Bond Goes Goth – You Only Live Twice (novel)

Ian Fleming wrote three James Bond novels that included the evil Ernst Blofeld: “Thunderball”, “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” and “You Only Live Twice”. These three novels are interesting because they present James Bond with a complete story arc, one that ends in the final book “You Only Live Twice”.

Most people are familiar with the film version of this book. James Bond goes to Japan, finds Blofeld in a hallowed out volcano and launching a space ship that eats up space capsules. Much of the look of that film ended up spoofed in “Austin Powers”, it’s iconic James Bond at his most swinging 60’s.

The book couldn’t be further from the film. Part of this has to do with the placement of the book versus the placement of the films. In the film version, “You Only Live Twice” is the first time James Bond comes face to face with Blofeld. But in the novels, Bond faced him in Switzerland during “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. That book ends in tragedy, and that tragedy carries over into the next novel. James Bond is off of his game, he’s making mistakes and endangering his missions. M is at a loss, but he comes up with a solution. He’ll put Bond in a no win scenario, and it will force Bond to come to his senses or die.

At first the no win scenario seems benign, decidedly anti-007. He has to go to Japan and convince the Japanese secret service to share their intelligence stream coming from Russia (the book was written in 1964). Britain is feeling left out because the US has access to all this great information. This is a diplomacy issue, something that Bond does not excel at, and it involves a culture he knows nothing about. This is his last shot so he can’t fail, but it seems impossible, especially when he gets to know the decidedly cool “Tiger” Tanaka – head of the secret service.

In the end Tanaka is willing to consider an exchange, but he wants Bond to perform an assassination for it. Turns out there is a mysterious doctor who has purchased an old feudal castle and turned it into a suicide haven. Its garden is filled with poisonous plants, venomous insects and snakes, bubbling pools of sulfuric mud and your typical pool of piranha instead of Koi. While it is meeting a need, the Japanese have the highest suicide rate in the world, Tanaka sees it as a cancer that must be purged. Bond is set up to take down the doctor and his castle of death. You get one guess to figure out who the crazed doctor turns out to be.

This book is many things, but it is not a James Bond adventure that most readers will be used to. Ian Fleming’s novels are not as fast paced and action packed as the films anyway, but this book comes across more like a travelogue with a dour and grim atmosphere.

Death permeates the entire book, from Bond lamenting over the death of Tereza, up to Blofeld’s perfect castle for suicide. The book even contains an obituary for James Bond, as well as a rebirth of sorts in the last chapter. The mission is hopeless, and Bond begins to feel that he will not survive it. This makes for a bleak novel that plays it very cold and very straight – just like a katana sword.

For all of that, it’s still James Bond. He still drinks hard, smokes like a train, beds nearly any girl who is willing and is deadly cool when it comes down to the wire. It just feels like a lot of the lightness and flippant nature of the character is gone. In its place is a man broken and is facing death.

If you look at the Blofeld series as a story arc, it is obvious that James Bond grows up in “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service”. He gets married at the end! But here is the first time where Bond faces death at every turn and even goes into an underworld of sorts to face a supreme devil in the form of Bloefeld. It’s an ending that seems fitting not only for Bond but for the series as a whole. The next book in the series, “The Man with the Golden Gun” was never completely finished and the result is a lesser novel of the series. For me “You Only Live Twice” is a fitting end to an interesting literary character – especially since it is an atypical adventure for the British agent.

Have you read “You Only Live Twice”? What did you think of it? Do you think an author can and should take a chance with a well-known character and create something so different from audience expectations? Can you think of an example that worked?

James Bond Grows Up – On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (novel)

Continuing in the same vein that I covered in my blog on the novel version of “Thunderball”, I was a bit surprised in revisiting this novel how much different the James Bond here is, from the one presented in the movies. The novels are much more realistic (as realistic as Bond can get), and the character of James Bond actually drives the stories. In the movies, Bond is more of a cipher, a stock heroic character with very little character arc. This has changed a bit with the Daniel Craig films, but for the first 20 movies, Bond was pretty much Bond. Nothing new to report.

