It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
To be fair, if SPECTRE wanted the Lektor, Rosa Klebb could have asked Tatiana for it more directly.
Well, I suppose that would have been too easily traceable back to Klebb, which they wouldn’t want. They would have had to set up Tatiana too to cover their tracks, and involving the British makes sense in the Cold War context. A bit elaborate? Somewhat, although that’s kind of the sense you get in the film with Kronstein having formulated this seemingly airtight scheme.
Not exactly. In the novel, they are more surefire about their plan, but because they don't see the benefits on the Soviet end. There's the worry of a trap that starts with the briefing and grows with the whole aspect of the train, the Bulgars, and Kerim's death.
I think the novel is a bit more real in this aspect. After all, a normal agency would trap Bond for three reasons; to interview him, to kill him, or to give him false intelligence. Two that they dismiss, and the third is worth the gamble. Perhaps the cinematic version makes it a bit glossier but I prefer the novel's version regardless.
Either way, if the film was more or less sound than the novel is a little bit off topic. My point was more questioning the point of whether jettisoning the political aspects actually made a difference to the performance of the films.
Swap SMERSH for SPECTRE in the first 2 films, and do either of them actually perform worse? Would adding the fact that Goldfinger worked for SMERSH lead the series to fizzle out after a few films?
The choice was a cosmetic one, for longevity, and for a potential Soviet market. But a franchise-saving or one that the Fleming estate should thank? Probably not.
From what I remember M’s relatively sure Tanya’s being legitimate and even tries to convince Bond of it. I do vaguely remember them not seeing the benefits on the Soviet end. Bond of course gets his premonitions/dark omens too. It’s certainly not on the same level as Goldfinger making Bond his personal assistant, but I felt it was one of Fleming’s contrivances - that’s to say keeping them quite that naive. I think their initial attitude in the film is a lot more consistent and they seem a bit more switched on about the whole thing (although there’s the unfortunate mention of Bond saying M thinks he’s wasting his time to Kerim, which I can only presume is something not edited out from an early draft, because it makes no sense).
I don’t know if having SMERSH would have affected the success of the films financially speaking or in terms of longevity one way or the other, but I think without SPECTRE you’re less likely to get some of those iconic Bond elements we now associate with the films - Blofeld/the white cat being an example. I think it wouldn’t have been the simple switch you’re trying to make out. These films would be different, and it’s naive to say they wouldn’t be to some extent.
Same for the effect it had on the story. It’s not just a swap job, having SPECTRE manipulating the whole thing changes things, even if subtly (as I mentioned above you’ve got their motive of getting the Lektor/the purpose of causing scandal with Bond. It’s not just a bid to humiliate him but something quite integral to their plan).
I don't really see the plan being naive. The film takes a different look at it: "it's definitely a trap, so we'll give you gadgets to get out of it", while the novel is more like: "we don't see why it would be a trap, but we'll still give you gadgets to get out of it if it goes south."
Both are similarly cautious ways of looking at the problem, and I agree that they probably suit their own mediums of storytelling.
The SMERSH-SPECTRE swap really only impacts DN and FRWL, and then the Chinese would be swapped for SMERSH in GF. While FRWL does a lot for Blofeld (the cat, the killing of Kronsteen, etc.), TB and YOLT do continue the iconic vision of Blofeld that we get.
As for SPECTRE's impact on FRWL, I never really paid attention to their plans for the Lektor. I always though it was bonus, but the main part of the operation was killing Bond and discrediting him as revenge as Dr. No represented their first real failure as an organization. If anything, diluting the personal aspect with the Lektor hurts the story rather than helps it (but I managed to ignore it on my past watches to be fair).
It might just be the fact that the reader has been given the context to the plan. I remember practically shaking the book when I first read the briefing scene, thinking 'of course it's a trap, you stupid old man'! Bond being so unsure about it has that similar elaborate dramatic irony behind it. I think it's much easier to swallow in the film because there's the extra layer of SPECTRE and the fact that Bond and M are knowingly taking a dangerous risk. It gives the sense they know what they're doing a bit more while still walking into something very dangerous.
I also remember that paragraph in the book being a bit odd. We get this whole briefing with M essentially convincing Bond that Tanya is legitimate (we're 'shown' it in literary terms) only for that aside in the next chapter where we're 'told' that M is worried about the possibility of this being a trap? Feels like we should have seen more of a shake in his confidence during that briefing... It's otherwise a well written book, one of the best Bond novels in fact, but it's just one of those issues Fleming has in terms of contrivances.
