Licence To Kill: Pure Fleming?
Jamesbondjr
Posts: 462MI6 Agent
Below is a blog piece I have quickly bashed out after re-reading all the novels.
Pure Fleming?
Over the last couple of months I have been re-reading, or more accurately, listening to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. I have read them all before, a few years ago and decided the time was right to revisit them. I knew that the books were quite different in tone to the film series but what has struck me is just how different they are. A lot of story elements and themes are very similar, locations and plots are shared between page and screen but the central character, James Bond, is changed for the films. In fact, 'Film Bond' has been rather malleable and changes depending on which film he is in and which actor is playing him. The Bond of the novels however is quite different.
What interests me is whether or not we have actually ever seen an accurate representation of Fleming's 'Book Bond'. Several of the films have been faithful adaptations of their source material: From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Thunderball jump out as good examples but as hinted at earlier, the Bond we see in the film adaptations is quite different to the Bond from the novels. Superficially he may appear quite similar; good looking, calm and collected, intelligent and resourceful but look a bit deeper and there are certain things missing that are quite important to who Bond is in the novels.
As the book series goes on, Bond becomes more embittered towards his profession and the dark edge to his character grows even darker as the novels progress. This evolution of character is missing almost entirely from the films and although, as stated earlier, he does undergo change, it is not represented as dynamically or dramatically as it is in the books. I would argue that a lot of the time Film Bond is presented as an ideal rather than a real character; a portal for male wish fulfillment. There are moments that do show Bond as a real character; a human being rather than a super-spy. Connery and Brosnan had a few fleeting moments of this, Lazenby had an entire film in which character evolution was central and Daniel Craig's three films thus far have been heavily influenced by an examination of Bond as a man and how he is affected by his job but it is Timothy Dalton who I want to look at more closely though.
Bond does express his bitterness towards his job on numerous occasions during Dalton's tenure but this seems at odds with the previous incarnation of Bond who was almost always lighthearted and seemed to play up to his 'super-spy' image. The change is sudden and there is no reason given as to why the change occurred. Dalton's Bond is more brooding, intense and seemingly dangerous, harking back to early Connery. Connery started out as a tough agent but in his last two official films descended into something else entirely, something that is closer to Roger Moore's Bond than the fearsome agent he started out as. Connery however was not the James Bond of the novels, he played up to the more humerous side of the character which is something that is not a major feature of Fleming's books. That's not to say he doesn't have a sense of humour, but it isn't focused on. He is more serious, intense and somber on page than on screen. Timothy Dalton plays it far more straight-laced than anyone previously, there are one or two one-liners but these are somewhat uncomfortably delivered.
In the novels, Bond is not portrayed as super-human as is often the case in the films. He is a man who is dedicated to and very good at his chosen career but he has many fears, vulnerabilities and is often shown making mistakes. These things are shown from time to time in the film series but in the books they remain a constant part of who 007 is, they are part of his make up and have played a big part in each of his missions. The films started out showing this to a certain degree, adding a little more lightheartedness and the previously mentioned one-liners as brief comic relief, which have now become part of who James Bond is, or at least who is seen to be in the consciousness of the film-going public. Ask a random member of the public for a few descriptors about James Bond and I'm willing to bet 'quips' or 'humour' would be mentioned. Dalton clearly recognized this humour as invention for the film series and severely played down that part of the character, particularly in Licence To Kill. This is one of the reasons that for me, Licence To Kill is the one film from the series that feels most like a Fleming novel. The more serious, hard-hitting tone gives gravitas to the film which in turn adds plausibility to the more fantastical elements of the story. While watching the film I was surprised at how closely the film mirrors the tone of Fleming's writing. The most evident part of this is how graphic the film is, Fleming never shied away from vivid description and we are shown a shark attack and someone being pulverised in more graphic detail than ever shown in a Bond film.
The fact though remains that many see Licence To Kill as a failure. Indeed, adjusted for inflation, the film has the lowest box office takings in the franchise so clearly audiences were not receptive to the sudden change of tone. I would argue that because the perception of the character was completely different from what audiences saw in Licence To Kill and people had become so used to the joviality of the films that were a mainstay of Roger Moore's tenure that the sudden change was too much. Had the films not been portrayed as a continuation of the series and had, as originally planned, made The Living Daylights as a prequel, audiences may have been more receptive. There is perhaps evidence for this with Daniel Craig's films which are a lot darker and more serious that what came immediately before but positioned as a fresh start, audiences have indeed been more receptive to the change.
