From Russia with Love
Dovy
Posts: 206MI6 Agent
1) When No. 1 discusses Bond concerning the death of Dr. No, he made no reference at all to the entire complex built in Crab Key and everything and everyone else destroyed from their project. But at least there was a degree of continuity connecting the two films. This was my second time seeing the film and I think I liked it less this time than the first time. It seemed kind of flat, moreso even than Dr. No, although both are uncomplicated as far as plots go. That Rosa Glebb is something else. I have a feeling many of us have aunts or neighbors who were like Rosa Klebb. But it was a feather in the cap for equality for women in a film besides as a sex object that early being in the early 1960s.
2) How are enormous complexes built without the slightest possibility of exposure to any intelligence agencies at all?
3) Was the part involving the gypsy dancing and fighting just a way to fill up time?
4) Why was a powerful organization like SPECTRE going to "take revenge" merely by using a tape of Bond and Tatiana in bed?
5) How was Grant able to follow Bond so easily all over the place, and even to the train station if he had no tracking device?
6) What did the extensive romantic encounter between Bond and Tatiana Romanova on the train contribute to the flow of the story prior to the death of Kerim Bey? It just seemed to fill time.
7) Where did Bond get the high powered rifle when trying to escape from the helicopter? He was only carrying the case with the Lektor.
8) Did the briefcase with the Lektor change since Bond seemed only to have a regular briefcase when escaping from the helicopter and not the larger one containing the Lektor?
9) How were the SPECTRE agents so sure where they could find Bond and Tatiana and even do so by boat? If they COULD follow them so easily then why didn't they use helicopters again?
10) With all the techniques available to SPECTRE, why didn't they have better means at their disposal to undertake their acts of sabotage?
11) How did Klebb know where to locate Bond and find him in the hotel?
12) Where was the tape the whole time before Bond threw it in the water at the end?
13) What was expected to be the future of Tatiana? She surely wasn't going to end up with Bond.
Comments
Hi, @Dovy.
3) No, it wasn't. This scene (as many others) was transposed faithfully from the novel, which had been very popular. Readers of the book (a more important point then than later) would probably have been disappointed if it were missing, as would Fleming himself.
4) In the novel the Russians themselves are behind the plot and embarrassing the British is the whole point.
But fir SPECTRE to limit itself to doing a filmed tape seems far beneath their interest and capabilities.....
No, they're planning to steal the Lektor machine. The filmed tape is just a by-product.
Fleming was disappointed the gypsy girls didn't tear each others clothes off, as they did in the novel.
(and for those that like this sort of thing, one of the two actresses Martine Beswick also gets in a cavegirl catfight with Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC)
Fleming's books have a lot of travelogue digressions that maybe don't add to the plot, but are part of the experience. You Only Live Twice being most excessive in this regard. The year before he wrote each book, Fleming would travel and research the places Bond would visit and come up with plot ideas. In 1955 he attended an Interpol conference in Istanbul, and his time there gave him inspiration for his next novel. Maybe he visited a gypsy camp while he was there? that sequence does seem exactly like the sort of personal experience he regularly liked to write into his books.
The evil plot to embarrass the British government with a sex tape I never found credible in either version. Its not like James Bond is some celebrity or trusted authority figure; he's a spy the public has never heard of, and sleeping with shady ladies from the other side is part of the job description isnt it? The twist that is added in the film is that SPECTRE is a third party who expects this incident will exacerbate tensions between east and west and maybe lead to WWIII so that SPECTRE may stand aside and profit (Blofeld says as much in his first scene)
Once Bond and Tatiana leave the train, I think they are following the route intended for Grant. Grant talks a lot before he tries to kill Bond, in typical BondVillain manner, I'm pretty sure he said which level crossing h intended to leave the train and meet his contact, and I thought after killing Grant Bond left the train at that same point for the purpose of himself meeting this contact and finding the source of the conspiracy.
I often wonder why the villains spend so much time talking to Bond instead of just shooting him on the spot!ππ
That’s a statement that’s been raised many times before. If everyone in movies did everything logically it’s not only Bond films which would end after 10 minutes of running time!
Have you seen the first Austin Powers movie?
Hi everyone, two weeks ago I was on holiday to Istanbul. Of course I visited a number of James Bond locations while I was there. From Russia with Love took centre stage during my trip because it's one of my favourite films in the series. I visited several locations and made this 25 min video. Hope you like it! Please let me know if you have any questions or tips. Cheers ο»ΏπΈοΈ
YouTube link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8kRqrZl7jw
Thanks for the video! I visited Istanbul about twenty years ago myself, unfortunately before I really became a Bond fan. It's a wonderful city!
