Thoughts on Ernest Blofeld
crawfordboon
Posts: 126MI6 Agent
I've often wondered about the Blofeld character, and how it was manipulated to emphasise different elements in different films.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT was there to give a kind of crazed, almost alien interpretation of a meglomaniac at the height of his powers. Then, in 1969's OHMSS, we see asort of semi-retired Blofeld, commanding fewer resources. Presumably his failed plots have udnermined SPECTRE to the extent that he has either been forced to take a backseat, or the organisation itself is withering. He seems more cultured, in touch with his heritage and with an eye on respectability, but he also has a more physical side to him than the Pleasance version, so much so that he is a match for James Bond himself.
By the time DAF comes round, he's getting desperate. Possibly even thrown out of the main body of SPECTRE, he exists in perpetual fear of reprisals (hence the numerous doubles) and is reduced to living as a reclusive imposter in someone else's empire. Probably even more cultured and refined that in OHMSS, but without any sense of being a phsyical threat to Bond. Instead of a hollowed out Volcano or a breathtaking mountain retreat, his main base is now a lacklustre oil rig in the Pacific - hardly the residence of a major world villain. His attempt to blackmail the world powers in DAF seems to be a last ditch effort to revive his status as a threat to the world, but instead he ends up being unceremoniously tossed around inside his rather lame mini-sub. He now lacks major resources apart from the oil rig crew, and has to appropriate Whyte's empire and hire freelancers like Wint and Kidd.
So we can see that Bond's efforts through the various movies have altered, and, in general, reduced, his status, whilst his persoanlity has developed as a means of compensating with his decline as a real threat. He becomes more Bond like with his increased cultural references, but now lacks the resoures to afford the luxury of dispatching employees at will. With henchmen like Metz, Saxby, Franks, and Shady Tree, he's scraping the barrel as it is, he no longer has the likes of Kronsteen, Klebb, Grant, or Largo to run his operations as trusted lieutanants - there are no Number 2s etc in DAF. He's lost ground after his failure in YOLT and his semi-retirement in OHMSS, and now it appears that everything is down to him: there is no SPECTRE apart from his own abilities to create chaos. He is a hunted figure, probably haunted by his previous achievements and failures.
One thing I always wondered is, why don't Bond and Blofeld recognise each other in OHMSS? Is it set before YOLT? Perhaps Blofeld has been dabbling in lastic reconstructive surgery before it's openly acknowledged in DAF. Or maybe its' down to the Code Name James Bond theory, i.e. all the British MI6 agents are given the psydonym James Bond, as hinted at in 1967's CR.
I loved the final death of Blofeld in FYEO - now his reduction is complete - he's almost a sole operator (he does refer to the pilot as "one of my less useful people, suggesting he does have some organisation) and is in a wheelchair and neckbrcae (presumably thanks to the efforts of Mr Bond with his bathosub ten years previously). The wheelchair version is in his element - hostile, menacing, deliciously aggressively evil, and he gets a great payoff when 007 turns the tables on him. Anyone else notice the similarities between Bond trying to kil lBlofeld in the bathosub in DAF, and Blofeld trying to return the favour with Bond trapped in a helicopter? A touch of irony from Mr Blofeld there. Apart from the usual bad back projection (which more and more i consider to be a hallmark of the series) this is a great scene and a fantastic way to finally kill off one of the screen's greatest villains.
Donald Pleasance in YOLT was there to give a kind of crazed, almost alien interpretation of a meglomaniac at the height of his powers. Then, in 1969's OHMSS, we see asort of semi-retired Blofeld, commanding fewer resources. Presumably his failed plots have udnermined SPECTRE to the extent that he has either been forced to take a backseat, or the organisation itself is withering. He seems more cultured, in touch with his heritage and with an eye on respectability, but he also has a more physical side to him than the Pleasance version, so much so that he is a match for James Bond himself.
