Casino Royale Question (MAJOR spoiler)
Mike Feeney
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Maybe your responses will make me feel dense for asking this, but why
did Vesper choose to commit suicide? It seemed to me that she
intentionally chose to drown rather than let Bond free her from the
elevator. But why? I know M explained to Bond that Vesper's
boyfriend was being held hostage. So this would imply that she was
taking the money to the kidnappers in order to pay off a ransom demand:
she gives them the money and they release her boyfriend, right?
Bond shows up unexpectedly and all hell breaks loose... okay, but I
still don't understand why she would then decide to drown herself.
What does that accomplish? How does it help the situation with her
boyfriend (which was apparently her motivation for all of her actions)?
Mike
Surprised -- very pleasantly surprised -- that I enjoyed this film much
more than I had anticipated I would. I went into the theater expecting
another disappointment on the scale of TWINE or LTK, but instead this
film most felt like OHMSS to me (which I mean as a huge compliment).
Of course, it was no Moonraker either -- but hey, what movie could be?
That kind of brilliance comes along only once in a lifetime! ;)
GSHATTERHAND
ask! If you're dense, so am I. (Shut up, you guys!)
For all the reasons you list, I cannot understand why Vesper would
chose to die. It makes no sense to me. I read the novel less than a
year ago but couldn't recall if I was missing something. I was going to
go back over it before I posted the same question.
If no better reason is given for Vesper's actions than is now apparent,
that's going to be a real flaw in a generally very intelligent Bond
film.
Incidentally, I'm glad you enjoyed the film. But I admit I was kind of
wondering if you might have a similar take to my own - that CR totally
lacked that hard-to-define fantasy element and larger-than-life feel
and action that set the best Bond films apart and made them special.
If YOU, of all Bond fans, don't feel that way, I just may have to give
CR a second chance.
All the best,
GSHATTERHAND
JHause
the government? Also, in the melodramatic sense, because she had
betrayed Bond and couldn't be with him?
James Prine
> Incidentally, I'm glad you enjoyed the film. But I admit I was kind of
> wondering if you might have a similar take to my own - that CR totally
> lacked that hard-to-define fantasy element and larger-than-life feel
> and action that set the best Bond films apart and made them special.
I think they deliberately excised the fantasy element for something a
bit more believable. I welcomed the change.
One point...there were several, but this one particularly interests
me...is how and why Bond made his second kill. Since he wasn't yet a
"licenced trouble shooter" as yet, what business did he have
liquidating the second man, particularly when it appears that it was
sanctioned work authorised by M?
Perhaps M gave Bond a "learner's permit"?
Anyone?
Thanks, and best,
James
GSHATTERHAND
is that M can order any of her agents, double-0 or not, to kill a
particular target. That's not the same as being "licensed to kill,"
which gives an agent the option to kill whoever and whenver they feel
it's necessary.
Two kills is a requirement to become a double-0, licensed to kill, but
does not guarantee you will be granted that status.
Alric Knebel
> Thank you Mike Feeney, for asking the question I was embarrassed to
> ask! If you're dense, so am I. (Shut up, you guys!)
>
> For all the reasons you list, I cannot understand why Vesper would
> chose to die. It makes no sense to me. I read the novel less than a
> year ago but couldn't recall if I was missing something. I was going to
> go back over it before I posted the same question.
She chose to die because she had betrayed Bond so thoroughly. She had
been informing the terrorists all along. She simply was grief-stricken,
and there was no way she'd ever be free of them, which would make having
Bond's love impossible.
> Incidentally, I'm glad you enjoyed the film. But I admit I was kind of
> wondering if you might have a similar take to my own - that CR totally
> lacked that hard-to-define fantasy element and larger-than-life feel
> and action that set the best Bond films apart and made them special.
That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I for
one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material. I don't
know how anybody can sit through all that silliness. Recent espionage
films have raised the bar, and made Bond look even more ridiculous than
he already did. By bringing it back to basics, they're hoping to
revitalize the series.
--
______________________________________________
Alric Knebel
http://www.ironeyefortress.com/C-SPAN_loon.html
http://www.ironeyefortress.com
WQ
--- In the book Vesper explains in her suicide note that she had become
a double agent because of her Polish lover who was with the RAF. He
was captured and tortured by the Russians who then learned about her
through him and "persuaded" her into spying for them to spare her
lover's life. This was when Le Chiffre entered the picture and she
learned of Bond's involvement in the mission, which she disclosed to
the Russians. After what happened - Vesper falling for Bond, Bond
getting tortured himself - Vesper found herself at an impasse. She
knew she would lose Bond by telling him that she was a double agent and
also that her life was at risk from SMERSH after becoming too close to
Bond, but she also didn't want him to die because of her as a result,
so she felt no choice but to kill herself. In the film M summarizes it
more simply by telling Bond that she did it to save him. It would seem
that Vesper's story might get an expanded treatment in the next film
because there was mention of the necklace she wore in CR, which we
learned from Bond that he thought it had been given to her by someone
who must've felt something special for her. This would lend some
credence to the next film's title maybe being The Property of a Lady.
