Should the film and literary Bond ever be one?
i expect u2 die
LondonPosts: 583MI6 Agent
"James Bond is what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like between her sheets".
Or so says the Sunday Times in response to the publication of Fleming's OHMSS in 1963.
But after having recently forayed into the world of Fleming's Bond, I've found myself increasingly at odds with this notion. Of course, the Bond of the films came to epitomize 'cool', and even when they reached the camp era of Moore's outings, he was still invariably capable of "delving deeply into the treasures of Egypt", after having known said girl for less than a minute. But such hedonism within the novels, is omnipresently accompanied with what I can only describe as a loneliness within Bond. He drinks and smokes to excess, but rather than a 'charming' attribute of our man, to be honest, its actually quite sad. he lives in solitude, which is of course a necessity of his profession, but its just another element which makes that profession so undesirable to me. I think that Fleming creates a wonderfully repressed, and therefore particularly sad character. Especially with Bond's 'Good and Evil" epiphany in Casino Royale - this is a man with big ideas, but he doesn't know how to utilize or articulate them. For these reasons, more often than not, I find myself pitying the Bond of the novels.
This is what separates the novels and the films, for me. The icons such as the gunbarrel, the dinner jacket, the scantily-clad ladies and the theme music - all are decorations surrounding the character which elevate him to the status of an institution and a hero. Of course, I'd have it no other way - Bond SHOULD be an institution and I'd probably never have heard of the character if this wasn't so. I'm just intrigued by the effect of this on the character himself - will the materialism of the film industry forever restrict the realism of James Bond?
I may sound like another fan who wishes the films were "more like the books". Not so - I'm delighted with the direction the franchise has taken with Daniel Craig. Right now, I think the general film-going public is being given their clearest ever vision of who James Bond is. But to what extent SHOULD the series strive to match the essence of the novels? I think they're in a good position now, and to try harder would sacrifice what is now the essence of the films. For me, they will forever be two separate entities. It is often said that Daniel Craig's Bond is the closest to Fleming's that we have seen. I agree, but there remains one difference - I think he's still what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like between her sheets.
And so he should be.
Or so says the Sunday Times in response to the publication of Fleming's OHMSS in 1963.
But after having recently forayed into the world of Fleming's Bond, I've found myself increasingly at odds with this notion. Of course, the Bond of the films came to epitomize 'cool', and even when they reached the camp era of Moore's outings, he was still invariably capable of "delving deeply into the treasures of Egypt", after having known said girl for less than a minute. But such hedonism within the novels, is omnipresently accompanied with what I can only describe as a loneliness within Bond. He drinks and smokes to excess, but rather than a 'charming' attribute of our man, to be honest, its actually quite sad. he lives in solitude, which is of course a necessity of his profession, but its just another element which makes that profession so undesirable to me. I think that Fleming creates a wonderfully repressed, and therefore particularly sad character. Especially with Bond's 'Good and Evil" epiphany in Casino Royale - this is a man with big ideas, but he doesn't know how to utilize or articulate them. For these reasons, more often than not, I find myself pitying the Bond of the novels.
This is what separates the novels and the films, for me. The icons such as the gunbarrel, the dinner jacket, the scantily-clad ladies and the theme music - all are decorations surrounding the character which elevate him to the status of an institution and a hero. Of course, I'd have it no other way - Bond SHOULD be an institution and I'd probably never have heard of the character if this wasn't so. I'm just intrigued by the effect of this on the character himself - will the materialism of the film industry forever restrict the realism of James Bond?
I may sound like another fan who wishes the films were "more like the books". Not so - I'm delighted with the direction the franchise has taken with Daniel Craig. Right now, I think the general film-going public is being given their clearest ever vision of who James Bond is. But to what extent SHOULD the series strive to match the essence of the novels? I think they're in a good position now, and to try harder would sacrifice what is now the essence of the films. For me, they will forever be two separate entities. It is often said that Daniel Craig's Bond is the closest to Fleming's that we have seen. I agree, but there remains one difference - I think he's still what every man would like to be, and what every woman would like between her sheets.
And so he should be.
Comments
There are still too many fans who have never picked up a novel whose "expectations" might not be met by a accurate protrayl of oo7.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Cinematic and Literary Bond really are two different things.
I know that superado hopes for a revolution at some point, where we can actually see faithful, period-piece adaptations of the original novels. I'd certainly love to see such a thing as well, but it certainly appears that this is merely a wistful, 'what if?' dream.
Someone else once had the brilliant idea of adapting the books into animation, and serialising the novels---perhaps for TV (ideally, HBO or something similar)---where they can actually be allowed to live and breathe.
It seems to me that Eon could do this in addition to continuing the film franchise. There's a risk of overexposing the character, I suppose, but the artistic and commercial benefits seem (to me) to outweigh the risks.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
By comparison, hiring DC and using a Fleming novel as a basis for a Bond film are pretty tame.
I'd love to see it come to pass, but I think we are more likely to see another DAD first!
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Personally I think it shows great character to remain strong in your convictions and true to yourself when you live that way. He is never overly bitter about his situation and he just gets on with it. Also it is quite easy to slip into a void of self doubt and reclusiveness when you are alone for long periods (I know this through experience) yet he is very confident, strong of character and very self assured. This is what is attractive about him to the women of the novels.
As for the film version, the fact that you never see him alone eating his scrambled eggs and talking to his 'treasure' May, and such lke is due to the fact that it would be boring as hell in a Bond film. He is always seen with someone or if he is alone he is often doing something exciting. This is because that translates well to the screen, whereas Bond driving round the south of France and stopping off at a hotel for the night and enjoying a pint of Rose D'Anjou with tea doesn't.