By the time DAF comes round, he's getting desperate. Possibly even thrown out of the main body of SPECTRE, he exists in perpetual fear of reprisals (hence the numerous doubles) and is reduced to living as a reclusive imposter in someone else's empire. Probably even more cultured and refined that in OHMSS, but without any sense of being a phsyical threat to Bond. Instead of a hollowed out Volcano or a breathtaking mountain retreat, his main base is now a lacklustre oil rig in the Pacific - hardly the residence of a major world villain. His attempt to blackmail the world powers in DAF seems to be a last ditch effort to revive his status as a threat to the world, but instead he ends up being unceremoniously tossed around inside his rather lame mini-sub. He now lacks major resources apart from the oil rig crew, and has to appropriate Whyte's empire and hire freelancers like Wint and Kidd.
So we can see that Bond's efforts through the various movies have altered, and, in general, reduced, his status, whilst his persoanlity has developed as a means of compensating with his decline as a real threat. He becomes more Bond like with his increased cultural references, but now lacks the resoures to afford the luxury of dispatching employees at will. With henchmen like Metz, Saxby, Franks, and Shady Tree, he's scraping the barrel as it is, he no longer has the likes of Kronsteen, Klebb, Grant, or Largo to run his operations as trusted lieutanants - there are no Number 2s etc in DAF. He's lost ground after his failure in YOLT and his semi-retirement in OHMSS, and now it appears that everything is down to him: there is no SPECTRE apart from his own abilities to create chaos. He is a hunted figure, probably haunted by his previous achievements and failures.
One thing I always wondered is, why don't Bond and Blofeld recognise each other in OHMSS? Is it set before YOLT? Perhaps Blofeld has been dabbling in lastic reconstructive surgery before it's openly acknowledged in DAF. Or maybe its' down to the Code Name James Bond theory, i.e. all the British MI6 agents are given the psydonym James Bond, as hinted at in 1967's CR.
I loved the final death of Blofeld in FYEO - now his reduction is complete - he's almost a sole operator (he does refer to the pilot as "one of my less useful people, suggesting he does have some organisation) and is in a wheelchair and neckbrcae (presumably thanks to the efforts of Mr Bond with his bathosub ten years previously). The wheelchair version is in his element - hostile, menacing, deliciously aggressively evil, and he gets a great payoff when 007 turns the tables on him. Anyone else notice the similarities between Bond trying to kil lBlofeld in the bathosub in DAF, and Blofeld trying to return the favour with Bond trapped in a helicopter? A touch of irony from Mr Blofeld there. Apart from the usual bad back projection (which more and more i consider to be a hallmark of the series) this is a great scene and a fantastic way to finally kill off one of the screen's greatest villains.
Comments
Regarding the films and the 'end' of Blofeld, another interesting possibility that you may have overlooked is the return of the character, as the events of the latest film take place before his introduction in the novels.
Blofeld will return in... ?
PS That's Ernst, not Ernest. Far more sinister sounding.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
I predict the unleashing of much unpleasantness.
I'd agree they've significantly diverged, but to suggest the films don't owe "a great deal to the novels" is pushing it a bit. Granted the storylines since '85 have had no literary equivalent, prior to that they owed very much to the books. And ignoring some updates, CR supposedly follows much of the novel.
I'll avoid any unpleasantness, and point out that the movies merely owe their existence to the novels... B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Regardless of the general public's awareness of the literary Bond, it doesn't alter the fact that there is an original source material on which the series is based, and it's when the films become too outlandish and distant from that source material (YOLT, MR, OP, DAD for instance) that the film makers respond by returning to the novels and giving us something that is far closer to Fleming's inspiration (OHMSS, FYEO, TLD, CR).
Minor Spoiler alert...
Blofeld is a fascinating character in the novels, who evolves from a kind of sophisticated and organised gangster via a genial research scientist to full-blown maniacal, homicidal maniac.
