LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
Yes, yes, of course. Thank you for defining megalomania for me :v
)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I wasn't really trying to tell you what the definition of megalomania is, but merely point out how and why Blofeld not blowing James' cover until James himself does so fits that definition.
Why is it such a stretch, based on the actual contents of OHMSS as presented onscreen, to believe that Blofeld knew who "Sir Hilary" was all along but was 'playing dumb'? It's consistent with his characterization as established in YOLT, and is in keeping with the general concept of him being a megalomaniac.
It's hard to come up with a reason why when the writers were only thinking about closely adapting the OHMSS novel for the film and made the choice to have Bond and Blofeld meet for the first time again.
We can all come up with fun theories. Maybe Blofeld wasn't completely sure that Sir Hilary Bray was Bond (they hadn't seen each other in two years, and Blofeld likely did not have a photo of James Bond, or Blofeld might have prosopagnosia) and just in case the men looked similar he didn't want to kill the man who would give him the title he wanted.
In the context of the story as presented in the film, I don't think the producers and writers WERE having Bond and Blofeld meet for the first time.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
)
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Why is that statement funny? There's absolutely nothing in the film itself in terms of the way their interactions are presented that says they haven't encountered each other before.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited October 2015
Irony is funny when it's missed, that's all. Do carry on.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's hard to come up with a reason why when the writers were only thinking about closely adapting the OHMSS novel for the film and made the choice to have Bond and Blofeld meet for the first time again.
It's because Peter Hunt thought the novel was "a fine adventure story" and wanted to keep the film faithful to it.
My full review of OHMSS:
In spite of my aforementioned confusion as to the overall narrative point of the first 30 minutes or so of the movie, I really enjoyed OHMSS. It felt very much like a direct extension of the five previous films, even with a new actor in the role of Bond, and a largely seamless continuation of the SPECTRE plotlines from Dr. No, FRwL, TB, and YOLT, which I appreciated.
I had previously mentioned that I really liked George Lazenby's take on the character of Bond and the chemistry that he had with Diana Rigg, but the thing that I think I enjoyed the most about his performance in the role is that it wasn't honestly all that different from what Sean Connery had done with the character.
Diana Rigg first came to my attention through the role of Olenna Tyrell on Game of Thrones, and, as I noted earlier, her performance here as Tracy reminded me very much of her performance there, not only in terms of the way she interacted with characters like James and her father, but also in the way that she wasn't afraid to speak her mind when necessary and stand up for herself either with her words or her physicality. A good example of this is when she starts playing along with Blofeld's attempt at seduction towards the film's conclusion after recognizing her father's voice and realizing that he and James were on their way to her.
In terms of its story structure, OHMSS felt like it was an almost beat-for-beat repeat/echo/mirror of Casino Royale, which I found both interesting and neat. I also really liked the relative simplicity of Blofeld's scheme in the movie, and thought it was interesting to see him working pretty much independently of SPECTRE since the previous times we'd seen him he'd been working hand-in-fist with the organization and in firm control of its resources and purposes, whereas here he was relying more on a small handful of henchpersons and a large group of 'pawns'/'patsies' in the form of his "Angels of Death".
I was really devastated by the final few minutes of the film even though I knew what was coming, and have to give George Lazenby a lot of props for the way he conveyed the anguish that Bond was clearly feeling in that sequence without actually having to say a whole lot.
Aside from wishing that the overall narrative point of the film's first 30 minutes had been a bit more clear, the only negative I can really point out is that I wish we'd gotten some explanation as to how Bond hooked up with his ally/contact in Switzerland rather than just having the guy show up 'out of the blue'.
Ranking OHMSS against the previous five films I've watched, I'm giving it a 9.5 out of 10, which places it tied with Thunderball as my favorite pre-Craig Bond film thus far. I'm also quite looking forward to seeing how well it flows into the next film on my watch-list, which is going to be For Your Eyes Only (I know I'd said I was switching back to release order and watching Live and Let Die next, but the thing that I realized as I was watching OHMSS is that, if I did that, I would be creating a situation where the events of the movie's conclusion go unresolved/untouched-upon for two films, and that it made more sense in terms of the narrative 'flow' of things to watch FYEO next as I'd originally planned).
