“Bond… Silhouette Bond.”
Every time a movie comes out that’s based on a book, people always shout, “LOL BUT TEH BOOK WAS SOOO MUCH BETTER LOL!” Well, sometimes the movie can be better than the source material. In some cases, drastically so. Just because the source material is a book doesn’t mean the book is not a huge steaming pile of shit. Here’s an example:
In case it wasn’t already known, I am a huge fan of the James Bond film series. I have watched them all, own them all, and eagerly anticipate the release of each new movie. The successful franchise is based on a series of popular books. Since I’m illiterate I had never read any of the books, but I figured, what the hell, I should give one of them a try. Going in chronological order made sense, so I figured I’d start at the beginning.
The first book in the James Bond series is Casino Royale. It was written by Ian Fleming and published in 1953. He pretty much made the espionage genre of literature and films popular with this single work. There have been countless imitators since then, but there is only one James Bond. There was no way I was going to dislike this book. It was the first James Bond novel! It was going to be awesome! I sat down to read, and…
…holy shit this book is fucking terrible!
I don’t even know where to begin when describing how laughably bad the Casino Royale book is. The story is extremely bare-bones and barely coherent. The characters are all completely one-dimensional. They exist solely to spout dialog and propel the cheesy story forward. But worst of all is the prose. The prose is so badly written. It is on the same level as a teenager, and only one step above Stephanie Meyer of Twilight fame.
Ian Fleming’s Bond novels
Here are some examples:
Mathis came over and took the doctor’s chair.
“That’s a good man,” said Bond. “I like him.”
“He’s attached to the Bureau,” said Mathis. “He is a very good man and I will tell you about him one of these days. He thinks you are a prodigy – and so do I.”
Oh, is he a good man? It isn’t quite clear. Maybe if someone else came in and mentioned how the doctor was a good man, then we’d have a better idea. Fleming should be given the Redundancy Award for Redundancy. I also like how Mathis tells Bond he will let him know about the good doctor someday. If there’s a story worth telling, then just go ahead and tell it. If not, then that statement is fucking pointless. (He never tells Bond the story, thus proving my point.)
“You are fortunate,” said the voice. “I have no orders to kill you. Your life has been saved twice in one day. But you can tell your organization that SMERSH is only merciful by chance or by mistake. In your case you were saved first by chance and now by mistake, for I should have had orders to kill any foreign spies who were hanging round this traitor like flies round a dog’s mess.
“But I shall leave you my visiting-card. You are a gambler. You play at cards. One day perhaps you will play against one of us. It would be well that you should be known as a spy.”
In this scene, Bond is being tortured, and someone bursts into the room and kills Bond’s torturer. Then, he gives Bond this long-winded speech. I really don’t think an assassin is going to be that verbose. He would just come in, kill whoever he needed to kill, and get out. I especially like how he explains to Bond why he isn’t going to kill him. Like that guy would give a fuck. And if SMERSH is all about killing spies, then why not just kill Bond, anyway? I suppose this is the origin of the stereotype that all the villains explain the details of their plan to Bond. The highlight of this passage is the masterful prose. “You are a gambler. You play at cards.” Yes, that is what gamblers do. This guy is like Sherlock Fucking Holmes.
“I’m a gambler. I play at cards. In the dark. With mood lighting.”
He looked Bond carefully, almost caressingly, in the eyes.
The whole novel is filled with weird statements just like that one. The scene in question is filled with homosexual tension. Le Chiffre, the villain, strips Bond naked, ties him to a chair, and then hits him in the balls multiple times. Of course, then he “caresses” Bond with his eyes. If that isn’t gay, then I don’t know what is. The entire novel is rife with homosexual undertones. Le Chiffre gets aroused by torturing a naked Bond, and Bond’s friend Mathis gets awfully close to him on more than one occasion. Maybe Bond is supposed to be gay or bi-curious? Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
They exchanged smiles over some item on the menu and apparently agreed that it would suit for the patron took the card and with, Bond guessed, a final exchange about the wine, he withdrew.
That sentence sums up what I mean by bad prose. The wording makes no goddamn sense. I had to read it three or four times before I figured of what the fuck was going on. Apparently, Fleming decided to write the most opaque sentence imaginable just to tell us that some guy ordered lunch and a glass of wine. The sentence is awkward, and the whole book is full of other shit that is just as awkwardly phrased.