So I guess we can perhaps expect to see the Polish lover in the next
film, too.
>
> All the best,
> GSHATTERHAND
Alric Knebel
The second kill only makes it OFFICIAL, that this is what you are, an
official assassin, and you're now licensed to operate without someone
constantly looking over your shoulder. How else could you ever get to
be a double-O? What was cool about this part of the movie was, the
second target was smug in his knowledge that THIS can't be an assassin,
overlooking the fact that he could be the fulfillment of his
requirements. In the end, BOTH kills by Bond dealt with this same case,
and both became his prerequisite for his license to kill. Nice turn.
Larry Gold
He wrote it!
I suppose as we saw that Bond still loved her, if she survived it would not
have made him the "cold hearted" killer we know and love
And i suppose the million dollar question was "did she also love him"
"Mike Feeney" <strom...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1164252876....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Barry King
Mike Feeney wrote:
> Maybe your responses will make me feel dense for asking this, but why
> did Vesper choose to commit suicide? It seemed to me that she
> intentionally chose to drown rather than let Bond free her from the
> elevator. But why? I know M explained to Bond that Vesper's
> boyfriend was being held hostage. So this would imply that she was
> taking the money to the kidnappers in order to pay off a ransom demand:
> she gives them the money and they release her boyfriend, right?
> Bond shows up unexpectedly and all hell breaks loose... okay, but I
> still don't understand why she would then decide to drown herself.
> What does that accomplish? How does it help the situation with her
> boyfriend (which was apparently her motivation for all of her actions)?
I'm gonna have to see the film again to decide how much of this
explanation is apparent from the film and how much I bring with me from
the novel, but how's this....
Vesper's motivation up to and including entering the alternate bank
account was to rescue (or at least to avoid the execution of) the
Algerian boyfriend. She's still wearing the Algerian knot necklace
after that; she still has hope for him. This is the movie's version of
the Polish boyfriend Vesper tells of in her suicide note in the book,
who was allowed to write to Vesper as long as she continued to
cooperate. At some point during their sailing escape from the world
(the film's version of the automobile holiday down the French coast)
Vesper's allegience changes from the Algerian boyfriend to Bond (she
stops wearing the necklace.) At that point, the best Vesper can hope
for is to protect Bond as she failed to protect the Algerian; she knows
that her betrayal of Bond is something their love could never overcome.
Her delivery of the money is her attempt to make the Organization's
thugs go away and leave Bond alone; I don't think she has any further
illusions of saving the Algerian lover. M says she probably did not
expect to be allowed to live after delivering the money and I think
that even if she had she might well have gone the route of her literary
counterpart in despair over so completely ruining what could have been
her (and Bond's) chance at happily ever after. Drowning in the
elevator cage seemed preferable to facing hate in those blue eyes....
Again, I think I may be importing some of this explanation from the
novel. So much of the film seemed so perfectly in tune with the
character and tone of Fleming's Bond that I find myself merging them
almost unconciously. Your question will give me something specific to
watch for when I watch the film again, which I had already planned.
I gonna have to see it another time or two (or more) and give it some
time to be sure, but this film may just end up my favorite of the
entire series. Nice to see we have another bit of common ground
regarding it, Mike.
Though it's always entertaining to disagree with you....
--
Barry King
--
"The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man
who cannot read them."
-Mark Twain
Mac
> That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I
> for one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
> HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
> books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material.
Woah! Fantasy has EVERYTHING to do with Fleming; the extraordinary
characters and events are what sets Fleming apart.
CASINO ROYALE, as grounded as it is in comparison to some Bonds, is
*still* a fantasy.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas isn't really one for hotels that place mints on the
bed, but the Drury Inn take it too far..."
Jeremy Kareken
GSHATTERHAND wrote:
> ...CR totally
> lacked that hard-to-define fantasy element and larger-than-life feel
> and action that set the best Bond films apart and made them special.
>
If you honestly feel that the construction free-running chase could
have been anything other than fantasy, that any government would ever
bankroll someone on a poker game, that terrorist wives in flimsy satin
gowns throw themselves at agents because they're overcome by a winning
smile...
then we need to talk.
I have this bridge, see...
Paul Clarke
> That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I for
> one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
> HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
> books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material. I don't
> know how anybody can sit through all that silliness. Recent espionage
> films have raised the bar, and made Bond look even more ridiculous than
> he already did. By bringing it back to basics, they're hoping to
> revitalize the series.