To compare and contrast Fleming's inspiration with the screen portrayal might add a lot more weight and bite to your thesis.
where Blofeld really does explain his motives before killing Bond
but theyre revisionist, he claims he was doing humanity a favour by stealing those nukes and launching biowarfare against England
Im sure the blofeld as introduced in Thunderball did not have any such motives, he was a selfcentered blackmailer whod gotten rich since before WWII by selling information to both sides
we actually learn all about his life history as he chairs that meeting in TB, and nowhere is it alleged hes motivated by anyhing other than utterly cynical profiteering
hes clearly gone well beyond the bend by YOLT, and this has affected how he himself sees his own past actions
gotta say though, whenever Fleming describes his everchanging physical appearance in the books, Im fighting the description cuz I see him as a bald man in a nehru jacket with a white cat
in that respect if nothing else, the movies trump the books for me
Frankly I'm rather weary of reading reviews that criticise elements of the James Bond films on the basis that they are not remaining 'faithful' enough to the books. Get a grip here, they have no obligation to. People want to see JB movies and know the elements they want to see. It's often said that half the world's population has seen a JB movie, but I bet a huge proportion of that wouldn't even know there were any source novels, let alone ever read any. So to expect the films to be based more solidly on the books is unrealistic, since any a very small proportion of the viewing public has read the novels.
In their own right the JB novels caused a stir on their release but they were nothing like the sensation that the films became. Without the EON movies, or with a poor film adaptation instead of the suberb ones that were ultimately crafted, JB might have sunk into relative obscurity, as a 50s icon almost forgotten in our modern world. I very much doubt if all the Fleming-worshippers were introduced to him through all his books before hearing of or seeing one of the movies - usually it's the films that create enough of an interest for someone to sit down and read Fleming.
I genuinely think that it's down to the unsurpassed ability of EON to put together such an amazing 40 year chain of successful films that have made James Bond the icon he is. The films are very much their own genre, they are much more what James Bond is all about (at least for the vast majority of casual fans), and the books realistically can only be a small part of that. Their legacy has been crucial in shaping the cinematic Bond, but I would argue that for correct critical analysis it is important to recognise that Richard Maibaum, Terrence Young, Peter Hunt, Albert Brocolli, Sean Connery and others were crucial in 'making the cinematic Bond', which would have looked very different (and would almost certainly have nto been so successful) had otehr filmmakers been involved. The movies are their Bonds from a Fleming premise, and therefore distinct from the purely Fleming books. You can't confuse the two as being one and the same.
the character is the property of the audiences, not the creator, and the majority rules
cant say I agree with it, but I get it
for those many folks who do agree with the above logic,
do you think the same of Tolkien?
I heard many new "fans" saying they didnt care what tolkien wrote and would never read his books, what they cared about was Peter Jacksons film
and there probably is a majority now who only know MiddleEarth because of the film
I can't comment quite so much on LotR, never having seen the films or read the books, but the people you mentioned, who would happily discard the Tolkien books, are not 100% wrong. LOTR seems to be based much more litrally on its source material than most of the Bond films. Does that mean they are better films for it? I guess that depends on how unique or visionary Tolkien was as a writer, and how good a job Peter Jackson did of creating a faithful version for the screen.
It does seem rather sad to dismiss the Tolkien books, but remember, crucially, there is no requirement to have read the books before seeing the films, so in effect the films themselves are built to stand alone. Obvisouly they had Tolkein fans in mind, but also non-Tolkein fans. So it's really each to their own.
It's also crucial to point out that many many films are based on books, but that doesn't stopping us judging them on their own merits, rather than in the light of the source material. I never read 'First Blood', 'Death Wish', or 'The Green Berets', but all strongly influenced the subsequent films. I saw the films in isolation and will comment on them as such, so surely it's not entirely incorrect to do the same for the Bond films. If you've ever commented on a film which was based on a book you've never read or heard of, then this applies to you too.
In my opinion, the overall quality of the films has suffered when the source material has been utterly ignored.
You might see this expectation as unrealistic...and yet it's happening with CR {[] I'm happy that my unrealistic expectations are being better met than any time since OHMSS B-)
Sorry to repeat myself, but if Fleming hadn't written the books, the people you indicated would have all been doing other movies...or making coffins, or whatever...