Again, you can argue the film does similar with the whole 'M thinks I'm wasting my time' line. But ultimately I think the briefing feels much more realistic in the film, and M comes across as much more competent.
Honestly, it's so hypothetical I don't think anyone can say one way or the other how this would have impacted the future of the Bond films. We're talking about a lot of creative choices as well that started with FRWL - would Blofeld have been depicted as being faceless with his white cat if he'd been introduced straightaway in TB? We wouldn't have had the drawn out process to his face reveal quite to the extent we did. I suspect having him in FRWL impacted that creative choice. I think this would have resulted in different films and creative choices ultimately. It's not just a simple switch in practice. But honestly, it's a thought experiment whatever way (and to be honest, a bit pointless).
I think it works better for a film that the McGuffin is genuinely something all parties are trying to attain. It's something tangible and gives SPECTRE that extra motivation. I think you get enough of the personal element with Bond having defeated No in the previous film.
I also see the point of the second layer, and Bond and M being on the first, instead of them being unawares and SMERSH on the first layer. But practically, it doesn't make a difference. The novel probably wins in terms of reality I'd say (the Soviet trap is so unconceivable that British analysts were right in way by not seeing any Soivet gain), and the film wins in getting the characters street smart (and you could say Bond and M would doubt the analysts anyway). But as I say, practically it doesn't make a difference; Bond goes in with about the same suspicion, and is equally taken in and "duped" by Tania
The SMERSH vs SPECTRE debate is pointless, but it was a point in an argument about the political intrigue in Bond.
As for the McGuffin, I've always paid it no heed in the story, in the film or in the novel. It serves as bait for MI6, but the story isn't about MI6. It's about Bond. And his bait is Tania, and thus she takes priority as bait. On top of that, the antagonists, SMERSH/SPECTRE don't care about MI6 either. They care more about Bond. Therefore, I don't think the film should really spend any time of SPECTRE wanting the device. After all, if they truly did want it, they could have created a simpler plan. Or they wouldn't even have to steal it, they could just get Tania to use it for their own use.
The M of the novels is interesting but he has this tendency to flip between being very cold and tactical, while at other times he comes across as a bit of a kook. I think in FRWL he comes across as being more the latter. Maybe realistic wasn’t the best way of describing M’s state of mind in either of these, but again, it helps make the character come off more steely. As you say it’s not a massive difference in the grand scheme of things, but it certainly gives the audience a slightly different impression of these characters and the story (these aren’t just simple swaps that have no effect).
Well, SMERSH are invested in creating a scandal for the British using Bond’s death, so they care about MI6 somewhat I suppose. I really don’t see the logic in what you’re saying about SPECTRE wanting the Lektor though…
I’d argue the plan in the book is no less stupid when you think about it. The Russians certainly could have found easier ways to humiliate and kill Bond too! But no, they decided to stake their very important decoder machine in a bid to murder a single MI6 agent.
It doesn’t matter incidentally - Bond stories are all contrived to a point, and of course it helps that in previous books we’ve seen Bond thwart the Russians’ plans. So a motive of revenge makes sense and it’s easy to go along with. For the film though I think it helps that SPECTRE actually want the device and are trying to cover their tracks (as I said in a previous post even if Klebb just asked Tanya for it directly they would have needed to formulate some sort of plan to make sure it wouldn’t be traced back to them. Here they’re killing two birds with one stone by killing Bond and getting the device). For a film where we’ve only seen Bond take on SPECTRE indirectly once I don’t think just having revenge be the driving motive would feel right. Actually having the main villains going after the McGuffin just seems like better storytelling in my view, at least for a movie.
I do think FRWL is one of those Bond movies that improves on the book in many ways, even though the novel is great. The sense I’ve always gotten isn’t that SMERSH are these master tacticians but more akin to thugs or gangsters (in many ways Fleming even writes General G and some of the other Russians to look a bit silly). They’re people taking a great risk - even being a bit reckless frankly - in order to get back at the British. Their plan definitely has its flaws and is even a little simplistic. They stake this very valuable asset just to do this very spiteful thing, and it doesn’t pay off. Very likely it wouldn’t be worth the effort. The film at least gives the villains something tangible to gain with this elaborate scheme, and even with Kronstein’s arrogance he seems a lot more tactile (he even says he knows how the British will see this as a trap, and sure enough they do). It helps give this impression that SPECTRE are a match for Bond and that he’s stepping into a situation being manipulated by this shadowy organisation. Again, subtle differences, but they really have an effect on how the story comes across.