not live with the idea of being responsible for the death of someone she loved. Suicide was the only choice.

Casino Royale is probably the best script for a Bond.

 

That's not why she did it.  

 

Vesper did what she did because she knew that, despite the fact that she wants to start a new life far away from the problems that haunt her with regards to SMERSH (or Quantum, in this case), she can't leave that behind, which is revealed to her when Gettler appears towards the end of the story.  She knows that all she's doing is drawing another man that she loves into danger, so she takes the easy way out and, in her mind, spare Bond any hardship as well.

 

With that said, I definitely understand complaints that are levied against the ending of this film.  The film's ending completely undermines the integrity and the impact of the novel's ending, leaving Vesper's death to come as the suffix to an overblown action sequence rather than making it the impactful moment it should have been.  Heck, they came closer to getting Vesper's death right with what they did with Fields in QOS than they did with Vesper in CR. 

You both make good cases for it, so it seems logical that you'd both be right. Suicide for a character seems more plausible when it is due to a multitude of problems, and nobody who's ever been in love can deny that it would certainly be a notable contributor to the equation as well.

 

I also am not a fan of the ending of CR - being the Venice scenes that is. It felt like a strange change of tone. I have no good argument for my disslike but it's again down to a lot of things. I felt the airport sequence was unnecessary also. I get that it's to add more action, but that's the very reason I don't like it. It feels tacked on. The PTS was awesome, the Madagascar chase scenes action packed and great.There was no need for that airport malarkey, they should have just had a nice chilled Bahamas scene, perhaps culminating in the BodyWorks museum. Then straight to business with the Casino job. I strongly doubt anyone would have complained there wasn't enough action in the first act had that not been there, and the film would have been more around the 2 hour or so mark. The Venice stuff could have been done better, but I did like the general idea and the location choice.

In my opinion, I feel the Madagascar intro was unnecessarily bulky in its length. For me, it is the deterrent that keeps CR from being among the most watchable Bond films. It isn't that I'm against having the formulaic Bond intro to kick off the film. Tightening it up may have improved it.

 

The Miami Airport scenes may have been tightened as it approached the climax, but the building tension  as the terror plot unfolds in front of Bond is extremely exhilarating and is much closer to the overall sleek style/tone of the film.

[Guy Haines]

As for the Venice sequence, this was apparently the inspiration of Paul Haggis.  P & W had actually planned an ending closer to the one in the book, but Haggis told the producers that "you don't have a third act" and wanted a big action scene. 

I didn't think I'd ever use these words, but I agree with Haggis here. The structure of the novel is off, and wouldn't have worked for the movie without embellishment. I'm pretty sure I mentioned this idea on this board about 9 or 10 years back, well pre-Craig but after Eon had gotten CR, but I came up with a third act taking place while Bond is recovering with MI6 being attacked and a partly recovered Bond assisting -5 or SAS in taking back the place, in the process discovering Vesper is responsible for all these leaks. Kind of wish I had written it all down on paper ... 

I'm sure I once read somewhere - I'm darned if I can recall which publication - that Ian Fleming himself thought that the whole novel Casino Royale was probably unfilmable. Curious, I know, given that the film rights were sold off not long after the book was published. CR2006 is one of my favourite Bond films, but I think one problem with it is that the producers combined a fairly faithful if updated adaptation of the novel (rightly, imho) with the "crash, bang, wallop" elements of recent Bond films that the paying public would expect. Hence the length of the film, I think.

 

Le Chiffre's money making scheme has been mentioned, and comparisons with his "brothel chain" enterprise in the book made. I actually like the short selling scheme of the film. In the novel Bond is there to finish Le Chiffre off at the gaming table, but Le Chiffre has already been the author of his own misfortune, foolishly investing in an enterprise that was declared illegal. In the film, Le Chiffre's scheme might have succeeded, but for the intervention of Bond, even though he doesn't realise the full implications of what he has done until he is briefed by M afterwards.

[Satorious]

That's not why she did it.  

 

Vesper did what she did because she knew that, despite the fact that she wants to start a new life far away from the problems that haunt her with regards to SMERSH (or Quantum, in this case), she can't leave that behind, which is revealed to her when Gettler appears towards the end of the story.  She knows that all she's doing is drawing another man that she loves into danger, so she takes the easy way out and, in her mind, spare Bond any hardship as well.

 

If this is the case, how come she leaves Mr White's number for Bond on her cell-phone? The ending doesn't quite stack up convincingly for me. As soon as Le Chiffre's has been disposed of and Mathias is out of the picture - the film loses it's way.

[tdalton]

That's not why she did it.  

 

Vesper did what she did because she knew that, despite the fact that she wants to start a new life far away from the problems that haunt her with regards to SMERSH (or Quantum, in this case), she can't leave that behind, which is revealed to her when Gettler appears towards the end of the story.  She knows that all she's doing is drawing another man that she loves into danger, so she takes the easy way out and, in her mind, spare Bond any hardship as well.

