CR: changes from source material
Bill Tanner
"Spending the money quickly" iPosts: 261MI6 Agent
Saw CR last week and loved it - a much needed kick up the franchise and a great Bond in Craig.
Fair enough, but the only thing that bothered me was all the hype about being true to Fleming and true to the novel. Excuse me, but apart from the title and the central premise, this was hardly a faithful adaptation.
I accept that the original was fairly confined and wasn't 'big' enough for a screen Bond adventure - mainly not enough movement between locations for the characters and not enough action to fulfill the expectations of modern cinema-goers.
I'll also accept that it was a good idea to fill-in some of the back story so that we see events leading up to the big game but was it necessary to make events so confusing here?
KGB/SMERSH wouldn't have worked, post cold war, so a change here is also acceptable.
But why the rest? Why for example are Bond's first two kills changed - why not see the Japanese cipher clerk and the Norwegian double agent? Why have Vesper represent the Treasury (although I think this works better than Fleming, where Vesper's role seems slightly superfluous). Why have the scene on the train instead of in the restaurant with all those glorious meal details? Why Poker? Where were the men in straw hats with the cameras? Why change the attempt on Bond's life to a poisoning? Why all the ambiguity over Mathis's duplicity? Why didn't we see Bond and Lieter establishing their friendship? Why Montenegro instead of France? Why the changes to the ending (Bond's recuperation and the trip through France) and why all the ambiguity over Vesper's motives for taking her own life?
OK, a lot of the above I can accept; Fleming himself sold his book rights with the caveat that it would be necessary to update a lot of the events and procedures. I also understand that EON want to take some of the plot (Vesper's motives and the ELIPSIS/SMERSH business) into the next film. But to trash quite so much of the novel and then claim kudos for your faithful interpretation? CR is a great film, but if I want to see Fleming on screen I'll stick with FRWL, OHMSS or Dr No... maybe Thunderball at a pinch.
Fair enough, but the only thing that bothered me was all the hype about being true to Fleming and true to the novel. Excuse me, but apart from the title and the central premise, this was hardly a faithful adaptation.
I accept that the original was fairly confined and wasn't 'big' enough for a screen Bond adventure - mainly not enough movement between locations for the characters and not enough action to fulfill the expectations of modern cinema-goers.
I'll also accept that it was a good idea to fill-in some of the back story so that we see events leading up to the big game but was it necessary to make events so confusing here?
KGB/SMERSH wouldn't have worked, post cold war, so a change here is also acceptable.
But why the rest? Why for example are Bond's first two kills changed - why not see the Japanese cipher clerk and the Norwegian double agent? Why have Vesper represent the Treasury (although I think this works better than Fleming, where Vesper's role seems slightly superfluous). Why have the scene on the train instead of in the restaurant with all those glorious meal details? Why Poker? Where were the men in straw hats with the cameras? Why change the attempt on Bond's life to a poisoning? Why all the ambiguity over Mathis's duplicity? Why didn't we see Bond and Lieter establishing their friendship? Why Montenegro instead of France? Why the changes to the ending (Bond's recuperation and the trip through France) and why all the ambiguity over Vesper's motives for taking her own life?
OK, a lot of the above I can accept; Fleming himself sold his book rights with the caveat that it would be necessary to update a lot of the events and procedures. I also understand that EON want to take some of the plot (Vesper's motives and the ELIPSIS/SMERSH business) into the next film. But to trash quite so much of the novel and then claim kudos for your faithful interpretation? CR is a great film, but if I want to see Fleming on screen I'll stick with FRWL, OHMSS or Dr No... maybe Thunderball at a pinch.
Comments
Anyways, heres what I found in terms of references:
-General narrative of the book from where Bond meets Vesper until they are relaxing at the beach
-The attention to detail in the décor.
-Vesper's dress in the casino is exactly as described in the book.
-The furnishings and décor of the casino and night club/restaurant are precise (with a band playing in the corner) and the style/architecture of the Casino Royale building itself and it's proximity and bearing with the Hotel Splendide are exactly the same, even the neatly kept gardens and café outside them.
-There is a scene in the book where Bond slips his dinner jacket on and checks himself in the mirror which is in the film.
-There is a scene also where Bond stares at himself in the bathroom mirror in the book which is used in the film too, only for a more interesting purpose.
-Carpet beater/Le Chiffre's and goons death in his safe house villa
-Hospital
-Bond and Vesper making love on the beach/in the sea
-Bond mentions his dislike of working with women on the job like in the book.
-Le Chiffre's benzadrine inhaler
-The exact same martini recipe (Vesper) and manner in which he orders it
-Main characters: Felix Leiter, Mathis etc
-Bonds first execution jobs in which he earnt his Double-0 rank, one of which quick, clean and silent, the other long, drawn out and nasty
-Vesper committs suicide “The bitch is dead now.”
From other Fleming source materiel:
-Solonge: Mentioned in FYEO
-Bond's background mentions [YOLT]
-Mention of Bond preferring to bed married women [references also forgotten, but in one book we learn that 007 has 3 married women around London who he visits now and then]
What I will say is that she does kill herself against Bond's will keeping the theme of the books tragedy, but it's in a more cinematic and visually impressive scene during which I believe stunt coordinator Gary Powell cried whilst watching Daniel Craig and Eva Green acting.
The book ends while they are still on their little holiday at the beach. In the film they do go off together for a time at the beach but the finale is in Venice as has been reported, so it's extended at the end from the book as the start of the film is extended also giving a bit more back story to how Bond and Le Chiffre end up meeting in Royale.
When Martin Campbell mentioned that the start of the book was out he was talking about the stuff about the Muntzes, the Russians etc. Bond takes the train to Royale contacting Vesper on board. They arrive in Royale to meet Mathis and from where (in the book) they have lunch with Mathis in the café that is where the books narrative begins in the film.
The attempts on Bond's life, especially the machete attack, are I think an attempt to have the assassins use "local" tools. The writers, rightly I think, supposed that machetes were probably more to the liking of rebel soldiers who fight in the tropics than bombs. As for Bond's escape from the gunman in the novel, I never found that particularly believable. Nor did I find it believable that the Russian killers assassinated LeChiffre and left Bond alive. Fleming's conceit was that the Russian spies were too bureaucratic to decide to kill on their own, but I found that hard to swallow. The ending of CR may be unclear, but I think that's on purpose and all will be explained in Bond 22.