>
>
I agree. Not many would tolerate a film adaptation of "The Sign of Four"
that featured a suave playboy Sherlock Holmes with sci-fi gadgets and
camp humour grafted on. Why are so many tolerant of the same thing of
another beloved character in popular fiction?
--
“My dear girl, there are some things that just aren't done, such as
drinking Dom Perignon '53 above a temperature of 38 degrees Fahrenheit.
That's as bad as claiming supreme executive power because some watery
tart threw a sword at you.”
***
http://www.filmfanaticoasis.blogspot.com/
GSHATTERHAND
> have been anything other than fantasy, that any government would ever
> bankroll someone on a poker game, that terrorist wives in flimsy satin
> gowns throw themselves at agents because they're overcome by a winning
> smile...
Yeah, Jeremy, but those fantasy elements show up in dozens of movies. A
free-running foot chase isn't exactly unusual. I've always admitted the
one in CR is a masterpiece. It's not that earlier Bond films NEVER had
great "regular" action scenes. It's that most of the Bond films had
lots of "fantastic" uniquely Bondish scenes.
But more broadly, I'm referring to the general tone and look of the
film which, until now, has always set Bond films apart. I can't think
of one out of what must be hundreds of Bond copycats over the years who
have ever succeeded in copying Bond. The closest, IMO, to capture the
"tone" of a Bond film was the first XXX film with Vin Diesel.
Several films over the years have managed to come up with Bondish
scenes and situations in an otherwise non-Bond-film. You know it when
you see one because you probably say to yourself - "Wow! That was
worthy of a Bond film!"
Now, in a dire turnabout for this Bond addict, CR has succeeded in
capturing and outdoing the more mundane tone of regular actions films.
The incredible fights in CR take place in rooms, on stairs, old
buildings, hallways, etc. Watch Bond fight the huge oriental near the
beginning of YOLT, on that fantastic Ken Adam set. Notice the open
feeling, the many long shots, the, I don't know . . . exotic look and
feel to the scene. You know its Bond.
Yes, Bond's fight on the steps in CR is a great action scene. The same
kind you see in legions of non-Bond films but still a great action
scene. Just doesn't feel like Bond to me.
I always have a terrible time trying to define the Bond element I miss
in CR without sounding like I'm hankering for a return to TSWLM, MR,
and TMWTGG. But those are not my favorite films. My top five are OHMSS,
GF, FRWL, DAD, and TWINE.
And I think the grimmest of them, TWINE, is loaded with that fantasy
element that sets Bond apart. A perfect example is the character of
Renard. Another example is the giant hologram used to illustrate the
nature of the terrible injury Renard has suffered. It's just a brief
scene but, man, I know I'm watching Bond!
> I have this bridge, see...
Ha! Obviouisly you think you're dealing with a rube here. I'm gonna
have this bridge thoroughly checked out by an engineer before I even
think of buying it. And I'm not paying you one penny above market value.
GSHATTERHAND
Mac has already responded to your post with the essential point that
Bond has always been about fantasy starting with Ian Fleming's unique
novels.
Regardless of any disagreements among us about how much fantasy should
appear in the films, fantasy is part of the equation.
Now I realize what you were getting at. You don't want silliness in the
films. Neither do I. I want just a bit more fantasy in the mix, not
spinning car jumps over canals and Beach Boy tunes.
In fact, I think CR's Bond is, in the mold of Connery, going to require
a particularly dangerous, bigger-than-life set of villains to even be a
threat to him.
If Bond films reach the point where nothing about them would be
ridiculous in the real world, I mean if you chose to apply real-world
standards and really analyze it, then I'm not sure anyone would enjoy
them.
GSHATTERHAND
especially since you didn't just refer to the novel but
cross-referenced the film and novel plot lines.
I guess I can understand why Vesper would do it.
I kind of wonder if Bond, with his understanding of the dirty,
complicated, violent world of espionage, might not have forgiven her.
He fell in love with her in the first place, IMO, partly because they
were equals. But that would be a problem with the novel, too. And if
Vesper didn't check out we wouldn't have the film.
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
> The incredible fights in CR take place in rooms, on stairs, old
> buildings, hallways, etc. Watch Bond fight the huge oriental near the
> beginning of YOLT, on that fantastic Ken Adam set. Notice the open
> feeling, the many long shots, the, I don't know . . . exotic look and
> feel to the scene. You know its Bond.
>
> Yes, Bond's fight on the steps in CR is a great action scene. The same
> kind you see in legions of non-Bond films but still a great action
> scene. Just doesn't feel like Bond to me.
I dunno - I mean to me that and the bathroom fight at the beginning are
the closest the series has come in years to my own favourite Bond
action sequence - the train fight in FRWL. All three have that
down'n'dirty, brutal Fleming feel to them, which I think the series had
suffered from having lost over the years.
