26

Re: Gogol's involvement in FYEO

caractacus potts wrote:

Do we really expect the head of the KGB to worry about such details?

It's precisely because he didn't take it into account that I created this topic. Some people consider he shouldn't, other he should.
The risk was huge and your comparison with the actual geopolitical context at that time is quite relevant. 1981 was the year Reagan was elected and the matter of nuclear race was a very important element given the tensions that started to appear at the end of the 70s.

caractacus potts wrote:

a lot of innocent lives were just wasted by the pursuit of some mcguffin that ultimately wasn't that important to the other side.

I know, and I think it's a little bit shocking. But once again, I'm just identifying with the characters and perhaps I should try to be emotionally detached considering the context which mostly explains the events that happened during the movie AND it's conclusion.

27

Re: Gogol's involvement in FYEO

(I wrote this offline before seeing chrisno1’s post number 20 which is similar). I don’t see it as Gogol being involved in the murder of the Havelocks and certainly not something he could have been held accountable for by law or otherwise. He might not even have been aware of them or that they were killed. He hired Kristatos to get the ATAC but would not have been concerned with the details. Sure, he probably knew what sort of man Kristatos was.

It may not have been Kristatos’s idea to kill them either just as long as they were out of the way. He used Locque who paid Gonzales, who actually shot them. Locque was a brutal murderer (according to the info Q received after using the identigraph) and maybe he decided they should be killed. A smarter person would have held them captive on the boat, forcing them to send in reports so the British wouldn’t suspect anything while having a team of his own searching. And maybe even forcing Mr Havelock to decipher his coded notes if, of course, it was realised they were important. Maybe, Gogol would have expected something more along those lines as that makes more sense than drawing attention to what he wanted to achieve. I’m not saying he cared if people died but for diplomatic reasons, it would have been better if they didn’t.

But assuming that Kristatos had ordered the death of the Havelocks, Melina gets justice as the three men involved, Kristatos, Locque and Gonzales all get killed. And we as the viewers get that justice too.

Regarding the end, Bond’s mission is to make sure the ATAC doesn’t fall into the wrong hands and he fulfils that. If he’s not sure he can return it to the British Government (he did have a gun pointed at him and if Gogol had got into the helicopter with it, Bond wouldn’t have been able to get it back) then the next best thing is to throw it off the cliff. That way it can’t be used against the British, again his mission is to prevent that. That was a clever move. (I would have done the same, IF I’d managed to stay alive up until then and a bigger IF I’d actually been able to climb up that mountain!)

I see Bond’s more light hearted dialogue with Gogol “you don’t have it, I don’t have it” as him diffusing the situation rather than letting it escalate.

28

Re: Gogol's involvement in FYEO

caractacus potts wrote:

SeanIsTheOnlyOne
I cant tell if you've actually spelled it out above, but
how would you have rewritten that final scene?

Is your issue just about ethics or do you also want a more conventional closure to an adventure film?
To me, the frustrating "non-ending" is just what this film requires.
Its almost like the Seinfeld episode of James Bond movies, a spy story about Nothing.

Well, I already said the scene itself was relevant because of the context...Bond did the right thing with destroying ATAC and the fact Gogol spared him shows both don't wish any military escalation due to a diplomatic incident. But thinking about Havelock's death and all the events that came after, the issue concerns the emotional frustration this conclusion made me feel, and I just wanted to share it with you guys and see if some people could understand this frustration.

@chrisno1
Well, that's what makes LTK so unique and interesting if you think about it. The movie deals with a moral dilemma the audience can try to analyse through this process consisting in indentifying with a character given the events that occur. Let's be clear, I'm not trying to make any link between FYEO and LTK. I just want to explain the disturbing aspect of some events and the way it made me feel.