Question about the Living Daylights plot
DrStatham
Posts: 2MI6 Agent
OK, maybe I am being stupid here, but I don't really understand the plot of the living daylights. I get the basic idea that Koskov and Whitaker are in league together. Koskov will use Soviet funds to buy weapons for the USSR, but Koskov will use the money to buy and sell opium, thus getting some extra money for himself before buying the weapons off Whitaker.
But I don't get why Koskov wants Pushkin dead and will go to such lengths to do it. From my understanding, the Russians are after him for embezzling government money. So he fakes a defection, gets captured back (by Whitaker, not the Soviets), and has made plans for Bond to kill Pushkin. But after Pushkin dies, or everyone thinks he has, what is the benefit for Koskov? Surely he needs to regain his old position as a Soviet general, but how is this possible if the Russians are after him for embezzling money? Even with Pushkin gone, surely he can't just swoop in, say 'I was on a secret mission', and everything is back to normal? Why did Pushkin seemingly not tell everyone else that Koskov is not on their side?
And why did Koskov get the British to kill Pushkin anyway when that guy Necros could easily have done it?
Maybe I am tired, but could anybody please enlighten me? Thanks
But I don't get why Koskov wants Pushkin dead and will go to such lengths to do it. From my understanding, the Russians are after him for embezzling government money. So he fakes a defection, gets captured back (by Whitaker, not the Soviets), and has made plans for Bond to kill Pushkin. But after Pushkin dies, or everyone thinks he has, what is the benefit for Koskov? Surely he needs to regain his old position as a Soviet general, but how is this possible if the Russians are after him for embezzling money? Even with Pushkin gone, surely he can't just swoop in, say 'I was on a secret mission', and everything is back to normal? Why did Pushkin seemingly not tell everyone else that Koskov is not on their side?
And why did Koskov get the British to kill Pushkin anyway when that guy Necros could easily have done it?
Maybe I am tired, but could anybody please enlighten me? Thanks
Comments
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
He saw your trainers
Pushkins death would have helped him supposedly because he would have been the one investigating Koskov. It is left to our imagination but in those higher ranks of a totalitarian regime those investigations wouldn't have been under the eyes of the public or the judiciary but rather through the secret police. If it would have been the KGB's business in real life (I'm not sure) is not that important. So Koskov wants Pushkin out of the way to take pressure off himself. Reasons why Pushkin doesn't tell everybody could be that he wants to capture him or at least prove him guilty before he does so. Also considering their respective status, both of them would have had powerful allies whom Pushkin may not have wanted to tip off early.
By setting up Bond to kill Pushkin, Koskov may also have been hoping to play the Soviets and the West against each other, thus further increasing tensions which is always a good thing when you're in the arms dealing business (and the same goes for the fake Smiert Spionam earlier). This is just off the top of my head and a lot of speculation, but I have never found the plot confusing in those respects.
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Thanks, that makes a lot of sense! I think I too often overthink plots lol.
I've had these trainers 4 years ago!
Dalton - the weak and weepy Bond!
Must say I've never noticed this, Higgins, old bean.
Er... he isn't.
Alas, those trainers were not your first indiscretion
Koskov and Whittaker probably attempted a smaller scale dry run of their scheme: a small percentage of the regular Soviet funds for the usual official transaction skimmed off the top, converted to diamonds, smuggled through customs, and used as a down payment for opium, which is then distributed for profit. They work out the kinks in preparation for a large-scale, all-in operation. Out of the profits, Koskov and Whittaker re-channel that small percentage back into the regular Soviet armament process. But the Soviets notice a hiccup: one shipment of guns is short the usual expected supply. Whittaker's distribution set-up provides some excuse; "Whoops, sorry, clerical error" or something, and a month or two later the rest of the guns arrive.
Pushkin has spies gather intelligence on Whittaker, which reveal that this supply line is run by someone shady. He probably gets information that Koskov is acting erratically (the character is acted as twitchy and nervous when he senses forces are closing in on him). Koskov learns that he is under scrutiny and arranges for a fake defection, and a fake recovery kidnap after the next large money order goes out for the next order of guns.
The money transfer is done in such a way that Pushkin have the ability to override the transfer and cancel the order. We see in the film that Pushkin visits Whittaker, and Whittaker shows him samples of the guns that are on their way. I got the impression that Whittaker was trying to reassure Pushkin because of concern over another delay in the shipment of armaments to Soviet armed forces. Or, there already is a delay with this current, pending shipment. IIRC the dialogue indicates that Pushkin has intelligence that Whittaker has the money, but guns are not being shipped.