He would try and catch the Citroen and shoot it out with them and if she got shot in the process, that was too bad too.
This is further proof that Fleming is a shitty writer. Not only is this a run-on sentence, but it’s dreadfully written. If the girl Bond is trying to save gets killed then that’s “too bad too.” Oh, do you think you could use the word “too” some more? He probably should have written, “He would try and catch the Citroen, and shoot it out with them. If she got shot in the process, that would be too bad.” But Fleming doesn’t bother writing grammatically correct prose because he’s a hack. And apparently in the 1950s there were no such things as literary editors.
The plot of this novel doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. It’s the Cold War, and deals with spies from both sides of the Iron Curtain. Le Chiffre works for the Soviet Union. He has been losing money on costly operations, and needs to recoup his losses to appease his superiors. He’s an excellent gambler, so he decides the best way to do this will be to head down to a French casino, the aptly named Casino Royale, to win some money by playing cards. British Intelligence decides if they can thwart him, they can shut down a Soviet operative, and prevent money from getting funneled back into Soviet Intelligence. OK, well, so far the premise makes sense. But that’s where the sanity ends.
Ian Fleming, contemplating how to write cheesy dialog.
Bond gets sent in as the British agent to beat Le Chiffre at cards. He joins a card game that Le Chiffre is playing in, and tries to beat him. What doesn’t make sense is what if Le Chiffre decides he’s done playing? He won a shitload of money beforehand, and could walk away at any time. Or what if he decided to go to another table? Why not do that? If Bond follows him, Le Chiffre would know he’s a spy, and the mission would be over. We later find out that Le Chiffre is already spying on Bond from the moment he arrives. He even tries to have him assassinated at one point. If he knew what Bond was up to, then why not just walk away immediately? He had already won back the money he needed, there was no incentive to stick around and keep playing. And it’s not like he had some big vendetta against Bond, wanting to crush him into oblivion, because the two had never met before. It doesn’t make any sense. It’s weak. Huge gaping plot holes like that are a sign of lazy writing.
The 2006 film version of Casino Royale improves upon the novel in every aspect. First, they fixed up the nonsensical plot. Instead of having Le Chiffre play against Bond for the hell of it until he eventually loses, they have a card tournament at Casino Royale. It’s winner-takes-all, so it now makes sense for Le Chiffre to stay and play against Bond. If he walks away he gets nothing, so he has to stick around. Already, the movie makes 10,000 times more sense than the novel.
Bond vs Le Chiffre
While the novel opens with some boring bureaucratic nonsense and background information on the principal players, the film opens with an exciting action sequence. Bond gets involved in a free-running chase with a bomb-making terrorist. This eventually leads him to thwart a plot to destroy a new airliner. Not only was this very exciting, well choreographed, and just plain fun, but it also served an important role in the plot. Le Chiffre was playing the stock market and hoping to make a killing by destroying the airliner. He loses all his money when Bond interferes, and he is forced to go to the tournament at Casino Royale, otherwise he is completely fucked. This was nice, because it gave us some early excitement in the film, and made us realize the stakes for the villain. In the book, there isn’t really any sense of urgency. Le Chiffre of the book can just come and go and gamble as he pleases. There is no need for him to get the money as fast as possible.
In the book, it’s even more perplexing that Bond goes in with his real name, no alias, and the bad guys immediately learn he’s a spy. Great job, British Intelligence. Maybe if you used covers the Cold War wouldn’t have lasted 40 years. The movie at least gives him an alias and he chooses not to use it because he’s cocky. Vesper even calls him out on this, and Le Chiffre makes a remark about it. The movie shows us Bond is brash and overconfident, in over his head, while the novel just shows us that British Intelligence is run by a bunch of morons.
Also in the book, there is this weird scene near the beginning where two inept spies try to kill Bond. They throw a bomb at him and miss. They attempt to throw another, and it explodes in their hands. And that’s it. That story thread never returns again. Um, OK. What was the point of that? Narrative continuity seems to be something Ian Fleming was not concerned with.
On a more random note, one of the fun parts of the Bond movies is that the villain (or his henchman) have a unique, bizarre characteristic. For example, Oddjob’s deadly bowler hat, or the horrible metal teeth of Jaws. Le Chiffre of the movie has a nasty scar on his face which causes him to weep blood. Pretty cool. In the book, Le Chiffre’s defining characteristic is you can see the white of his eyes all the way around the iris. Well, uh, that certainly is, um, interesting. It’s about as frightening as Torgo’s giant knees from “Manos”: The Hands of Fate.
