Casino Royale - Good Vs Evil

SeanConnery007

One of my favourite aspects of Ian Fleming's novel Casino Royale was Bond's realisation of the 'grey' element in Good Vs Evil.
His realisation that who is on the 'good' side and who is on the 'bad' side is dependent on who you're fighting for. Obviously in the 1950's it was Cold War but it still applies to the modern world. In one perspective the perceived 'Good' of America/Britain fight the perceived 'Evil' of Al Qaeda and yet in the other perspective Al Qaeda believe they are the perceived 'Good' against America/Britain the perceived 'Evil'.
Fleming's insight into who fights who and who is truely 'Good' or 'Evil' is a fantastic concept and one that, although clearly relevent today, was absent from the Casino Royale film which was a disappointment to an otherwise very faithful adaptation of Fleming's novel.

s96024

That sort of thing has happened for ever and usually it ends up being a big mistake. America has funded loads of people because it suited them at that specific point, but then in future ended up backfiring. I think Israel is one of the most recent examples. It's how you play these people that counts. You always have to sacrifice something for some sort of gain, its whether your gain is greater than theirs or your loss.

Napoleon Plural

I agree with SeanConnery007 and I alluded to this in my review on this site. That was in many ways the true climax of the book and I think it could have been reworked for the Al Quaida angle (though the writers really skirted around this, not wanting Bond to be a target for real-life extremists, understandably).

It is touched upon in Scorcese's The Departed, too. Those same kind of themes.

PUCCINI

too bad they didn't include that part in the film...

perhaps for Bond 22?

barracuda

To be perfectly honest I've always found that bit of the novel awkward and naive. Probably best left out of the film.

DAWUSS

I honestly prefer the "shades of gray" than the obvious, black-and-white where the bad guy is obviously the bad guy and the good guy is clearly the good guy.


It also allows for both atrocities and charities to be committed by both sides, and not just one.



If only children's programs could bring this perspective into play...

delicious

In real life there are no shades of grey when it comes to good vs evil. The idea of their being shades of grey is itself an evil concept.

For example "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not have any sub-clauses or exceptions. The execution of a mass murderer is no less a violation of that commandment than the mass murders themselves. See "Dead Man Walking" for a brilliant portrayal of this issue.

However in the world of film where entertainment and education are the most important things, morality often becomes more plastic and fluid and is manipulated for the sake of dramatic effect.

Witness for example in TND when Bond steers his car off the roof of a hotel into an Avis rentacar shop window without a thought for the possible lives he might wipe out. Because it is primarily a comic moment and we know that Bond has the luck to be able to do his stunts without hurting passersby, our fear for the lives of those around him is suspended for the sake of entertainment.

I have already discussed the problem of the "soiling" of Bond in my review of CR so won't labour the point again here. But it is a lessening of the character and it has disappointed me exceedingly, especially in today's increasingly morally bankrupt world. In CR Bond lost his special aura of righteous violence and is now just a well-dressed thug.

Ah well...

2nd blind mouse

delicious wrote:

For example "Thou Shalt Not Kill" does not have any sub-clauses or exceptions. The execution of a mass murderer is no less a violation of that commandment than the mass murders themselves.

Those who kill must be killed, says it later on in The Bible somewhere, at least my translation. I'm not exactly a buff.

delicious

I think youre thinking of the Koran. The Bible does not qualify or contradict itself with regard to this commandment. The taking of life is God's province alone. However killing does not include accidents - it means murder or intentional or premeditated killing. This includes killing someone in combat.

blueman

I'm pretty sure grey exists in the world...maybe sorta, perhaps. I dunno. Guess I'm ambivalent on it.

But agree that in many belief systems, grey is defined--if at all--narrowly.

As to grey in CR, Vesper was the walking epitomy of it, IMHO. Also, the precredits seemed pretty grey to me, lol.

Dan Same

delicious wrote:

I think youre thinking of the Koran. The Bible does not qualify or contradict itself with regard to this commandment. The taking of life is God's province alone. However killing does not include accidents - it means murder or intentional or premeditated killing. This includes killing someone in combat.

I am not an expert on the New Testament, so please correct me if I'm wrong. While The Koran does permitt executions (although Mohammed preached mercy rather than retribution), and while Islam does allow for killing on the battlefield under certain conditions, Islam nonetheless opposes murder in all circumstances.*

Now, obviously Christianity also opposes murder, but doesn't it also believe in 'just war'? That is to say, doesn't Christianity, like Islam and Judaism, believe that there are times in which it is permissable to kill?

*I consider the death penalty to be murder, however I'm fully aware that many people, of different religions, disagree with me.

delicious

The notion of a 'just war' such as the Crusades is an idea that was developed by the Church in the middle ages to suit its political ends. But the Church does not always adhere to what the Bible says, anymore than many Islamic regimes follow the word of the Koran etc.

Interestingly, the New Testament ideas about compassion towards ones fellow man etc are probably ideas that Jesus picked up from the Buddhists when he went East. Buddha lived 500 years before Christ and Buddhism was well established in Asia long before Jesus was born. There is a tomb of Jesus in Kashmir and even ancient Japanese documents that state that Jesus and Moses both died and were buried in Japan. Jesus's grave is in the village of Hera in Aomori prefecture in Honshu, the main island of Japan. The local Japanese of the area also have unusual features including larger noses than is normal which is apparently due to Hebrew blood in their ancestry.

There is also good grounds for monotheism being acquired by the Jews from the Egyptians who for a period followed a God called Aten. The Pharoah at the time was Akhen-Aten but the religion died with his death and the Egyptians returned to following their traditional pantheon. They also started the idea of Divine Judgement after death determining whether one went to Hell or Heaven. The Jewish Torah does not refer to this at all.

As you can see there is a lot of cross fertilisation of ideas betwen the major religions.