LeChiffre - Weak Villian? Yes No Why?

Smoke_13

I have heard it said more than once that LeChiffre is far from anyone's favorite Bond Villian. In fact I must agree that he brought out very little emotion from me -good or bad.

My question to the board is this. Is LeChiffre ordinary in your opinion or is it just me? Is he ordinary in the CR novel or did only the movie portray him in that light? Lastly, I guess my question would be was it intentional by Fleming to make LeChiffre as ordinary as he was so that the attention of the novel/story would remain focused on the new secret agent he had created? Perhaps Fleming felt that once Bond was a more established character he could spice up his future novels with the more outlandish villians/henchmen.

Thundernuts

I have to agree. Not weak for me and a whole lot better acted by Mads Mikkelson than say, Jonathon Pryce's Eliot Carver, who was simply embarrassing.

In Casino Royale, Bond has merely uncovered the tip of the Iceberg. I for one cannot wait for Bond 22....

Gassy Man

I thought he was one of the more compelling villains in recent years and certainly more interesting than the two-dimensional comic book types that we've had lately. Was the character in the book more compelling? Yes, but then there was more time devoted to fleshing him out, as is the case with any of the characters. But in both cases, beating LeChiffre was never the important point of "Casino Royale." Instead, we were to focus on Bond's development as both a man and an agent.

highhopes

Fish1941 wrote:

LeChiffre was not a weak villain to me.

I get tired of people expecting Bond villains to be the usual over-the-top meglomaniacs out to rule the world. They have become so tiresome and boring to me. What makes LeChiffre interesting is that he is intelligent and ruthless, yet he has his own personal weaknesses . . . which obviously include greed.

I absolutely agree. I thought Mads' LeChiffre was a terrific villain because of his ordinariness, not in spite of it. And Mads did a wonderful job playing him as a creepy little weasel without turning him into a caricature or chewing up the scenery like the typical Bond megalomaniac.

I forgot who it was, but a historian once said Hitler and his henchmen were examples of "the banality of evil," i.e. that some very scary people can look very much like us. They kiss their wives, play with their children, laugh with their friends, go to sporting events; they cry at sad movies,and maybe even go to church where they are among the most pious. Maybe they take the bus to work in the morning and work very, very hard, and eat their lunch, which they bring from home, at their desk. They just happen to also be mass-murderers.

I don't think every Bond villain needs to be like LeChiffre. But let's not discount the danger of a guy like him just because he isn't some mad billionaire-scientist out to take over the world. LeChiffre for my money was one of the top Bond villains, right up there with Goldfinger and Rosa Klebb, the "gold standard," if you will. He was all too real to me.

Smoke_13

I'm certainly not disputing the intelligence or ability of LeChiffre. Perhaps weak was the wrong word to use -it was an attempt to describe his character...not his ability. I just felt very little emotion towards him.

In a lot of action movies the more hated the villian the more satisfying the outcome. For example -The original Die Hard had audiences chomping at the bit waiting for that arrogant so-and-so to get what he had coming. I never felt like I "couldnt wait to see him get his" with LeChiffre.

My thoughts were that if this was intentionally done to give Craig some focus as the new Bond -or Flemings Bond the focus for the first novel it truly was genius.

However, I am seeing now that LeChiffre does have a following...so what specific traits, scenes, etc. did it for you? Perhaps I am missing something?

highhopes

Smoke_13 wrote:

My thoughts were that if this was intentionally done to give Craig some focus as the new Bond -or Flemings Bond the focus for the first novel it truly was genius.

However, I am seeing now that LeChiffre does have a following...so what specific traits, scenes, etc. did it for you? Perhaps I am missing something?

I don't think there was any deliberate toning down of the LeChiffre character. I suppose that on the face of it, helping to finance terror isn't as "sexy" as, say, intercepting NASA rockets -- no hollowed out volcanoes or banks of flashing lights and dials are necessary -- but in this day and age LeChiffre's kind of activities are very real and troubling. Perhaps the filmmakers could have had a terrorist scene to show the carnage. But they probably figured it wasn't necessary given events in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere over the last few years.

