OHMSS: Lost in Translation

Firemass

Admired for being one of the most faithful film adaptations of the novel, OHMSS still manages to get a few key things wrong. I realize that filmmakers need to change things to suit the big screen and many changes were for the better. However, this is my shortlist of issues with the film version of OHMSS compared to the book.

1. It's true that the novel opens with Bond watching Tracy at the beach. However, it's important to note this was a flashback and not the actual sequence of events. The film takes it out of context, puts it first, and thus it doesn't make as much sense or tie into the rest of the story.

2. While undercover at Piz Gloria, Bond gradually heaps more suspicion upon himself thru a variety of bad luck and minor errors. The tension becomes so great as the girls are even forbidden to speak to him. There was a definite chill in the air! Bond decides to make his escape prior to officially being outed as a British spy. In the film, everything at Piz Gloria is hunky dory as Bond enjoys the company of several female patients and then is suddenly busted for the most frustrating reason ever! Blofeld claimed that Bond got his facts wrong, which in-fact he didn't!

3. In the film Blofeld explaining his own biological warfare plan to Bond makes it sound absurd and without merit. I would think he was off his rocker and posing no real threat. However, in the novel the plan is carefully examined by Dept of Argiculture and actually taken seriously. This evaluation by experts gives the ridiculous scheme some much needed credibility. One big question remains though: Wouldn't it be easier to just have Spectre agents spread the germs? Apparently all they need to to is attend a livestock trade show and "wander around the cages, lean up against the wire and psst! the job would be done. Easy as falling off a log."

4. Missed opportunity to have made one of the classic scenes in film history: Bond took the magazine out of his gun, pumped out the single round in the chamber and practised shooting himself in the wardrobe mirror with the gloves on until he was satisfied." Instead, Robert De Niro did this in Taxi Driver. "Are you talkin to me??" *sigh* That should have been Bond.

5. This is only a minor quibble, but what is Campbell doing at Piz Gloria in the film? In the novel it was a coincidence as he was unaware of Bond's mission. In the film I can only imagine that his presence there would only do Bond more harm than good. (as nice as it is to have backup!)

Oakvale

You could compile a bigger list for most Bond film adaptations, as you allude to. OHMSS adhered to the book as much as was possible to make a good movie.

Gassy Man

I'm not sure I'd say these things are wrong so much as different.

For instance, a novel can have expository dialogue or extra scenes that a two or three hour film will need to cut. Blofeld gloating to Bond about his plan not only serves a dramatic point -- he's needling Bond the way villains as far back as Dr. No did -- but also gives the audience much needed information. Blofeld's plan is not absurd in the sense that he doesn't want to destroy the world's cereals and livestock. He wants to blackmail the world into leaving him alone. He says as much in the dialogue when he suggests to Bond that the world will give in to his demands.

I'm not sure I'd want Bond practicing shooting himself in the mirror. It works in Taxi Driver because it shows the character is a dangerous psychopath, and though the more recent incarnation of Bond suggests psychological imbalance not present in the 1960s Bonds, he's not that crazy.

I'm not sure how the lack of a flashback is a problem. They just put things into chronological order rather than have the story jump around back and forth in time. That is usually preferable.

I do think the goings on at Piz Gloria are more interesting in the book, where they seem much more suspicious of Bond from the get go. In an earlier Bond film, they might have taken the time to develop suspense more, but OHMSS shows the prototypical signs of what would become de rigeur by the 1980s -- cut out just about everything except the action and the scenes that barely hang it all together, giving more time to chase and stunt sequences and less to character development and story nuances.

Campbell is neither here nor there for me. He functions in the novel as the sacrificial lamb, but his character is not strongly developed. The actor playing him is interesting because his hair style and demeanor makes him look like he stepped out of a film in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Once again, this gives the film a visual sense that does not make it seem so dated a decade later compared to the 1960s Bond films from just a few years earlier.

welshguy34

Good post Firemass and you make some good points. However I find the film to be quite true to the book and I am happy with the film as a whole. Points 2 & 3 though are very good points which I certainly agree with.

Barbel

One improvement I think the film makes is to have Blofeld kidnap Tracy towards the end, giving both Bond and Draco a personal stake in raiding Piz Gloria. It also gives Rigg and Savalas some big ham moments ("Thy dawn, oh master of the world...")!

Napoleon Plural

I agree with Firemass; it's not so much what OHMSS gets true to the book, more what it needlessly adapts.

Personally I prefer the Marseilles location of the book to the Portugal stuff.

Agree, the book is very eerie but it does mean Bond is alone more, so not much opp for dialogue. I prefer the chilly atmosphere of the book.

And of course, the whole thing was written for Connery and it goes to Lazenby. It's like if Fleming were resurrected, wrote a book specifically for Craig, pops his clogs again - and it goes to the Poldark bloke.

clublos

2. Actually, Bond does get his facts wrong. Sir Hilary tells Bond that the de Bleauchamps "have been coming there for generations," but Bond interprets that as there being tombs there. Blofeld, however, informs Bond that the tombs are in St Anna Kirche.