Both of you have made very compelling points. I didn't feel much chemistry between Bond and Swann either (Why is he interested in her? Because she's traumatized?) and Mathilde is cute but has no personality. She's eerily affectless in a way kids that age aren't (for God's sake, at least throw a temper tantrum!). I hadn't considered the second half of the film as Swann's story, with Bond as the self-sacrificing guest star, but that makes a lot of sense. It seems to be a result of many hands working over the script, but not as a team--so the film can't resolve who its main character is. The reviewer for the London Review of Books made the point that NTTD was unique in having a flashback entirely from the female's point of view. I just wish the inside of Madeline's head was as interesting to visit as Vivienne Michel's. But what we see of it serves a very schematic purpose.
Blofeld could still ultimately be shown as the major villain -- I wrote up a possible scenario somewhere. Actually, if it was done more or less like that, it might even have surprised people who assumed Saffin would be the main bad guy. Actually, a lot of the elements from the current film could be retained. They'd just have to be reworked, I think.
Boy, did I get some flack for this, but I still think NTTD cements the 5-film arc as a deconstruction of Bond as a toxic White male hung by his own petard at the end, a kind of revisionist film series not unlike Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven deconstructs outlaws and heroes in westerns. For those who don't know, Petardiers were essentially grenadiers who would scale walls and the like to plant or toss their bombs -- sometimes they got hooked on something and killed the petardier in the ensuing explosion of their own making. Sound familiar? Shakespeare popularized the idea in Hamlet.
The fact that the film opens with Swann as the focus may seem merely like a reworking of Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but it's more than that. It starts with Swann and ends with Swann and Mathilde. Meanwhile, Bond, Leiter, Saffin, and Blofeld are dead. Ash is a traitor. The male M is shown to be shady in working with a male Russian scientist to develop a horrible weapon of mass destruction, Tanner is essentially just a prop, and Q is powerless to effect a solution to the nanobot problem. Men don't fare well in this movie. Nomi, Paloma, and Moneypenny, on the other hand, are shown in a reasonably positive light. The movie ends with Swann and Mathilde surviving -- apparently not the worse for wear -- and inheriting at the very least Bond's car. To me, there's more subversion to the Bond character going on here that further calls back to moments in the previous Craig films. That we want so bad to apply the traditional Bond template to the character may be why it's so hard to see the possibility that this film is not a salute to Bond's heroism so much as other things.
After watching NTTD (& feeling like the last third was a Twilight Zone goof on me somehow), I watched SPECTRE to compare, and I had a pleasant enough time with it despite the cuckoo nonsense. Last night I watched Skyfall, and I was surprised how much I didn't hate it (until NTTD it was my least favourite Craig entry). In fact, it left me feeling nothing at all. And then it hit me- I've been desperately trying to like Craig's Bond for the last 13 years. Basically, everything after Quantum Of Solace has been, more or less, a hot mess for me. NTTD was like the final straw. There are too many other Bond movies I can just throw on & enjoy without reservation.
SPECTRE effectively finished Bond's career. He literally drove off into the sunset.
But they wanted Dan for another, and his stipulation was that no matter what story they concocted, his Bond must die in the end.
This was BOUND to be divisive, and it was BOUND to be a money-maker. When they killed M it set records, right?
So, instead of getting a new thing going with a new actor & new stories, they went for the bread. Easy money.
This is why they shouldn't have made this movie. It's wasting time & resources on a cash grab instead of furthering the legend of James Bond. And time is and has been a' wasting.
Yes, Craig-Bond's ramshackle "personal arc" was already finished by the end of Spectre. But the producers wanted Craig back and welcomed his demands, so it was time to extend the arc. The only other personal element they hadn't tried yet was giving Bond a kid, an idea kicked around for QoS and Spectre. Since they knew Bond was going to die they could give him a brat and not have to worry about it afterward, since Craig-Bond's death was an obvious reset button. The calculation behind the film is rather offputting.
For me, the personal developments in NTTD felt unneccesary, since they didn't reveal anything about Bond, who acted in the most generically heroic way. But in a sense, the sentimental end of NTTD does engage in "furthering the legend of James Bond," since it's so obviously a contrived heroic last stand. Unlike the brutal ending of OHMSS, which offers no emotional consolation, NTTD's is a feel-good weepie that tries for mythic resonance. Bond struggles through adversity to save the world yet again and stands tall as the missiles rain down, saying goodbye to the family he sacrificed himself for; Madeline drives off with that self-consciously mythic last line.
I have the feeling that if Fleming had lived on and decided to truly kill James Bond (rather than giving him a cliffhanger), he would produced something with more sting and quirkiness than NTTD's bland version.
On the second viewing, I noticed the artificial set up for the whole countdown, too. Saffin is having "buyers" come in for the nanobots. They're unidentified and apparently arriving by high speed boats or ships So, Bond has to call in the missile strike, ostensibly to destroy the lab and all traces. a few minutes before they get there.
Why didn't they just shoot the boats or ships?
If the argument is those could be ships from another government and not merely privately owned, the British are already trespassing in either Russian or Japanese waters and attacking an island that both nations may claim. The UK has no sovereignty there. They're already violating any numbers of international laws or agreements. And it's not like they can hide any of that, especially after launching a military action involving a secret incursion followed by a missile strike.
From a simple writing point of view, it's just dumb. And if they needed some excuse for Bond to be so quick on the trigger ("premature eradication"), why not just flip it -- it's not that ships are arriving, it's that Saffin is sending his out. They're loaded and ready to go. Or Saffin is going to launch missiles or whatever. It seems there are far more sensible ways to start the clock running. But it's like they decided Bond had to die in a rain of British missiles and then just spun a rickety plot wheel as to what the circumstances would be.
We now know Craig was pushing for a film in which Bond died as early as Casino Royale, so the CraigBond arc was not over at the end of SPECTRE: the actor had one more story in mind from the very beginning of his tenure. What would seem to complicate that is that Craig in real life decided to quit after his fourth film, leaving his own desired arc incomplete.
For folks who think this film did not somehow "earn" the character's death (sorry, I'm trying to remember some of the wording above, I think the word "earn" was used) can you suggest an alternate story culminating in his death that would be more satisfying?
Folks who believe the character should never die need not answer, as there can be no such story for them. But for those who say a death story could work, just not this story, can you suggest a preferable story?
I'm trying to think of stories in other media in which Bond died. Nothing official, but there's some unofficial stuff out there that comes close.
The "funny" version of Casino Royale of course. Actually that was official, just not EON. Quite different to the last scene of this new film, not just one but seven James Bonds go to Heaven.
Alan Moore's copyright-infringing version of the character did die in the last volume of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but that version was a vicious takedown of the character from his introduction, making Craig's version seem reverently traditionalist in comparison. I'll try to dig up the issue to see how it went down, but nobody here's going to like that one. I seem to recall the character who kills him then hums the Theme song.
I remember rumours of an unpublished novel a few years back and I think Bond's death is just about all we knew about it. After some discussion that turned out to be a bit of amateur fanfic nothing to do with an official product, more like an aspiring author trying to drum up publicity for himself. Anybody else remember what I'm on about? I swear I didn't dream it, it was topic of conversation here several years back.
One book most of you have never read is the Canadian public domain short story collection Licence Expired: The Unauthorized James Bond. One of the better stories near the end is You Never Love Once, by Claude Lalumière. Bond doesn't die in this one, instead we see him at the age of 95, living in a Jamaican beachhouse satisfying Vivienne Michel's granddaughter(!), a little but alzheimer-y and paranoid bit still very dangerous looking, known to the locals only as The Commander and worshipped because local legend says he once killed a dragon there long long ago. I like that one, it supports the idea he is invincible (as I think many here would prefer) and draws together several elements of the mythology as established by Fleming.
By coincidence I am currently reading the final Modesty Blaise volume Cobra Trap, and shall report when done because it is relevant to this discussion. Sometimes authors do choose to kill off their own characters.
yes I did read Cobra Trap once before, about a decade ago, though don't really remember it. Suddenly seems like a relevant thing to compare, and since I recently found a copy of the book, this is the time to read it!
Modesty Blaise related spoiler:
Modesty and Willie definitely die sacrificing themselves in a mission, they do not get the chance to live to 95. Thats why its a relevant comparison to this new film. Writer Peter O'Donnell did not want future creators using his characters, so he wrote one Final story
________________________________
@ichaice Craig may not have had any more creative clout than Brosnan when he made his first film, but we now know he did suggest the idea of a Bond death scene way back then, I'm sure the article where he said so has been discussed elsewhere in ajb007. By SPECTRE he had some sort of co-producer credit and unprecedented creative control. Then they had to persuade Mr Slit-My-Wrists to come back for one more, so I gather this ending he had always wanted to do was his condition for returning.
by the way, I remember one quote where he said he'd quit before his films started to look like Austin Powers, then the film where he gets that co-producer credit repeats the Dr Evil reveal from Goldmember! so I'm not arguing that his creative control is a good thing, just that the death scene was indeed a story he himself wanted to tell long before they filmed SPECTRE's more satisfying ending.