I take we arent getting a special 60th anniversary release like we got with Dr No seieng as we are just over a month away from its anniversary?
London's Prince Charles cinema is showing FRWL in October.
However, it's the smaller upstairs screen. Many seats already sold.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
But do I risk a visit to my nemesis cinema the Prince Charles? Shouldn't it be renamed the King Charles?
It seems there wasn't much attempt to answer Dovy's questions. If you ever come back to these forums, these are for you:
1) When No. 1 discusses Bond concerning the death of Dr. No, he made no reference at all to the entire complex built in Crab Key and everything and everyone else destroyed from their project. But at least there was a degree of continuity connecting the two films. This was my second time seeing the film and I think I liked it less this time than the first time. It seemed kind of flat, moreso even than Dr. No, although both are uncomplicated as far as plots go. That Rosa Glebb is something else. I have a feeling many of us have aunts or neighbors who were like Rosa Klebb. But it was a feather in the cap for equality for women in a film besides as a sex object that early being in the early 1960s.
2) How are enormous complexes built without the slightest possibility of exposure to any intelligence agencies at all?
From the outside, the setup on Crab Key looks like a mining plant. In fact Leiter says in Dr No that reconnaissance planes flew over and saw that it was Bauxite mine – nothing illegal about that,
3) Was the part involving the gypsy dancing and fighting just a way to fill up time?
Already answered by the users above. You could argue every scene in every film is a way to fill up time.
4) Why was a powerful organization like SPECTRE going to "take revenge" merely by using a tape of Bond and Tatiana in bed?
Spectre’s plot was ultimately to kill Bond and then return the Lektor to the Russians for a fee. With the tape, they were going to try to make MI6 look stupid for allowing Bond to get mixed up with a Russian cipher clerk.
5) How was Grant able to follow Bond so easily all over the place, and even to the train station if he had no tracking device?
He does have eyes and ears. In the opening scene it is established that he is good at being stealthy. The fact that he was at the train station and on the right train is possibly through an intercept of Kerim Bay’s network.
6) What did the extensive romantic encounter between Bond and Tatiana Romanova on the train contribute to the flow of the story prior to the death of Kerim Bey? It just seemed to fill time.
Same answer to 3 above.
7) Where did Bond get the high powered rifle when trying to escape from the helicopter? He was only carrying the case with the Lektor.
When he escapes from the train, he is carrying his attaché case and the Lektor case. He puts his attache case in the back of the truck with Tania and then takes the Lektor case with him in the front of the truck. He probably makes a stop off screen to gather the rifle later whilst also emptying his bladder.
8) Did the briefcase with the Lektor change since Bond seemed only to have a regular briefcase when escaping from the helicopter and not the larger one containing the Lektor?
As I said in the previous point, Bond has both cases just before he drives off.
9) How were the SPECTRE agents so sure where they could find Bond and Tatiana and even do so by boat? If they COULD follow them so easily then why didn't they use helicopters again?
Possibly the boat had a tracker on it. Also Morzeny says in the scene when the Spectre boats appear that they are trying to stop Bond's boat and not to sink it. Helicopters with grenades could probably not stop a moving boat without sinking it.
10) With all the techniques available to SPECTRE, why didn't they have better means at their disposal to undertake their acts of sabotage?
Spectre probably only discover that the mission was a failure shortly before the final meeting between Klebb and Kronsteen. They probably only have time to send one nearby helicopter and the group of boats before Bond and Tania enter more heavily populated areas which means that would have to call off large scale interceptions.
11) How did Klebb know where to locate Bond and find him in the hotel?
A good question here. She probably got a tip off from somewhere. How, exactly when and by whom has to be left to imagination.
12) Where was the tape the whole time before Bond threw it in the water at the end?
He probably put it in one of his pockets.
13) What was expected to be the future of Tatiana? She surely wasn't going to end up with Bond.
Klebb tricks Tania into thinking she is doing the whole mission for Mother Russia. This is what Grant mentions. She was probably told by Klebb to go to London with Bond where should await further instructions.
I think that Goldfinger and Thunderball were the films that set up the idea that if Bond is carelessly killed, the whole villain's plan will be destroyed. Therefore Bond is usually kept alive by the villain up to the last minute so the villain can realise his/her plan without interference from the outside world. Or they try to set up a kill that makes it look like Bond died by accident or natural causes.