What did I like? LeChiffre's business-like manner in the opening Uganda scene; his reassurance of his poker mark that the tears of blood are because of a "derangement of the tear-duct, doctor -- nothing sinister ..." He says it like a parent condescending to a child; his creepy little silent laugh when he beats Bond at poker; his growing, then exploding anger at Bond during the torture scene. Great stuff. He was more real than other Bond villains, just as Bond was more real.

Moore Not Less

I suppose if you compare him to the all powerful wanna be rulers of the world then Le Chiffre is weak compared to them.

Le Chiffre is not all powerful and he's not much of a physical threat either. Because he is not all powerful this makes him vulnerable. However, there is a real intelligence, hint of menace and creepiness about him which is not to be underestimated. All these characteristics make Le Chiffre one of the more interesting Bond villains, more so because of Mads Mikkelsen's wonderful portrayal.

MI-6 AGENT 003

I say LeChiffre is a weak villian from the stand point of we got no back story on him. What happened to his eye? What are his villian credentials? I thought the actor played the character well, but the writers didn't give him enough story. Obviously the movie was about Bond though so I can see why they didn't. If you are going to rank Bond villians 1-22, I'd put him below average.

blueman

Few villains have gotten Bond in a more precarious position. I'd say he was more than threatening enough...;) Brutal would be the word I'd use. In context of the story, he was a very effective villain IMO.

lavabubble

Le Chiffre = giddy and slightly creepy accountant !!!

He came at Bond in a different way to other villians, more sophisticated and less inclined to get his hands dirty. He only took Bond on when he really had to i.e. when he had got himself well and truly in the merde! His way of then capturing Bond was considered and more importantly successful.

To be honest, if Le Chiffre had gotten away into the night and was never heard of again I don't think anyone would be that fussed as he is part of the "Mr White bigger picture".

That said, I have just read CR the book and preferred the image of MM as Le Chiffre than the book's portrayal of an 18st chimp!

Smoke_13

Highhopes I agree 100% with you regarding the whole super villain scenario. I dont like that style Bond movie either. Although, I do enjoy the "Press the trap door in the floor button and watch Flunkie the gaurd get disciplined by a quick dip in the shark tank" scenes.

To me, LeChiffre always seemed to be in way over his head, and barely able to hold his house of cards -no pun intended- together.

In fact, the majority of the movie consists of plans LeChiffre made that did not come to fruition because of Bond.

Spoilers below if anybody has not seen the movie...a lot went wrong for LeChiffre after meeting Bond...

1) No airplane explosion -his short call collapses.
2) Incapable of defending himself at the casino vs. the thugs.
3) Couldnt finish off Bond at cards and lost all his money
4) Couldnt effectively torture/intimidate Bond -Bond was actually taunting him during that scene because Bond knew LeChiffre's death was imminent.
5) Then as Bond predicted -LeChiffre's unremarkable death.

After crossing paths with Bond absolutely nothing went in LeChiffre's favor. Most villians typically have won a round or two before their demise.

I still say he was unremarkable by intention.

Perhaps LeChiffre was unremarkable so the audience would realize he was just a pawn working for a higher power. And that higher power will be the person we absolutely love to hate. The person we can't wait to see Bond finish off.

jbfreak

I don't think LeChiffre is a weak villain at all. He doesn't have the hot stuff, big guns, rule the world attitude like the other villains, IMO. And it is for this reason that I don't think he is weak. He doesn't show his emotions and things like that, but he does things more intelligently and not on an impulse like other villains.

blueman

I also think both Fleming and EON had "new" Bond start out against an opponent he could actually beat. Going up against Dr No or Goldfinger would not have been the best thing for Bond right out of the box. The bigger baddies are coming I expect. I am very glad they didn't jazz up Le Chiffre and give him an orbiting satellite or something...that would've been sad.

lavabubble

Smoke_13 wrote:

..... I never felt like I "couldnt wait to see him get his" with LeChiffre.

The funny thing is I found it really satisfying seeing Mr White get at least a portion of his at the end though even though he was not a major player in the core plot of the film.