________________________________
EDIT: the news Craig himself suggested a death scene as early as Casino Royale is from the book The James Bond Archives: No Time To Die, see this post
There are many ways to make Bond's demise at the end more a heroic sacrifice than a satirical suicide. I posted one possibility elsewhere.
But whatever they might choose, the story needs to hit the ground running. It can't just lumber around with some sad bits here and there and at the end say, gotcha. That's just poor storytelling.
Consider movies where the seeds are planting throughout:
1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Bond saves Tracy at the beginning but only delays the inevitable, which is especially ironic because she dies when she's the most happy (a very Hemingway-esque demise). One can argue Bond is partially responsible for her death by saving her and getting her involved in his obsession to bring Blofeld to justice, but in actuality, Tracy chooses her own path when she searches for Bond and rescues him after his escape from Piz Gloria. Had she stayed put -- had she not been stubborn and determined as we've seen her with her own father -- she would not have been captured by Blofeld and later killed. Arguably, Bond wouldn't have escaped either, but we'll never know that. What we do know is that Tracy puts herself into harm's way for the best of reasons -- she loves Bond. This is what makes her death at the end even more tragic than it already is.
2) Von Ryan's Express. Frank Sinatra's downed American pilot is a loner and outcast, in part because he's an American and does not fit in and because, as a free thinker, he conflicts with authority. But he slowly starts to win the respect of the others. When the prison camp is attacked, the men naturally want to execute the Italian commander for his brutal crimes against them, but Von Ryan talks them out of it. His gesture of humanity is the right thing to do but at the wrong time. By letting the commander live, he puts them at risk, and indeed the man escapes, warns the Nazis, and costs the lives of many prisoners in their escape. At the end, Von Ryan is gunned down after helping make a final stand so the train can get away -- but of course he must be. His free-thinking -- even if on a moral plane makes him a hero -- directly leads to others being killed. Von Ryan must pay the price if there is justice is the universe. (Saving Private Ryan borrows some of this, with Captain Miller stopping the execution of a German prisoner, who like the Italian commander, betrays their mercy by heading straight back to the Nazi forces; at the end, he's the one who mortally wounds Miller.)
3) The Cowboys. John Wayne's gruff, aging rancher, Wil Andersen, is a proud man. When gold is found in the hills, he becomes desperate, so much that against his better judgment he decides to recruit boys to help him drive cattle for sale to a distant town. Along the way, Andersen rejects a group of young toughs his instincts tell him are trouble. But he does so in his proud way, insulting them. They later attack the camp, mortally wounding Andersen, whose refusal to capitulate results in the psychotic leader shooting him mercilessly. But if you watch the film carefully, it's also clear Andersen is drawing the villain's fire and anger away from the boys (he literally turns his back and walks away), who are indeed spared once the others have what they want. Andersen is buried in a patch of weeds the boys can't even find later when they return with a headstone, but before that, he inspires them to take justice on the gang.
4) The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Alec Leamas is by no means heroic. He's at best anti-heroic, but really, he's more pitiable. He knows the spy business is dirty and even gives dialogue speeches about it, yet his devotion to duty blinds him to his own ultimate fate as a cog in a big, meaningless machine. He has multiple opportunities to simply stop, but his desire to get Mundt, the man responsible for the killing of the agent Leamas is powerless to save at the beginning, drives him to trust the duplicitous British command one last, fatal time. After he implicates Fiedler as a traitor (falsely, the irony being Mundt is the double agent and Fielder is Leamas' devoted counterpart in East Germany) and gets his idealistic colleague killed, Leamas (and we) have no choice but to see his death as the only way out.
These four movies are united in both dispatching a main character but also preparing the audience for it in a natural, inescapable way. For the character to not die would seem to violate everything the story is driving at. NTTD does the opposite. It may steep the characters in sadness or tragedy, but the plot machinations are sloppy and underdeveloped, so Bond's end doesn't seem inevitable so much as arbitrary.
I know The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is a very precisely engineered plot, Le Carre's most efficient story by far (his later books are bloated in comparison). The logic leading to the final scene is inevitable from the opening, yet that final scene still really hurts when it comes. Le Carre also plays careful tricks concealing certain information from the reader, and manipulating our need to trust the good guys.
I think for me this Bond is the happy medium of all of Craig's iterations between the cheesyness of previous Bonds and a real world, relatable character we have known him for. There were quite a few quips and I felt he really loosened up the character quite a bit compared to the stout and determined "for Queen and country" Bond we've seen previously.
Through the journey of the movie, at the time of watching I thoroughly enjoyed it. I sat there thinking wow this could really be a CR or Skyfall contender for me but ultimately on reflection it feel a short.
On Bonds death, this is what has made me feel most disheartened by it all. It makes me feel like everything he went through, the pain and torment was all for nothing. Yes he saved the world and the people he loved but he didn't get to enjoy any of that himself.
I actually feel a little less enthusiastic about going back and watching the previous movies now, knowing it all amounts to nothing for him personally. It also makes me feel like I will be less invested in the next Bond, knowing now they could kill him off at any time. He is supposed to be invincible in a way, but the death does at least tie in to his vulnerability and that real world relatable character they created with him, he wasn't invincible and they showed that.
I'll watch it again in time but for now I'm in a bit of shock lol. Sad but true.
Though many will probably disagree as it's not Bond-like, my preferred ending would have been to see him retire out of the service with his family. Perhaps he could have come back for a cameo in the future...or not, but it would have been a nicer ending knowing he could still be out there ready to help save the world should it be needed.
I think someone said earlier on in this thread that these Craig era films were really his own take on his part in the franchise. The next Bond will also certainly not look the same as Daniel Craig or pretend to be him, so it will in essence be another reboot story line / iteration of the Bond character so they should easily be able to carry on the James Bond / 007 character.
Hard to slag a franchise for making "calculated" decisions when it essentially erased an entire version of Bond from the canon for decades, up to and including restoring the previous actor in the role to win back the audience. Surely nothing organic about that. (Not a judgment, just citing precedent)
@Gassy Man , I finally had a chance to read your examples of plots where the hero's death is "earned". All good stories, I now wonder how to map these types of plots into a typical cinematic Bond adventure.
(I probably shoulda asked in another thread because now I'm sending the Reviews thread off topic, apologies. but I think this question is worth exploring at this point)
I've seen all of those except the John Wayne film. When you refer to a typical Hemingway ending I don't know if you have a particular story in mind, but I recently saw the 1932 adaptation of A Farewell to Arms, which certainly builds to an inevitable death scene from the opening dialog.
I think in most of those examples, the tragic finale of the story is the inevitable outcome of choices made by the hero in the first scene. In a proper story, all details should be linked by cause and effect from beginning to end, there should be no details that are not relevant or else you're trying to tell two or more stories at the same time. The first thing that happens should lay the seeds for the last thing, and all details in between, whether apparent or not, should be links in that chain of logic.
Therefor your example of OHMSS is especially good to take apart into its component pieces, in that Fleming actually does seem to be intertwining two separate stories until that final page. Bond's worthy choice to rescue the Bird with One Wing Down from her suicidal depression ironically results in her death by other means. Even if the SPECTRE plot had been coincidental up til the final page, the detailed telling of that secondary story proves that it is Bond's job that will kill Tracy, thus is ultimately relevant (otherwise we'd just have some previously unseen BondEnemy show up at the last minute and that would be too random to be interesting). Bond's choice to save Tracy from herself is the right choice, probably a more realistically heroic act than all those times he saves the world, something you or I could actually do if we were good enough people. The tragedy is he's the wrong person to try it. Since this already is a Bond story, its the easiest of the four examples to guess how they could map onto a modern cinematic Bond plot. For starters Madeleine owes a lot to Tracy, and the filmmakers certainly know this cuz they keep playing the OHMSS music.
The Le Carre example I certainly like, but don't know if we could map that onto a cinematic Bond film plot, even a cynical Craig era one. People are already complaining about M's moral ambiguity in this new one, and MI6 incompetence in recent films. It seems demand is for more conventional clear cut good and evil. The Sinatra example is a bit too different than a Bondfilm so I cant imagine how it could be adapted, and Ive never seen the John Wayne film but that too sounds too far removed (as is A Farewell to Arms)
I've been thinking of my example above where Bond lives to be 95. I like that as a possible final Bond story, and all who believe Bond to be indestructible should like it too; he's survived all those exploding buildings, lung cancer and liver damage certainly aren't going to take any years off his life. But... that would make for a boring film, seriously imagine if Bond25 were Craig in old man makeup not doing anything except cashing his government pension checks. That makes for clever short story, but lousy movie.