In the novels things took a different turn, especially in the final series of books. Starting with “Thunderball”, James Bond is a man who’s starting to feel the wear and tear of his job. When “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service” (called OHMSS from now on) starts this weariness has doubled. He’s searching for the criminal mastermind Bloefeld and has had no luck at all dragging the villain up. The main espionage arc of the story follows Bond as he discovers a clue, goes under cover, discovers Bloefeld’s hideout and some clues, is exposed, barely escapes, and then with the help of M and other government officials pieces together the plot. The final act is to stage an all out attack on Bloefeld’s lair and stop the plot from coming to fruition. Sounds like typical James Bond.

But linked with this is another story line. James Bond meets a woman named Tracy. She’s on a self destructive terror across France when she passes him speeding along the narrow and winding streets of a provincial town. After a series of encounters with Tracy, Bond begins to find himself protective of her, dangerously so. He begins to actually think about a life beyond the secret service and one that would be spent with Tracy. Of course his quest for Blofeld intervenes and Bond puts things on hold with Tracy until he can sort the whole mess out.

Yes, we actually have James Bond in love. This love actually ends up coloring some of his experiences during his mission. He does his best to focus on his task, but he can’t help but think about Tracy and their lives together when this is done. Does this cause Bond to make a critical mistake? Well you’ll have to read the book to find out (or see the movie, which is actually pretty close to the book in story structure).

The character of James Bond really drives OHMSS, even more so than it did with “Thunderball”. We get to see more about this man, and how his job affects his life. This sets things up for the conclusion that is one of the most memorable in the entire franchise. The next book, “You Only Live Twice” takes James Bond into the very blackest of pits. Death looms large in that next book and it’s a direct reflection of the events of OHMSS. For me, this is probably my favorite James Bond novel, and most of that is due to the intriguing character of Tracy, and the actual change that takes place for Bond. The adventure parts aren’t bad either, and together it makes OHMSS a solid read.

Do you think a character like James Bond can be more than a cipher in the movies? Or is this something that only works in the novels? What did you think of the story of OHMSS (the movie or the novel)? Do you have a favorite Bond novel?

Nobody does it Better - The James Bond Legacy

As most of you know, I'm a fan of the James Bond series. I enjoy the movies, I've read several of Ian Flemmings novels, listen to the movie scores and I've posted a few blogs about the books and the films. What makes this series so appealing to me? Well there's the classic mix of danger, girls, exotic locations and fun. Who can say no to that? But there is something else that has fascinated me ever since I really got into James Bond (oh I'd say back in the early 90's), and that is the legacy behind it.

The James Bond films have been in existence since 1962. Think about that for a moment. You've got currently 22 films with the same character, the same basic formula and a huge fan base for nearly fifty years. And that's just the movies. The books have been around longer. James Bond is a type of touchstone for Western culture (and it's crossed into several other cultures in other ways as well). His theme is one of the most easily recognized pieces of music ever. His name is recognized by just about everyone on the planet. And these aren't huge life changing movies with deep meaning. At the least they are basic comic book films and at the best they are well made thrillers. But they entertain and that is their biggest advantage.

There's a book out there called "The James Bond Legacy". Sadly it's out of print, but if you ever get a chance (and you are interested in movies and the idea of a James Bond legacy) pick it up. Authors __ and __ go into detail outlining the creation of James Bond from book to screen and then the development of this character into something more - an icon of entertainment. It covers all the films from "Dr. No" (1962) to "Die Another Day" (2002). It was printed before Daniel Craig took over the role, but it covers the first 40 years of James Bond in film and offers it's view on his enduring popularity.

What is amazing to me as you read the book (and look at it's gorgeous full color pictures) is that James Bond was really a product of the 60's. Hell, you can tell that by just watching any of the old Sean Connery films. They are a lot of fun, but they definitely capture the spirit of the time. Where the series really becomes fascinating is how it starts to adapt to survive the 70's (Roger Moore had a lot to do with this), evolve to stay relevant in the 80's (a new director brings Bond back to earth and Timothy Dalton opens the door for a more realistic portrayal of the spy), and when the 90's roll around you see how "Goldeneye" straddled a line to take James Bond into the new decade and keep a bit of the old and inject the new and wrap it all up in one movie. It's a fascinating read and the writers keep the pace moving showing how the changing world demanded changes in James Bond.

It even allowed me to appreciate some of the films that I never could get into like "Diamonds are Forever" and "Live and Let Die". Sure those aren't my favorites (and will probably never will be) but at least I understand what the creators were hoping for and why audiences loved those movies at the time (for the longest time "Diamonds are Forever" was the top grossing Bond film - even over "Goldfinger"!)