The one action scene in CR which I do find just a little superfluous is
the very last one (although its tragic ending is superbly played). EON
have never been too keen on muted endings and even of course felt the
need to 'spice up' FRWL's climax with not one but two unnecessary
action scenes, so it's nothing new for them to try to finish the movie
with a bang. But heck, the rest of the movie more than makes up for
this minor shortcoming IMHO.
Best
Phil
Disneygeek
Since the first kill was the man's contact. It may have still been the
same assignment.
After all, you have to have two kills to <be> a "00," then you have to
be able to kill people if it's warrented without actually <being> a
"00."
JHause
made that movie already -- about a dozen times, and each version got
worse.
The GREAT thing about Fleming's books is that one would be a complete
fantasy, one would be realistic, etc., and Fleming kept tweaking the
formula and surprising the reader. Why does every Bond movie have to be
EXACTLY THE SAME???
The Shadow
She took the coward's way out, could not live with the fact that she
betrayed James Bond.
Alric Knebel
> Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>
>>That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I
>>for one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
>>HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
>>books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material.
>
>
> Woah! Fantasy has EVERYTHING to do with Fleming; the extraordinary
> characters and events are what sets Fleming apart.
It's FICTION, but not FANATSY. Fleming's books were typical of just
good writing. But they didn't come anywhere near FANTASY and the
absurdism increasing exhibited throughout the films.
> CASINO ROYALE, as grounded as it is in comparison to some Bonds, is
> *still* a fantasy.
It's FICTION, but not FANTASY. It's a story meant to entertain, but
Fleming's stories didn't have a damned thing to do with all those
gadgets. The cartoon INSPECTOR GADGET did, but not Fleming. Fleming's
books had some basis in reality. Watch the spy stuff on The History
Channel.
Mac
> Mac wrote:
>
>> Alric Knebel wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I
>>> for one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
>>> HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
>>> books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material.
>>
>>
>> Woah! Fantasy has EVERYTHING to do with Fleming; the extraordinary
>> characters and events are what sets Fleming apart.
>
> It's FICTION, but not FANATSY. Fleming's books were typical of just
> good writing. But they didn't come anywhere near FANTASY and the
> absurdism increasing exhibited throughout the films.
How many of the books have you read? Read "Dr. No" and tell me
Fleming didn't write fantasies. I think Jeremy summed up some of
the reasons why CASINO ROYALE is a fantasy nicely.
>> CASINO ROYALE, as grounded as it is in comparison to some Bonds, is
>> *still* a fantasy.
>
> It's FICTION, but not FANTASY. It's a story meant to entertain, but
> Fleming's stories didn't have a damned thing to do with all those
> gadgets. The cartoon INSPECTOR GADGET did, but not Fleming. Fleming's
> books had some basis in reality. Watch the spy stuff on
> The History Channel.
Read the Fleming books. They are gloriously absurd and have little in
common with the spy stuff on the History Channel. If you think
gadgets is what qualifies Bond as fantasy, we're not even close to
the same page.
Fiction and fantasy. This sounds like a WQ discussion! If you want spy
fiction, read Le Carre; Ian Fleming dealt in fantasy. His "fiction" is
closer to the spirit of Buchan, Sapper and Rohmer than it is Len Deighton.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks this one will go on and on..."
Mike Feeney
I'm truly surpised, Gary, that I found myself thoroughly enjoying CR!
I honestly went into the theater with the lowest of expectations. I
wasn't excited beforehand about seeing it; in fact, I felt I was
walking in more out of obligation than anything else. Not because of
the reviews, which have almost all been extremely positive, but because
of my own personal preference for the previous films in the series.
Some of my personal favorites include DAF, TMWTGG, TSWLM, and MR.
Heck, I've probably argued the merits of MR with at least 50% of the
posters who frequent this forum! [I think Zielinski may finally be on
the verge of recognizing its brilliance and wearing that "Moonraker
Number One Fan" t-shirt I got him for X-mas last year...]
In fact, I read your own review of the film, Gary, before I saw it --
and this even further led me to suspect I would not care much for it!
I was all prepared to come back home from the theater and incur the
wrath of the newsgroup by posting an extremely negative essay on how
the series had died for me.
But this was not the case! The film surpassed all my expectations. I
accepted Daniel Craig as James Bond from as early on as the black and
white pre-credit sequence -- something I never would have expected!
And the musical score jumped out at me -- easily David Arnold's finest
work in the series and a return to the glory of Barry's work in the
'60s. Intelligent dialog. Exciting action sequences. Even Dench as
M worked for me (for the first time, really).
