Question regarding Plot
HanjoH
Posts: 1MI6 Agent
Hey guys,
I was wondering about one twist of the plot in CR. The point (after Bond defeated Le Chiffre at poker) where Vesper leaves Bond at the table saying "Matthys needs me." - why does Bond suddenly react to the name "Matthys"? Why would it make him rush out to save Vesper?! I didn't get that bit
(I heard that the German synchro of the movie contains an additional line supposedly spoken by Vesper which might explain something. Anybody knows about that?)
Thx a lot
H.
I was wondering about one twist of the plot in CR. The point (after Bond defeated Le Chiffre at poker) where Vesper leaves Bond at the table saying "Matthys needs me." - why does Bond suddenly react to the name "Matthys"? Why would it make him rush out to save Vesper?! I didn't get that bit
(I heard that the German synchro of the movie contains an additional line supposedly spoken by Vesper which might explain something. Anybody knows about that?)
Thx a lot
H.
Comments
For one thing, Bond perhaps thought it odd that Mathis should need to see Vesper, and this aroused his suspicions about the text. Secondly, this reference to Mathis might have helped Bond realise that he told only Mathis and Vesper about Le Chiffre's "tell" (the twitch he has to mask when he bluffs); one of them must have told LC about the "tell", and therefore is a traitor - and as Bond can't possibly suspect Vesper at this point, he must assume that Mathis is a double agent.
There may be more to it than that, but that's how I understood it when watching the film.
The 'tell' theory, I don't care for, since Bond had only his own arrogant belief that someone had told Le Chiffre that Bond knew his tell. I would have simply believed that Bond had made a mistake and lost tthe hand...like he had in the original novel.
And some of you think that CR doesn't insult the intelligence... the film is FULL of stuff like this, from beginning to end.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But LeChiffre knows that Bond is a clever man and will work that out for himself - or he just gets Vesper (or himself) to 'phone Bond to inform him of the kidnap - simple really
If Bond had crashed into Vesper and killer her, then they would not be able to do that trick where they key in the numbers into the computer, and it goes into another account, as V would be dead...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
LeChiffre would already have had the bank account details and so it would not matter if Bond did kill Vesper - he only needed Bond's password to get the money, that's the way I see it anyhow
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I don't think that LeChiffre would wait for Herr Mendel - do you ? He would find him and steal the briefcase - problem solved.
Who says it was a "pretend" kidnap? You don't know that. I think it's entirely possible that LeChiffre thought Vesper double-crossed him and gave Bond the additional buy-in, not knowing it was in fact Leiter. I think there were several double-crosses involved in CR. This stuff you say the movie is full of may in fact make perfect sense once we know the whole story -- but we'll have to wait for Bond 22. I know it's off-putting to not have a grand finale with Bond changing into a jumpsuit and leading a charge of special forces ninjas, but CR is a different kind of Bond film with a plot that actually is mysterious to the viewer as well as the characters. It's actually fairly unusual for so-called "thrillers." There is nothing so annoying in a "thriller" for the audience to figure out the plot ahead of the main character. For a recent example, check out "Derailed." I had that figured out within 15 minutes. Of course, if the CR conspiracy(or conspiracies) aren't explained in Bond 22, I'll will gladly offer to eat crow.
But here it goes: Bond needed an account number and a password (that he already gave) but what seems important is not the account rather than the password itself. Le Chiffre could use his account, but what he needed was Bond Password (which in this point only knew him) to transfer the money from Mendel bank to the account Bond gives (whatever he chooses, even Le Chiffre's one)
And Le Chiffre didn't want to kill Vesper, or even put her in danger because he knew or trust that Bond wouldn't run over her. And even if that happens... Le Chiffre wouldn't lose anything.
If It was a 'pretend' kidnap, then if I were the 'pretend' kidnap victim, I definitely would not be willing to lay in the road and hope Bond didn't have one too many martinis.
If it was not a 'pretend' kidnap, then the goal was either A) they wanted Vesper (in which case it made no sense to dump her on the road) or
The only thing that makes sense is that it was not a pretend kidnapping and they intended to use Vesper simply as bait to get Bond's cooperation. It was a ploy to get Bond out of the casino, and since he caught on rather quickly, Vesper was no longer needed so they dumped her on the road.
The problem with this theory, however, is that it means that Vesper was not working for Le Chiffre, and that LC would have needed her alive to get the account number.
I think it's just easier to say that Bond wrecked his Aston Martin swerving to missing the huge plot hole.
Still, the way they snare Bond in the book was more effective...