I for one have long been begging for a more conventionally structured CraigBond film, where the villains headquarters explodes at the end, and this is actually what we got, complete with liferaft. To me it makes sense, if Bond is not going to live to be 95, he's going to go out in one of those exploding buildings. So what we get is a combination of both possible stories, a tragedy where the hero dies in the end, and a conventionally structured Bond film with exploding headquarters and escape on the liferaft. Now imagine if he'd just died in a random dark alley like Mathis, then we'd really have something to complain about.
In the new film what are the choices made in the very beginning that make the tragic finale inevitable? I don't believe there are none, I don't believe its a tacked on shock ending that has not been foreshadowed. Like Bond choosing to save Tracy from her suicidal impulses, there is something Bond chooses in the first scenes of this film that sets the tragedy in motion. I think its his refusal to listen to Madeleine when she says she has something to tell him. The reason he does so is because he can't trust, and that trust issue has been triggered by what just happened at Vesper's tomb (paralleling Madeleine's own dream reopening her childhood trauma). Despite all the danger of that attack in Matera, they do survive but their relationship breaks down due to Bond's own trust issues, and his mistake is putting her on that train, Had he chosen differently the whole story that follows may have played out differently and he may still be alive with wife and child. And just as FlemingBond is the wrong person to save Tracy's life due to his job (we're warned of this as early as Moonraker) , CraigBond is the wrong person to attempt any committed relationship, due to those trust issues we've known about since his very first film.
comparing to other plots makes me think of Casablanca, because the phrase deciding to "put her on that train" rolls of the tongue so easy: in Casablanca the decision to put Ingrid Bergman on that plane is the right thing to do, and the internal struggle Bogie goes through to make that decision is the drama of the story. Once he decides, he has finally done the right thing and the story is over.
Whereas CraigBond's decision to put Madeleine on that train is the wrong thing to do, a decision made impulsively driven by emotion, emotional problems long established. And this wrong decision is where the story really begins.
I want to post the results so far in the NTTD poll. The poll is still running and I welcome everyone to vote there. So far 46 people have voted. 6 is top marks.
The thing is, you wouldn't need to literally duplicate the plots so much as recognize that the groundwork has to be laid. However, the tone and tenor of the drama itself ultimately informs us of just how dark and tragic the story is.
For instance, OHMSS, for all its sadness at the end, is for the most part a spirited escapist adventure. It doesn't weigh itself down with the heavy stuff, even though it has a lot of elements that could -- suicide, deception, murder and mass murder, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth. It's essentially a melodrama, an entertainment, but the end feels inevitable, in part because it begins with Tracy's attempt at suicide but also because it repeats themes all the way through -- time, legacy, genealogy, birth/marriage/death, and so forth. This is reflected in the opening credits and theme song(s). Every part reinforces the other. Even Blofeld's ransom for the virus addresses these issues because he just wants to be left alone to live the rest of his life free. He's tired of the game, too.
On the other hand, LeCarre hits all the numbers for a classic tragedy. We see the model for the entire plot in the first 10 minutes. The story never lets up on its dreariness, though it makes the point that without at least some sense of hope and honor in its nihilistic world, no one could survive. So, Leamas clings to his beliefs, despite his cynicism, and this is his fatal flaw. The story is filled with irony, including that Leamas knows how the game is played, and yet he's played by his superiors.
Something else about that story -- Leamas isn't stupid. His mistake -- which is understandable -- is he trusts his side. He shouldn't, but of course he does. As dirty as the business is, there must be at least some sense of trust to instill loyalty, otherwise there would be no sides at all. Nothing would matter in that world. In the sense that he has value, the British Secret Service does intend to save him at the end, but the price is too high after they kill Liz. Also, because it's presumed Leamas is of Irish extraction, he is perhaps in a more precarious position than if he were English, in much the same way Fiedler, despite his unwavering loyalty, is with the East Germans because he is a Jew, the same for Liz Gold, as well.
But Bond and Swann are quite stupid in NTTD. Bond without question accepts that Swann is a SPECTRE agent. This is the guy who hacked into his boss's computer multiple times, broke into her apartment more than once, and managed to elude the British forces for some time after it was presumed he's dead in order to stay dead. Somehow, he can't take a few minutes to investigate Swann's innocence? And, beyond that, Swann has a child he knows nothing about? And was partially orphaned by an assassin who is still alive? When did Bond lose the ability to investigate? Swann is no better. She can't speak up -- a Ph.D in psychology/psychiatry, for Pete's sake? Her response is to act like an offended housewife and give him the silent treatment? Exactly what did all those years of schooling teach her? There are more issues like this throughout, including at the end.
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is written by a writer who respects his audience and their intelligence. NTTD is written for an audience that says stuffs themselves with popcorn and says, “It’s only a movie."
NTTD is missing much of the glue that holds a story together. It's not enough to mention possibility. Compare, too, how in OHMSS and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, the hero is the protagonist for the plot. For instance, Bond is told Operation Bedlam is over, yet he continues to pursue Blofeld. His dogged determination -- to the degree of visiting M at his home after breaking into Gumbold's office -- keeps the story pushing on (and because he's the hero, we cheer for him). Leamas is similar. He could walk away from the Circus (or at least as far as any agent could), but when the possibility of getting Mundt is dangled in front of him, it's too much. We may not cheer for him, but we see the possibility for his redemption, no matter how small.
But what does Bond do in NTTD? He is led to Matera by Swann to visit Vesper's grave, a weird conceit that sounds like the sort of psychobabble someone gets from reading a magazine article. Then, he puts Swann on a train and goes away for five years. If anything, Bond is an antagonist. He keeps trying to stop the plot -- he doesn't want to know if Swann is telling the truth, he doesn't want to deal with his job or the world, he doesn't want to help Nomi and Felix, he doesn't push to find out if Mathilde is his child, etc. This is the most passive we've ever seen Bond, culminating in his final decision to just wait for the missiles to get him. Is there a thematic reason for this? If there is, I can't find it. Is Bond happy in his isolation? No. Is he happy without a family? No. Is he content to no longer be a British agent? The story doesn't really address that. He's more cranky at everybody, and like a petulant teenager, just hasn't gotten over it all yet and wants to sulk on his island and sailboat.
Movies tend to write the female characters poorly, but Bond movies, arguably, have constructed at least some layers to them, if through the male gaze. But Swann is the most bafflingly dumb female I can think of in any Bond film. Even when they're ditzy, I at least get their motivation. I don't get Swann's. Why doesn't she tell Bond if she's pregnant? Why does she not want him to know that Mathilde is his daughter? Why does she agree to be Blofeld's analyst when he's the root cause of her parents' murder? Why on earth does she still have the house where one of those murders took place? Did she save the bullet casings, too? Why does she wear stiletto high heels around the villain's lair? Why is she so helpless in the last 20 minutes of the movie when Spectre made a point to show how capable she is both with a gun and in a fight?
A good story answers such questions. It presents its plot in ways that make sense. It does the work for the audience -- it doesn't make the audience squint to connect the dots, as though the story is just a series of clouds rolling by that people want to project shapes onto.
Regarding Hemingway, he has a variety of stories where the main character's death is in their hour of triumph -- The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Killers (implied) and so forth. That model wasn't necessarily invented by Hemingway, but it certainly was popularized by him, to the degree that there are imitators. The Sand Pebbles, the Steve McQueen movie from the novel, is very Hemingway-esque in that respect. And like any good story, we see the build up, as Jake Holman, the tragic anti-hero, has the fatal flaw of humanity in an inhumane world. He's constantly put in the position to defy authority in order to do the right thing. The end of the story is inevitable -- and it's that inevitability that is what demonstrates the story is working. If you get to the end and can't figure out quite how you got there, it's not a very good story.
I hate to keep harping on this point, but just what kind of a therapist is Swann? If Bond has trust issues and she’s the wunderkind we’re told she is in Spectre, how is it the best thing she can come up with is silence and leaving? That’s it? She has no other insight to offer? No other course of action to consider? If Bond is so far beyond repair, why is she even with him? And why on earth is she carrying his child? She’s drawn like a high school cheerleader regretting that she lost her virginity to the football captain, and if she just ignores him, all the problems will go away. Oh, and she's pregnant. These are not adults, not even in a comic book. For all the ballyhoo about how the older Bond movies somehow were less complex or emotional or whatever than these newer ones, at least the characters acted grown up. Here, they are mired in problems, many of their own making, and their response is to behave like emotionally stunted children in aging bodies to serve the plot.
