Bond's Scottish Treasure

Loeffelholz

"May, Bond's elderly Scottish Treasure, came in to clear the breakfast things away. Bond had lit up a Duke of Durham, king-size, with filter. The authoritative Consumers Union of America rates this cigarette the one with the smallest tar and nicotine content...

"May was fiddling about with the breakfast things---her signal that she had something to say. Bond looked up from the center news page of The Times. 'Anything on your mind, May?'

"May's elderly, severe features were flushed. She said defensively, 'I have that.' She looked straight at Bond. She was holding the yoghurt carton in her hand. She crumpled it in her strong fingers and dropped it among the breakfast things on the tray. 'It's not my place to say it, Mister James, but ye're poisoning yersel'.'

"Bond said cheerfully, 'I know, May. You're quite right. But at least I've got them down to ten a day.'

"'I'm not talking about yer wee bitty smoke. I'm talking 'bout this'---May gestured at the tray---'this pap.' The word was spat out with disdain. Having got this off her chest, May gathered steam. 'It's no recht for a man to be eating bairns' food and slops and suchlike. Ye needn't worry that I'll talk, Mister James, but I'm knowing more about yer life than mebbe ye were wishing I did. There's been times when they've brought ye home from hospital and and there's talk you've been in a motoring accident or some such. But I'm not the old fule ye think I am, Mister James. Motoring accidents don't make one small hole in yer shoulder or yer leg or somewhere. Why, ye've got scars on ye the noo---ach, ye needn't grin like that, I've seen them---that could only be made by buellets. And these guns and knives and things ye carry around when ye're off abroad. Ach!' May put her hands on her hips. Her eyes were bright and defiant. 'Ye can tell me to mind my ain business and pack me off back to Glen Orchy, but before I go I'm telling ye, Mister James, that if ye get yerself into annuiter fight and ye've got nothing but yon muck in yer stomach, they'll be bringing ye home in a hearse. That's what they'll be doing.'"

- May gives Bond a dust-up over his new obsession with health food; Thunderball, Chapter 7.


What I'm saying is this: Eon, put this lady in the movies---and start with #22.

Show Bond at home---have him wake up, show a quick montage of him doing push-ups, sit-ups and chin-ups, followed by a shower that is first scalding hot...then ice cold.

Have Bond at his dining room table, eating breakfast, reading the paper...and let his housekeeper have a go at him in a fashion similar to what Ian Fleming wrote above; perhaps it's about the late hours he's keeping, how much he's drinking---whatever. But give us this extra bit of Fleming gold. Entire sequence: Two or three minutes, tops.

Between Dame Judi at the office---and May in his flat---who could blame 007 for his endless parade of lovely, nubile women; disposable objects of pleasure to distract him, from issues both within and without...

My two cents' worth, anyhoo. Thanks for reading :007)

Monique

I agree Loeff, she would be a very welcome addition. Great idea. From your fingers to....

Loeffelholz

Thanks, Mo

Seems to me, if they're going to forego Q as a humourous foil, give May a shot. If cast correctly, she could quickly become a scene-stealing cameo in the occasional movie---not necessarily each one, but just once in a while...like in the books.

Moonraker 5

As long as she doesn't talk like she's come straight out of The Broons (as above) , I'll be happy {[]

jetsetwilly

A gifted comic actress could do wonders with May (I'm thinking Celia Imrie).

However, are the days of a live-in housekeeper like May past? For readers of Fleming, it's fantastic - for young audience members, it could seem anachronistic or worse, laughable, for Our Hero to have an elderly woman fussing around him and making his coffee.

Moonraker 5

jetsetwilly wrote:

A gifted comic actress could do wonders with May (I'm thinking Celia Imrie).

Not Scottish enough Anette Crosby, long suffering wife of Victor Meldrew, is more or less who I'd picture.

emtiem

Bit of a danger of slowing the film down a bit, though, isn't it? Bond mooching around in his slippers isn't exactly exciting stuff. And to be honest, how many batchelors have a housekeeper anyway? Being a military guy you'd expect Bond not to mind making his own bed too much. I wonder if May is more of a fantasy of Fleming's rather than something the character would have..?

Bill Tanner

Fleming fantasy or not, I can't really understand your argument: Bond was a military man and did have a housekeeper. Exciting or not, these were great scenes in the novels and I was never aware of them slowing down the action. I rather liked these glimpses of Bond's home life and can't see why 21stC audiences wouldn't feel the same; does the film have to move at break-neck speed throughout - surely these periods of reflection only serve to highlight the action rather than slow it down? I don't think that anyone is suggesting that these are lengthy scenes, just little cameos would be enough. I like the idea, but agree with M5 that to cast a genuine scottish actress would be more effective, so Crosby gets my vote as well.