At least the book doesn’t have blatant product placement. And don’t touch my Heine.
After Le Chiffre is finally killed, in both the book and movie, Bond spends time recovering in the hospital. The book has him waxing philosophically to Mathis, while the movie skips that shit and has him banging Vesper Lynd. The philosophical crap was pointless and idiotic. Bond decides he is going to quit being a spy because it is too dangerous. Apparently, the Bond of the books is a big pussy unlike the Bond of the movies. He drones on and on about good versus evil. He tries to wrap his head around the concept that he perceives himself as a good guy and Le Chiffre as a bad guy, while Le Chiffre perceives himself as a good guy and Bond as a bad guy. Thanks a lot, Socrates. That’s really fucking deep. This goes on for way too long, and ultimately only ends when Bond heals up and leaves the hospital. The movie screenwriters realized this was boring and made Bond sound idiotic, and no one wanted to see any of that. So they rightfully excised all of it. They decided that Bond should quit out of love for Vesper. That’s a motivation people can relate to. In the context of the film, it made perfect sense. In the book, no one can really relate to not wanting to be a spy because of some bullshit pop-psychological nonsense.
The book winds down with about 1000 chapters of Bond hanging out with Vesper in some French seaside town. They eat a bunch of meals, call each other “Darling”, and act like a pair of goons. Eventually, Vesper sees a man with an eyepatch and promptly kills herself. She leaves Bond a note explaining everything (of course she does): she was really a Russian agent, the eyepatch-man was her contact, the gig was up, and she felt the best resolution was suicide. Oh, and she really loved Bond. Bond then decides to remain a spy, and calls her a bitch. The End. Wow, great ending, Fleming. Apparently, he has never heard of the concept of a literary climax.
The movie fares much better. It shows Bond and Vesper happily enjoying themselves. She sees eyepatch-man and realizes the gig is up. This leads her to betray Bond, and culminates in an exciting shootout in Venice where Vesper ultimately dies. Bond is filled with mixed emotions: love, anger, grief and hatred. It comes across clearly to the viewers, plus it provided an actual climax to the film. In the book, Bond’s emotions are not conveyed to the reader. He’s just pissed that Vesper is dead.
Two more reasons the movie is better than the book. And no, I’m not talking about Daniel Craig.
Overall, the Casino Royale movie improves on every single aspect of the book. The characters are not flat, one-dimensional husks, as they are in the book. The Bond of the novel exists to simply be a foil to the villainous Le Chiffre. He has no emotions, no personality, no backstory, and isn’t the slightest bit interesting. This is all due to crappy writing on the part of the author. Plentiful action sequences make the film much more lively than the book. The bullshit psychology is gone. The nonsensical reasons for Le Chiffre gambling against Bond are reformed to something that makes perfect sense. Bond’s betrayal by Vesper and his feelings are easily conveyed. Plus, Vesper has a fitting end, instead of just getting scared and killing herself. Best of all, in the movie, you aren’t exposed to Fleming’s horrible prose.
Casino Royale the movie is really good, certainly one of the best Bond films. It’s hard to believe that such a great movie came from such shitty source material. It’s also amazing to think that anyone would publish this piece of crap. I suppose in the 1950s you could publish anything. After experiencing something this bad, I definitely won’t waste my time reading anything else written by Ian Fleming.
Verdicts:
The Movie – Awesome
The Book – Shitty
Awesomely Shitty 
In an odd twist, you actually make me want to read the book, because… I’m sure you must be wrong. It cant suck that bad.
That said, I have no doubt the movie is better. Movies often are. The “Books are always better” crowd are usually simply partial to books, just as I’m partial to films.
As always though, your post is funny as hell. 😀
Well, I’m inclined to think that most often the book is better than the movie. That’s why I was shocked to find the James Bond source material to be so horrendously bad. If it just had plot holes, or just had crappy prose, that would be one thing. But the combination of the two is unforgivable. Don’t waste your time, Fogs. I’d rather watch “The World is Not Enough” a thousand times than read “Casino Royale” again.