Bond and Swann are quite stupid in NTTD. Bond without question accepts that Swann is a SPECTRE agent. This is the guy who hacked into his boss's computer multiple times, broke into her apartment more than once, and managed to elude the British forces for some time after it was presumed he's dead in order to stay dead. Somehow, he can't take a few minutes to investigate Swann's innocence?
Craig's Bond is smart about some things and stupid about others. I certainly know people like this, people who are brilliant at their jobs but incompetent in human relations. I've always read CraigBond as the autistic type, who does not understand subtle social cues and has no concept of acceptable boundaries. He doesn't make normal eye contact and he stands way too close when talking. And since we know he has issues about being an orphan he may be especially stupid at acknowledging hints his ladyfriend is pregnant even when everybody in the audience can guess what it is she is trying to tell him. Probably doesn't trust himself to be a father, and denial of the reality may be his instinctive response, rather than shutting up and listening to what she has to say. And that'd be if they were having a good day.
As it happens his trust issues are reawakened big time by the explosion at Vespers tomb, and they are still in the midst of the attack when Madeleine tries to speak in the car. Note that he is indeed still smart enough at his job that he can time the strength of the glass long enough to accuse and terrify Madeleine, but that strange skill that keeps him alive is also what stops him from listening to her. This job he is so good at actually rewards skills of cruelty, not compassion and he is technically being good at his job as he drags out her terror.
Gassy Man also said:
just what kind of a therapist is Swann? If Bond has trust issues and she’s the wunderkind we’re told she is in Spectre, how is it the best thing she can come up with is silence and leaving? That’s it? She has no other insight to offer? No other course of action to consider? If Bond is so far beyond repair, why is she even with him? And why on earth is she carrying his child?
I've forgotten, somebody who's watched SPECTRE more recently may have to remind us. I got the idea she was running that big clinic in the Alps so she must be pretty good, whatever her specialty is.
Again referencing real life, I know people who've gone into psychology or social work because they themselves are survivors of childhood trauma, have put in years of therapy for their own recovery, and when seeking a career choose to use what they've learned to give back to others in similar situations. That may be why Madeleine is such an accomplished psychologist, yet has unresolved childhood traumas of her own. May also be why she is attracted to Bond.
The movie begins with her nightmare, a memory reawakened of her own childhood trauma. She may have repressed that memory for years, so why's it back now? Precisely because she is pregnant, and her subconscious has suddenly worked out she will be putting her own unborn child in the same sort of danger, because Bond is essentially the same sort of man as her father, and even if retired will have enemies of his own one day seeking revenge. Even as she wakes she is sorting through this revelation as she tries to find the moment to tell him what would normally be good news, that may be why she is so slow to spit it out.
Then a few minutes later her fear has come real, as Bond's enemies do choose that moment to return, then before she knows it they're in that car, and she herself and unborn child are in the here-and-now under attack. Just like that childhood trauma she remembered in her nightmare but now its happening for real. We know how PTSD survivors react to the sudden loud noises or any stimuli that prods that memory, it is in fact completely predictable she should be panicking now even if she is a professional psychologist. ...and, this confirmation Bond indeed has enemies who will threaten their child may be exactly why she then errs on the side of not telling him. And also why she denies Bond's paternity when he finally sees the child five years later, and why she has (somehow) kept the child's existence a secret.
All the above makes complete sense to me, and I think is quite cleverly told, much like the ambiguous clues to Vesper's treachery in the first Craig film (the one other bit of storytelling in these five films that impresses me). We should not expect either character to behave like conventional Hollywood heroes, these are two seriously messed up people. And I think Madeleine is attracted to Bond because he too is a damaged survivor of trauma, and because he reminds her of her own father! all the wrong reasons, but women do choose men for all the wrong reasons in real life (as a psychologist she should have spotted that father thing)
As for why she chooses to work as Blofeld's psychiatrist (when she knows he is a master mindgamer and the one man she has most to fear), or how MI6 does not know about the child (but they have been established as incompetent over the last five films)... those are indeed major plot holes, though seemingly needed to make the story work. Are they worse than plot holes in lets say Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me? or are we just more tolerant of those films' plot-holes because we prefer those escapist fantasies?
I've said before CraigBond is Doc Martin with a gun.
watch season 4 of Doc Martin, when Martin learns Luisa is pregnant. This may be more relevant to how CraigBond reacts than how we might imagine any previous Bond reacting. Martin avoids Luisa and develops a plan to return to London, Whenever anybody tries to talk to Martin about Luisa's pregnancy, he says "she has made it perfectly clear she wants me to have nothing to do with this child" even though he has never given her the chance to talk about it, and she is so flustered by his behaviour she instinctively nods and says "that's right!" and walks away. Doc Martin is plenty smart in his job, an idiot in human relations, and Luisa's quite smart too but a bit twitchy.
Well, none of those are plot holes. They just make the story idiotic because we suddenly have to believe the characters are no longer who they have been presented as in order for the story to be told. The plot still works in its hamfisted way. A plot hole is an impossibility, like where did the henchmen come from at the end of Batman (1989). There’s simply no way to explain that within the internal logic of the story.
NTTD just presents its characters as dumb and/or revisions for the sake of its plot. How did Mallory suddenly go from the guy lecturing about democracy and opposing Nine Eyes as a bridge too far to secretly authorizing terrifying weapons of mass destruction that are a threat forever and ordering attacks on islands outside of British territory? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. How does Blofeld, the most dangerous man in Britain, get a bionic eye right under the nose of his keepers, and why exactly do Bond and Swann have to meet him face to face in the age of Zoom? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. Why do Bond and Swann lose all hint of maturity and professionalism? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. And so on.
A major weakness of NTTD is that it has to bend the characters to the story instead of the other way around — unless we accept that Craig’s 5-film arc has been intended as a deconstruction of Bond, a kind of satire on the first 20 or so films. That’s been something I’ve been positing for some time. Then it makes sense why Bond devolves from his relative brilliance in Casino Royale, wheres he's still recognizable as Bond, to his relative buffoonery in NTTD, where he’s hoisted by his own petard at the end.
It’s interesting that you compare Bond to people you've known in order to explain his and Swann’s behavior. A well-constructed story doesn't require us to go outside of itself for us to explain its characters or what happens. I don’t have to know an alcoholic to understand Leamas’ alcoholism or Jake Holman’s cynical do-gooderism to get their characters because the story teaches me about them — indeed, in some ways, that is the story. It doesn't require us to look for possibilities and say because it could happen, then its acceptable and that’s all the writers are responsible for. If that’s the case, Bond could have committed suicide at any point in the previous films. He could have been gay. He could have been a Russian double agent. He could have been an alien. But we know none of these are true because Bond is never given any indications of their probability, nor is anything in the stories. Occam’s Razor, Bond is not suicidal, gay, a double agent, or an alien.
But there’s nothing stopping them from having revealed in, say, Brosnan’s final outing that Bond all along has been working for the Russians. It just would subvert everything we've come to understand about the character, and then we’d have to strain to find clues. Suddenly, the title From Russia with Love takes on a whole new meaning. Maybe Bond was a SMERSH agent with a secret mission to eliminate SPECTRE infiltrators. The same when he kills Alec and gets rid of Koskov. While the writers might be snickering at their cleverness, a lot of us would be outraged that while not impossible, the story comes out of left field and twists characters to fit its arc. The final film didn’t do the hard work of establishing characters, even if we argue there are double agents and duplicitous people in real life. But the subversion might work if we realize the entire point was to deconstruct the character — that he wasn't the hero to begin with and that the filmmakers were satirizing those sorts of movies and our expectations.
I don’t have to know an alcoholic to understand Leamas’ alcoholism
@Gassy Man These posts back and forth between you guys are fascinating and frustrating in equal measure. I'm not going to interfere in your online battle of wits, but I would like to point out from memory of watching the Burton movie [years ago] Alec Leamas was NOT an alcoholic. He's pretending to be an alcoholic so the Circus has a pre-planned excuse to dismiss him and install him in that down at heel admin job. There he meets the girl librarian, a red agent, gets himself arrested for D and D, and is contacted by the UK communist party who believe him ripe for defection. I have not read Le Carre's book for decades, but i don't recall him being an alcoholic in that either. I might be wrong.
Comments
Both of you have made very compelling points. I didn't feel much chemistry between Bond and Swann either (Why is he interested in her? Because she's traumatized?) and Mathilde is cute but has no personality. She's eerily affectless in a way kids that age aren't (for God's sake, at least throw a temper tantrum!). I hadn't considered the second half of the film as Swann's story, with Bond as the self-sacrificing guest star, but that makes a lot of sense. It seems to be a result of many hands working over the script, but not as a team--so the film can't resolve who its main character is. The reviewer for the London Review of Books made the point that NTTD was unique in having a flashback entirely from the female's point of view. I just wish the inside of Madeline's head was as interesting to visit as Vivienne Michel's. But what we see of it serves a very schematic purpose.