So for anyone who gets a thrill when the James Bond theme kicks in, I recommend checking out this book.

What do you think of James Bond? Do you have a favorite James Bond film (why do you enjoy it)? Do you prefer your Bond film more over the top or more edgy? Do you have a favorite actor in the leading role?

Poised on the Edge - From Russia with Love (Film)

Most fans of the James Bond films have thier favorite actor, favorite film and usually one or a couple they tend to really dispise. Most causal James Bond fans enjoy most of the movies, even if they get a bit dumb. What's interesting is that the film series has lasted nearly 50 years and shows no signs of stopping. With "Quantum of Solace" hitting theaters, we got our newest James Bond, Daniel Craig, saving the world, getting the girl and fighting ruthless villains again. I haven’t seen it yet, but if the sequel keeps the same tone as "Casino Royale" (the 2006 version, not the overly psychedelic 1967 version), then I'm going to enjoy it.

I decided to pop in the second James Bond film adventure, just to see where the series was going back in 1963. Here's a quick synopsis. James Bond (Sean Connery) finds himself on a mission to pick up a Russian cipher clerk, Tatiana (Bianci) and her top secret cipher machine. All he has to do is bring the machine, with or without the girl, from Istanbul to London. M and Bond are pretty sure it's a trap, but getting their hands on a Russian cipher machine is too good a prize to pass up (and the girl's a looker too). Bond arrives in Turkey and quickly finds himself caught in the middle of a feud between Russian and the British agents. After a series of narrow escapes he makes it onto the Orient Express with Tatiana and the cipher machine - unaware that they are being shadowed by a sinister agent from SPECTRE.

In the grand scheme of things "Goldfinger" is usually remembered as the first true Bond film. It had girls, the gadgets, the villains, the over the top adventure, and the sassy brassy style that seemed to encapsulate the 60's and the spy craze. In a way it's true, "Goldfinger" was the first really big Bond film. But "From Russia With Love" was the first complete Bond film. It has all the elements that "Goldfinger" had, but is missing one thing - the fantasy that took over the Bond series. "From Russia With Love" is the last gritty Bond film to reach theaters until 1969 with "On Her Majesty's Secret Service".

This edginess makes "From Russia With Love" feel more like spy thriller than a fun comic book ride. James Bond is actually in danger in this movie and the script carefully sets things up from the beginning making the audience feel that James Bond may actually get killed. The pre-credit sequence sets things up very nicely (the first time a pre-credit sequence is used in a Bond film). In it we watch as James Bond is pursued in a garden surrounding a large estate. The killer moves with deft skill behind Bond and succeeds in strangling him with a wire that slides out of his watch. It is revealed that "Bond" is actually a fake, but the killer is very real.

Eventually the killer is revealed to be Grant, an assassin for SPECTRE. He follows Bond all around Istanbul, watching, and waiting. During the course of the film, Bond finds himself in peril (as happens in these films) and even over matched. Grant will appear and save Bond's hide without revealing himself. The audience is even more intrigued. Why do this if he has been trained to kill?

When Grant finally confronts Bond in the Orient Express, the audience feels the tension. We've seen Grant kill Bond once (even if he was fake) and we've seen the control that Grant has had over each situation. Now he has Bond where he wants him and Bond is outmatched. This is the type of scene that is missing from "Goldfinger" and "You Only Live Twice", two of the more popular James Bond films featuring Connery. The danger is very real here, and then things explode with a visceral violence when Grant and Bond finally engage in hand to hand combat. This is still considered one of the greatest fights in the James Bond series. Of course Bond has to survive to appear in "Goldfinger" so we know how it will turn out, but this climactic battle works because of the careful build up of Grant and the way the story plays out.

Director Terrance Young helmed "Dr. No", "From Russia with Love" and "Thunderball" and each of these films are actually more like spy thrillers than the over the top adventures that people usually associate with James Bond. These are my favorite type of James Bond films, where the edge is real and the danger is high. "On Her Majesty's Secret Service", "For Your Eyes Only", "The Living Daylights", "License to Kill", parts of "Goldeneye" are the other films from the first 20 Bond movies that have this feel. Of course the 2006 "Casino Royale" had this edge in spades, keeping Bond off guard for most of the movie. It's nice to have the thrilling back into the James Bond series, but it's always been there even as far back as 1963.