My one serious complaint is that the plot seemed overly
convoluted/complex (for me, anyway) and at times it was difficult for
me to understand who did what and why or how somebody knew something
that led them to something else. It seemed like Bond was able to solve
anything by just seeing a name in someone's cell phone. And like I
posted earlier, it wasn't even clear to me why Vesper killed herself.
Perhaps during a second viewing things will become clearer.
Mike
Mike Feeney
Your thoughts are insightful as always, Barry. But I'm still having
trouble accepting the idea that Vesper suddenly decides she doesn't
want to be with either of the two men that she might be in love with
(does she really love Bond?) and would rather be dead. Bond might be
willing to forgive her -- after all, he was trying desperately to save
her from the elevator. If he hated her so much, he could have simply
left her to drown. And if the kidnappers were to hold up their end of
the bargain, her boyfriend would be freed and she could be with him as
she originally planned. Worst case: her boyfriend is killed and Bond
doesn't forgive her -- so that still leaves about 2.5 billion guys in
the world to search for love again. Killing herself just doesn't
seem to make a lot of sense to me. She went through an awful lot of
trouble and took an enormous amount of risks in order to save her
boyfriend -- and suddenly she just lets go?
Yes, I realize she must die in the film in order for it to remain
faithful to the novel -- but it just seemed like a sudden and impulsive
decision that made no sense to me. As you said, maybe upon a second
viewing it might become more clear.
Mike
Tom Zielinski
"GSHATTERHAND" <gshatt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1164253823.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I did yesterday, and loved the film all the more.
I think Mike's question will be expounded upon in the next film. There is
more to Vesper's motivation I'm thinking, than having betrayed Bond. You
could see in his eyes (as could Vesper) during the elevator scene that he
wanted her still and would have forgiven her.
Of course she may have simply preferred death to facing a stiff prison
sentence.
Tom Zielinski
"...Bond's eyes narrowed. He knew, at some point, he would have to slay this
particular dragon. He settled back in his chair, removing a Morlands' three
ring special from the gunmetal cigarette case. As he waited for the
delicious Balkan/Turkish blend to take effect on his lungs, he reflected
that the bitch is dead..."
Mac
I agree. The sea-changes have kept the series alive, IMO.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas wishes MANIMAL had undergone a sea-change; he wouldn't
be in HOLBY-bloody-CITY now..."
GSHATTERHAND
I also had the reaction that the plot, at some points, wasn't all that
clear about how Bond was learning things. And even though I think I now
understand why Vesper might have thought she must die, I think she was
foolish. It didn't strike me that way in the book. I think it might be
because I like the character so much in the film. IMO Eva Green did a
great job.
Also, as much as I've griped about the lack of Bond action, I agree
with Phil the last action scene wasn't needed. I didn't think it was
particulary good and would have liked CR a bit better without it.
I'm really pleased you liked CR so much, Mike. Is there still no hope
for TWINE?
Mac
> Your thoughts are insightful as always, Barry. But I'm still having
> trouble accepting the idea that Vesper suddenly decides she doesn't
> want to be with either of the two men that she might be in love with
> (does she really love Bond?) and would rather be dead. Bond might be
> willing to forgive her -- after all, he was trying desperately to save
> her from the elevator. If he hated her so much, he could have simply
> left her to drown. And if the kidnappers were to hold up their end of
> the bargain, her boyfriend would be freed and she could be with him as
> she originally planned. Worst case: her boyfriend is killed and
> Bond doesn't forgive her -- so that still leaves about 2.5 billion
> guys in the world to search for love again. Killing herself just
> doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. She went through an awful
> lot of trouble and took an enormous amount of risks in order to save
> her boyfriend -- and suddenly she just lets go?
>
> Yes, I realize she must die in the film in order for it to remain
> faithful to the novel -- but it just seemed like a sudden and
> impulsive decision that made no sense to me. As you said, maybe
> upon a second viewing it might become more clear.
Although she still wishes to save the Algerian, her love is for Bond. I
think the removal of the necklace would indicates that. However, she
is about to betray her love for the life of a former love; she is
essentially giving up her chance to be happy.
Look at it not from Bond's perspective, but Vesper's. She loves Bond,
but believes her actions will destroy any chance they may have had
together. For Vesper, the situation is hopeless, and Bond would never
truly be open with her again.
You might just as well say the same of the other Italian-based lovers:
"Juliet, sweetheart, get over him. Go bowling with Brad Friday."
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas would commit suicide if he lost his SIX MILLION DOLLAR
MAN action figure."
James Prine
> seem to make a lot of sense to me. She went through an awful lot of
> trouble and took an enormous amount of risks in order to save her
> boyfriend -- and suddenly she just lets go?
She could have waited until M ordered 007 on his next mission... which
would have been to kill a double agent, which would have been her, or
she could save Bond that anguish and kill herself. She did the noblest
thing she could do, under the circumstances.