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Agreed, I don't think it was a 'pretend' kidnap, punctuated by her obvious struggling outside the casino. I think it's plausible that they didn't care if she died (thus dumping her on the road) but with her dies the account number unless LC already had it. The goal would have been to simply get the password from Bond at that point. I don't see why they risk killing him in a stupendous crash since it would have been sheer luck on Le Chiffre's part that Bond made the 'Mathis' connection and followed them. The original plan must have been on the line that they would contact Bond later and make a 'deal' with Bond concerning Vesper. Dropping Vesper and causing Bond to crash would have been losing the bargaining chip and the bargain all in one shot, when all the while their plan was proceeding 'perfectly'.
M says "Vesper made a deal with them to let you live that night"
"that night" doesnt refer to the payoff in Venice, which was in daylight anyway
it was the night Le Chiffre captured the two of them and was subsequently shot in front of Bond
remember Mathis is saying afterwards he cant figure out why the killer didnt kill Bond and Vesper too when he had the chance
so something went on between Vesper and the killer while Le Chiffre was still torturing Bond, and Bond was purposely left alive so that he could freely hand the winnings over to Vesper
given that, is it possible that her whole subsequent affair with Bond was a ruse to get him to gve her the money? hmmm, I guess not cuz as soon as he gave the password in the garden she had it in her account...
anyway the scene wheres shes lying in the road: thats a bit from Flemings version of tMwtGG: Scaramanga freaks out Bond by appearing to tie Mary Goodnights body to the traintracks, but when the train crushes it it turns out to have been a blondewigged dummy
still doesnt make sense in the context of this film, the literary Le Chiffre had a memorable gadget for stopping the Bentley: a wiremesh carpet stringing together hundreds of sharp spikes
in Flemings CR Bond keeps casually wondering about Vespers odd behaviour the night of the torture but doesnt put it all together til shes ODd on the last page, cuz he was more preoccupied with getting her nekkid than learning the inconvenient truth
I think maybe Vesper and Le Chiffre were both being played by whoever Le Chiffre was working for, and did not necesarrily have any loyalty to each other: more like Vespers seductive wiles were the backup plan should Le Chiffres more confrontational methods fail
No, Darenhat: it categorically does not mean Vesper wasn't working for LeChiffre. There's a very simple explanation: After kidnapping Vesper "for real," she explains she did not give Bond the money, after which LeChiffre puts her in the road in order to stop Bond and try to obtain the password. There is no plot hole there.
A failure of imagination, perhaps?
Give Bond the money? What are you talking about? At that stage, Le Chiffre is in a fight for survival. It doesn't matter how Bond bought back into the game at that stage. He needs to get his money back, not squabble with Vesper about whos to blame for the situation. Besides, Le Chiffre doesn't call the shots with the Treasury. If Vesper was ordered by her superiors to back Bond for another go, she would have to, whether LC liked it or not.
Mr Potts has put forth a very edifying point about 'Vesper's deal' which leads me to believe that Vesper had absolutely nothing to do with Le Chiffre but rather someone seperate. After all and pay close attention to this: If Le Chiffre and Vesper were in cahoots, then Le Chiffre could easily have been content with letting Bond win the poker game, since he would have known that Vesper would most likely get his money back. Killing Bond at the game would be limiting Le Chiffre's chances of ultimately recouping the pot.
And all that is entirely possible, DH. It may be that Gettis (the guy in Venice) is unrelated to either LeChiffre or Mr. White. Or perhaps he's related to LeChiffre (the problem with his right eye makes me think they may be kin). Or maybe Mr. White made a separate deal with Vesper to keep the money for himself and rip off his own organization. There are a number of possibilities. My point is not to say "This is what happened," but rather to suggest that it's premature for you to characterize these things as "plot holes." We simply don't have all the information. I expect that information will be forthcoming in Bond 22. If not, then it would certainly be fair to call them holes, but only then. I kind of like the fact there there's all this mystery to the ending. The people who want easy explanations are missing the point, I think. It's supposed to be obscure. I'm willing to go with it.
Who was/is Villiers? ?:) (the man according to M says Bond is the best player in service)
I hope all of you excuse my ignorance... it sucks
M's aide, secretary, advisor, "Moneypenny". Whatever you want to call him.
I certainly hope you are right. I would love to watch Bond 22 and have everything clarified. I simply don't have a lot of faith in P&W, since I have always felt that the motivation of their characters tends to be based on what looks best in the scene and not necessarily what is going on in the undercurrents of the story.
I suppose I'm old-school, but I tend to think that a story should be a revelation of the different events, predicated by the convergence of the motivations of the different characters, and that the beauty of the story is in seeing the resolution of the conflicts within that convergence in a unique and well-crafted manner.