I'm not sure who's confusing them as being one and the same---that's never happened on these boards, to the best of my recollection; of course a literal translation of the books to film is impossible...more's the pity
You should give the books a chance; I think you'd enjoy them. :007)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
but it was much like the changes made to the plots of the first four Bond films, rather than YOLT on
little changes to dialog, sequences of events, characters dropped or amalgamated, stuff added cuz it looked cool, but the overarching logic of the story was intact and the films were chockful of little injokes that only those whod read the books would get
the only book-to-movie adaptation that i can think of that was close to absolutely literal was The Maltese Falcon, where every line of dialog seems to have survived intact
one thing I gotta say about Fleming, is that ever since the first novel he was trying to get a film deal
and he actually incorporated details from the films in his last couple books (eg more Moneypenny dialog, and assigning Bond Scots ancestry)
so it may be he'd have absolutely no personal qualms with what the filmmakers have done with his creation
us Fleming purists may in fact be the ones hijacking his vision!
If that's your view, then your entitled to it, but I think it's sad to take a huge phenomenon like the Bond films and judge them, not on their own merits, but by some kind of 'Fleming-standard', based on a bunch of throwaway novels from the 1950s that few people outside the Bond die hards will have ever read. Obviously CR will be a little different, and it will be intriguing to see how they adapt a 1953 espoinage novel to be a 2006 action movie, but I'm looking forward to it.
I've nothing against the novels as such, it's just not fair to knock films because they are dissimilar to a novel series written decades before. Clearly all the Bonds owe more to their predecessors than to the books, except the first 6, which are not amongst my faves anyway.
And while we're on the topic, I hate all the die-hard revisionism about OHMSS - ask any member of the public or stand up comedian with any knowledge of the Bonds but without 'Flemingitis', they'll tell you it was a rubbish movie.
Firstly, you can't trash the novels as "throwaway" or "airline" fiction (in another thread) and then claim you have nothing against the novels. Obviously, you do have something against the novels, even though by your own admission you've read only one.
Secondly, as I've said in another thread...who the hell do you think you're talking to at AJB? Bond diehards, that's who! Of course people here are going to talk about the novels, yet you would like us to pretend they didn't exist. You're kidding, right?
Honestly man, I have no clue what you're on about here. Not only do I not care what anyone else thinks about this film, I don't know the revisionism you're talking about. OHMSS has its share of lovers and haters here, and opinions are probably more polarized than for other films due to OHMSS's one-off nature. But am I supposed to dislike it because the "general public" thinks it's crap (or, more likely, doesn't even know it exists)? Nope, sorry -- OHMSS has been my favorite since the first time I saw it. Oh, and not only because of its faithfulness to Fleming -- I read the novel only after seeing the film. Apologies for not fitting into your neat little argument.
Believe it or not, crawford, I think your original post in this thread is really good -- an excellent articulation of the cinematic Blofeld's evolution as a character. Some people responded that the literary Blofeld character also had an evolution about him -- which in many peoples' eyes is better, but in many other peoples' eyes is simply different. It's a shame you decided to answer those responses with novel-phobia and dimestore logic.
It seems, at least to me, that this, allbeit speculative guess, though it is gleamed from slight experience, has more then a litte worthy merit. Because every time that title sequence comes up, you see the name. Every time you browse a bookstore, there they are. (at least in recent time)
I think you're underestimating the interests of the general audience. (a term I hate to use) They used to call "B" movies and pulp magazines "throw aways", now there is a whole generation that analyze and admire them.
'Flemingitis?'
At least I've SEEN all the films (dozens of times), and therefore my opinion---whether or not you agree with it---is informed. You say it's not fair for me to knock some of them because they are dissimilar to the source material...and yet it's perfectly okay for you to knock a series of books you've barely even looked at, or even (apparently) given a second thought...
I'll give you credit, however---you wear your ignorance like a badge of honour. As I am entitled to my view (Thanks!!
I'm glad we had this little chat, 8-) and hope you enjoy the new Bond film.
Cheers!
- The German
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Yes, the films should be recognized as unique achievements of several hundred contributors who've in a sense made James Bond "theirs." However, no, as it's been said by others, the films can never be completely divorced from the source material while attempting to preserve integrity; the novels will always be the standard and rule of the character's essence. To depart from this center will always yield an inferior outcome, such as double-taking pigeons and cars doing corkscrew jumps accompanied by whistle sound effects.