Bill Tanner

...on the other hand, this could be another slippery slope; how long before we see May coming to the rescue in a Union Jack emblazoned hot-air balloon?

Napoleon Plural

Ageist, sexist, but two old women bossing Bond about may be just too much.

Otherwise, I'd have May as a Tamsin Greig type, not quite Moneypenny, but maybe a housekeeper or someone who checks security on Bond's flat on a regular basis, not a housekeeper as such. Something of the relationship does remind me of Jimmy Stewart and housekeeper in Rear Window, or maybe Hancock and whoever it was, she popped up in Alf Garnett years later. For the film, I'd have her younger, a bit batty.

Moneypenny is a bit of a sacred cow, but this May character is all new. Ditto Loela Posonby.

emtiem

Bill Tanner wrote:

Fleming fantasy or not, I can't really understand your argument: Bond was a military man and did have a housekeeper.

No; Bond wasn't real My point is that, if Bond had existed, would he really be the type of chap to have a housekeeper or would he be happy looking after himself? Someone from Fleming's background would have welcomed being waited on, but Bond and Fleming weren't the same person.
And as for watching Bond in his flat... well it's never been riveting on the two occasions we've had so far. And a modern man of London in 2007 having a housekeeper waiting on him is just a bizarre notion, to be honest.

Loeffelholz

Bill Tanner wrote:

...on the other hand, this could be another slippery slope; how long before we see May coming to the rescue in a Union Jack emblazoned hot-air balloon?

)

Of course, I'm not in touch with what civil servants in 21st Century London do for domestic help, but I doubt they're completely extinct. Personally, I think it's worth a couple of minutes of screen time to give us a side of Bond we haven't seen before---and, as I said, I link it to his private physical regimen. Bond is a somewhat fastidious creature of habit; this would play to that.

MrsDalloway

Another wrinkly old lady in the cast? I'm all for it!
Not sure I follow the line of reasoning between these two arguments though:

emtiem wrote:

Bill Tanner wrote:

Fleming fantasy or not, I can't really understand your argument: Bond was a military man and did have a housekeeper.

No; Bond wasn't real My point is that, if Bond had existed, would he really be the type of chap to have a housekeeper or would he be happy looking after himself? Someone from Fleming's background would have welcomed being waited on, but Bond and Fleming weren't the same person.
And as for watching Bond in his flat... well it's never been riveting on the two occasions we've had so far. And a modern man of London in 2007 having a housekeeper waiting on him is just a bizarre notion, to be honest.

Bond wasn't real? What sort of a defense is that; can't you just feel that thin ice cracking beneath your feet as the entire franchise crumbles around you?

emtiem

MrsDalloway wrote:

Bond wasn't real? What sort of a defense is that; can't you just feel that thin ice cracking beneath your feet as the entire franchise crumbles around you?

Heh! My point is that Bond and his companion characters were only characters; they don't always act like real people but behave and are surrounded by events which drive the story along and get to places Fleming wanted to get to; thus saying 'Bond was a military man and had a housekeeper' doesn't make that proof of the fact that that sort of thing would happen, any more than saying 'Blofeld did have a bad childhood and had a garden of death' as if one leads to the other in real life!

Loeffelholz

Napoleon Plural wrote:

Ageist, sexist, but two old women bossing Bond about may be just too much.

I see it as something for Bond's alpha maleness to rail against. If Moneypenny returns, so much the better---his double entendres and flirtations with her form the front line of his counter-offensive...and reverting to his horn-dog ways, whilst in the field, would actually provide a further counter-balance. In drama (and cinema), conflict is good B-)

I will say one thing, though: In a franchise which has featured hollowed-out volcanoes, cars with ejector seats, heads-up displays and missiles (not to mention wheelie-poppin' big rigs and underwater tie-straightening), the mere notion of Bond having a housekeeper is 'bizarre' and 'unrealistic,' it is proof, I suppose, that the franchise is making tangible progress

darenhat

Keeping EON's bizarre casting decisions in mind, why not a bit of consistent inconstistencies. Let's cast Michael Kitchen as M. This would leave Judi Dench free to play May in Bond 22...and John Cleese can play Blofeld for good measure.

Loeffelholz

Not sure what you're getting at...but okay ?:)

Barbel

darenhat wrote:

John Cleese can play Blofeld for good measure.