I'm also quite looking forward to seeing how well it flows into the next film on my watch-list, which is going to be For Your Eyes Only (I know I'd said I was switching back to release order and watching Live and Let Die next, but the thing that I realized as I was watching OHMSS is that, if I did that, I would be creating a situation where the events of the movie's conclusion go unresolved/untouched-upon for two films, and that it made more sense in terms of the narrative 'flow' of things to watch FYEO next as I'd originally planned).
The problem with watching FYEO next is that Bond's greatest frenemy General Gogol is established in TSWLM. Knowing all about him and his long, complex relationship with Bond is key to fully experiencing FYEO. And it starts in TSWLM. The Moore films after TSWLM can follow in any order, but knowing the start of Bond's relationship with him is necessary. If you want the conclusion to OHMSS, only watch the throwaway PTS of FYEO, then watch TSWLM, and then go back to the rest of FYEO. The throwback to OHMSS and Blofeld in FYEO is not relevant to the story of the film by any means, whilst watching TSWLM first is far more important. You're looking to watch the Bond films in a meaningful way with continuity, and you'd be completely going against your mission by skipping ahead to FYEO. General Gogol's reveal in TSWLM will also have less meaning if you watch any of the films that were made after it first. Also, Tracy is briefly mentioned in TSWLM, and Bond is clearly still upset about her death. FYEO gives closure to the feelings that are brought up in TSWLM. For someone so concerned about continuity, you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice by watching FYEO before TSWLM. Bond does not experience immediate closure after Tracy's death, and neither should you.
I really want to stick with a 3-film set for Roger Moore, but at the same time it seems weird to me to have Blofeld disappear for two movies without explanation given the conclusion of OHMSS. However, if you say that the introduction of this Gogol character is more important for continuity than resolving the Blofeld thing faster, I'll listen to you.
I really want to stick with a 3-film set for Roger Moore, but at the same time it seems weird to me to have Blofeld disappear for two movies without explanation given the conclusion of OHMSS. However, if you say that the introduction of this Gogol character is more important for continuity than resolving the Blofeld thing faster, I'll listen to you.
Are film sets more important than story? I think you know the answer to that.
Blofeld is smart enough a criminal that if he wanted to disappear for a decade he very well could believably. Bond probably thought he was dead after DAF, which could be why he stops looking for him. Resolving the Blofeld story is the least important part of FYEO and has nothing at all to do with the story of the film.
It completely stands alone from the rest of the film, both in story and in tone (the rest of the film is mostly more serious). This scene has nothing to do with what follows, and no reference to it is made at all later. It's essentially not part of the film. Then you can move on from Blofeld and watch the Moore films in the chronological order, which makes the most sense if you want to understand the intricacies of the stories.
With DaF not existing for me, Blofeld just vanishes, but I've decided to try and solve the issue of how much time he ends up disappearing FOR by using TSWLM as the follow-up to OHMSS and my introduction to Roger Moore as Bond, and plugging in AVtaK as the third and final film in my '3 set', so that I go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO (resolution of the Blofeld issue) to AVtaK.
With DaF not existing for me, Blofeld just vanishes, but I've decided to try and solve the issue of how much time he ends up disappearing FOR by using TSWLM as the follow-up to OHMSS and my introduction to Roger Moore as Bond, and plugging in AVtaK as the third and final film in my '3 set', so that I go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO (resolution of the Blofeld issue) to AVtaK.
You have to keep watching in order to find out what happens to Blofeld. You can jump ten years in the future to FYEO?
What exactly did you get wrong in the first 30 minutes of OHMSS?
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
With DaF not existing for me, Blofeld just vanishes, but I've decided to try and solve the issue of how much time he ends up disappearing FOR by using TSWLM as the follow-up to OHMSS and my introduction to Roger Moore as Bond, and plugging in AVtaK as the third and final film in my '3 set', so that I go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO (resolution of the Blofeld issue) to AVtaK.
Speaking of Blofeld, the actor they chose to play the character here bears a rather striking physical resemblance - and has a very similar vocal cadence - to Vin Diesel, which I thought was cool.