Blofeld could still ultimately be shown as the major villain -- I wrote up a possible scenario somewhere. Actually, if it was done more or less like that, it might even have surprised people who assumed Saffin would be the main bad guy. Actually, a lot of the elements from the current film could be retained. They'd just have to be reworked, I think.
Boy, did I get some flack for this, but I still think NTTD cements the 5-film arc as a deconstruction of Bond as a toxic White male hung by his own petard at the end, a kind of revisionist film series not unlike Clint Eastwood's Unforgiven deconstructs outlaws and heroes in westerns. For those who don't know, Petardiers were essentially grenadiers who would scale walls and the like to plant or toss their bombs -- sometimes they got hooked on something and killed the petardier in the ensuing explosion of their own making. Sound familiar? Shakespeare popularized the idea in Hamlet.
The fact that the film opens with Swann as the focus may seem merely like a reworking of Tracy in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, but it's more than that. It starts with Swann and ends with Swann and Mathilde. Meanwhile, Bond, Leiter, Saffin, and Blofeld are dead. Ash is a traitor. The male M is shown to be shady in working with a male Russian scientist to develop a horrible weapon of mass destruction, Tanner is essentially just a prop, and Q is powerless to effect a solution to the nanobot problem. Men don't fare well in this movie. Nomi, Paloma, and Moneypenny, on the other hand, are shown in a reasonably positive light. The movie ends with Swann and Mathilde surviving -- apparently not the worse for wear -- and inheriting at the very least Bond's car. To me, there's more subversion to the Bond character going on here that further calls back to moments in the previous Craig films. That we want so bad to apply the traditional Bond template to the character may be why it's so hard to see the possibility that this film is not a salute to Bond's heroism so much as other things.
After watching NTTD (& feeling like the last third was a Twilight Zone goof on me somehow), I watched SPECTRE to compare, and I had a pleasant enough time with it despite the cuckoo nonsense. Last night I watched Skyfall, and I was surprised how much I didn't hate it (until NTTD it was my least favourite Craig entry). In fact, it left me feeling nothing at all. And then it hit me- I've been desperately trying to like Craig's Bond for the last 13 years. Basically, everything after Quantum Of Solace has been, more or less, a hot mess for me. NTTD was like the final straw. There are too many other Bond movies I can just throw on & enjoy without reservation.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Well said.
8. TMwtGG 9. AVtaK 10. TSWLM 11. SF 12. LtK 13. TND 14. YOLT
15. NTtD 16. MR 17. LaLD 18. GF 19. SP 20. DN 21. TB
22. TWiNE 23. DAD 24. QoS 25. DaF
SPECTRE effectively finished Bond's career. He literally drove off into the sunset.
But they wanted Dan for another, and his stipulation was that no matter what story they concocted, his Bond must die in the end.
This was BOUND to be divisive, and it was BOUND to be a money-maker. When they killed M it set records, right?
So, instead of getting a new thing going with a new actor & new stories, they went for the bread. Easy money.
This is why they shouldn't have made this movie. It's wasting time & resources on a cash grab instead of furthering the legend of James Bond. And time is and has been a' wasting.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Yes, Craig-Bond's ramshackle "personal arc" was already finished by the end of Spectre. But the producers wanted Craig back and welcomed his demands, so it was time to extend the arc. The only other personal element they hadn't tried yet was giving Bond a kid, an idea kicked around for QoS and Spectre. Since they knew Bond was going to die they could give him a brat and not have to worry about it afterward, since Craig-Bond's death was an obvious reset button. The calculation behind the film is rather offputting.
For me, the personal developments in NTTD felt unneccesary, since they didn't reveal anything about Bond, who acted in the most generically heroic way. But in a sense, the sentimental end of NTTD does engage in "furthering the legend of James Bond," since it's so obviously a contrived heroic last stand. Unlike the brutal ending of OHMSS, which offers no emotional consolation, NTTD's is a feel-good weepie that tries for mythic resonance. Bond struggles through adversity to save the world yet again and stands tall as the missiles rain down, saying goodbye to the family he sacrificed himself for; Madeline drives off with that self-consciously mythic last line.
I have the feeling that if Fleming had lived on and decided to truly kill James Bond (rather than giving him a cliffhanger), he would produced something with more sting and quirkiness than NTTD's bland version.
😎
On the second viewing, I noticed the artificial set up for the whole countdown, too. Saffin is having "buyers" come in for the nanobots. They're unidentified and apparently arriving by high speed boats or ships So, Bond has to call in the missile strike, ostensibly to destroy the lab and all traces. a few minutes before they get there.
Why didn't they just shoot the boats or ships?
If the argument is those could be ships from another government and not merely privately owned, the British are already trespassing in either Russian or Japanese waters and attacking an island that both nations may claim. The UK has no sovereignty there. They're already violating any numbers of international laws or agreements. And it's not like they can hide any of that, especially after launching a military action involving a secret incursion followed by a missile strike.
From a simple writing point of view, it's just dumb. And if they needed some excuse for Bond to be so quick on the trigger ("premature eradication"), why not just flip it -- it's not that ships are arriving, it's that Saffin is sending his out. They're loaded and ready to go. Or Saffin is going to launch missiles or whatever. It seems there are far more sensible ways to start the clock running. But it's like they decided Bond had to die in a rain of British missiles and then just spun a rickety plot wheel as to what the circumstances would be.
We now know Craig was pushing for a film in which Bond died as early as Casino Royale, so the CraigBond arc was not over at the end of SPECTRE: the actor had one more story in mind from the very beginning of his tenure. What would seem to complicate that is that Craig in real life decided to quit after his fourth film, leaving his own desired arc incomplete.
For folks who think this film did not somehow "earn" the character's death (sorry, I'm trying to remember some of the wording above, I think the word "earn" was used) can you suggest an alternate story culminating in his death that would be more satisfying?
Folks who believe the character should never die need not answer, as there can be no such story for them. But for those who say a death story could work, just not this story, can you suggest a preferable story?
I'm trying to think of stories in other media in which Bond died. Nothing official, but there's some unofficial stuff out there that comes close.
The "funny" version of Casino Royale of course. Actually that was official, just not EON. Quite different to the last scene of this new film, not just one but seven James Bonds go to Heaven.
Alan Moore's copyright-infringing version of the character did die in the last volume of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but that version was a vicious takedown of the character from his introduction, making Craig's version seem reverently traditionalist in comparison. I'll try to dig up the issue to see how it went down, but nobody here's going to like that one. I seem to recall the character who kills him then hums the Theme song.
I remember rumours of an unpublished novel a few years back and I think Bond's death is just about all we knew about it. After some discussion that turned out to be a bit of amateur fanfic nothing to do with an official product, more like an aspiring author trying to drum up publicity for himself. Anybody else remember what I'm on about? I swear I didn't dream it, it was topic of conversation here several years back.
One book most of you have never read is the Canadian public domain short story collection Licence Expired: The Unauthorized James Bond. One of the better stories near the end is You Never Love Once, by Claude Lalumière. Bond doesn't die in this one, instead we see him at the age of 95, living in a Jamaican beachhouse satisfying Vivienne Michel's granddaughter(!), a little but alzheimer-y and paranoid bit still very dangerous looking, known to the locals only as The Commander and worshipped because local legend says he once killed a dragon there long long ago. I like that one, it supports the idea he is invincible (as I think many here would prefer) and draws together several elements of the mythology as established by Fleming.
By coincidence I am currently reading the final Modesty Blaise volume Cobra Trap, and shall report when done because it is relevant to this discussion. Sometimes authors do choose to kill off their own characters.
Hard to believe DC had any clout during the making of CR. Maybe afterwards for sure which might help to explain the decline from there on.
@caractacus potts The Cobra Trap short story is very very good.
yes I did read Cobra Trap once before, about a decade ago, though don't really remember it. Suddenly seems like a relevant thing to compare, and since I recently found a copy of the book, this is the time to read it!
Modesty Blaise related spoiler:
Modesty and Willie definitely die sacrificing themselves in a mission, they do not get the chance to live to 95. Thats why its a relevant comparison to this new film. Writer Peter O'Donnell did not want future creators using his characters, so he wrote one Final story
________________________________
@ichaice Craig may not have had any more creative clout than Brosnan when he made his first film, but we now know he did suggest the idea of a Bond death scene way back then, I'm sure the article where he said so has been discussed elsewhere in ajb007. By SPECTRE he had some sort of co-producer credit and unprecedented creative control. Then they had to persuade Mr Slit-My-Wrists to come back for one more, so I gather this ending he had always wanted to do was his condition for returning.
by the way, I remember one quote where he said he'd quit before his films started to look like Austin Powers, then the film where he gets that co-producer credit repeats the Dr Evil reveal from Goldmember! so I'm not arguing that his creative control is a good thing, just that the death scene was indeed a story he himself wanted to tell long before they filmed SPECTRE's more satisfying ending.