It is said among certain sections of Bond fans that Dalton offers the closest representation of Fleming's character. I have to say, I agree. I have heard different anecdotes, usually on DVD extras or television documentaries, that Dalton was obsessed with the books on set and was forever poring over the novels in order to better his portrayal of Bond. At the time the more serious take on the character didn't seem to go down to well with audiences, but Dalton's take on the character was a brave choice and with hindsight offers the closest representation we have of Fleming's hero to date.
I want to know if I've perhaps overlooked anything or if anyone thinks I'm completely off track with this. Also if there are any factual errors please point them out.
Thanks for looking.
Pure Fleming?
Over the last couple of months I have been re-reading, or more accurately, listening to Ian Fleming's James Bond novels. I have read them all before, a few years ago and decided the time was right to revisit them. I knew that the books were quite different in tone to the film series but what has struck me is just how different they are. A lot of story elements and themes are very similar, locations and plots are shared between page and screen but the central character, James Bond, is changed for the films. In fact, 'Film Bond' has been rather malleable and changes depending on which film he is in and which actor is playing him. The Bond of the novels however is quite different.
What interests me is whether or not we have actually ever seen an accurate representation of Fleming's 'Book Bond'. Several of the films have been faithful adaptations of their source material: From Russia With Love, On Her Majesty's Secret Service and Thunderball jump out as good examples but as hinted at earlier, the Bond we see in the film adaptations is quite different to the Bond from the novels. Superficially he may appear quite similar; good looking, calm and collected, intelligent and resourceful but look a bit deeper and there are certain things missing that are quite important to who Bond is in the novels.
As the book series goes on, Bond becomes more embittered towards his profession and the dark edge to his character grows even darker as the novels progress. This evolution of character is missing almost entirely from the films and although, as stated earlier, he does undergo change, it is not represented as dynamically or dramatically as it is in the books. I would argue that a lot of the time Film Bond is presented as an ideal rather than a real character; a portal for male wish fulfillment. There are moments that do show Bond as a real character; a human being rather than a super-spy. Connery and Brosnan had a few fleeting moments of this, Lazenby had an entire film in which character evolution was central and Daniel Craig's three films thus far have been heavily influenced by an examination of Bond as a man and how he is affected by his job but it is Timothy Dalton who I want to look at more closely though.
Bond does express his bitterness towards his job on numerous occasions during Dalton's tenure but this seems at odds with the previous incarnation of Bond who was almost always lighthearted and seemed to play up to his 'super-spy' image. The change is sudden and there is no reason given as to why the change occurred. Dalton's Bond is more brooding, intense and seemingly dangerous, harking back to early Connery. Connery started out as a tough agent but in his last two official films descended into something else entirely, something that is closer to Roger Moore's Bond than the fearsome agent he started out as. Connery however was not the James Bond of the novels, he played up to the more humerous side of the character which is something that is not a major feature of Fleming's books. That's not to say he doesn't have a sense of humour, but it isn't focused on. He is more serious, intense and somber on page than on screen. Timothy Dalton plays it far more straight-laced than anyone previously, there are one or two one-liners but these are somewhat uncomfortably delivered.
In the novels, Bond is not portrayed as super-human as is often the case in the films. He is a man who is dedicated to and very good at his chosen career but he has many fears, vulnerabilities and is often shown making mistakes. These things are shown from time to time in the film series but in the books they remain a constant part of who 007 is, they are part of his make up and have played a big part in each of his missions. The films started out showing this to a certain degree, adding a little more lightheartedness and the previously mentioned one-liners as brief comic relief, which have now become part of who James Bond is, or at least who is seen to be in the consciousness of the film-going public. Ask a random member of the public for a few descriptors about James Bond and I'm willing to bet 'quips' or 'humour' would be mentioned. Dalton clearly recognized this humour as invention for the film series and severely played down that part of the character, particularly in Licence To Kill. This is one of the reasons that for me, Licence To Kill is the one film from the series that feels most like a Fleming novel. The more serious, hard-hitting tone gives gravitas to the film which in turn adds plausibility to the more fantastical elements of the story. While watching the film I was surprised at how closely the film mirrors the tone of Fleming's writing. The most evident part of this is how graphic the film is, Fleming never shied away from vivid description and we are shown a shark attack and someone being pulverised in more graphic detail than ever shown in a Bond film.