Do you prefer you Bond movies more thrilling or more fantasy? What do you think of "From Russia with Love"? What is the best example of building tension that you can come up with (books or films)?

You don’t know Bond - Thunderball (Novel)

I really got into James Bond in the early 90's. I think it had something to do with the hype surrounding "Goldeneye", but I'm not sure I really remember. I had seen some James Bond movies, but they never completely pulled me in. But around the 90's it became my mission to watch all the James Bond films up to "Goldeneye" and in order no less. I did it and it was a lot of fun. A few of my coworkers at the video store also got into the movies and we often discussed our favorite James Bond films and actors. See what happens when throw a bunch of movie geeks together!

I determined at that time that my favorite Sean Connery James Bond film was "Thunderball". Sure lots of people say "Goldfinger" is superior, and you can argue it till the cows come home (where did those bovines get to anyway?). For me, this is the perfect retro-fun Bond film for a summer day, and it gets yearly play at my house, much to my wife's chagrin (she's not a Connery Bond fan).

It took me a while to get my hands on the actual Bond novels by Ian Fleming. For the longest time they were out of print in the US. I actually picked up four of them when I was in England and have the snazzy British covers. I grabbed "Thunderball" because of my fondness for the film - and boy was I surprised. This isn't James Bond as I knew him. Of course it was foolish of me to think that the movies didn't change things here and there, but for the character to be so different - well it was a shock.

As a novel, "Thunderball" is solid entertainment. The movie follows the book pretty well, but actually makes some plot changes that smooth out some of the rough edges of the book For example, in the novel, Bond is sent to the Shrublands spa because M is on a crazy health kick. He encounters the dangerous Count Lippe there, but the only reason Lippe is at the spa is so he can mail the ransom note from SPECTRE. The movie actually makes the spa a staging ground for the whole theft of the bomber. This allows Bond to be closer to the action than he knew, and it makes sense to use the spa as the staging ground with the agent recovering from his plastic surgery there.

The book has a very dry British sense of humor, one that is counter to most of the goofy humor seen in the Bond series (mostly in the 70's with Roger Moore's take on the character). The opening is especially funny with Bond aghast at M's obsession with health. The Bond of the novels is a hard drinker, frequent smoker and a man who doesn't care about his personal health, only because it doesn't make sense to - he's probably going to get killed on his next mission. He might as well live it up. Bond's reactions to the spa treatment and the fact that he actually does feel better after it's completed are well written and amusing.

The novel also spends lots of time describing the SPECTRE agency and it's leader Blofeld. A whole chapter is dedicated to Blofeld and his history. This is interesting stuff, but in the scheme of things, it doesn't fit into the story so much. Blofeld isn't the direct menace in the novel - that goes to Largo. As a whole, all the characters are much better developed in the novel. I especially liked the personality of Domino, the lovely and ultimately trapped woman. Her dialogue with Bond and discussion of the picture on a pack of cigarettes gives us a clear insight to her, and makes the ending a bit of a rough one.

It was the portrait of James Bond that was most remarkable. He was much more realistic in the novel. He's a damaged man, one that really doesn't like his job, but at the same time is too good at it to do anything else. He is a predator that dislikes the kill. It's a strange contradiction and it makes him much more interesting than most of the film incarnations. He is lucky and will use his luck to his advantage whenever he can. He also makes mistakes and pays for them, or worse someone else pays for them. There is an undercurrent of anger to him, and it's something that really came through in Timothy Dalton's portrayal of the character.

Of course the movies are always a different beast. James Bond is synonymous with escapism and fun. A serious, angry and cold character is not going to appeal to the summer crowds. And so James Bond adapted for the times and for the films. Connery plays him with an edge, no doubt about that, and it's especially there in "From Russia with Love", but for my money only Dalton has really matched the portrayal of James Bond as he is in the books.

Outside of the fun of comparing the two stories in different media, the book is a good summer read. Fleming doesn't move the story along too quickly, but he does create some great moments of intrigue and action. Really the last third of the book has the most action, with the rest of the novel working as a casual lead in. The pace picks up at the halfway point, but only a bit, What's interesting is that the movie has the same problem. The novel is not the best of Fleming's Bond books - check out "From Russia with Love" or "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" for those, but "Thunderball" is still a good time.