So Puskin has to die for a couple of reasons. He is closing in on Koskov, and is attempting to cancel the order.
I'm not sure what Koskov does in the aftermath with his treasure. Will he defect for real? Or will he throw Whittaker under the bus, and claim he was running an operation to uncover the hijinks of a bad supplier for Soviet armed forces. I suspect he might even try to have Whittaker killed by Soviet agents in retaliation for murdering Pushkin, and make himself out as a hero for bringing Pushkin's killer to justice.
This is some of what I've thought was going on in the movie.
1. Why did Koskov fake his defection to the west? Was it because he was immediately planning to be kidnapped by Necros to take him to Brad Whittaker and get him away from Pushkin who was a threat in his plan, or because he wanted the kidnapping to convince MI6 to issue a death warrant for Koskov, ultimately making his scheme easier?
2. I think I know why Georgi Koskov assigned Kara as a fake sniper to assassinate him, so Bond would kill her too, but was does Kara actually know about all this? Is she aware that he is not actually defecting to the west and trying to make a clean break from the KGB, who she suspects are bad?
3. Extending on from my previous point, Kara and Bond escape the KGB in his Aston Martin V8 - why? If the KGB are the good guys in this case which they were, why would Bond not just tell her the truth and hand her back over to them? Or is he just taking her along for the ride to get information out of her about Georgi which I'm sure is the right answer, but why go through the car chase and escaping the KGB for this? Or is Bond still unsure who to trust between Georgi and the KGB?
4. If Kara knew that Georgi's defection was staged (which from her response in the apartment scene seems to be the case), why would she trust Bond who is British and actually believe that he is Koskov's friend?
These factors are affecting my likability of the movie so if someone can help me out, that would put a lot of ease on my mind.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
Both?
Well this aspect may be one of those that make less sense, because it goes back to the The Living Daylights short story, which was about a real (as in: not fake) defection in Berlin, involving a female Soviet sniper. I think the easiest explanation is that he wanted her out of the way for the next part of his plans, and having her set up to be killed is just the kind of man he apparently is.
KGB are never the good guys
I'm not sure how much Kara knows at this point, but she does know that she's basically on her own, with the secret police following her, which at that time was no joke if Czechoslovakia was anything like the other Soviet satellites (I'm sure it was). And in walks a friendly, good looking guy who makes a believable case that he can and intends to help her. Also, it's James Bond (!) 8-)
"- That is something to be afraid of."
Living Daylights is a great movie and in my top ten but Licence To Kill is better for me, for having a better villain and a plot that is easy to follow.
1. Dalton 2. Moore 3. Connery 4. Lazenby 5. Craig 6. Brosnan
"Better make that two."
"- That is something to be afraid of."
I think Koskov wanted it to look like things are starting to get scary in the realm of espionage. Koskov looks like he's targeted by a KGB sniper. "Noble" Koskov is putting his life on the line about how scary things are going to get, with the renewal of Smersh. The KGB is then able to snatch Koskov back from them. The earlier exercise that suddenly ends with real kills, including 00's.
I think Kara has a straightforward idea of what's happening, and where her own desires come in to play. I get the very strong impression that she's kind of just a normal girl, classy and elegant, with a good education. Her education has revealed to her that things are better on the other side of the Iron Curtain. She just wants to play in concerts and live a nice life. Her relationship with Koskov possibly reinforces her desire to be away from KGB and other types of Soviet organizations that intrude on Soviet citizens privacy, and Koskov has probably hinted at stories that would reinforce this view. Kara just doesn't want to live behind the Iron Curtain.
Koskov picked up on that and convinced her to help fake his defection, and that he would arrange for her to be smuggled out where they can be reunited. I don't think she thought about how it makes sense, faking out the British. Koskov could have claimed that he couldn't tell her everything, or the scheme wouldn't work. So Kara knows she's firing blanks, to make a defection look good. She doesn't know that there's a counter-sniper who's supposed to stop her from "killing" Koskov or making it appear he's in very grave danger. Maybe she was told that he would pretend to be shot, and the British would still sneak him out...and then leak word that Koskov "died" so the KGB (and other Soviet organizations) won't bother trying to recover Koskov. He's dead, or thought dead, so maybe he didn't talk.
I think Kara is surprised when James says, "It was clever of Georgi, using blanks, made the British believe his defection was real." She might have thought about how it didn't make sense, and then Koskov smoothed it over with a non-explanation. Now her attention has been drawn to how counterproductive this set-up has been. Everything Bond says and does casts doubt on Koskov, chips away at her faith in Koskov.