Books allow you to get deeper into the character and the character's thoughts than films do, that is why the lonely aspect of Bond doesn't come through on screen. Imo
Bond is alone in the films but has a rapport with the audience he can't have in the book. I do think the new franchise is playing on Bond's damaged qualities with some success, the 60s and 70s character seems a homage to male supremacy and is mighty smug in its current context, a joke that is repeated over and over.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
He has two or three married women for "company", plays golf and/or high stakes bridge, and competes for shooting trophys like the Dewar Cup. In addition to this he has to go to work everyday - when not on assignment or convalescent leave - all in all he sounds pretty busy - not much time to be lonely!
James may not "swing" like Austin Powers but sounds to me like he is on the go more often than not! Bond's biggest worry seems to be waking up "bored".
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
Interesting points, and you do indeed reinforce the perspective of Bond's busy life.
I don't know, I guess its a question of how fulfilled you think Bond is by these activities. The marriages were both irredeemably disturbed by the nature of his work, and who he is. I see his networking as quite superficial, beyond his relationships with Vesper and Tracy.
I guess the point I'm making is that such a question doesn't exist within the films. The way that the series is 'institutionalized" through icons, and the theme music, means that whatever Bond does, he can do no wrong. Its only in the novels, when these elements are stripped away, that we can truly explore Bond's flaws. IMHO
I certainly agree that the novels provide a better picture of the Bond charecter. As has been pointed out before there is an "arc" of charecter development in the books -
Fleming spells it out in "Moonraker", when Bond muses over the fate of the other "oo" agents. Bond will be retired at 45 and has eight years and eight tough assignments to go. Bond actually lives a fairly comfortable life, but unlike most folks has a very dangerous job. Because of this Bond also "knows" that he will not live to see his retirement. So his daily behavior is prehaps a little bit more risky and less committed than other Civil Servants.
So we see oo7, go from a tragic love affair in "Casino Royale", at the end of which he dedicates himself to destroying SMERSH. Bond does a pretty good job of kicking SMERSH, but these undertakings take their toll.
Bond's chance at happiness and normality is his marriage to Tracy - but that is also destroyed by international thuggery. Rather than dedicate himself to Blofeld's destruction, after Tracy's death Bond takes a rather spectacular descent into drunkeness and sloth in "You Only Live Twice" which as the title of the novel suggests, leads to Bond's rebirth in "The Man with the Golden Gun" as a Soviet zombie.
Prehaps had Fleming time to do the revisions on "Golden Gun" he could have killed oo7 in the swamp duel with Scramanga - and ended Bond's career as predicted in "Moonraker".
All of this is too subtle for the films, so alot of Fleming's careful work is going to be lost as the filmmaker's concertrate on the "icons" that the film Bond has become.
But, it looks like things have changed at EON. You think? ?:)
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
1) He broke down and bawled at the end of Live and Let Die because the mental, emotional and physical strain that mission against Mr. Big put him through left him entirely spent.
2) In Moonraker when he felt the situation hopeless and when he felt he couldn't stop the launch of the warhead he decided that he would commit suicide by having one last cigarette underneath it while it fueled. Better to kill himself and save England.
Portraying the stress and duress that Bond undergoes in his missions is I think easier to convey in a novel. Sure it's easy to show the physical abuse Bond takes in film -and I salute the CR film for allowing that to happen to Bond. Those two literary scenes might be lost on the cinematic viewer if not done just right.
"The fresh northeast trade winds had stared to blow and the sun was shining down on the blue water and on the soft green flanks of Janmaica.
The first tears since his childhood came into James Bond's blue-grey eyes and ran down his drawn cheeks into the blood stained sea."
Not sure about this being described as "he broke down and bawled", seems like tears of relief
at being alive, as opposed to the uncontrolled wailing of a child. Still, tears are tears.
Thanks Smoke_13! I enjoyed re-reading that chapter this morning. Always a great way to start the day.
P.S.
I always liked the idea of Bond lighting up under the Moonraker, seems doubtful he would have got much cigarette smoke into his lungs.
Bond’s Beretta
The Handguns of Ian Fleming's James Bond
I agree Bond became a parody on screen but CR has gone someway to redressing that.
As I said in an earlier post elsewhere, I really hope QoS continues to show Bond as a man, not a machine that just goes around blowing things up and cracking wise.
Very well said. You're right on the inherent differences between the Bond films and their sorce material. They really missed a trick with not including at least some of the 'Quantum of Solace' short story in the film version. I put that omission down to the 2008 Writer's Strike.
Well, QoS is a controversive film. I like Bond created by Daniel Craig, but they should use the storyu by Fleming (books are interesting from the psychoogical point of view, films use very little of that, but they should use SMTH, even little.) And there's one think I can't forgive QoS - BOND CAN'T DRIVE FORD Ka! I understand, money is money, advertisment is advetrisment, but motorisation is very important in 007 films, they can make him real - brutal, but he should stay at Aston Martin, alternatively BMW.
BMW? You've got to be kidding.
The original Bond car was a Bentley. I say Bond should be driving a Bentley Continental GT Speed from now on.
Iam waiting for the backlash.
None from this quarter.
Me neither, although I would say what I always say in as much as given just how far away he is from Fleming's creation I think it's remarkable just how good a job he does. good enough to almost make me forget. Almost.
Yes, Bentley is the best, but films producers probably don't know it. Aston Martin is very suitable for 007. I know BMW isn't so good, but I love the one with mobile phone control.
In my opinion Craig is more similar to Fleming's Bond from psychological point of view, Dr.No e.g. is almost the same as the book, but the character in film is... not so complicated as created by Fleming. Craig is similar to Bond with his monologue in Casino Royale.