Yes, the novels weren't exactly Tolstoy, though it would be hard to argue that Fleming couldn't write; and, no, the majority of the estimated billion who've watched the films likely had never read one word of Fleming, but they unknowingly experienced Fleming in lesser or greater degree in what they saw.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Really? And you know this how? That is absolute nonsence. OHMSS was, forgetting Fleming, a brilliant film in its own right, featuring wonderful settings, terrific stuntwork, a beautiful story and script and some amazing performances. Lazenby was pretty bad but his physicality and his handling of the final scene were arguably among the best in the series. You may not like OHMSS, fine, but don't act if your views are holy scripture. I consider OHMSS to be a cinematic masterpiece and I will continue to idolise it regardless of what you or any stand up comedian thinks.
As a general rule, please don't start a post like that.
"the films can never be completely divorced from the source material while attempting to preserve integrity; the novels will always be the standard and rule of the character's essence."
There lies our point of difference. Since our views seem irreconcilable on this point, the rest of the disagreement wil lflow from here, with little chance of resolution.
My point, and I happily admit to going overboard a little in some of my follow ups, is merely that when I read reviews of movies like Moonraker, it is frustrating to see comments like "it was too far from the original spirit of the Fleming novels..." etc. As a fan of the cinematic Bond, I want to regard the series in its own right, as the films are mostly just based on the characters created by IF and borrow some of his plot lines and locations. They are far more the property of the likes of Brocolli and Co, who did more to shape the direction of the films that IF, who only saw two released during his lifetime.
The novel Moonraker, for instance, could not feasibly be filmed in 1979 because it was so outdated in comparison to what the public expects. (I am basing this assertion on reading reviews of the book, rather than the book itself). Given that almost everything had to be changed from the novel to make the film credible, it's obviously unfair to drag the spectre of 'Fleming's Bond' around the neck of a movie that wants to be something entirely different, tapping into public craving for camper humour and spectacular space sequences.
When we are discussing the movies we are talking about 'Brocolli's/Maibum's/Hamilton's etc Bond', and for the films, that is the true Bond. Just because Fleming created Bond and wrote the novels first does not make his version superior, or a standard to be followed, or any kind of 'definitive' version. it's up to say whether or not you prefer the interpretation used in the films or the books, but my point is that it is unfair on the films to measure them against the gold standard of the Fleming novels and criticise them if this skewed logic fidns them wanting.
I don't have any agenda against the books, I recognise that they were crucial in starting the series off and giving soem inspiration for some of the early films, but fundamentally, they are not gospel when it comes to James Bond, they're jsut different to the movies, so stop expecting the movies to have more of a flavour of the books, because the Bond movies sell to huge worldwide audiences for whom Bond is more a sharp suited British version of John McClane, Rambo, the Lethal Weapon guys etc. Numerically, this bloc of people, the many who loved DAD and made it the biggest grossing hti of the series, far outweight the Fleming-lovers. Is their view more valid than Fleming-lovers? No of course not, their view is just different because it is based on totally different opinions and views, jsut as superado and I are.
If we each start from seperate poitns of departure on this, there is no way we can reach much agreement. I'm not setting out to be provative, sorry if that's how is seems. I'm just trying to invoke a debate and challenge the accepted wisdom by contending that when speaking about the JB movies, whilst Fleming is still important, his vision is just one ingredient of a much larger recipe for success over the last 40 years, and this should be recognised by removing his stylistic albatross from expectations of the mroe recent 007 films.
You're missing some really good books, cb ?:) but if you watch the new movie, you'll get more of that rotten old Fleming than you bargained for :v
No hard feelings B-)
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't agree. I don't want double-taking pigeons and cars doing corkscrew jumps accompanied by whistle sound sound effects, but I also don't want torture. I hated the first half of DAD, and much of the reason was due to Bond getting captured and tortured.
Fleming was undoubtfully a great writer, but I don't agree that the only cinematic aspects that matter are those that are Fleming-like. Many of the best cinematic aspects (including character) may indeed be Fleming-like but many are not. Additionally there are Fleming-like aspects which I don't think are at all appropiate for the films.