When someone puts the book vs. movie thing, I always like to point out “Jaws.” I haven’t read it, but by most accounts it was terribly pulpy. The movie, on the other hand, is widely regarded as a masterpiece. The biggest difference is that the book usually goes into more details. However, sometimes leaving out those details, which can sometimes be absurd and not very well thought out, can lead to a stronger story.
For example: I recently watched a V-log on “The Ring.” The movies, both the Japanese and American versions, are generally regarded as among the best horror movies ever made. However … how was the book? Did you know that in the book, the cause of everything was a virus, a physical germ, on the videotape? And that the sequel revealed that it wasn’t a virus, it was a genetic mutation? And that the sequel after that revealed that, actually, everything was taking place in a Matrix-like virtual reality world? What the what?!?!?! If anyone ever brings up book vs. movie, all you have to tell them is how absolutely terrible the Ring books were.
I’ve read Jaws. The movie is definitely better. The Godfather is another great example. Ask people for some of the greatest books ever, no one will ever answer “The Godfather”, but ask about the greatest films…
So movies CAN be better, obviously.
I’m wondering if the book was good, in its time. Well, maybe not good good, but a better read than trying to read it now. Maybe? Whatever the answer, I don’t think I’ve ever felt inclined to read it. Or any of the other Bond novels from Fleming. The films are doing just great for me. And you’ve highlighted many reasons not to want to read Casino Royale.
I think you may be right, Jaina. People didn’t have any point of reference back then, there was nothing “really good” in the spy genre to compare “Casino Royale” to. The originality factor alone probably helped out a lot. Unfortunately, the book doesn’t hold up with the passage of time.
I gotta agree. The books are terrible. I am a huge Bond fan, and I love to read. However, I could barely get through the first few chapters of Casino Royale. I tried Moonraker next, just because I understand the book is very much different from the movie. Had a hard time with that, too. It retroactively made me resent John F. Kennedy, by the way, since From Russia With Love was supposedly his favorite book. Why do presidents have such bad tastes in reading material?!?!?!
(Eh, who am I to judge. If I ever ran for president, I’d have to reveal my favorite book was the fantasy novel The Dragonbone Chair by Tad Williams.)
I remember reading that screenwriter Roald Dahl had a tough time adapting “You Only Live Twice.” He said that the book was, “Ian Fleming’s worst book, with no plot in it which would even make a movie.” I have a feeling that this is true of most of the books. If any of them had great plots, then there wouldn’t have been much need to change them so much for the movies. I think Fleming deserves credit for creating such a memorable character, but we need to realize he’s a pulp fiction-hack who does not deserve praise for his writing “talent.”
I was going to mention this, as that is more or less what Dahl is noted for having said as he was writing screenplay for the You Only Live Twice. Dahl and Fleming were also acquiantences during WWII – both worked in or around the British Embassady at Washington. Dahl by then was already writing – not sure if Fleming was, but whatever the case, Dahl ultimately became the more profilic and influential author with works such as James and the Giant Peach, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, and Fantastic Mr. Fox.
I have not read Fleming’s Casino Royale – or any of his other works – but it is disappointing to hear that it pales in comparison to the recent film adaptation. Your approach to comparing and contrasting the two works feels spot-on. As I like the film a great deal, I foresee I would find some or all of the same issues in the novel as you have. If I do chose to read it, it’ll probably be sometime after I’ve read other, more significant works – for instance, James and the Giant Peach. You should try Fantastic Mr. Fox, I imagine it’ll help you move beyond Fleming’s woeful prose.
We all need to realize Fleming was a hacky pulp writer, and not a literary writer like Nabokov. I had no idea until I read this book, which helped disappoint me even more.
Also, please excuse my grammar and spelling mistakes. I have a poor habit of not re-reading something before I hit the ‘post’ button. I suppose Fleming wouldn’t be good at that either.
Are you sure you aren’t related?
I couldn’t disagree more with your comparison between book and film. In the book you are told a story of a war veteran agent pitted up against a believable counter intelligence agency in SMERSH (which leads onto the next 5 books) while in the film we’re fed the generic bull that’s been mangled to fit in with an idea of a modern threat in stock broker for terrorists… I mean come on!
Vesper’s Character is completely different so much so that she is a completely different personality on every level to that envisioned in the book. Allot of her part in the film is missed out replaced by unnecessary explosive scenes at the beginning that’s purpose is purely to make up a completely different back story to Le Chiffre therefore masking what should be a complex character with a hidden secret to a confusing character that comes across in a state of constant PMS.
