Skip to main content

Russian clocks are always correct.


From Russia with Love
(1963)

The second Bond film cements the success of the first, and with Terence Young returning as director, Peter Hunt as editor and Richard Maibaum as writer, you’d have thought it might have been plain sailing. There were production and script problems from the off, however, and Hunt’s freehand in the editing suite did much to hide the joins. Indeed, there’s little evidence of the concerns on screen; the finished film standards head and shoulders above Dr. No in terms of quality and, outside of its status within the Bond canon, as a high quality spy thriller in its own right.


The reason I emphasise the latter aspect is that FRWL is atypically small scale in terms of action, villainy and set pieces. It works as a Cold War romance/thriller without needing to attach global domination to the list of narrative requirements. Notably, SPECTRE was not part of the original story and finessing their scheming into the proceedings caused a fair bit of pain. The MacGuffin isn’t very grand either; the procurement of a Russian cypher machine (the Lektor).


The SPECTRE plan is terribly convoluted. A SPECTRE double agent (Rosa Klebb, played by Lotte Lenya) requests a SMERSH operative (Tatiana Romanova, Daniela Blanchi) to trap Bond, enticing him to steal the Lektor at which point,

Red Grant: We were keeping you alive until you could give us the Lektor.

And the plan is to then sell the Lektor back to SHMERSH. Presumably the overriding aim is, as Grant suggests, to escalate tensions between the British and Soviets but it seems riddled with holes (even if the plan was a success, wouldn’t the Russkies be suspicious of how SHMERSH just happened to gain possession of the Lektor?)

Nevertheless, one of the pleasures of FRWL is that Bond is one step behind SPECTRE most of the time. Yes, he smells a rat. But he’s being shadowed by Red Grant throughout; someone else is calling the shots. Robert Shaw’s casting as Red Grant is a touch of genius. Although smaller and stockier than Connery, he has the physical presence and the charisma to make him every bit Bond’s equal. Their eventual meeting aboard the Orient Express sizzles because we have anticipated it for the first half of the film. Grant has already killed a Bond-a-like in the pre-credits sequence (itself a remarkably early recognition of the iconographic status of the series and star) and it’s a nice touch that he saves him when Bond is hanging out with gypsies.


Perhaps the greatest strength of this film is the casting. If Shaw is unstoppable (until he isn’t), just think how it might not have been so (Sean Bean’s lacklustre showing as a similarly matched opponent in Goldeneye). Lenya is likewise perfect, because her screen presence is so extraordinary. Diminutive and in no way a striking beauty, she uses her averageness to her advantage; playing up Klebb’s severity and suggesting a sense of inferiority too, when the occasion demands it. Oh, and lesbian tendencies. Also making a strong impression is Pedro Armendariz as Kerim Bey, who buddies up with Bond for a surprisingly long stretch of the film (Armendariz sadly found that he had terminal cancer during the making of the film, struggling valiantly to finish his work on it before he died). As for the Bond series’ reliance on former beauty queens, Daniela Bianchi brings a reserved elegance to Tatiana (her gauzy bare bottom is that of a body double), ironically since he character is instructed to prostitute herself for mother Russia.


Elsewhere, the film establishes its status as part of a series very firmly. Dr. No is referenced at the outset, Bond’s still canoodling with Sylvia Trench, M and Moneypenney are back (one of the most amusing scenes has them listening to Bond’s taped discussion with Tatiana  concerning the Lektor ), Bond again throws his hat onto the hat stand with precison and Q Branch is introduced.


Something that would never happen now; the story is given time to breathe. It’s 45 minutes before Bond has a fight. The showstopper, the brutal, face-crunching duel with Shaw is well-past halftime. Peter Hunt’s editing of this sequence is outstanding, and it remains supremely gripping today. The actors' chemistry is so strong  (“Red wine with fish”) prior to the dust-up that you hardly notice that Grant is blithely telling Bond every single thing he needs to know (in classic Bond villain fashion).


Unfortunately, this sequence is so effective that when it comes to the big spends, a helicopter chase (filmed in Scotland) followed by a boat chase, it’s somewhat anti-climactic. Which isn’t to say these sequences aren't well-directed and edited, but we’ve been spoiled by the action relating to the characters rather than faceless foes shooting at out hero. It’s appropriate, therefore, that the epilogue has Rosa Klebb attempting to take Bond out personally.

Bond: She’s had her kicks.

FRWL gets almost everything right that was still nascent in Dr. No. The balance between character, plot and action would rarely be so perfect again. Certainly, following the next outing, Connery’s Bond would stray into the trap of throwing money at the screen in the hope it would solve all other problems.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.