Best,
James
Will
"Tom Zielinski" <rt...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:yfidnRT8urpjdPjY...@comcast.com...
>
> "GSHATTERHAND" <gshatt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1164253823.5...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> Thank you Mike Feeney, for asking the question I was embarrassed to
>> ask! If you're dense, so am I. (Shut up, you guys!)
>>
>> For all the reasons you list, I cannot understand why Vesper would
>> chose to die. It makes no sense to me. I read the novel less than a
>> year ago but couldn't recall if I was missing something. I was going to
>> go back over it before I posted the same question.
>>
>> If no better reason is given for Vesper's actions than is now apparent,
>> that's going to be a real flaw in a generally very intelligent Bond
>> film.
>>
>> Incidentally, I'm glad you enjoyed the film. But I admit I was kind of
>> wondering if you might have a similar take to my own - that CR totally
>> lacked that hard-to-define fantasy element and larger-than-life feel
>> and action that set the best Bond films apart and made them special.
>>
>> If YOU, of all Bond fans, don't feel that way, I just may have to give
>> CR a second chance.
>
>
> I did yesterday, and loved the film all the more.
>
> I think Mike's question will be expounded upon in the next film. There is
> more to Vesper's motivation I'm thinking, than having betrayed Bond. You
> could see in his eyes (as could Vesper) during the elevator scene that he
> wanted her still and would have forgiven her.
>
> Of course she may have simply preferred death to facing a stiff prison
> sentence.
>
>
I think it's entirely possible that Bond would have forgave her...I think
much of his anger stemmed from the fact that she died, rather than her
betrayal. If she did survive, there is the question whether Bond would have
said she escaped and then hid her somewhere in Tahiti...lol
Steve Keeley
> There is more to Vesper's motivation I'm thinking, than having betrayed
> Bond.
<snip>
> Of course she may have simply preferred death to facing a stiff prison
> sentence.
Beside Bond, she had also betrayed her country. Once she turned over the
money she was exposed. She had nowhere to go except a life as a fugitive.
--
________________
Steve Keeley
San Diego, CA, U.S.
Alric Knebel
> Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>
>>Mac wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Alric Knebel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I
>>>>for one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
>>>>HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
>>>>books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material.
>>>
>>>
>>>Woah! Fantasy has EVERYTHING to do with Fleming; the extraordinary
>>>characters and events are what sets Fleming apart.
>>
>>It's FICTION, but not FANATSY. Fleming's books were typical of just
>>good writing. But they didn't come anywhere near FANTASY and the
>>absurdism increasing exhibited throughout the films.
>
>
> How many of the books have you read? Read "Dr. No" and tell me
> Fleming didn't write fantasies. I think Jeremy summed up some of
> the reasons why CASINO ROYALE is a fantasy nicely.
I read nearly all of them. While the villain might be portrayed with
exaggerated gifts, it wasn't fanatsy. It opened reality slightly, took
some license with it, but it wasn't absurd.
>>>CASINO ROYALE, as grounded as it is in comparison to some Bonds, is
>>>*still* a fantasy.
>>
>>It's FICTION, but not FANTASY. It's a story meant to entertain, but
>>Fleming's stories didn't have a damned thing to do with all those
>>gadgets. The cartoon INSPECTOR GADGET did, but not Fleming. Fleming's
>>books had some basis in reality. Watch the spy stuff on
>>The History Channel.
>
> Read the Fleming books. They are gloriously absurd and have little in
> common with the spy stuff on the History Channel. If you think
> gadgets is what qualifies Bond as fantasy, we're not even close to
> the same page.
I already have. I just read CR for the first time, but I read almost
all of the others years ago. They were not "gloriously absurd" by any
application of those terms. I saw nothing fantasy-like about CR, and
I've read many books in my time, of all types.
> Fiction and fantasy. This sounds like a WQ discussion! If you want spy
> fiction, read Le Carre; Ian Fleming dealt in fantasy. His "fiction" is
> closer to the spirit of Buchan, Sapper and Rohmer than it is Len Deighton.
But he didn't have jet packs, cars with machine guns, invisible cars,
and missiles in cigarettes. Fleming had limits that fell far shy of
fantasy.
Mac
>> How many of the books have you read? Read "Dr. No" and tell me
>> Fleming didn't write fantasies. I think Jeremy summed up some of
>> the reasons why CASINO ROYALE is a fantasy nicely.
>
> I read nearly all of them. While the villain might be portrayed with
> exaggerated gifts, it wasn't fanatsy. It opened reality slightly,
> took some license with it, but it wasn't absurd.
I guess it's down to point of view, but a lot of Fleming is absurd, not
in a bad way, just a way that doesn't have a lot to do with the
world of real spies. That's why I like Fleming personally!