________________________________
EDIT: the news Craig himself suggested a death scene as early as Casino Royale is from the book The James Bond Archives: No Time To Die, see this post
There are many ways to make Bond's demise at the end more a heroic sacrifice than a satirical suicide. I posted one possibility elsewhere.
But whatever they might choose, the story needs to hit the ground running. It can't just lumber around with some sad bits here and there and at the end say, gotcha. That's just poor storytelling.
Consider movies where the seeds are planting throughout:
1) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Bond saves Tracy at the beginning but only delays the inevitable, which is especially ironic because she dies when she's the most happy (a very Hemingway-esque demise). One can argue Bond is partially responsible for her death by saving her and getting her involved in his obsession to bring Blofeld to justice, but in actuality, Tracy chooses her own path when she searches for Bond and rescues him after his escape from Piz Gloria. Had she stayed put -- had she not been stubborn and determined as we've seen her with her own father -- she would not have been captured by Blofeld and later killed. Arguably, Bond wouldn't have escaped either, but we'll never know that. What we do know is that Tracy puts herself into harm's way for the best of reasons -- she loves Bond. This is what makes her death at the end even more tragic than it already is.
2) Von Ryan's Express. Frank Sinatra's downed American pilot is a loner and outcast, in part because he's an American and does not fit in and because, as a free thinker, he conflicts with authority. But he slowly starts to win the respect of the others. When the prison camp is attacked, the men naturally want to execute the Italian commander for his brutal crimes against them, but Von Ryan talks them out of it. His gesture of humanity is the right thing to do but at the wrong time. By letting the commander live, he puts them at risk, and indeed the man escapes, warns the Nazis, and costs the lives of many prisoners in their escape. At the end, Von Ryan is gunned down after helping make a final stand so the train can get away -- but of course he must be. His free-thinking -- even if on a moral plane makes him a hero -- directly leads to others being killed. Von Ryan must pay the price if there is justice is the universe. (Saving Private Ryan borrows some of this, with Captain Miller stopping the execution of a German prisoner, who like the Italian commander, betrays their mercy by heading straight back to the Nazi forces; at the end, he's the one who mortally wounds Miller.)
3) The Cowboys. John Wayne's gruff, aging rancher, Wil Andersen, is a proud man. When gold is found in the hills, he becomes desperate, so much that against his better judgment he decides to recruit boys to help him drive cattle for sale to a distant town. Along the way, Andersen rejects a group of young toughs his instincts tell him are trouble. But he does so in his proud way, insulting them. They later attack the camp, mortally wounding Andersen, whose refusal to capitulate results in the psychotic leader shooting him mercilessly. But if you watch the film carefully, it's also clear Andersen is drawing the villain's fire and anger away from the boys (he literally turns his back and walks away), who are indeed spared once the others have what they want. Andersen is buried in a patch of weeds the boys can't even find later when they return with a headstone, but before that, he inspires them to take justice on the gang.
4) The Spy Who Came in From the Cold. Alec Leamas is by no means heroic. He's at best anti-heroic, but really, he's more pitiable. He knows the spy business is dirty and even gives dialogue speeches about it, yet his devotion to duty blinds him to his own ultimate fate as a cog in a big, meaningless machine. He has multiple opportunities to simply stop, but his desire to get Mundt, the man responsible for the killing of the agent Leamas is powerless to save at the beginning, drives him to trust the duplicitous British command one last, fatal time. After he implicates Fiedler as a traitor (falsely, the irony being Mundt is the double agent and Fielder is Leamas' devoted counterpart in East Germany) and gets his idealistic colleague killed, Leamas (and we) have no choice but to see his death as the only way out.
These four movies are united in both dispatching a main character but also preparing the audience for it in a natural, inescapable way. For the character to not die would seem to violate everything the story is driving at. NTTD does the opposite. It may steep the characters in sadness or tragedy, but the plot machinations are sloppy and underdeveloped, so Bond's end doesn't seem inevitable so much as arbitrary.
thanks @Gassy Man I'll read it properly later.
I know The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is a very precisely engineered plot, Le Carre's most efficient story by far (his later books are bloated in comparison). The logic leading to the final scene is inevitable from the opening, yet that final scene still really hurts when it comes. Le Carre also plays careful tricks concealing certain information from the reader, and manipulating our need to trust the good guys.
Just caught up with NTTD here in Australia.
I think for me this Bond is the happy medium of all of Craig's iterations between the cheesyness of previous Bonds and a real world, relatable character we have known him for. There were quite a few quips and I felt he really loosened up the character quite a bit compared to the stout and determined "for Queen and country" Bond we've seen previously.
Through the journey of the movie, at the time of watching I thoroughly enjoyed it. I sat there thinking wow this could really be a CR or Skyfall contender for me but ultimately on reflection it feel a short.
On Bonds death, this is what has made me feel most disheartened by it all. It makes me feel like everything he went through, the pain and torment was all for nothing. Yes he saved the world and the people he loved but he didn't get to enjoy any of that himself.
I actually feel a little less enthusiastic about going back and watching the previous movies now, knowing it all amounts to nothing for him personally. It also makes me feel like I will be less invested in the next Bond, knowing now they could kill him off at any time. He is supposed to be invincible in a way, but the death does at least tie in to his vulnerability and that real world relatable character they created with him, he wasn't invincible and they showed that.
I'll watch it again in time but for now I'm in a bit of shock lol. Sad but true.
Though many will probably disagree as it's not Bond-like, my preferred ending would have been to see him retire out of the service with his family. Perhaps he could have come back for a cameo in the future...or not, but it would have been a nicer ending knowing he could still be out there ready to help save the world should it be needed.
I think someone said earlier on in this thread that these Craig era films were really his own take on his part in the franchise. The next Bond will also certainly not look the same as Daniel Craig or pretend to be him, so it will in essence be another reboot story line / iteration of the Bond character so they should easily be able to carry on the James Bond / 007 character.
Sorry quoted the wrong comment, I was replying to Jon_1UK
THANK YOU!
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Hard to slag a franchise for making "calculated" decisions when it essentially erased an entire version of Bond from the canon for decades, up to and including restoring the previous actor in the role to win back the audience. Surely nothing organic about that. (Not a judgment, just citing precedent)
@Gassy Man , I finally had a chance to read your examples of plots where the hero's death is "earned". All good stories, I now wonder how to map these types of plots into a typical cinematic Bond adventure.
(I probably shoulda asked in another thread because now I'm sending the Reviews thread off topic, apologies. but I think this question is worth exploring at this point)
I've seen all of those except the John Wayne film. When you refer to a typical Hemingway ending I don't know if you have a particular story in mind, but I recently saw the 1932 adaptation of A Farewell to Arms, which certainly builds to an inevitable death scene from the opening dialog.
I think in most of those examples, the tragic finale of the story is the inevitable outcome of choices made by the hero in the first scene. In a proper story, all details should be linked by cause and effect from beginning to end, there should be no details that are not relevant or else you're trying to tell two or more stories at the same time. The first thing that happens should lay the seeds for the last thing, and all details in between, whether apparent or not, should be links in that chain of logic.
Therefor your example of OHMSS is especially good to take apart into its component pieces, in that Fleming actually does seem to be intertwining two separate stories until that final page. Bond's worthy choice to rescue the Bird with One Wing Down from her suicidal depression ironically results in her death by other means. Even if the SPECTRE plot had been coincidental up til the final page, the detailed telling of that secondary story proves that it is Bond's job that will kill Tracy, thus is ultimately relevant (otherwise we'd just have some previously unseen BondEnemy show up at the last minute and that would be too random to be interesting). Bond's choice to save Tracy from herself is the right choice, probably a more realistically heroic act than all those times he saves the world, something you or I could actually do if we were good enough people. The tragedy is he's the wrong person to try it. Since this already is a Bond story, its the easiest of the four examples to guess how they could map onto a modern cinematic Bond plot. For starters Madeleine owes a lot to Tracy, and the filmmakers certainly know this cuz they keep playing the OHMSS music.
