You Only Live Twice: book and film

osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
I’ve just read You Only Live Twice, and can understand why the film version is completely different. Nothing happens in the book until about the last two chapters. Up till then it mainly consists of conversations, over various Japanese meals, between Bond and Tanaka. Also, the letter to The Times by M, when he thinks bond has been killed in action, is almost a parody of the “stiff upper lip”. Apart from some quite touching scenes at the end with Kissy, the book is a bit of a “non-event”. My apologies to those who like it.

Comments

  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    osris wrote:
    I’ve just read You Only Live Twice, and can understand why the film version is completely different. Nothing happens in the book until about the last two chapters. Up till then it mainly consists of conversations, over various Japanese meals, between Bond and Tanaka. Also, the letter to The Times by M, when he thinks bond has been killed in action, is almost a parody of the “stiff upper lip”. Apart from some quite touching scenes at the end with Kissy, the book is a bit of a “non-event”. My apologies to those who like it.

    I am sorry but wow, what a gross over-simplification of a very complex novel. Bond and Tanaka talked about the fundemental differences between the east and the west and this was coupled with the macbre and poetic atmosphere of japan. Specfically, it's how one culture viewed death as opposed to another*. You Only Live Twice was not meant to be an adventure or thriller, it's kind of operatic in nature and operas are anything but fast paced and filled with action. Lastly, what do you expect from M ? He was always terribly old fashion. He hated Bond womanizing and treated Bond like a little boy. The article in the Times was appropriate.

    * This was the very reason why I was annoyed with the novel's conclusion. Everything in the book foreshadowed Bond's demise and yet he manages to live at the end. Sometimes I think Fleming really did chicken out at the last minute and decided 007 should live.
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    You Only Live Twice was not meant to be an adventure or thriller, it's kind of operatic in nature and operas are anything but fast paced and filled with action.


    This is precisely my point. This is why it needed to be drastically changed for the cinema, which is primarily a visual medium. I have no complaint about the merits of the book as literature, just that it isn't very cinematic. Given this "limitation", you can understand why the filmmakers did what they did.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    edited December 2010
    osris wrote:
    You Only Live Twice was not meant to be an adventure or thriller, it's kind of operatic in nature and operas are anything but fast paced and filled with action.


    This is precisely my point. This is why it needed to be drastically changed for the cinema, which is primarily a visual medium. I have no complaint about the merits of the book as literature, just that it isn't very cinematic. Given this "limitation", you can understand why the filmmakers did what they did.

    I think this would have made an excellent film BECAUSE it was filled with lush with visuals of the natural beauty of Japan. I could easily see someone like David Lean or Stanley Kubrick pulling off a loyal adaptation of the book. Would it have turned people off ? Yeah, I am sure people would have expected another GF or TB and not something as quiet, and yet powerful, as this Bond adventure.

    Speaking of the film, though it was kind of hollow, I actually did enjoy it because of how good looking it was. Ken Adam's sets and Freddie Young's cinematography made You Only Live Twice the most visually pleasing Bond ever. In that respect, they did justice to the book. I wish they both came back for On Her Majesty's Secret Service.
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    Yes, it would probably make a good film in itself, but it wouldn't really be a "Bond" film as we have come to know them. It would be more of a John le Carré or Graham Greene type drama. Good in itself, but not the same, in my view.

    The filmed version of the book is far from perfect, by any means. And I'm not saying that it is an ideal adaptation of the book--just that some sort of radical adaptation needed to be done in keeping with the house-style of the Bond movies. And it is this house-style which contributes to their appeal.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    osris wrote:
    Yes, it would probably make a good film in itself, but it wouldn't really be a "Bond" film as we have come to know them. It would be more of a John le Carré or Graham Greene type drama. Good in itself, but not the same, in my view.

    The filmed version of the book is far from perfect, by any means. And I'm not saying that it is an ideal adaptation of the book--just that some sort of radical adaptation needed to be done in keeping with the house-style of the Bond movies. And it is this house-style which contributes to their appeal.