He likes her. He doesn't like the idea of being maneuvered into killing her, within the parameters of his job, to aid some petty scheme. The idea of hooking up with her, and using what she knows to turn the tables on who tried to manipulate him into an unpleasant task has got to be appealing.
Also, I agree with what other posters have said. Bond doesn't trust the KGB. And he wants control of the information involved in this case he is on. The KGB act kind of creepy, and he thinks it's creepy that they are stalking her (the audience is encouraged to feel that way, too I think, the way it's directed). I'm sure Bond loves the chance of sticking it to them, for rivalry's sake.
I think this returns to the fantasy aspect of the overall series. It's Bond. He has enough information to convince her. She thought Koskov was going to send someone to rescue her so they could be reunited, and Bond picks up on it (he's good at improvising on the spot, look at how quickly he picks up on information in Licence to Kill to re-channel against his enemies). Kara thinks he's here to rescue her, and this I'm sure appeals to Bond's romanticism. I'm sure he loves being given the opportunity to jump into this role. And he is hopeful rescuing her will make her more psychologically receptive to him; for the purpose of getting information on what Koskov is up to...and other things, as well.
I think if it was MooreBond, he could theoretically find Gogol and work with him, Gogol knows and trusts MooreBond
but the Dalton films show a more realistic Cold War situation than the Moore films did
you don't just go and find the closest KGB agent and say "I'm a British agent and you've got a problem", that's how you end up in a Siberian gulag
The script was written with Gogol rather than Pushkin, but Walter Gotell was ill at that time and Broccoli could not get insurance for him to play such a fairly large role. The part was rewritten as Pushkin, and given to John Rhys Davies with Gotell given the cameo for old times sake.
The whole defection stuff to me seems like an excuse by the filmmakers to get MI6 involved in the early convolutions of the plot..
"Better make that two."
Yeah, it really gets things to a high-level intelligence playing field. I think to Kara, she thinks Koskov is defecting for real, and taking her with him. That's what she wants, and for an every day citizen it's a pretty big deal to think of leaving your country and be branded a traitor or unpatriotic. Faking a defection may be hard for her to even conceive of; never mind faking and bouncing back and forth to either side of the Iron Curtain for a massive money grabbing scheme. I would guess Koskov has encountered it, given how ambitious his plan is. For Kara, I would guess, this is a straight-up bona-fide defection. With her following later. Koskov is able to play it as different for each party observing and participating. The British are supposed to believe it's real; and they are buying it, except for their man in the field. I would guess that Koskov has some contacts within the Soviet armed forces who know that he's running some weird counter-intelligence operation by faking a defection and then returning to run the next part of the operation.
Looking back at your question, I guess it's down to who he can get to kill Pushkin. Pushkin is well protected and I'm sure has his finger on the pulse of Intelligence concerns inside the Soviet sphere of influence. Outside agencies are maybe harder to know about. Pushkin might easier gain information if Koskov contracts to have Pushkin killed by an agency on their side of the Iron Curtain, it's their backyard. With the Smersh hook, he's freaked out British secret services enough to want to target for death. Maybe Koskov even knows that the Soviets do not have informant assets inside British secret services at the time, too. Also, Koskov doesn't have to pay any money to mercenaries or assassins for a kill contract on Pushkin (that's gotta be a bonus, to his greedy mind!).
I have to admit, though, I'm making a lot of guesses. It mostly makes sense to me, but I can't explain why, beyond that it's one of my favorite Bond's, and I'm game for trying to defend or explain it. The exercise in trying to rationalize it helps me to see why other viewers are confused. There are gaps in the narrative that could be filled out with more clarity in the writing.
Ideally as discussed above, Koskov just wants Pushkin out of the way so he isn't being suspected and can carry on doing what he wants (which is essentially what Pushkin suspects him of - being corrupt). Pushkin is the good guy, Koskov the bad and the audience/Bond/MI6 is played on this with the other intricacies involved.
Killing 004 is a major influencer to MI6 believing the whole thing and causing potentially irrational decisions to be made - but it's pretty far fetched that Koskov et. al. would assume that MI6 would end up wiping out Pushkin though right?
The other cat amongst the pigeons is Pushkin visiting Whittaker and cancelling the arms deal. Does this mean that it was assumed knowledge from Whitaker's point of view it was signed-off/normal by the KGB/USSR or even knowledge of Pushkin's?
"Better make that two."
Thanks! I'm glad it was at least somewhat coherent.