Inferno

I also liked LeChiffre. At first I thought his eye duct dripping blood was a bit much but in the end I liked his little quirks (his inhaler too).

LeChiffre fits in the context of a Bond that is more grounded. Sure, he may not have a secret lair carved into a mountain somewhere, but he's more believable for this Bond to take down.

I like that he's not in total control. That he's in desperate debt, that he's intimidated by the Africans, that he's not even the big cheese. All these make him more interesting.

I also like that it is not implied that anyone cheated during cards. More at stake for everyone that way.

highhopes

Smoke_13 wrote:

In fact, the majority of the movie consists of plans LeChiffre made that did not come to fruition because of Bond.

After crossing paths with Bond absolutely nothing went in LeChiffre's favor. Most villians typically have won a round or two before their demise.

LeChiffre did win a round -- in fact, he won the game had it not been for Felix Leiter, so I don't think that's quite correct. Nor is it correct that the bad guy usually wins a round before Bond defeats him: nothing went right for Goldfinger either, after meeting Bond. He loses at gin rummy, his girlfriend to Bond, at golf to Bond and Fort Knox to Bond. If I wanted to take the time, I could probably make a similar list for just about all Bond villains. But either way, what difference does it make? I'm not really interested in what "typically" happens. That's been the bane of the Bond films for 40 years, IMO.

LeChiffre's problem -- although I consider it a strength -- is that he's not grandiose. Low-tech torture is his thing, not lasers. Just as Bond is more human, so is LeChiffre. I suppose it was intentional, but only insofar is that he is basically the LeChiffre of the novel and Eon was committed to creating Bond's world a little closer to reality this time.

blueman wrote:

I also think both Fleming and EON had "new" Bond start out against an opponent he could actually beat. Going up against Dr No or Goldfinger would not have been the best thing for Bond right out of the box. The bigger baddies are coming I expect. I am very glad they didn't jazz up Le Chiffre and give him an orbiting satellite or something...that would've been sad.

Blueman, you know I think you're terrific, but you're way over thinking why Eon picked LeChiffre. The answer is simply that he was "picked" because he's the guy in the novel, not because Bond could "beat" him (believe me, I expect Bond to win no matter who his opponent is). It's a movie about a fictional world, not a boxing match in the real one.

And "bigger" baddies is exactly what I'm afraid of, because killer satellites may not be far behind.

MI-6 AGENT 003

Let's not forget LeChiffre did have Bond right where he wanted him and probably would've killed him had Mr. White not intervened.

Gassy Man

LeChiffre was also more grounded, for lack of a better word, than most Bond villains. He does what a lot of real world professional criminals do, which is use his brains to manipulate things to his advantage while remaining quietly in the background.

Re: The eye thing. I found it interesting that either this organization or the people they tangle with seem to have a penchant for doing something to people's eyes. Not only did LeChiffre have his wound, but the hatted guy also had one of the lenses of his glasses blacked out. I don't know if that exactly qualifies as a backstory, but it did pique my interest. It also felt very Fleming-esque.

blueman

I dunno high, Fleming specifically had Bond go after some pretty small fries sometimes, and with good reason. Similarly, would it have made sense for Dench in CR to say, "You've just got your 00 status, now please go and stop this big baddie from blackmailing the superpowers or starting WWIII"...which were Connery's 4th and 5th cinematic missions respectively.

Smoke_13

highhopes wrote:

LeChiffre's problem -- although I consider it a strength -- is that he's not grandiose. Low-tech torture is his thing, not lasers. Just as Bond is more human, so is LeChiffre. I suppose it was intentional, but only insofar is that he is basically the LeChiffre of the novel and Eon was committed to creating Bond's world a little closer to reality this time.
...
And "bigger" baddies is exactly what I'm afraid of, because killer satellites may not be far behind.

I will yield that all Bond villians don't win a round or two -but Goldfinger had Bond way more stressed than LeChiffre ever did.

My point is Goldfinger was the type of villian you loved to see Bond beat. I never had that emotion with LeChiffre -that's why I consider him a weak villian. He doesnt make me feel anything -hot or cold. Someone on this thread said if LeChiffre got away, it wouldnt have been that big of a deal. That to me, is a weak character villian.