I don’t think the plan would have been destroyed. If Goldfinger had let the laser do the job then 008 would have been the replacement. It would take time to get him to Switzerland. In the meantime Goldfinger has gone to Kentucky. Even when 008 got there he would not have been able to infiltrate the stud farm, thus not knowing the Fort Knox plan. Pussy would not have been turned into acting for the good guys and the bomb would probably have been detonated. So, in my opinion, it was a stupid idea not to kill Bond then and there by the laser.
That was Richard Maibaum's opinion as well!
You are right - the plan would probably have succeeded even if Goldfinger had killed Bond on the laser table. But he doesn't know that at that moment. He obviously gets a bit spooked once Bond mentions Operation Grandslam and thinks in that moment that if Bond's life is spared, he will have less trouble. (Also no one has to clear up the blood and guts).
Considering that Goldfinger seems to get a kick once Bond discovers the real plan during their conversation outside, and also he proceeds to terminate all the gangsters after telling them the actual scheme of Operation Grandslam, I think we can assume that Goldfinger is simply a guy who loves showing off his ingenuity to his enemies whilst toiling with them.
I know I am at risk of being berated here, but Goldfinger was never one of my favourite Bond films. Granted I wasn't alive in 1964 so I have no idea of what the cultural impact was on society at the time but I find the film to be heavily overrated.
10) With all the techniques available to SPECTRE, why didn't they have better means at their disposal to undertake their acts of sabotage?
To complete @sinlum's excellent answer, I think that's what makes the story extraordinary. Kronsteen is a chess champion and his stratagem looks perfect...on paper. He has 'anticipated every possible variation of counter-move' except...Bond's sixth sense when death is about to strike. The fact this tiny detail about the briefcase and Bond's survival instinct lead to such a slap in the face, against all odds, is just delightful.
After Kronsteen's failure, Blofeld is aware the humiliation of MI6 is no longer on the agenda and retrieving the Lektor becomes SPECTRE's top priority. First Morzeny with the boats and then Rosa Klebb in the hotel room. The more SPECTRE fail, the more they're taken aback and the less their methods are creative.
Red Grant is a crap recruit, I mean what is he doing being swayed by the promise of gold sovereigns, it's out of character. No hint of greed in his makeup until then. Still, we have to overlook it.
Kronsteen's plan isn't so bad really.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
@sinlum said: I know I am at risk of being berated here, but Goldfinger was never one of my favourite Bond films. Granted I wasn't alive in 1964 so I have no idea of what the cultural impact was on society at the time but I find the film to be heavily overrated.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
last time I watched the Connerys straight through, I realised what sets Goldfinger apart is the dialog, the music and its integration, and the pacing. It is full of the most classic quotes in the whole series, the Bond vs Q dialog, Bond vs Pussy, Bond vs Goldfinger. and the slick pacing is the reason it took me several viewings to finally notice Bond does close to nothing for the third quarter of the film. Whereas Thunderball is more packed with plot and events, yet moves sluggishly in comparison. I think the difference is in the telling of the story rather than the story being told: Goldfinger is a well told story
Goldfinger is also a bit standalone. It's one of those classic movies that got shown on §970s telly like The Sound of Music, The Great Escape and maybe Hannibal Brooks, it has a slight German/Nazis in Europe vibe to it, it's very classic in its stylings. In a mad way, it probably looked good on a small black and white telly, too - while other Bonds I feel would suffer.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
The way Fleming describes Grant in the first chapter:
To judge by the glittering pile, this had been, or was, a rich man. It contained the typical membership badges of the rich man’s club-a money clip, made of a Mexican fifty-dollar piece and holding a substantial wad of banknotes, a well-used gold Dunhill lighter, an oval gold cigarette case with the wavy ridges and discreet turquoise button that means Faberge, and the sort of novel a rich man pulls out of the bookcase to take into the garden-The Little Nugget– an old PG Wodehouse. There was also a bulky gold wristwatch on a well-used brown crocodile strap. It was a Girard-Perregaux model designed for people who like gadgets, and it had a sweep second-hand and two little windows in the face to tell the day of the month, and the month, and the phase of the moon.
I agree it's a little bit less obvious in the film, but we can also see the sovereigns as a writing means to show Grant's desire of control and domination, This feeling of absolute power, especially considering the way Bond is currently standing.
'This man knows he's about to die and he'll do anything to get an insignificant cigarette I can provide before I kill him. Fifty gold sovereigns as a mark of subjugation from my victim. So delightful.'