"Ah, good evening Mr Bond. You wish to register a complaint?"

Loeffelholz

Barbel wrote:

"Ah, good evening Mr Bond. You wish to register a complaint?"

Blofeld, disguised as an innkeeper in Torquay (sic?) B-)

Barbel

Loeffelholz wrote:

"I'd like an argument, please."

B-)

) "Alright: your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries."

Loeffelholz

"Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!" )

superado

On a practical basis, only bits of the literary Bond are readily appropriate for the screen, which is sad since the success of the reboot rode on that merit, bringing Bond back to basics. Having all the rest tidbits, like boys night with Bill Tanner, May, Bond's eccentric, self-pampering rituals, would be a dream come true for literary fans and quite frankly, pulling it off with style and panache is too much a challenge for EON and company.

Barry Nelson

Loeffs I agree with your idea, as long as May and any other side character is limted in screen time. I wouldn't the Bond films to make the mistake the Batman films did where they put everyone, Alfred, Robin, Bat Girl, 3 villians and a girlfriend in one movie. You don't want a Bond movie where you wonder where Bond is. Perhaps May in one movie, Moneypenny in another and then Q in another.

Loeffelholz

superado wrote:

On a practical basis, only bits of the literary Bond are readily appropriate for the screen, which is sad since the success of the reboot rode on that merit, bringing Bond back to basics. Having all the rest tidbits, like boys night with Bill Tanner, May, Bond's eccentric, self-pampering rituals, would be a dream come true for literary fans and quite frankly, pulling it off with style and panache is too much a challenge for EON and company.

I dunno, supes...I think it's a new world, with the slate wiped pretty much clean, and some signs that a bit of the literary isn't necessarily the death knell for the franchise it was thought to be.

Naturally, it comes down to the writing...CR shows (to me) that P&W are capable of better-than-expected work when they have sense enough to utilize source material (and have a bit of fresh talent sweep up behind them in the rewrite process). We can't be sure it will fail until it's been tried; many of Eon's detractors seem to have underestimated them last year, if box office and critical acclaim (two things which rarely go hand-in-hand with 007) are anything to go by.

Now that the literary have established a beachhead, I guess I'm just not quite ready to climb back into the landing craft, give up and go home :v

Naturally, they can't do it all; as you indicated, not all bits are appropriate. But two minutes of Bond's workout regimen---and a quick turn by May---are not insurmountable, IMRO.

Loeffelholz

Barry Nelson wrote:

I wouldn't the Bond films to make the mistake the Batman films did where they put everyone, Alfred, Robin, Bat Girl, 3 villians and a girlfriend in one movie. You don't want a Bond movie where you wonder where Bond is. Perhaps May in one movie, Moneypenny in another and then Q in another.

A fair point, Barry, and you're absolutely right. We don't want it too cluttered. I think the first step would be a bit less M---or, at least, have her stay back in her office once the assignment's been given...

To me, May and Q fulfill the same purpose (character-based humour), so both in the same film would be redundant...but they've crammed Q and Moneypenny into all but two of the films so far with a fair amount of success.

Part of my thing here, I confess, is that it would be nice to see a glimpse of Bond when he's not at the office, or on a mission...I think Fleming realized that it added a dimension to his 'blunt instrument.'

Two minutes. Tops. :007)

blueman

Love the idea--for a 60s/70s Bond. Would've been great with say, Lazenby in OHMSS, or Moore in LALD. But now it just seems so dated and quaint, and with the added (now that the times have changed) undercurrent of, can't Bond make his own bed? Is he lame or what? It's an odd sort of fastidiousness these days, maybe even for when Fleming was writing, he had (for his day) some rather old fashioned ideas about that sort of thing. Enchanting to be sure, but perhaps EON has wisely sidestepped this one all along? Maybe the new improved--with added style and panache--EON could do it, though. Wouldn't say boo to it if done well. Sorta how I like everything Bond, just do it well.

Gotta admit, the more lone wolf this new Bond the better, I feel. I somehow get the notion, Craig's Bond hardly has a regular bed he sleeps in much less a flat w/housekeeper. Sure nice rereading that bit about May, thanks for that, Loeff.

emtiem

superado wrote:

On a practical basis, only bits of the literary Bond are readily appropriate for the screen, which is sad since the success of the reboot rode on that merit, bringing Bond back to basics. Having all the rest tidbits, like boys night with Bill Tanner, May, Bond's eccentric, self-pampering rituals, would be a dream come true for literary fans and quite frankly, pulling it off with style and panache is too much a challenge for EON and company.