The Le Carre example I certainly like, but don't know if we could map that onto a cinematic Bond film plot, even a cynical Craig era one. People are already complaining about M's moral ambiguity in this new one, and MI6 incompetence in recent films. It seems demand is for more conventional clear cut good and evil. The Sinatra example is a bit too different than a Bondfilm so I cant imagine how it could be adapted, and Ive never seen the John Wayne film but that too sounds too far removed (as is A Farewell to Arms)
I've been thinking of my example above where Bond lives to be 95. I like that as a possible final Bond story, and all who believe Bond to be indestructible should like it too; he's survived all those exploding buildings, lung cancer and liver damage certainly aren't going to take any years off his life. But... that would make for a boring film, seriously imagine if Bond25 were Craig in old man makeup not doing anything except cashing his government pension checks. That makes for clever short story, but lousy movie.
I for one have long been begging for a more conventionally structured CraigBond film, where the villains headquarters explodes at the end, and this is actually what we got, complete with liferaft. To me it makes sense, if Bond is not going to live to be 95, he's going to go out in one of those exploding buildings. So what we get is a combination of both possible stories, a tragedy where the hero dies in the end, and a conventionally structured Bond film with exploding headquarters and escape on the liferaft. Now imagine if he'd just died in a random dark alley like Mathis, then we'd really have something to complain about.
In the new film what are the choices made in the very beginning that make the tragic finale inevitable? I don't believe there are none, I don't believe its a tacked on shock ending that has not been foreshadowed. Like Bond choosing to save Tracy from her suicidal impulses, there is something Bond chooses in the first scenes of this film that sets the tragedy in motion. I think its his refusal to listen to Madeleine when she says she has something to tell him. The reason he does so is because he can't trust, and that trust issue has been triggered by what just happened at Vesper's tomb (paralleling Madeleine's own dream reopening her childhood trauma). Despite all the danger of that attack in Matera, they do survive but their relationship breaks down due to Bond's own trust issues, and his mistake is putting her on that train, Had he chosen differently the whole story that follows may have played out differently and he may still be alive with wife and child. And just as FlemingBond is the wrong person to save Tracy's life due to his job (we're warned of this as early as Moonraker) , CraigBond is the wrong person to attempt any committed relationship, due to those trust issues we've known about since his very first film.
comparing to other plots makes me think of Casablanca, because the phrase deciding to "put her on that train" rolls of the tongue so easy: in Casablanca the decision to put Ingrid Bergman on that plane is the right thing to do, and the internal struggle Bogie goes through to make that decision is the drama of the story. Once he decides, he has finally done the right thing and the story is over.
Whereas CraigBond's decision to put Madeleine on that train is the wrong thing to do, a decision made impulsively driven by emotion, emotional problems long established. And this wrong decision is where the story really begins.
I want to post the results so far in the NTTD poll. The poll is still running and I welcome everyone to vote there. So far 46 people have voted. 6 is top marks.
6: 8 votes
5: 10 votes
4: 13 votes
3: 3 votes
2: 4 votes
1: 8 votes
The thing is, you wouldn't need to literally duplicate the plots so much as recognize that the groundwork has to be laid. However, the tone and tenor of the drama itself ultimately informs us of just how dark and tragic the story is.
For instance, OHMSS, for all its sadness at the end, is for the most part a spirited escapist adventure. It doesn't weigh itself down with the heavy stuff, even though it has a lot of elements that could -- suicide, deception, murder and mass murder, weapons of mass destruction, and so forth. It's essentially a melodrama, an entertainment, but the end feels inevitable, in part because it begins with Tracy's attempt at suicide but also because it repeats themes all the way through -- time, legacy, genealogy, birth/marriage/death, and so forth. This is reflected in the opening credits and theme song(s). Every part reinforces the other. Even Blofeld's ransom for the virus addresses these issues because he just wants to be left alone to live the rest of his life free. He's tired of the game, too.
On the other hand, LeCarre hits all the numbers for a classic tragedy. We see the model for the entire plot in the first 10 minutes. The story never lets up on its dreariness, though it makes the point that without at least some sense of hope and honor in its nihilistic world, no one could survive. So, Leamas clings to his beliefs, despite his cynicism, and this is his fatal flaw. The story is filled with irony, including that Leamas knows how the game is played, and yet he's played by his superiors.
Something else about that story -- Leamas isn't stupid. His mistake -- which is understandable -- is he trusts his side. He shouldn't, but of course he does. As dirty as the business is, there must be at least some sense of trust to instill loyalty, otherwise there would be no sides at all. Nothing would matter in that world. In the sense that he has value, the British Secret Service does intend to save him at the end, but the price is too high after they kill Liz. Also, because it's presumed Leamas is of Irish extraction, he is perhaps in a more precarious position than if he were English, in much the same way Fiedler, despite his unwavering loyalty, is with the East Germans because he is a Jew, the same for Liz Gold, as well.
But Bond and Swann are quite stupid in NTTD. Bond without question accepts that Swann is a SPECTRE agent. This is the guy who hacked into his boss's computer multiple times, broke into her apartment more than once, and managed to elude the British forces for some time after it was presumed he's dead in order to stay dead. Somehow, he can't take a few minutes to investigate Swann's innocence? And, beyond that, Swann has a child he knows nothing about? And was partially orphaned by an assassin who is still alive? When did Bond lose the ability to investigate? Swann is no better. She can't speak up -- a Ph.D in psychology/psychiatry, for Pete's sake? Her response is to act like an offended housewife and give him the silent treatment? Exactly what did all those years of schooling teach her? There are more issues like this throughout, including at the end.
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is written by a writer who respects his audience and their intelligence. NTTD is written for an audience that says stuffs themselves with popcorn and says, “It’s only a movie."
NTTD is missing much of the glue that holds a story together. It's not enough to mention possibility. Compare, too, how in OHMSS and The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, the hero is the protagonist for the plot. For instance, Bond is told Operation Bedlam is over, yet he continues to pursue Blofeld. His dogged determination -- to the degree of visiting M at his home after breaking into Gumbold's office -- keeps the story pushing on (and because he's the hero, we cheer for him). Leamas is similar. He could walk away from the Circus (or at least as far as any agent could), but when the possibility of getting Mundt is dangled in front of him, it's too much. We may not cheer for him, but we see the possibility for his redemption, no matter how small.
But what does Bond do in NTTD? He is led to Matera by Swann to visit Vesper's grave, a weird conceit that sounds like the sort of psychobabble someone gets from reading a magazine article. Then, he puts Swann on a train and goes away for five years. If anything, Bond is an antagonist. He keeps trying to stop the plot -- he doesn't want to know if Swann is telling the truth, he doesn't want to deal with his job or the world, he doesn't want to help Nomi and Felix, he doesn't push to find out if Mathilde is his child, etc. This is the most passive we've ever seen Bond, culminating in his final decision to just wait for the missiles to get him. Is there a thematic reason for this? If there is, I can't find it. Is Bond happy in his isolation? No. Is he happy without a family? No. Is he content to no longer be a British agent? The story doesn't really address that. He's more cranky at everybody, and like a petulant teenager, just hasn't gotten over it all yet and wants to sulk on his island and sailboat.
Movies tend to write the female characters poorly, but Bond movies, arguably, have constructed at least some layers to them, if through the male gaze. But Swann is the most bafflingly dumb female I can think of in any Bond film. Even when they're ditzy, I at least get their motivation. I don't get Swann's. Why doesn't she tell Bond if she's pregnant? Why does she not want him to know that Mathilde is his daughter? Why does she agree to be Blofeld's analyst when he's the root cause of her parents' murder? Why on earth does she still have the house where one of those murders took place? Did she save the bullet casings, too? Why does she wear stiletto high heels around the villain's lair? Why is she so helpless in the last 20 minutes of the movie when Spectre made a point to show how capable she is both with a gun and in a fight?
A good story answers such questions. It presents its plot in ways that make sense. It does the work for the audience -- it doesn't make the audience squint to connect the dots, as though the story is just a series of clouds rolling by that people want to project shapes onto.
Regarding Hemingway, he has a variety of stories where the main character's death is in their hour of triumph -- The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber, For Whom the Bell Tolls, The Killers (implied) and so forth. That model wasn't necessarily invented by Hemingway, but it certainly was popularized by him, to the degree that there are imitators. The Sand Pebbles, the Steve McQueen movie from the novel, is very Hemingway-esque in that respect. And like any good story, we see the build up, as Jake Holman, the tragic anti-hero, has the fatal flaw of humanity in an inhumane world. He's constantly put in the position to defy authority in order to do the right thing. The end of the story is inevitable -- and it's that inevitability that is what demonstrates the story is working. If you get to the end and can't figure out quite how you got there, it's not a very good story.
I hate to keep harping on this point, but just what kind of a therapist is Swann? If Bond has trust issues and she’s the wunderkind we’re told she is in Spectre, how is it the best thing she can come up with is silence and leaving? That’s it? She has no other insight to offer? No other course of action to consider? If Bond is so far beyond repair, why is she even with him? And why on earth is she carrying his child? She’s drawn like a high school cheerleader regretting that she lost her virginity to the football captain, and if she just ignores him, all the problems will go away. Oh, and she's pregnant. These are not adults, not even in a comic book. For all the ballyhoo about how the older Bond movies somehow were less complex or emotional or whatever than these newer ones, at least the characters acted grown up. Here, they are mired in problems, many of their own making, and their response is to behave like emotionally stunted children in aging bodies to serve the plot.