Someone in Hollywood certainly thinks so as Vin Diesel is set to be Kojak in a new film, playing the character made famous by Telly Savalas (Blofeld) in the 70's.
With DaF not existing for me, Blofeld just vanishes, but I've decided to try and solve the issue of how much time he ends up disappearing FOR by using TSWLM as the follow-up to OHMSS and my introduction to Roger Moore as Bond, and plugging in AVtaK as the third and final film in my '3 set', so that I go from OHMSS to TSWLM to FYEO (resolution of the Blofeld issue) to AVtaK.
You have to keep watching in order to find out what happens to Blofeld. You can jump ten years in the future to FYEO?
What exactly did you get wrong in the first 30 minutes of OHMSS?
1) With my approach to the franchise, there's not supposed to be 10 years between the movies (yes, there's the technology issue, but that's when the 'Noir' factor comes into play)
2) Compared to the rest of the movie, it didn't feel like there was any obvious narrative point to Bond's interactions with Tracy
1) With my approach to the franchise, there's not supposed to be 10 years between the movies (yes, there's the technology issue, but that's when the 'Noir' factor comes into play)
Even if you can't believe there's 12 years between OHMSS and FYEO, so much happens to Bond in between and there's no reason why that's implausible. You can't deny the existence of DAF, no matter how much you don't like it, and when Blofeld is presumed dead why should Bond still be looking for him? Blofeld doesn't cause any problems after that until he briefy comes after Bond again in FYEO, and Bond has active criminals to worry about.
2) Compared to the rest of the movie, it didn't feel like there was any obvious narrative point to Bond's interactions with Tracy
Now, that's just strange. Can you explain how you feel that Bond's interactions with Tracy have no narrative point?
Their interactions don't really seem to be building towards anything during the first 30 minutes of the movie; it's like he's pursuing her just for the sake of pursuing her, which is jarring given that the relationships he builds with other female characters in other movies don't feel that way (mainly because they happen as an organic part of the overall narrative storylines of the movies of which they're apart).
This feeling could easily have been mitigated if they'd had the scene where Bond meets her father happen earlier than it does, but it doesn't happen until about 33 minutes into the film, leaving the previous 32 minutes to seem like they're happening just for the sake of having them happen (at least IMO).
2) Compared to the rest of the movie, it didn't feel like there was any obvious narrative point to Bond's interactions with Tracy
Now, that's just strange. Can you explain how you feel that Bond's interactions with Tracy have no narrative point?
Their interactions don't really seem to be building towards anything during the first 30 minutes of the movie; it's like he's pursuing her just for the sake of pursuing her, which is jarring given that the relationships he builds with other female characters in other movies don't feel that way (mainly because they happen as an organic part of the overall narrative storylines of the movies of which they're apart).
This feeling could easily have been mitigated if they'd had the scene where Bond meets her father happen earlier than it does, but it doesn't happen until about 33 minutes into the film, leaving the previous 32 minutes to seem like they're happening just for the sake of having them happen (at least IMO).
OHMSS isn't the first time Bond pursues a girl just to pursue her. Tilly Masterson is the same way. Honestly, their relationship up to that point isn't much different than with Sylvia Trench in Dr. No. Cut out the scene on the beach and you have Bond meeting a girl at a casino and then finding her in his bedroom. But Bond and Tracy's interactions are more meaningful.
the relationships he builds with other female characters in other movies don't feel that way
They're not supposed to. Bond's relationship with Tracy is supposed to feel different from the others. It's handled and presented in a different way deliberately, and
Their interactions don't really seem to be building towards anything
You didn't notice that they got married? That's what their interactions were building to, and that's why they're given more emphasis in this story than in the others.
this thread is with each day turning more and more into a mindf..k )
If you imagine him as a 12 year old watching on his tablet We're quite used to these things.....this one is quite amusing. I like him because, for some strange reason, has only seen the Craig era
Did you catch the bit where they romance and Louis Armstrong sings "We have all the time in the world..."