The fact though remains that many see Licence To Kill as a failure. Indeed, adjusted for inflation, the film has the lowest box office takings in the franchise so clearly audiences were not receptive to the sudden change of tone. I would argue that because the perception of the character was completely different from what audiences saw in Licence To Kill and people had become so used to the joviality of the films that were a mainstay of Roger Moore's tenure that the sudden change was too much. Had the films not been portrayed as a continuation of the series and had, as originally planned, made The Living Daylights as a prequel, audiences may have been more receptive. There is perhaps evidence for this with Daniel Craig's films which are a lot darker and more serious that what came immediately before but positioned as a fresh start, audiences have indeed been more receptive to the change.
It is said among certain sections of Bond fans that Dalton offers the closest representation of Fleming's character. I have to say, I agree. I have heard different anecdotes, usually on DVD extras or television documentaries, that Dalton was obsessed with the books on set and was forever poring over the novels in order to better his portrayal of Bond. At the time the more serious take on the character didn't seem to go down to well with audiences, but Dalton's take on the character was a brave choice and with hindsight offers the closest representation we have of Fleming's hero to date.
I want to know if I've perhaps overlooked anything or if anyone thinks I'm completely off track with this. Also if there are any factual errors please point them out.
Thanks for looking.
1- On Her Majesty's Secret Service 2- Casino Royale 3- Licence To Kill 4- Goldeneye 5- From Russia With Love
Comments
Very Nice Piece Jamesbondjr. I'm a Big Dalton fan so agree
100% with your take on his Tenure as Bond. Once again Just
my opinion, But he was the Best. :007)
Very interesting post Jamebondjr. I'm a big Dalton fan and I think he came very close to Fleming's Bond in TLD and provided an interesting riff on Fleming's character in LTK (I don't think Fleming's Bond would have ever gone so off-the-rails.)
The only factual error I would take issue with (and it's not black-and-white) is that "Bond 15" was never intended as a reboot, but as a prequel. i.e., unlike the Craig films, Bond 15 was a period piece set in the same continuity but before the existing films (But it would have been a ret-conned prequel as it was to be set in 1972.) The film would have actually ended with Bond being briefed on his next mission... investigating a man called Doctor No.
11- TB. 12- OP. 13- LALD. 14- TMWTGG. 15- FYEO. 16- YOLT. 17- TND. 18- QoS.
19- TWINE. 20- AVTAK. 21- MR. 22- DAF. 23- DAD.
You're right I think. I've edited it to reflect that now.
LTK incorporates more characters and story elements from Fleming than many of the Moore films. Besides the many scenes lifted from Fleming's Live and Let Die, it also seems to have elements from The Man With The Golden Gun. But the film does a better job of having Bond enter the villain's inner circle than Fleming did, and Sanchez is a more successful thug-villain than Scaramanga. Of course, the TMWTGG elements might be a coincidence, since Wilson says that Yojimbo, which features similar plot elements, was a major influence on the script.
I've come to to believe that every actor who's played Bond has captured at least one aspect of Fleming's Bond. (Connery captured the character's zest for life and his incipient violence, Moore embodies Bond's sophistication and wit, Craig focuses on Bond's toughness and capacity for taking pain, etc.) Dalton certainly captures the side of Bond that "has many fears, vulnerabilities and is often shown making mistakes." Indeed, unlike almost any other Bond film before it, LTK is about James Bond learning from his mistakes. Hellbent on wreaking vengeance, Bond refuses help from others. But Pam shows him that his efforts have only further messed things up. He learns to accept the help of Q, Pam, and Lupe. Bond's relationship with Q is especially significant--whereas in earlier films the characters acted as if they could barely stand each other, here we see an underlying bond of respect. Dalton's Bond might occasionally tease Q (as in TLD) but he is too sensible--and too human--to treat him with the contempt of his predecessors.
Very interesting and insightful analysis. I share your point of view about Dalton. -{
I had seen all the previous Bond movies by the time I saw LTK in the theaters. I recall thinking at the time that it was the "most Fleming" Bond film yet.