    John Le Carre ? His novels were brooding and dark. YOLT was far from it; It was colouful and often humorous. YOLT is a bit too leisure to be a drama either, it's escapist fare but not the action packed norm.

    As for the film, I know it wasn't perfect. I just thought it was visually pleasing. The film needed some kind of substance.
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    I thought the way the film handled the "obituary" aspect was more inspired. In the book it seemed a bit clumsy, but in the film it was a fitting plot device.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    osris wrote:
    I thought the way the film handled the "obituary" aspect was more inspired. In the book it seemed a bit clumsy, but in the film it was a fitting plot device.

    I thought that whole situation of "killing" Bond was just needless filler like a lot of the action.
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    It would have been if it hadn't been a reinterpretation of the books "obituary" aspect.

    As I said, I’m not criticizing the book as literature, just saying that it was essential for the cinematic adaptation to give it more action.
  • Ricardo C.Ricardo C. Posts: 916MI6 Agent
    osris wrote:
    It would have been if it hadn't been a reinterpretation of the books "obituary" aspect.

    As I said, I’m not criticizing the book as literature, just saying that it was essential for the cinematic adaptation to give it more action.

    Well we'll have to agree to disgaree then. As for the action, it wasn't terribly interesting either IMO. I like the finale but everything else was sort of, "meh".
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    Yes, I suppose each to his own. :)
  • chrisno1chrisno1 LondonPosts: 3,601MI6 Agent
    My own POV is that while I love YOLT (the novel) and consdier it to be a Fleming masterpiece, I agree with osris that it does not lend itself to being transferred cinematically.
    I do think, however, that the Eon make over was somewhat OTT :v and could have been toned down. The references to Magic 44 are completely omitted and all the philosophising between Bond and Tanaka is binned. Perhaps the biggest crime is the exclusion of Bond's haiku, from wher ethe title of the novel comes. Blofeld's interpretation is ok, but a rather telegraphed. The film is very shallow while remaining marvellously enjoyable.
    It's interesting to note the things from the novel which do remain or are transposed: Dikko Henderson, Tanaka's house, a washing scene (it happens off page), an obliette, a piranha fish pond, fighting with staves, the ninja school, a climb up a castle wall (down a volcan in the movie), an explosion of thermal-power (a volcanic explosion), a day's fishing, an Ama island.
  • osrisosris Posts: 558MI6 Agent
    My own POV is that while I love YOLT (the novel) and consdier it to be a Fleming masterpiece, I agree with osris that it does not lend itself to being transferred cinematically.
    I do think, however, that the Eon make over was somewhat OTT and could have been toned down. The references to Magic 44 are completely omitted and all the philosophising between Bond and Tanaka is binned. Perhaps the biggest crime is the exclusion of Bond's haiku, from wher ethe title of the novel comes. Blofeld's interpretation is ok, but a rather telegraphed. The film is very shallow while remaining marvellously enjoyable.
    It's interesting to note the things from the novel which do remain or are transposed: Dikko Henderson, Tanaka's house, a washing scene (it happens off page), an obliette, a piranha fish pond, fighting with staves, the ninja school, a climb up a castle wall (down a volcan in the movie), an explosion of thermal-power (a volcanic explosion), a day's fishing, an Ama island.


    Yes, the film was OTT. It could have stayed more faithful to the book while still adding some action. I thought the transformation of Dikko from a boisterous Australian, in the book, to a debonair Englishman, in the film, humorous. I'm sure the filmmakers did this as an ironic in-joke for those familiar with the book.
  • jeffchjeffch Posts: 163MI6 Agent
    I can only think that after the huge success of TB, the film makers wanted another over the top movie with lots of action with an even more spectacular evil plot by Blofeld. Which the book YOLT just doesnt have. And since the movie version of OHMSS wasnt made yet the whole revenge aspect was totally lost.
Sign In or Register to comment.