1. For Your Eyes Only 2. The Living Daylights 3 From Russia with Love 4. Casino Royale 5. OHMSS 6. Skyfall
this thread is with each day turning more and more into a mindf..k )
If you imagine him as a 12 year old watching on his tablet We're quite used to these things.....this one is quite amusing. I like him because, for some strange reason, has only seen the Craig era
Did you catch the bit where they romance and Louis Armstrong sings "We have all the time in the world..."
eternity is the term I think )
"You see Mr.Bond, you can't kill my dreams...but my dreams can kill you.Time to face destiny" - "Time to face gravity"
With the other women that Bond interacts with in other movies, I've always felt like I could understand Bond's internal motivations and the external narrative reasons why he was taking the actions he was. With Tracy, though, that feeling just wasn't there, at least not until we get the scene with Draco.
With the other women that Bond interacts with in other movies, I've always felt like I could understand Bond's internal motivations and the external narrative reasons why he was taking the actions he was. With Tracy, though, that feeling just wasn't there, at least not until we get the scene with Draco.
Tracy is an attractive woman. Bond doesn't need any other motivations. Bond doesn't appear to have a mission at this point in the film, so he's just relaxing and being himself.
the relationships he builds with other female characters in other movies don't feel that way
They're not supposed to. Bond's relationship with Tracy is supposed to feel different from the others. It's handled and presented in a different way deliberately, and
Their interactions don't really seem to be building towards anything
You didn't notice that they got married? That's what their interactions were building to, and that's why they're given more emphasis in this story than in the others.
The key caveat to my statement is "the first 30 minutes of the movie".
Once we have the scene where Draco and Bond meet and Bond asks Draco to give him information if he continues pursuing Tracy and the subsequent scene where Tracy basically guilts her father into not waiting to give Bond what he's looking for (which happen about 33 to 36 minutes into the film), everything about their interactions with one another changes because there's suddenly an 'endgame' attached, one that facilitates them organically falling enough in love with one another to make marriage the most likely outcome of their relationship.
With the other women that Bond interacts with in other movies, I've always felt like I could understand Bond's internal motivations and the external narrative reasons why he was taking the actions he was. With Tracy, though, that feeling just wasn't there, at least not until we get the scene with Draco.
Tracy is an attractive woman. Bond doesn't need any other motivations. Bond doesn't appear to have a mission at this point in the film, so he's just relaxing and being himself.
An attractive woman who just tried to kill herself. Even for all of Bond's misogynistic qualities, I never got the sense that he was a callous bastard, and pursuing her just because of her attractiveness when he KNOWS she just tried to kill herself would make him come across as such.
And as far as Bond not having an active mission goes, the impression I got from his later conversations with M was that he was assigned to the perpetually ongoing Operation Bedlam, even if he'd temporarily gone 'off-radar'.
With the other women that Bond interacts with in other movies, I've always felt like I could understand Bond's internal motivations and the external narrative reasons why he was taking the actions he was. With Tracy, though, that feeling just wasn't there, at least not until we get the scene with Draco.
Tracy is an attractive woman. Bond doesn't need any other motivations. Bond doesn't appear to have a mission at this point in the film, so he's just relaxing and being himself.
An attractive woman who just tried to kill herself. Even for all of Bond's misogynistic qualities, I never got the sense that he was a callous bastard, and pursuing her just because of her attractiveness when he KNOWS she just tried to kill herself would make him come across as such.
And as far as Bond not having an active mission goes, the impression I got from his later conversations with M was that he was assigned to the perpetually ongoing Operation Bedlam, even if he'd temporarily gone 'off-radar'.
Bond is still pursuing Tracy, partially because she's attractive and partially because he sees she needs help and wants to help her. He wants to help her because she's attractive. Your problems are because your expectations are different from what the film is. You have very specific expectations that get in the way of you fully understanding and enjoying the films.
At the time, he was not focused on Operation Bedlam and was just off in Portugal having fun. Bond wasn't a very focused spy nor the best employee. You can call him a slacker.
Comments
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's hard to come up with a reason why when the writers were only thinking about closely adapting the OHMSS novel for the film and made the choice to have Bond and Blofeld meet for the first time again.
We can all come up with fun theories. Maybe Blofeld wasn't completely sure that Sir Hilary Bray was Bond (they hadn't seen each other in two years, and Blofeld likely did not have a photo of James Bond, or Blofeld might have prosopagnosia) and just in case the men looked similar he didn't want to kill the man who would give him the title he wanted.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
It's because Peter Hunt thought the novel was "a fine adventure story" and wanted to keep the film faithful to it.