What I refer to as 'plot holes' are, to me, unexplained events which are key to the story. For you, they are 'mysteries' to be uncovered in the following 'chapter.'
My greatest fear is the CR (and subsequent films) will be much like the Star Wars prequels, in which, after I watched Attack of the Clones was waiting for some strong answers to explain the divergent character motivations, but it never happened.
Actually, I think that's a pretty standard expectation, DH. But I'm not sure what school this scenario would fall under (sorry -- I didn't pay close attention the first time):
That's a motivation that would make no sense to me. Being OK with losing the game now on the chance you'll recoup your losses later isn't a sensible plan for a gambler or anyone else. Taking his chief rival out of the game made perfect sense. Remember, he's not just after Bond's money but the the money of other folks at the table as well. Bond's presence puts that at risk.
And to touch on your earlier response as to what LeChiffre would have done if he thought Vesper had double-crossed him, if I thought Vesper had given Bond the money to get back in the game after I had beaten him, I would be extremely ****ed. Yes, I would certainly need to figure a way of getting the money back, but I would definitely want a word with Vesper at the earliest. It makes perfect sense that after kidnapping Vesper and finding out what happened, he decided "fine, let's have a word with Bond," and put her out in the road to get him to stop. Everyone seems to assume the that the crash was pre-ordained and therefore foreseeable. But it wasn't: it was an accident. They happen all the time in the real world. The chase culminating in Bond's capture wasn't pre-ordained either. It only happened that way because Bond had a realization about Mathis and went after Vesper. Had he not, I presume LeChiffre would have tried something else to get the money back. But that's not the way the movie had it happen.
Your idea of motivation seems more like predestination to me, where A necessarily leads to B to C to D. But a character in a piece of fiction, like a person in real life, can have several logical ways to go that make sense.
I'm more interested in how this would play if there was a connection between Le Chiffre and Vesper. If Vesper, as you suggest, had something to do with LC and thus LC was upset at the possibility that Vesper had backed Bond at the table a second time, then it would be a safe assumption that the account number which she had given the bank was not the MI6 account but LC's because the two are in cahoots.
If that were the case, Le Chiffre would not be upset that Bond won, becuase he still had a hidden ace up his sleeve in the form of Vesper's treachery. He wasn't playing to lose. But if LC was the strongest player, and Bond was the second strongest (or vice-versa) than the chances that they would be the last two sitting at the table are high. In that scenario, LC would be in a win-win situation IF Vesper was on his side.
Remember: these are all questions we have to keep in mind if LC and Vesper are involved in the same treachery. I'm not saying they are. In fact, I think they weren't. That is why I'm saying that LC's abduction had nothing to do with Bond's ability to buy back into the game, but rather a desperate ploy to use her against Bond.
I don't think this is strictly true TBH. He's obviously seen Bond as a threat to his winning the money so sees fit to poison him. One less player shortens the odds of LC going home with the money, especially if that one player appears to be the best player and biggest rival.
With regards to the rebuy I think you can look at it one of two ways. In one respect it made no difference to LC whether or not Bond bought back in. He had just beaten him clean out of the tournament and had the upper hand (so he thinks) both in poker skills and mentally. Looking at it from a gambling perspective a lot of casino players go on 'tilt' after such a bad beat - making rash decisions and blowing cash as if there is no tomorrow to compensate for a previous loss. LC might have seen it as another easy 5m in the pot.
He only poisons Bond when its looking like he isn't going to be out of the game after all -remember the fold that LC is made to make after Bond (in poker terms) 'comes over the top of him' in the abbreviated hand shown when we see Bond's massive chip stack compared to the plaques he had at the rebuy - by the time Bond returns after being defibrillated only FL is left so this indicates that LC was the best player at the table bar Bond anyway.
The second is regarding Vesper. Did she not allow Bond to rebuy because of LC/Mr White as once Bond was out it would be easy for LC to win the game?? Was it because she was genuinely beginning to care for Bond and wanted to keep him away from the danger she was all too aware was present? Was she actually protecting the investment of the treasury as she knew that LC was already going to get enough in terms of funds by just winning what was out on the table???
You can spin all this in a number of ways I suppose and thats just the way I see it. I think that its something that people will continue to debate until hopefully Bond 22 answers some of these questions
He either had a team of frogmen on standby or is very good at hook-a-duck
Yeah, it looked like it was pretty much lost in the sinking house. Assuming of course that it is indeed the money, a quick shot of someone escaping with the case would be nice. Again, as highhopes says, we have to wait until Bond 22 for the answers. ?:)