> I already have. I just read CR for the first time, but I read almost
> all of the others years ago. They were not "gloriously absurd" by any
> application of those terms. I saw nothing fantasy-like about CR, and
> I've read many books in my time, of all types.
"Casino Royale" is not representative of Fleming's Bond novels as a
whole. We have the ridiculous plots of the likes of "Dr. No" and
"On Her Majesty's Secret Service" plus the OTT characters of
"Goldfinger" and "Moonraker." They are markedly different from
Fleming's first novel. Then there's the head-trip that is "You Only
Live Twice." "Casino Royale," while being more grounded, still offers
the notion of Bond dealing communism a body-blow at a gaming
table!
>> Fiction and fantasy. This sounds like a WQ discussion! If you want
>> spy fiction, read Le Carre; Ian Fleming dealt in fantasy. His
>> "fiction" is closer to the spirit of Buchan, Sapper and Rohmer than
>> it is Len Deighton.
>
> But he didn't have jet packs, cars with machine guns, invisible cars,
> and missiles in cigarettes. Fleming had limits that fell far shy of
> fantasy.
He had mountain-top syphilitic madmen intent on destroying Britain's
crops with brain-washed bimbettes; a giant, handless Chinese/German
toppling US missiles; former-Nazis parading as Englishmen while building
a nuclear missile to destroy London; Samurai Armour-clad loons stalking
a Garden of Death, Fort Knox heists, Bond fighting giant squids,
ridiculously moustachioed henchmen etc, etc, etc.
Fantasy, IMO. I'm certainly not convinced it's a portrayal of real
espionage. I don't really understand why you have a problem with it
being called fantasy.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas understands mileage may vary."
J Buck
why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I for one never felt an
smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was HYSTERICAL. That fantasy
stuff is strictly in the movies, not the books. It has nothing to do
with Fleming's source material.>
Movies do not equal books, and vice versa. I was perfectly fine with the
gadgets, the fantasy element, if you will, of the Bond movie franchise.
I know others weren't, but that's ok; different strokes, etc. Having
said all that, I did enjoy CR and plan on seeing it again, and buying
the dvd.
<Recent espionage films have raised the bar, and made Bond look even
more ridiculous than he already did. By bringing it back to basics,
they're hoping to revitalize the series.>
Is that a tip-o-the-hat, thank-you-ma'am to the MI and Bourne films?
And Alric, did you frequent the Doors newsgroup a couple(?) years ago?
Alric Knebel
It's the same sort of over-the-top as, say, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
It's a thriller and it's fictional, but it's not fantasy, in that it has
limits. It creates characters in a real world, not some fantasy in
which anything can happen at any time. Nuclear terrorism is in fact
something that can be accomplished. There have been absolutely
brilliant plotted robberies. Yes, these characters are exaggerations,
but they're far from fantasies, and when you're reading them, you're not
experiencing it as something ridiculous. If I did, I wouldn't read
them. He presents them with a straight style.
But it is a matter of opinion, I guess.
The Shadow
> Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>> That FANTASY element is why Bond was so ridiculous in the movies. I
>> for one never felt an smidgen of drama or tension. Some of it was
>> HYSTERICAL. That fantasy stuff is strictly in the movies, not the
>> books. It has nothing to do with Fleming's source material.
>
> Woah! Fantasy has EVERYTHING to do with Fleming; the extraordinary
> characters and events are what sets Fleming apart.
>
> CASINO ROYALE, as grounded as it is in comparison to some Bonds, is
> *still* a fantasy.
Fantasy?
Are you shitting me?!?
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
I'm with Mac on this one. Fleming himself referred to his Bond books
as 'fairy tales for grown-ups' and 'pillow fantasies', which surely
gives some clue as to his intentions. His genius was in rooting the
fantasy within a more-or-less recognisable world and in describing
Bond's sensations and emotions so vividly - after all, fantasies work
best if the reader is happy to suspend disbelief and engage with them
almost *as if* they were real.
Think of it as being like the difference between, say, the CGI
parasailing in DAD and the traditional stunt work during the crane
fight in CR. The first is so clumsily executed that you simply don't
buy it and it spoils your enjoyment of the scene, while the latter's so
artfully done that for the purpose of the movie you accept it as if
were realistic - which of course it isn't, really.
As an ironic footnote, Fleming's oft-repeated assertion that he himself
had tried and failed to do what James Bond does in CR - to relieve his
opponents of valuable funds by facing them at the gambling table -
appears to have been a fantasy in itself.
Best
Phil
Mac
Not at all. You don't honestly thinks it's realistic, do you?
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas has set Michael Richards' next gig for Harlem."