In spite of my aforementioned confusion as to the overall narrative point of the first 30 minutes or so of the movie, I really enjoyed OHMSS. It felt very much like a direct extension of the five previous films, even with a new actor in the role of Bond, and a largely seamless continuation of the SPECTRE plotlines from Dr. No, FRwL, TB, and YOLT, which I appreciated.
I had previously mentioned that I really liked George Lazenby's take on the character of Bond and the chemistry that he had with Diana Rigg, but the thing that I think I enjoyed the most about his performance in the role is that it wasn't honestly all that different from what Sean Connery had done with the character.
Diana Rigg first came to my attention through the role of Olenna Tyrell on Game of Thrones, and, as I noted earlier, her performance here as Tracy reminded me very much of her performance there, not only in terms of the way she interacted with characters like James and her father, but also in the way that she wasn't afraid to speak her mind when necessary and stand up for herself either with her words or her physicality. A good example of this is when she starts playing along with Blofeld's attempt at seduction towards the film's conclusion after recognizing her father's voice and realizing that he and James were on their way to her.
In terms of its story structure, OHMSS felt like it was an almost beat-for-beat repeat/echo/mirror of Casino Royale, which I found both interesting and neat. I also really liked the relative simplicity of Blofeld's scheme in the movie, and thought it was interesting to see him working pretty much independently of SPECTRE since the previous times we'd seen him he'd been working hand-in-fist with the organization and in firm control of its resources and purposes, whereas here he was relying more on a small handful of henchpersons and a large group of 'pawns'/'patsies' in the form of his "Angels of Death".
I was really devastated by the final few minutes of the film even though I knew what was coming, and have to give George Lazenby a lot of props for the way he conveyed the anguish that Bond was clearly feeling in that sequence without actually having to say a whole lot.
Aside from wishing that the overall narrative point of the film's first 30 minutes had been a bit more clear, the only negative I can really point out is that I wish we'd gotten some explanation as to how Bond hooked up with his ally/contact in Switzerland rather than just having the guy show up 'out of the blue'.
Ranking OHMSS against the previous five films I've watched, I'm giving it a 9.5 out of 10, which places it tied with Thunderball as my favorite pre-Craig Bond film thus far. I'm also quite looking forward to seeing how well it flows into the next film on my watch-list, which is going to be For Your Eyes Only (I know I'd said I was switching back to release order and watching Live and Let Die next, but the thing that I realized as I was watching OHMSS is that, if I did that, I would be creating a situation where the events of the movie's conclusion go unresolved/untouched-upon for two films, and that it made more sense in terms of the narrative 'flow' of things to watch FYEO next as I'd originally planned).
The problem with watching FYEO next is that Bond's greatest frenemy General Gogol is established in TSWLM. Knowing all about him and his long, complex relationship with Bond is key to fully experiencing FYEO. And it starts in TSWLM. The Moore films after TSWLM can follow in any order, but knowing the start of Bond's relationship with him is necessary. If you want the conclusion to OHMSS, only watch the throwaway PTS of FYEO, then watch TSWLM, and then go back to the rest of FYEO. The throwback to OHMSS and Blofeld in FYEO is not relevant to the story of the film by any means, whilst watching TSWLM first is far more important. You're looking to watch the Bond films in a meaningful way with continuity, and you'd be completely going against your mission by skipping ahead to FYEO. General Gogol's reveal in TSWLM will also have less meaning if you watch any of the films that were made after it first. Also, Tracy is briefly mentioned in TSWLM, and Bond is clearly still upset about her death. FYEO gives closure to the feelings that are brought up in TSWLM. For someone so concerned about continuity, you'd be doing yourself a huge disservice by watching FYEO before TSWLM. Bond does not experience immediate closure after Tracy's death, and neither should you.
Are film sets more important than story? I think you know the answer to that.
Blofeld is smart enough a criminal that if he wanted to disappear for a decade he very well could believably. Bond probably thought he was dead after DAF, which could be why he stops looking for him. Resolving the Blofeld story is the least important part of FYEO and has nothing at all to do with the story of the film.