I don't agree with the way that crawfordboon dismissed Fleming, but I do agree with him in that simply because something is Fleming-like, it doesn't make it better or more valid than the elements which are non Fleming-like. It's just different.
Blofeld actually 1st appears in FRWL, all we see is the back of his head and the cat, but he does the usual blofeld thang of appearing to condemn one underlings performance then killing the other while the first watches
then appears again in TB, again we dont see his face
do we learn his name in either movie?
is it in the credits?
SPECTRE is mentioned in DN but theres no clue it has a leader, let alone a bald man with a cat
it could be argued Blofeld is a character created for the movies
Fleming & Kevin mcClory created him and SPECTRE for the original screenplay of TB
this would have been the first film but stuff happened
for wellknown reaons that I wont get into cuz Id have to say the word fleming a few times, DN became the 1st film and TB film 4
but the concept of SPECTRE did work its way into film 1 anyway, and blofelds bald head began appearing in film 2
In response to crawfordboon's example of Moonraker: If this film was to be granted a life of it's own, why even use the title or the villain's name? What would be the point? Why couldn't they have just titled the movie, "Space Shuttle" and call the villain something else? Ergo, my point, that the film series will never fully be able to separate itself from Fleming, even if the producers chooses to do so because Fleming is hard-coded into the character and basic storyline...otherwise, it would be like changing the genetic coding of a hamster to turn it into a parakeet.
In response to Dan Same's example of OHMSS: Because this arguably is one of the most painstakingly faithful adaptations of a Fleming story, you cannot fully appreciate the merits of that film unless you read the book, period. That is a fact; and this is one fact that you cannot go around, ignore or deny. Sure, you can rest on OHMSS' pure entertainment value, but to do so sadly ignores the level of effort and input made by Peter Hunt, et al., in their artistic and intellectual collaboration with Fleming and his written word.
Yep, it's like when we all went to see DAD, we were tricked into getting a dose of Madonna! Apologies to old Ian for suggesting that parallel
1)I can appreciate OHMSS just fine, thankyou. You do not know what OHMSS means to me and I appreciate it far more than for its entertainment value.
2)I have never cricised either Hunt or attempted to deny the faithfulness of OHMSS to the novel. Perhaps you aren't aware that in my first thread on this thread, I DEFENDED OHMSS!
3)Fleming-like elements are NOT more valid than non-Fleming elements. They are simply different. You may believe that simply because you prefer the cinematic elements (including character) which are Fleming-like to the elements which are not, therefore it is fact, well let me remind you that unless you suddenly become ruler of the Bond universe, your opinion is simply an opinion; and one which I greatly disagree with.
"Superado is here to tell us poor ignorant souls what's what. "
Well, it's obvious that you need help. ***strokes Dan Same on the head*** ...you're crying out, the symptoms are all there...
How did I make myself "ruler of the Bond universe?" Please don't preach to me about opinions, because stating them is one thing, but it's totally another when asserting them in the face of others, untiringly, and I mean on and on and on, desperately trying to get in the last word, tire out other people (which you do to me), apparently as your attempt to "win" by the quantity of your arguments vs. the quality/validity (or lack therof).
And how did I "prove nothing"? Just by your ludicrous statement that "Fleming-like elements are NOT more valid than non-Fleming elements. They are simply different..." is evidence in itself that I don't even need to prove anything...you speak loudly about yourself and the weakness of your position. Just look at what you're saying...think about it...no Fleming, no Bond, period. You can take out any of the other extraneous elements added onto the product "after the fact," such as the requisite martinis, tuxedos and the whole EON formula, and you are still left with Bond. You take out Fleming from the series, and you get Austin Powers.
Nonetheless, there are people out there who firmly believe that the whole NASA program has from the begining been a set up on a Hollywood stage, and even Aristotle would not be able to convince them otherwise. You are too predictable, and I can count on another response from you in the form of an F-grade, 2000 word essay that like the others...I won't even bother to read
I'd just like to take the Ned Flanders view, we'll "Agree to disagree."