And "bigger baddies" will be only welcome by me if they are more ruthless in character, evil in design, and blended with larger helpings of arrogance. But I agree 100% Highhopes, please...no hidden bases, no remote control laser satellites, or the like.

RobertSMiller

I hope it stays fairly personal with DC, it would be a shame to waste such a great bond on another G. Graves.

highhopes

Smoke_13 wrote:

highhopes wrote:

LeChiffre's problem -- although I consider it a strength -- is that he's not grandiose. Low-tech torture is his thing, not lasers. Just as Bond is more human, so is LeChiffre. I suppose it was intentional, but only insofar is that he is basically the LeChiffre of the novel and Eon was committed to creating Bond's world a little closer to reality this time.
...
And "bigger" baddies is exactly what I'm afraid of, because killer satellites may not be far behind.

I will yield that all Bond villians don't win a round or two -but Goldfinger had Bond way more stressed than LeChiffre ever did.

My point is Goldfinger was the type of villian you loved to see Bond beat. I never had that emotion with LeChiffre -that's why I consider him a weak villian. He doesnt make me feel anything -hot or cold. Someone on this thread said if LeChiffre got away, it wouldnt have been that big of a deal. That to me, is a weak character villian.

And "bigger baddies" will be only welcome by me if they are more ruthless in character, evil in design, and blended with larger helpings of arrogance. But I agree 100% Highhopes, please...no hidden bases, no remote control laser satellites, or the like.

All I can say is that it would have been a big deal to me if LeChiffre got away -- taking into consideration that it's only a movie, of course. But guys like LeChiffre have a basis in a very troubling reality for me. I get very angry, for example, that certain very, very wealthy people in far away lands give money to people who in turn use those funds to kill people in the West and elsewhere. I can't think of anything more "evil in design" than that, even though the perpetrators may not look or behave like mustache-twirling caricatures. So I guess I find quiet, unassuming, amoral second-hand killers like LeChiffre just as chilling, if not more so, than most Bond villains.

Loeffelholz

highhopes wrote:

...I guess I find quiet, unassuming, amoral second-hand killers like LeChiffre just as chilling, if not more so, than most Bond villains.

And, sadly, more relevant---in an immediate sense---as well.

Tarwater

I don't agree that the best measure of villians is how badly you want them beaten. Movies are most interesting not when you merely hate the villian, but when you also identify with him and understand why he does what he does. I could definitely identify with LeChiffre. He was someone with his back against the wall, someone facing catastrophic failure, and he got increasingly desperate and fearful as the movie progressed. He tortured Bond not because he's some deluded crazy man, but because he was frantically trying to avoid a disaster of his own making. I can identify with that emotional motivation much more easily than I can some psychotic lust for world conquest. This film told a story about real people, not cartoon characters.

Loeffelholz

Welcome to AJB, Tarwater. An excellent post, {[] with which I agree whole-heartedly. I had been hoping for something different when they cast Le Chiffre---an older, twisted father figure like, say, David Suchet---but I think Mikkelson does a fine job.

Again, welcome to the best Bond site in the world. You'll have a lot of fun here, and meet many interesting people...

Sir Hillary Bray

Le Chiffre is not a "weak" villain, but he is certainly not a dominant one either. And that's exactly how it should have been this time out, IMO. Just as much of the CR novel was about establishing the character of James Bond, so too was this film. The first thing I said to my wife when I got home from seeing CR was, "This wasn't just a James Bond film, it was a film about James Bond." That distinguishes it from all other films, and it is therefore only natural that the villain take more of a back seat. All that said, I agree with those who believe Le Chiffre had plenty of menace, was relatively easy to identify with, and was excellently played by Mads Mikkelsen. He was perfect for the film.

Napoleon Plural

Well I don't think Le Chiffre was one of Fleming's great villains, and like Scaramanga they tried to jazz him up a bit.

Never been keen on the villain being a contemporary of Bond. I prefer the teacher-pupil aura of superiority. Fleming's character did have this in the book, where he patronisingly lectures Bond about cowboys and indians... they cut this out of the film, sadly.