If you can't wait to see the resolution of Blofeld, watch the 6 minute PTS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxgwjGn-_Gc
It completely stands alone from the rest of the film, both in story and in tone (the rest of the film is mostly more serious). This scene has nothing to do with what follows, and no reference to it is made at all later. It's essentially not part of the film. Then you can move on from Blofeld and watch the Moore films in the chronological order, which makes the most sense if you want to understand the intricacies of the stories.
You have to keep watching in order to find out what happens to Blofeld. You can jump ten years in the future to FYEO?
What exactly did you get wrong in the first 30 minutes of OHMSS?
Man, this is messing with my head
1) With my approach to the franchise, there's not supposed to be 10 years between the movies (yes, there's the technology issue, but that's when the 'Noir' factor comes into play)
2) Compared to the rest of the movie, it didn't feel like there was any obvious narrative point to Bond's interactions with Tracy
Even if you can't believe there's 12 years between OHMSS and FYEO, so much happens to Bond in between and there's no reason why that's implausible. You can't deny the existence of DAF, no matter how much you don't like it, and when Blofeld is presumed dead why should Bond still be looking for him? Blofeld doesn't cause any problems after that until he briefy comes after Bond again in FYEO, and Bond has active criminals to worry about.
Their interactions don't really seem to be building towards anything during the first 30 minutes of the movie; it's like he's pursuing her just for the sake of pursuing her, which is jarring given that the relationships he builds with other female characters in other movies don't feel that way (mainly because they happen as an organic part of the overall narrative storylines of the movies of which they're apart).
This feeling could easily have been mitigated if they'd had the scene where Bond meets her father happen earlier than it does, but it doesn't happen until about 33 minutes into the film, leaving the previous 32 minutes to seem like they're happening just for the sake of having them happen (at least IMO).
OHMSS isn't the first time Bond pursues a girl just to pursue her. Tilly Masterson is the same way. Honestly, their relationship up to that point isn't much different than with Sylvia Trench in Dr. No. Cut out the scene on the beach and you have Bond meeting a girl at a casino and then finding her in his bedroom. But Bond and Tracy's interactions are more meaningful.
They're not supposed to. Bond's relationship with Tracy is supposed to feel different from the others. It's handled and presented in a different way deliberately, and
You didn't notice that they got married? That's what their interactions were building to, and that's why they're given more emphasis in this story than in the others.
If you imagine him as a 12 year old watching on his tablet We're quite used to these things.....this one is quite amusing. I like him because, for some strange reason, has only seen the Craig era
Did you catch the bit where they romance and Louis Armstrong sings "We have all the time in the world..."
eternity is the term I think
Tracy is an attractive woman. Bond doesn't need any other motivations. Bond doesn't appear to have a mission at this point in the film, so he's just relaxing and being himself.
The key caveat to my statement is "the first 30 minutes of the movie".
Once we have the scene where Draco and Bond meet and Bond asks Draco to give him information if he continues pursuing Tracy and the subsequent scene where Tracy basically guilts her father into not waiting to give Bond what he's looking for (which happen about 33 to 36 minutes into the film), everything about their interactions with one another changes because there's suddenly an 'endgame' attached, one that facilitates them organically falling enough in love with one another to make marriage the most likely outcome of their relationship.
An attractive woman who just tried to kill herself. Even for all of Bond's misogynistic qualities, I never got the sense that he was a callous bastard, and pursuing her just because of her attractiveness when he KNOWS she just tried to kill herself would make him come across as such.
And as far as Bond not having an active mission goes, the impression I got from his later conversations with M was that he was assigned to the perpetually ongoing Operation Bedlam, even if he'd temporarily gone 'off-radar'.
Bond is still pursuing Tracy, partially because she's attractive and partially because he sees she needs help and wants to help her. He wants to help her because she's attractive. Your problems are because your expectations are different from what the film is. You have very specific expectations that get in the way of you fully understanding and enjoying the films.
At the time, he was not focused on Operation Bedlam and was just off in Portugal having fun. Bond wasn't a very focused spy nor the best employee. You can call him a slacker.