Have you had a chance to read Fleming's Bond novels? Do you think such a major change of character was needed from the novel to the film version of James Bond? Do you have a favorite Bond film? Why do you like it so much?

Jones vs. Bond - Raiders of the Lost Ark

According to legend Steven Spielberg wanted to direct the 1980 James Bond movie. It ended up not happening and instead he started working on "Raiders of the Lost Ark". If Spielberg had tackled Bond, he would have to have followed "Moonraker" one of the most popular and financially successful James Bond films of the 70's and 80's. If you watch "Moonraker" and follow it with "Raiders" you'll be wondering just what Spielberg might have done.

"Moonraker" takes the mold of the Roger Moore Bond, and pushes it to the extreme. It meanders along, with a well coifed Bond moving through scenes that are fun, but hold little tension. The movie is very jokey (bordering on silly) and seems to be a well made Bond spoof. The ending is special effects extravaganza with lots of explosions models and the obligatory "Bond caught in the act" joke that was a favorite of the 70's spy films. Would this type of movie appeal to Spielberg? Or would he have tried to turn the Bond series around a little bit, bringing it back to the more gritty 60's Bond adventures like "From Russia with Love"?

When 1981 rolled around James Bond was back in "For Your Eyes Only". This movie had a new director behind the camera, but Roger Moore back in front of it. He plays the part with a harder edge. He is actually in danger in this film instead of going through the motions. Large special effects heavy set pieces are replaced with top notch stunt work, real locations and an intensity that had been missing from the Bond films since 1969. Strangely enough, this movie was not a hit. In fact most people don't remember "For Your Eyes Only". Maybe because viewers associated over the top antics of "The Spy Who Loved Me" or "Moonraker" with James Bond. Maybe they were disappointed with this return to the more realistic spy story. Or maybe it was because Spielberg beat them to the punch.

The week before "Raiders of the Lost Ark" exploded onto the screens. It seems that Spielberg wanted to make Indiana Jones the anti-bond in many ways. Indiana gets dirty, he gets hurt, he's often proven wrong, he cheats when he has to, he falls asleep when kissing the girl, and he ends up needing God to save his bacon. In addition, "Raiders" was a true thrill ride, going from one action set piece to the next (especially in the second half of the movie). There was humor in the film, but it wasn't bad puns and sight gags. It was sardonic wit and even gallows humor. Add to that, a crackling script, a wonderful score by John William's at the height of his theme-heavy style, and Spielberg use of the warm brown and gold hues, and the movie was a real pleasure to watch. Audience loved the film and watched it again and again. A new hero was born and he just about pushed James Bond out of the consciousness of 80's movie goers.

Of course there are some things to consider. James Bond started life as a spy, and his movies were usually based more of detective and suspense movie conventions. Even the more action packed adventures still held some mystery to them. When "Star Wars" arrived and began to shake up movie making with quick editing and special effects - "Moonraker" adapted by using the 70's Bond formula and injecting some glossy visuals into it. It also acknowledged that is was having fun with it's conventions and kept winking at the audience. Bond wasn't serious any more, and Roger Moore played it all very lightly.

On the other hand Indiana Jones was based on serial shorts that audiences enjoyed before a main feature. These "cliffhangers" were filled with nonsensical plots, but speedy action and plenty of chases and escapes. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg took that model, polished it up, added the anti-James Bond and suddenly you had a fresh new hero and an adventure that was thrilling enough to get people to come back again and again.

In a way "Raiders" legacy has influenced adventure and action movies since it's release. James Bond fell more and more into that mold (check out "Octopussy" and "Never Say Never Again" two Bond films released a couple of years after "Raiders"). This lasted up into the 1990's with the Brosnan tenure as 007. It's interesting to see that action movies started to swing the other way around the time of "The Matrix". Now action is elegant and brutally fast, and over the top violent. The hero's are now rough nasty anti-heroes. Even James Bond is a killer - less suave, but much more dangerous (and closer to his book persona than ever). Indiana Jones comes back and his cutting edge nature seems a bit old fashioned. But as they say, everything old becomes new again.

Do you think "Raiders" changed the course of action movies, or am I making this stuff up? Have you seen this type of change occur in books or other genre's of film? Who would win in a fight: Indiana Jones (of Raiders) or James Bond (of For Your Eyes Only)?