Actually I think the double agent Bond kills to get his second kill might have made a good Le Chiffre as Fleming portrayed.

But ultimately it's a problem as the villain in both novel and film is a second string, like Largo in TB. He's not really The Man.

Dan Same

The two things that I ask of a villain are that he well-acted and well-written. As it happens most of my favourite villains are those who are larger-than-life; people like Dr. No, Goldfinger, Blofeld, Kananga, Scaramanga, Stromberg and Drax. However I also like Sanchez and Electra.

I don't think Le Chiffre was a brilliant villain; nor do I think he was an bad one. I think that Mikkelsen gave a very impressive performance. I just wish that he had been better written as he seemed a little thin to me. His motivation was perfectly fine IMO. Although I loved Stromberg's motivation, I understand that he might not be appropiate for a more 'realistic' reboot. (Although CR IMO wasn't particularly realistic, but that's for another time.)

What I liked about Le Chiffre was that he only cared about himself and that he could be quite accurate with a rope. However, there were times (such as in the hotel room) when he struck me as far too ordinary and not as much of a threat. I blame the writers for under-developing him and stopping him from fulfilling his potential as I think that *Mikkelsen did indeed deliver a great performance.

*With one exception; in the torture scene he came across as rather desperate. Yes, he needed the money in order to survive, but if he was confident that he would be offered sanctuary regardless of what he did to Bond, why be so desperate?

Le_Chiffre_07

I think Le Chiffre was a great villain (hence the name) because he wasn't a evil madman with plans of world wars or nuclear holocausts or of the like... he was evil and murderous becuase he feared for his own life (not that it helped). I loved the part of CR when he was ambushed in his hotel room. Real fear, I loved it. And Mads' portay of the character was secretive, ellusive which is how you are meant to be in a game of Poker. He also didn't let his egop get in the either until the end when he lost it all. That made me laugh. )

Smoke_13

It's funny. It's been a while since I started this thread. I've seen CR about 10 times since then. I really like LeChiffre now. I like the way he delivers his lines, how calm he seems to be when his whole world is falling apart at the casino.

"You changed your shirt Mr. Bond, I hope our little game isn't causing you to perspire." He is so cocky, calm and smug when he says it. It's a great line.

The best however is...

"I die? I DIE!?!?! THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE SO WRONG!!!! Then he says something like, "Long after I've killed you and your friend your government will still welcome me with open arms." You can tell by the immediate look on Bonds face after this line that he knows LeChiffre is absolutely right, and he is screwed as a result. Just plain great stuff!

Yeah, I'll admit it. My first impression was incorrect. LeChiffre is a good villian, and actually he is slowly moving up my list of favorite villians.

Neville James

highhopes wrote:

Fish1941 wrote:

LeChiffre was not a weak villain to me.

I get tired of people expecting Bond villains to be the usual over-the-top meglomaniacs out to rule the world. They have become so tiresome and boring to me. What makes LeChiffre interesting is that he is intelligent and ruthless, yet he has his own personal weaknesses . . . which obviously include greed.

I absolutely agree. I thought Mads' LeChiffre was a terrific villain because of his ordinariness, not in spite of it. And Mads did a wonderful job playing him as a creepy little weasel without turning him into a caricature or chewing up the scenery like the typical Bond megalomaniac.

I forgot who it was, but a historian once said Hitler and his henchmen were examples of "the banality of evil," i.e. that some very scary people can look very much like us. They kiss their wives, play with their children, laugh with their friends, go to sporting events; they cry at sad movies,and maybe even go to church where they are among the most pious. Maybe they take the bus to work in the morning and work very, very hard, and eat their lunch, which they bring from home, at their desk. They just happen to also be mass-murderers.

I don't think every Bond villain needs to be like LeChiffre. But let's not discount the danger of a guy like him just because he isn't some mad billionaire-scientist out to take over the world. LeChiffre for my money was one of the top Bond villains, right up there with Goldfinger and Rosa Klebb, the "gold standard," if you will. He was all too real to me.

Well said. I couldn't have put it better myself.