 

If this is the case, how come she leaves Mr White's number for Bond on her cell-phone? The ending doesn't quite stack up convincingly for me. As soon as Le Chiffre's has been disposed of and Mathias is out of the picture - the film loses it's way.

 

She did what she did so that she is able to keep Bond out of the same danger that she's in.  She knows, or at least has a feeling, that Bond would do anything for her, so that if Quantum came calling, he might be able to be coerced into doing something for them in order to save her, much in the same way that she'd been coerced into helping Youssef.  She can't live with that guilt, so she takes the plunge in the elevator.  She knows, however, that once she's out of the picture, that Bond's going to try to go after the people that she got tangled up with, so instead of putting him in further danger by having him start off with the cold trail, as M said, she gives him the information he needs to get a leg up on Mr. White and catch him, and whoever else, off guard.

[SecretAgentFan]

Exactly and well put.

[Professor Pi]

Her suicide in the novel is a pill overdose and she leaves a note for Bond confessing she had been working as a double agent. 

 

"I knew it would be the end of our love if I told you.  I realized that I could either wait to be killed by SMERSH and perhaps get you killed too, or I could kill myself."

 

She was being blackmailed by Quantum (or Smersh in the novel), she wanted to save the life of her Algerian (or in the book, Polish) boyfriend, and she probably didn't want to draw Bond further in and hurt him. One other reason. She probably thought that, eventually, she'd be found out by MI6 and be facing a long time in "clink". In the film she was the one who entered the password - her name - to transfer the money. At that point only she, Bond and the bank - and Quantum? - knew where it was. It seems she had access to it, and short of the bad guys hacking into the bank and moving it electronically, or Bond himself drawing it all out - unlikely - only one person could have handed it over to the villains.

 

In the film, Vesper's the only one who knows where the money is as she's the one who enters the account number.  The 'organization' doesn't have it, that's why they send Gettler on her trail.  MI6 doesn't have it, as M calls Bond to ask why it hasn't been transferred yet.  Bond then can't access his account and realizes his trust in her has been betrayed.  (Also, in QoS, Mr. White intimates that they would have used Vesper to trap Bond into a similar blackmail--"We'd have had you too.  I think you would have done anything for her.")

 

If this is the case, how come she leaves Mr White's number for Bond on her cell-phone? The ending doesn't quite stack up convincingly for me. As soon as Le Chiffre's has been disposed of and Mathias is out of the picture - the film loses it's way.

 

In the novel's suicide note, she explains that her boyfriend was caught by the Russians and leaves the contact information--number and address--they used.  In the film, M tells Bond the boyfriend connection as there is no note, and Vesper leaves her phone for Bond to find Mr. White's number.  I think this is the text she sends to herself on her phone while pretending to contact her employer in the hotel room that final morning.  M also tells Bond that's why Vesper saved his life by attaching the defibrillator to him in his car.  This was after she wouldn't authorize the $5M re-buy-in.  She's further plunged into the web when the CIA ponies up the money.  Bond is the only one that can beat Le Chiffre, and now the organization has their bets covered regardless of who wins.  If Bond wins, they kidnap Vesper, if Le Chiffre wins they get their money back (and then presumably kill Le Chiffre anyway since he can't be trusted.)  "She made a deal with them in order to spare your life," M explains.  "She must have known she was on her way to her death."

 

Two layers the films (CR and QoS) add over the novel is the film makes explicit the boyfriend (Yussef) is an agent of the enemy (that may be the case with the novel's Polish boyfriend but Fleming doesn't elaborate on it.)  And the film Vesper has a direct hand in the financial transactions of the winnings whereas not in the novel to my recollection.  Why she didn't hand it over is up in the air.  She knows it would directly finance terrorism?  She's in love with Bond but doesn't know what to do with the money?  Whoever she gives it to, MI6 or the organization, she fears they will come after her, even after Bond kills most of the baddies in the Venetian house (but not Mr. White.)  So suicide she figured was her only option (and drowning is a very painful way to go.)

 

"I'm afraid I'm a complicated woman," the movie Vesper told Bond at his rehab. 

 

One final thought, the book's nature of evil speech concludes with Mathis telling Bond to "surround himself with human beings...they are easier to fight for than principles."  But with Vesper's suicide he finds that is not true and vows to "go after the threat behind the spies, the threat that made them spy."  In the film, it is the organization that trapped Vesper into her predicament.  In the novel it is SMERSH, a "cold weapon of death and revenge."  Hence I interpret the fall of a house in Venice in the film as a metaphor that Bond will never be allowed to settle into a personal domestic life.  His profession is his life.

[Walecs]

Professor Pi explained it perfectly.

 

Simply read the novel, Fleming clearly said she killed herself to save Bond's life.

[FlemingBond]

the problem with it is that the novel makes more sense. In the novel she kills herself during the night and Bond wakes up with her already dead. it's much more jarring, makes more sense for her to do it out of despair with him not there. unfortunately in the movies they want everything on screen.

Edited by FlemingBond, 28 April 2013 - 06:41 PM.