I decided to compare a few of the early James Bond stories that I have been reading and watching lately.
Book (1953): This is an excellent detective novel. Ian Fleming also showcases his writing for the first time and acquits himself admirably. The style is concise and memorable; there are some nods to the dialogue in the most recent film adaptation.
Unlike the action-themed film, the novel focuses more on the Baccarat game between James Bond and Le Chiffre (it’s disappointing that the film chose to focus the gambling around Texas Hold-em rather than Bond’s traditional game of Baccarat). The strategy of the game and Bond’s strategies to bust the terrorist banker are very interesting. Bond’s affair with Vesper Lynd is not given as much attention because it is not central to the spy mystery. On the other hand, this detracts some meaning from her death, which increases in importance throughout subsequent Bond novels.
Film (2006): The gritty nature of the film is much appreciated and mirrors the turmoil Bond confronts as he earns his double-0 status. “M” calls him out as a blunt instrument early in the film but Daniel Craig’s performance shows how Bond matures. Less special effects make the film feel more like the early Sean Connery releases when contrasted with the ridiculous action sequences featured in The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day. Also, David Arnold’s score is very classy: combining John Barry’s “James Bond” and “007” themes with a symphonic version of Chris Cornell’s “You Know My Name” during key sequences.
I think it was also a good touch to include more nuanced detective work, by both sides. Sometimes, Fleming’s Bond appears to be a fool. However, MI-6 and Bond’s decisions to overlook Vesper Lynd’s Algerian love knot is a key oversight. Lynd’s demise is somewhat melodramatic but the incident is required to create Bond’s desire to make up for this one mistake (as Trevelyan puts it in GoldenEye “are you going to save [Natalya] to make up for all the ones you’ve lost?).
The reintroduction of other characters who will recur later in the film, such as Mathis and Felix Leiter is subtly done; I hate disposable characters that disappear after one film in a series and destroy all continuity. ***
From Russia with Love
Book (1957): Bond only appears for half of the novel, as the first part concerns S.M.E.R.S.H.’s plans to assassinate him and create a scandal at the Secret Service. Suspense builds slowly and persistently throughout the book and Fleming includes a cliffhanger ending because he was unsure whether or not to let Bond survive.
Kerim Bey is one of my favourite Bond characters because of his casual and frank attitude about his job. Like most Bond associates, he meets an untimely end. Why would anyone work with Bond? Even Leiter was eventually severely maimed because of his dealings with Bond. Fleming reveals in the book that the Secret Service pays its agents poorly but they perform well out of loyalty.
Film (1963): In the film chronology, From Russia with Love occurs after Doctor No. Bond’s assassination is planned by S.P.E.C.T.R.E. in retaliation for the death of Julius No and their involvement makes the plot more logical. In the book, Bond seems to a total fool, falling for an obvious trap but Blofeld’s plans seem slightly more realistic. I also think the final showdown with Rosa Klebb, when Tatiana Romanova is forced to choose between her past (Klebb was a K.G.B. officer who had defected) and her present (Bond) enhances the film. Romanova kills Krebb because of how Bond treated her on the Orient Express whereas she is absent from the novel’s climax. **½
Doctor No
Book (1958): The Doctor No novel is far superior to the film because it is more thorough and complicated. Some scenes are written exactly as they will appear in the film but many others include more character and plot development. For example, when “M” wants to confiscate Bond’s Beretta, a page and a half are devoted to Bond’s feelings for his weapon, the type of emotions appropriate for a cold, “blunt instrument.” Julius No makes more than a cameo appearance in the film. His scheme is fleshed out and more importantly, he is a sadistic maniac, like a man whose former employer cut of his hands and tried to shoot him in the heart should be.
Film (1962): I thought that the film lost because the character of Doctor No and the S.P.E.C.T.R.E. organization is not adequately fleshed out. His past, his plans, and his claws are barely discussed. I find that the same lack of detail affects the entire story, which was probably shortened because the Bond franchise was nascent at the time. I also found it odd that No’s hideout has a fire alarm and detailed evacuation procedures. Hank Scorpio wasn’t the only super-villain who valued employee health along with world domination. **
Goldfinger
Book (1959): The book is much more detailed than the subsequent film. I liked the darker tones. Bond begins Goldfinger depressed about taking the life of a Mexican drug lord and pondering the ethics of killing someone. Fleming’s Bond should have a conscience to a degree; the literary James Bond does not behave like Sean Connery and quip “Positively shocking” after Odd Job’s death due to electrocution.
In the novel, Pussy Galore is clearly a lesbian and Bond uses his sexual prowess to help convince her to change sides. I also appreciate the details included about Goldfinger’s plans. Auric Goldfinger is portrayed as a banker for S.P.E.C.T.R.E., not simply a very rich man who wants to blow up Fort Knox.
Film (1964): The classic James Bond film that inspired the formula. It’s hard to criticize the film because it stands up very well over time. I’ve always wondered why Goldfinger doesn’t kill Bond when he has the chance but I suppose it wouldn’t make for an uplifting ending. Bond shows some devotion to the women in the film, like Tilly and Jill Masterson, which is a critical part of the character; Bond thinks about the death of Vesper Lynd regretfully throughout all of the books written by Fleming. ***
All these considered, Casino Royale offers the best combination of film and novel out of the four.