I can only speak for myself. James Bond is sometimes referred to as something akin to a detective or police man. As an exercise in extrapolation, police react when an officer is killed in the line of duty. I don't know if that logic applies to secret services and intelligence gather organizations in the real world, though. An official investigation of some sort would follow. In the movie MI6 believes Koskov's defection and kidnapping are real, they believe his credibility and therefore take his information as is. Although, as a counter-perspective, from what I read in a Tom Clancy novel (take that with a grain of salt), defectors are not to be trusted on principle. Given Bond has reservations and is willing to initially vocalize his instinctive doubts about Koskov's sincerity to M, and M (and the other higher ups) being unwilling to listen; this feels like laziness from an organization that should have a vested interest in collecting and acting on information. The best way I can spin it is that M knows his superiors are freaking out, he knows Bond's instincts are good, he demonstrates to Bond that he is compelled to take him off the case if Bond doesn't pretend to toe the line, and says without saying that Bond will have to run investigative work in the field unofficially, on the move, while travelling towards Pushkin as an end goal. Depends on if any given viewer is predisposed to like M. But yeah, it might be regarded as complacent on the part of MI6.
I feel a little stumped on this one, 'cause I don't know if I quite understand the question. Could you maybe re-word it? The best way I can address it is based on what is said in the film. Money has obviously been sent to Whittaker in a way that sounds like similar transactions have occurred before. And Pushkin has information that it has been in a Swiss account for eight weeks. Whittaker says he's placed orders for weapons (but we don't know if that's true). Pushkin apparently has legitimate authority to cancel the order for weaponry, and orders Whittaker to return the money. Later Whittaker talks with Koskov and sounds genuinely resigned to giving up on their scheme. Koskov says "don't worry" but encourages the killing of another British agent to infuriate British secret services. After James Bond "kills" Pushkin, Whittaker says "Now we can move!" Pushkin knows the money might start shifting around, but we don't know if anyone below Pushkin is briefed on what might happen, if anyone is tracking the money's moments, or if Pushkin left instructions for what should happen if he (Pushkin) isn't minding the store. Koskov and Whittaker believe that with Pushkin gone, there isn't anyone in the interim with enough authority to take preventative or reactionary action. Is that kind of along the lines of what you're asking?
Koskov and Whitaker are running a scam in which they use KGB money to trade in drugs, finally placing orders for arms once they've made huge profits.
Pushkin, Koskov's boss, is close to uncovering their scheme. They therefore want him out of the way.
Koskov fakes his defection to the west, giving himself a convincing way to feed MI6 false intelligence that Pushkin is systematically murdering British agents via a new programme named "Smiert Spionam". This, he believes, will provoke the British into executing Pushkin.
Along the way, he spots an opportunity to get his girlfriend Kara killed by Bond as well, because she may know too much about him and be a liability.
Perfectly said. I rather like the plot of TLD because it didn't involve world domination, mass destruction, or WW3. Variety is always good.
-{
Sounds right to me, though I don't think Kara knows anything about Koskov's true plan or suspects he's doing anything so terrible. She just supports his desire to defect and wants to help him with that. She would not approve of his true plan, and once she found out what he was up to she would cause problems for him. Having Bond kill her is a clean way to get rid of her.
I watched TLD the last night and the plot was more confusing than ever for me. Your post is actually an excellent summary without getting too bogged down in the details.
However, the reason the plot remains a disappointment for me is:
1. What are two such unique talents scheming once they have joined forces? Sadly, nothing too interesting other than selling guns and drugs and hoping to get rich. Is that all? Seriously, there is nothing else bigger or more political on their agenda?
2. Bond says something to the effect of Pushkin must "die" in order to find out what Koskov & Whitaker are up to. So there's the elaborate fake death and then what? I don't see how this revealed anything.
3. Koskov's defection barely seems to be worth the effort. The big payoff was Bond "killing" Pushkin, which Necros was about to do anyway.
Basically, a lot of over-eleaborate schemes without any real payoff. It all falls apart once they reach Afghanistan anyway. It's like the first half of the film barely even still matters.
1. GE 2. MR 3. OP 4. TMWTGG 5. TSWLM 6. TND 7. TWINE 8.DN 9. GF 10. AVTAK
1: What’s wrong with getting rich?
Then think to yourself what more you can do once you have it.
2: It ‘revealed’ nothing new to the viewer as we already know what the scheme was. Pushkin and Bond do not.
3: Koskov’s defection is all about misinformation and getting SIS to assassinate Pushkin.
Necros was only going to do as a last resort - as the story points out.
I genuinely struggle to see what’s difficult to understand about TLD.