A Gent in Training.... A blog about my continuing efforts to be improve myself, be a better person, and lead a good life. It incorporates such far flung topics as fitness, self defense, music, style, food and drink, and personal philosophy.
Agent In Training
I thought Dalton in the first half of The Living Daylights was more flemingesque than he was in LTK. The critics of the critics attempt to point out that people were not just ready for a more violent Bond is unfair, I believe the producers should have looked inward as to why LTK was a bomb.
One of the problems was that the violence in the movie was akin to that of "Friday the 13th" where no two people could die the same way. This would tend to raise suspicion among the audience that violence was contrived to create a buzz or to just titillate the audience. A more believable and controlled form of violence would given Dalton-Bond more credibility. Dalton's performance was no differ than that of Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon 2, the movie itself really detached itself from the Bond legacy. Why was Bond in this movie and why should we care - in other words, what element of Bond other than the name links Fleming-Bond to Dalton-Bond?
I doubt Fleming would have approved of Bond disobeying orders by refusing to go to Istanbul. Even worse, when Hargreaves-M revokes Bond's Licence to Kill, both Bond and Hargreaves appear to be emotional about it. The Fleming-M would have been more angry yet less detached, and even if Bond had accepted this he would have been more controlled.
I thought the villain was not very interesting.
picture Dalton in any of the scenes from Craig's films. The general audience was obviously not ready for his "closer to the novels" character of Bond, as it was such an abrupt shift in tone from the Moore years. It's this change that has resulted in the love/hate relationship people have with Craig's tenure. The ones who hate the direction his films have gone - more toward showing the character's development in relation to his job and his life and having more Fleming like realistic plots as oppose to the old series where he was just a super spy bouncing along in an action packed travelogues - feel that the way older films were produced stamped in stone the way the series should ALWAYS be made and leave Fleming's actual character between the dust-jackets. I
for one, am not one of them. As much as I enjoyed all the films to one extent or another, the one's closest to Fleming's work - the first four, OHMSS and CR
are for me the highlights of the series, because I can seen Fleming's writing through them. Dalton's entries follow because they used some of Fleming's elements and at least Dalton tried to bring Fleming's Bond back. I am grateful that the current films have gone back towards Bond and treating him as a real character. It doesn't mean to me they can't have any in the future that skid the surface of the fantastic or have a lighter tone. I have no problem with that as long as they leave the "super spy" out and keep Fleming's character at the center.
+1 -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I sort of agree, and disagree at the same time. For instance, take Bond going against orders in LTK - if Fleming was writing that script, I think the literary M probably would have given Bond a few weeks' leave and turned a blind eye to however Bond spent it, which is pretty much what happened when Bond went after Blofeld with Draco at Piz Gloria. He couldn't officially let Bond carry out an attack on Swiss soil as part of Mi6, but if it was 'off the books...', well, you get it.
He also asked Bond to work 'off the books' on a case of personal revenge in the short story 'For Your Eyes Only'.
I DO see the literary Bond having the potential to disobey orders - at the very least by resigning. At the beginning of OHMSS he was ready to tender his resignation, and in The Living Daylights he was willing to be sacked for refusing to kill the sniper (note that the movie made his motivation out to be that he 'only killed professionals', while in the short story, it was simply because he couldn't shoot a pretty girl).
Bond did try to tender his resignation to M in License to Kill, to which M responded, 'We're not a country club, 007!', implying that his service wasn't voluntary. If anything I'd say it was M that was acting contrary to a Fleming character, not Bond himself.
Anyway, I also think that Dalton's Bond was very Flemingesque, and I really wish he had gotten at least two more movies under his belt.
I didn't get that impression from M's "not a country club" line. The Service actually is made up of all volunteers including Bond and thus their service is
volunteered. However, since members are sworn to uphold the Official Secrets Act and are, in fact, privy to Top Secret government intel unlike a country club, resigning from it doesn't mean one can just quit and stop paying the annual dues. They have to go though a debriefing process and
are thoroughly investigated to make sure they don't have any classified
material either printed or in digital form once they leave. That is why I
didn't think his remark was out of character. He was angry that Bond, being his best agent and having a history of being loyal and professional would make such a personal decision that would jeopardize the mission in Turkey he's suppose to go onto.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
+1