Quote:
Originally Posted by MFAFF
The issue is that Fleming was a very ironic and sarcastic man.. he made Bond react the same way...
It is all treated in a light hearted manner and dealt with flippantly... to pretend otherwise is both historically (Bond is a 'period' piece regardless of film updating) incorrect and misunderstands the reasoning behind it...that's why the Moore films were so good.. because he is flippant, he is so unlikely...even if his last two were dreadful...
|
There is a good book out called
The Man who Saved Britain which puts Bond in the historical context of postcolonialism and the British Empire's sunset-- highly recommended.
Look, the underlying tone of all of Fleming's stuff is the seriousness of the Cold War. "Redland" is a very real, tangible factor in all of his work, and the simple truth is that Bond's mission is to invariably KILL people on an individualized basis that has an effect far greater than nuclear weapons or tank divisions in terms of its effect on the enemy. Against that grim, lonely backdrop Fleming has inserted Bond's humor, vices and womanizing as a way of making the character human but also providing the reader with relief. . .
Do you remember in Dr. No when he shoots the professor basically in cold blood? The original screenplay, with Fleming standing in the wings, called for Bond to empty the magazine into him, which was censored to just two bullets in the final version. Grim business indeed. Far from invicible, when Le Chiffre works over Bond's testicles with a carpet beater you really FEEL it.
All the cinematic glimmer and special effects and whatnot take away from the purity of Fleming's original plot lines, if you ask me. I would like to remake a few of the short stories, like "Living Daylights" set in post-war Berlin . . . as short as necessary to get the point across. . .