Mac
> It's the same sort of over-the-top as, say, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
> It's a thriller and it's fictional, but it's not fantasy, in that it
> has limits. It creates characters in a real world, not some fantasy
> in which anything can happen at any time. Nuclear terrorism is in
> fact something that can be accomplished. There have been absolutely
> brilliant plotted robberies. Yes, these characters are exaggerations,
> but they're far from fantasies, and when you're reading them, you're
> not experiencing it as something ridiculous. If I did, I wouldn't
> read them. He presents them with a straight style.
>
> But it is a matter of opinion, I guess.
Absolutely. I don't think we're really that far apart in our thoughts, it's
more our definition of fantasy! :)
Is this the first time we've chatted, Alric? How long have you been around?
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas has the title of the next Michael Richards DVD: DEAD FROM THE
APOLLO."
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
revise utterly my definition of what can be considered 'realistic' in
spy fiction.
Best
Phil
(Horribly fascinated...)
Mac
Hey, it's not as if a spy hasn't been taken out on the streets of London
before...
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks "stinging in the rain" was never more apt."
phil.g...@ntlworld.com
> Hey, it's not as if a spy hasn't been taken out on the streets of London
> before...
>
> "Vargas thinks "stinging in the rain" was never more apt."
<g>
But the Markov thing was so much more straightforward. I can't figure
out what the f*** is going on with this one: it feels like one of those
John Gardner novels where by the end everybody turns out to have
double-crossed everybody else.
Best
Phil
Mac
:) . Whoever came up with that "Secret Plan to Assassinate the Treacherous
Litvinenenko" needs to be sued under the spycraft trade descriptions act.
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas thinks it would have been more subtle to hit him
with a beam from a diamond-encrusted orbiting satellite."
Alric Knebel
> Alric Knebel wrote:
>
>
>>It's the same sort of over-the-top as, say, THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
>>It's a thriller and it's fictional, but it's not fantasy, in that it
>>has limits. It creates characters in a real world, not some fantasy
>>in which anything can happen at any time. Nuclear terrorism is in
>>fact something that can be accomplished. There have been absolutely
>>brilliant plotted robberies. Yes, these characters are exaggerations,
>>but they're far from fantasies, and when you're reading them, you're
>>not experiencing it as something ridiculous. If I did, I wouldn't
>>read them. He presents them with a straight style.
>>
>>But it is a matter of opinion, I guess.
>
>
> Absolutely. I don't think we're really that far apart in our thoughts, it's
> more our definition of fantasy! :)
>
> Is this the first time we've chatted, Alric? How long have you been around?
I've only joined the Bond group since shortly before the release of
CASINO ROYALE. But I've been in the movie newsgroups off and on for
years. I happened to stumble over here because of Tom Zielinski. I saw
the Bond group listed in one of his posts in the movie newsgroup. It's
a . . . LIVELY group.
Mac
> I've only joined the Bond group since shortly before the release of
> CASINO ROYALE. But I've been in the movie newsgroups off and on for
> years. I happened to stumble over here because of Tom Zielinski. I
> saw the Bond group listed in one of his posts in the movie newsgroup.
> It's a . . . LIVELY group.
I've happened to stumble because of Tom Zielinski too, but that's another
story... Welcome!
--
--Mac
"Vargas does not drink...does not smoke...does not make love.
What do you do, Vargas?"
"Vargas can't agree with Kevin Federline's comments that he's
America's most hated man. If, on the other hand, he marries
Michael Richards...."
Peter Morris
"Mike Feeney" <strom...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1164252876....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Major spoiler below (you have been warned!):
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> Maybe your responses will make me feel dense for asking this, but why
> did Vesper choose to commit suicide? It seemed to me that she
> intentionally chose to drown rather than let Bond free her from the
> elevator. But why? I know M explained to Bond that Vesper's
> boyfriend was being held hostage. So this would imply that she was
> taking the money to the kidnappers in order to pay off a ransom demand:
> she gives them the money and they release her boyfriend, right?
> Bond shows up unexpectedly and all hell breaks loose... okay, but I
> still don't understand why she would then decide to drown herself.
> What does that accomplish? How does it help the situation with her
> boyfriend (which was apparently her motivation for all of her actions)?
I think it was because she had been caught committing treason, and was
facing at minimum long and painful interrogation followed by prison at
minimum, or more likely. that they would simply shoot her. She chose
to kill herself rather than face that.
Mike Feeney
Several people have suggested that, but I'm not buying it. Bond had
truly fallen in love with her. He was willing to quit the service for
her. If he had been able to rescue her, do you really think he would
then have her arrested? If her motive had simply been greed, then
maybe. But she was being coerced - her former lover was being held
hostage. I think her circumstance goes a long way towards allowing
the audience (and Bond) to forgive her actions.
Mike
Mac
See?