Gassy Man said:
Bond and Swann are quite stupid in NTTD. Bond without question accepts that Swann is a SPECTRE agent. This is the guy who hacked into his boss's computer multiple times, broke into her apartment more than once, and managed to elude the British forces for some time after it was presumed he's dead in order to stay dead. Somehow, he can't take a few minutes to investigate Swann's innocence?
Craig's Bond is smart about some things and stupid about others. I certainly know people like this, people who are brilliant at their jobs but incompetent in human relations. I've always read CraigBond as the autistic type, who does not understand subtle social cues and has no concept of acceptable boundaries. He doesn't make normal eye contact and he stands way too close when talking. And since we know he has issues about being an orphan he may be especially stupid at acknowledging hints his ladyfriend is pregnant even when everybody in the audience can guess what it is she is trying to tell him. Probably doesn't trust himself to be a father, and denial of the reality may be his instinctive response, rather than shutting up and listening to what she has to say. And that'd be if they were having a good day.
As it happens his trust issues are reawakened big time by the explosion at Vespers tomb, and they are still in the midst of the attack when Madeleine tries to speak in the car. Note that he is indeed still smart enough at his job that he can time the strength of the glass long enough to accuse and terrify Madeleine, but that strange skill that keeps him alive is also what stops him from listening to her. This job he is so good at actually rewards skills of cruelty, not compassion and he is technically being good at his job as he drags out her terror.
Gassy Man also said:
just what kind of a therapist is Swann? If Bond has trust issues and she’s the wunderkind we’re told she is in Spectre, how is it the best thing she can come up with is silence and leaving? That’s it? She has no other insight to offer? No other course of action to consider? If Bond is so far beyond repair, why is she even with him? And why on earth is she carrying his child?
I've forgotten, somebody who's watched SPECTRE more recently may have to remind us. I got the idea she was running that big clinic in the Alps so she must be pretty good, whatever her specialty is.
Again referencing real life, I know people who've gone into psychology or social work because they themselves are survivors of childhood trauma, have put in years of therapy for their own recovery, and when seeking a career choose to use what they've learned to give back to others in similar situations. That may be why Madeleine is such an accomplished psychologist, yet has unresolved childhood traumas of her own. May also be why she is attracted to Bond.
The movie begins with her nightmare, a memory reawakened of her own childhood trauma. She may have repressed that memory for years, so why's it back now? Precisely because she is pregnant, and her subconscious has suddenly worked out she will be putting her own unborn child in the same sort of danger, because Bond is essentially the same sort of man as her father, and even if retired will have enemies of his own one day seeking revenge. Even as she wakes she is sorting through this revelation as she tries to find the moment to tell him what would normally be good news, that may be why she is so slow to spit it out.
Then a few minutes later her fear has come real, as Bond's enemies do choose that moment to return, then before she knows it they're in that car, and she herself and unborn child are in the here-and-now under attack. Just like that childhood trauma she remembered in her nightmare but now its happening for real. We know how PTSD survivors react to the sudden loud noises or any stimuli that prods that memory, it is in fact completely predictable she should be panicking now even if she is a professional psychologist. ...and, this confirmation Bond indeed has enemies who will threaten their child may be exactly why she then errs on the side of not telling him. And also why she denies Bond's paternity when he finally sees the child five years later, and why she has (somehow) kept the child's existence a secret.
All the above makes complete sense to me, and I think is quite cleverly told, much like the ambiguous clues to Vesper's treachery in the first Craig film (the one other bit of storytelling in these five films that impresses me). We should not expect either character to behave like conventional Hollywood heroes, these are two seriously messed up people. And I think Madeleine is attracted to Bond because he too is a damaged survivor of trauma, and because he reminds her of her own father! all the wrong reasons, but women do choose men for all the wrong reasons in real life (as a psychologist she should have spotted that father thing)
As for why she chooses to work as Blofeld's psychiatrist (when she knows he is a master mindgamer and the one man she has most to fear), or how MI6 does not know about the child (but they have been established as incompetent over the last five films)... those are indeed major plot holes, though seemingly needed to make the story work. Are they worse than plot holes in lets say Goldfinger or The Spy Who Loved Me? or are we just more tolerant of those films' plot-holes because we prefer those escapist fantasies?
I've said before CraigBond is Doc Martin with a gun.
watch season 4 of Doc Martin, when Martin learns Luisa is pregnant. This may be more relevant to how CraigBond reacts than how we might imagine any previous Bond reacting. Martin avoids Luisa and develops a plan to return to London, Whenever anybody tries to talk to Martin about Luisa's pregnancy, he says "she has made it perfectly clear she wants me to have nothing to do with this child" even though he has never given her the chance to talk about it, and she is so flustered by his behaviour she instinctively nods and says "that's right!" and walks away. Doc Martin is plenty smart in his job, an idiot in human relations, and Luisa's quite smart too but a bit twitchy.
I suspect Daniel Craig has watched this show.
Well, none of those are plot holes. They just make the story idiotic because we suddenly have to believe the characters are no longer who they have been presented as in order for the story to be told. The plot still works in its hamfisted way. A plot hole is an impossibility, like where did the henchmen come from at the end of Batman (1989). There’s simply no way to explain that within the internal logic of the story.
NTTD just presents its characters as dumb and/or revisions for the sake of its plot. How did Mallory suddenly go from the guy lecturing about democracy and opposing Nine Eyes as a bridge too far to secretly authorizing terrifying weapons of mass destruction that are a threat forever and ordering attacks on islands outside of British territory? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. How does Blofeld, the most dangerous man in Britain, get a bionic eye right under the nose of his keepers, and why exactly do Bond and Swann have to meet him face to face in the age of Zoom? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. Why do Bond and Swann lose all hint of maturity and professionalism? Nevermind, just accept it so the story can be told. And so on.
A major weakness of NTTD is that it has to bend the characters to the story instead of the other way around — unless we accept that Craig’s 5-film arc has been intended as a deconstruction of Bond, a kind of satire on the first 20 or so films. That’s been something I’ve been positing for some time. Then it makes sense why Bond devolves from his relative brilliance in Casino Royale, wheres he's still recognizable as Bond, to his relative buffoonery in NTTD, where he’s hoisted by his own petard at the end.
It’s interesting that you compare Bond to people you've known in order to explain his and Swann’s behavior. A well-constructed story doesn't require us to go outside of itself for us to explain its characters or what happens. I don’t have to know an alcoholic to understand Leamas’ alcoholism or Jake Holman’s cynical do-gooderism to get their characters because the story teaches me about them — indeed, in some ways, that is the story. It doesn't require us to look for possibilities and say because it could happen, then its acceptable and that’s all the writers are responsible for. If that’s the case, Bond could have committed suicide at any point in the previous films. He could have been gay. He could have been a Russian double agent. He could have been an alien. But we know none of these are true because Bond is never given any indications of their probability, nor is anything in the stories. Occam’s Razor, Bond is not suicidal, gay, a double agent, or an alien.
But there’s nothing stopping them from having revealed in, say, Brosnan’s final outing that Bond all along has been working for the Russians. It just would subvert everything we've come to understand about the character, and then we’d have to strain to find clues. Suddenly, the title From Russia with Love takes on a whole new meaning. Maybe Bond was a SMERSH agent with a secret mission to eliminate SPECTRE infiltrators. The same when he kills Alec and gets rid of Koskov. While the writers might be snickering at their cleverness, a lot of us would be outraged that while not impossible, the story comes out of left field and twists characters to fit its arc. The final film didn’t do the hard work of establishing characters, even if we argue there are double agents and duplicitous people in real life. But the subversion might work if we realize the entire point was to deconstruct the character — that he wasn't the hero to begin with and that the filmmakers were satirizing those sorts of movies and our expectations.
I don’t have to know an alcoholic to understand Leamas’ alcoholism
@Gassy Man These posts back and forth between you guys are fascinating and frustrating in equal measure. I'm not going to interfere in your online battle of wits, but I would like to point out from memory of watching the Burton movie [years ago] Alec Leamas was NOT an alcoholic. He's pretending to be an alcoholic so the Circus has a pre-planned excuse to dismiss him and install him in that down at heel admin job. There he meets the girl librarian, a red agent, gets himself arrested for D and D, and is contacted by the UK communist party who believe him ripe for defection. I have not read Le Carre's book for decades, but i don't recall him being an alcoholic in that either. I might be wrong.