So, they rode on the success of bringing Bond back to the Fleming basics, but bringing other Fleming elements would be too much of a challenge? Don't follow your logic at all. Didn't you doubt that they could make Casino Royale a success too?

Loeffelholz wrote:

Barry Nelson wrote:

I wouldn't the Bond films to make the mistake the Batman films did where they put everyone, Alfred, Robin, Bat Girl, 3 villians and a girlfriend in one movie. You don't want a Bond movie where you wonder where Bond is. Perhaps May in one movie, Moneypenny in another and then Q in another.

A fair point, Barry, and you're absolutely right. We don't want it too cluttered. I think the first step would be a bit less M---or, at least, have her stay back in her office once the assignment's been given...

It's a really good point Barry makes- I don't really want a large regular supposrting cast; I dont want Bond to feel like he's got a family that all hugs at the end of each movie. Otherwise you get to that horrible point Lethal Weapon 4 found itself in with a cast which had cluttered up with Joe Pesci, Rene Russo and Chris Rock and a tagline that actually said 'All the faces you love'. Keep it nice and simple.
I wouldn't hate seeing a bit of Bond's lifestyle, but only if it really gives us some bearing on the story and his character. As these new films focus on Bond as a character as never before it would be less out of place than ever before, but still; I'm just not convinced I'd buy May as a character.

emtiem

blueman wrote:

Love the idea--for a 60s/70s Bond. Would've been great with say, Lazenby in OHMSS, or Moore in LALD. But now it just seems so dated and quaint, and with the added (now that the times have changed) undercurrent of, can't Bond make his own bed? Is he lame or what? It's an odd sort of fastidiousness these days, maybe even for when Fleming was writing, he had (for his day) some rather old fashioned ideas about that sort of thing. Enchanting to be sure, but perhaps EON has wisely sidestepped this one all along? Maybe the new improved--with added style and panache--EON could do it, though. Wouldn't say boo to it if done well. Sorta how I like everything Bond, just do it well.

Yeah, I agree. Having a housemaid to boil you an egg in the morning and iron your clothes just doesn't suit Bond, especially this new Bond. As I said earlier, a military man should be able to look after himself and it's large part of all training to keep your kit clean and make your bed.
Perhaps he has a cleaner in at the most, but I can't imagine a circumstance where that would make an interesting scene in a spy thriller.

blueman

Maybe he uses Jiffy Maid? Or rather, a succession of Jiffy Maid-type services, as he keeps, er, mis-using the girls and getting them in dutch with the boss, lol.

darenhat

It wouldn't surprise me for Craig's Bond to utilize May...and I don't think it's a stretch. As an individual who spends a lot of time traveling, it makes sense to have someone tend to the house. One thing I don't want to see is Bond doing his laundry, squirting stain remover with dead-eye accuracy on the blood spots of his starched shirt. May's presence would be perfectly explicable, given the fact the Bond doesn't have time to deal with these things himself, and isn't going to trust just anybody to do it.

superado

emtiem wrote:

superado wrote:

On a practical basis, only bits of the literary Bond are readily appropriate for the screen, which is sad since the success of the reboot rode on that merit, bringing Bond back to basics. Having all the rest tidbits, like boys night with Bill Tanner, May, Bond's eccentric, self-pampering rituals, would be a dream come true for literary fans and quite frankly, pulling it off with style and panache is too much a challenge for EON and company.

So, they rode on the success of bringing Bond back to the Fleming basics, but bringing other Fleming elements would be too much of a challenge? Don't follow your logic at all. Didn't you doubt that they could make Casino Royale a success too?

First of all, why don't you work on your tone. Why do you have to be so abrasive?

On your question, you yourself doubt that this particular literary element, May the housekeeper, wouldn't work in today's environment. So, how can you yourself think that EON is capable of pulling it off? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

On the whole gimmick of bringing Bond back to basics, do you really think they did? Did CR's Bond nail down the literary character to a "t", or even "for the most part?" I don't think so. Grittiness does not make that automatically so. But don't you agree that the positive critical reception CR received was based on, and heavily promoted as "bringing Bond back to basics?" So, because my prediction of CR not succeeding the way it did, was wrong, does that make any other informed prediction I may have about EON's abilities automatically wrong, or at least lesser in validity than any point or prediction you might make?

The difference between you and me, apart from you being on the side of the "winning outcome," is that your stance is largely energized by your ego and the need to totally render anyone else in disagreement as utterly wrong and stupid.