This brings me to the second point as the only similarity of Le Chiffre’s character, and a long one at that, is he has an inhaler type device for respiratory issues like described in the book. His character is even less complex in the film and far less intelligent. His actions in the film are unexplained and make no logical sense. The torture scene described in the book is far more thrilling than the short couple of painful slaps Bond goes through in the film. Certainly not the character defining moment in his past that sets events in motion to becoming the James Bond that made the books so famous.
Mathis in the film is simply terrible too. His part is minimal and rather than being an old trusted friend of Bond who he is fond of he ends up being branded a traitor!? which then isn’t really explained considering he shows up in quantum of solace seemingly back to good again…
The relationship between bond and Vesper doesn’t make any sense in the film, they are at each others throats and show no interest in one another until suddenly declaring unending love to one another cause he got hurt… In the book their relationship develops from the initial spark when they first meet and vesper blames herself for Bonds injuries.
Then there comes the irritating changes to events in the film. Playing poker rather than baccarat makes the entire competition make less sense as there is incredible chance for le chiffre to fail as the odds are even across the table while baccarat gives him the advantage as the bank, they make this big thing in the film about playing the man across from you when apparently Le Chiffre whilst having the most obvious tell in the history of Poker (obviously reinforcing his decision to risk it all on a high stakes poker game) just gets lucky throughout the film until the final card. That’s without mentioning that in a real game of texas hold’em there would have been further one on one rounds between Bond and Le Chiffre after the final straight flush Bond has because Bonds all in call wouldn’t have been enough to cover Le Chiffre’s full chip count.
Then there’s the car chase before Bond is captured. One minute Bond is driving less than half a mile behind the kidnappers the next scene vesper miraculously appears lying in the middle of the road seemingly placed to cause Bond to flip the car… Cause they knew for sure that placing their accomplice in the middle of the road would have been completely safe as he was 100% going to see her and flip the car to miss her!?
Felix Leiter’s part in the film is one of a fob off when he isn’t introduced to Bond until Bond has decided to act rash and just stab Le Chiffre (apparently Bond throws his toys out the pram now!?) but Felix stops him before he can reach the villain explaining who he is and advising him he will help him out with a further buy in. Therefore, we now miss out on the high tension scene where Bond is thinking about how he has failed his queen and country and can’t put in for the next round which is coming up imminently (not in an hour…) and Felix organised for Bond to be handed the package with the money and a cheeky note explaining its from him.
Then I come to Bond himself, in the film he isn’t really James Bond at all but a different character given the name. He is over cheerful and loud throughout making the torture scene seem like a bit of tongue and cheek rather than a gripping ordeal. He laughs and jokes with vesper completely undermining the transition his character should be going through as he does in the book from having no respect for women on any level to admiring and falling in love with vesper by the end. This means we are deprived of the scene between Mathis and Bond where he tells him he’s going to quit being an agent because he is confused about which side is right and wrong ultimately leading to his transformation into the iconic Bond he is known to be and instead are given a transition from something almost like the old bond of the later films to Jason Bourne as he becomes in the following 2 squeals quantum and skyfall.
Overall, the book is an intelligent game between two groups inspiring mystery in the reader as each side seems to be one step ahead of the other at different points while the film back hands this aspect of the story out of the way to allow for explosions and loud noises. In the book we’re given developing characters that all play a role in the chess match that unfolds between the two sides while the film the characters are thrown in with little depth and explanation which inspires confusion more than intrigue.
Perhaps the whole Bond series would be better if it was set in period as I can see the problem with putting a Russian intelligence agency as the main protagonist in a modern adaptation but the biggest Crime the film commits is the complete negligence to the construction of the novel as each element of the bond universe in the books fits with the 1950’s building a story that is believable and makes sense as its stems from the transition between the second world war and the cold war. I don’t see why a bond film set in the 1950’s but made today would be unpopular today. If anything with films like the great Gatsby and the american hustle, films set in decades past have been very successful so why not really take Bond back to his routes. Especially considering most of the films are drastically different from their original books
Thanks for article, was really interesting to read it. Agreed with most of the part (with some stuff couldn`t agree because I wasn`t reading novel in original and translators censored some stuff).
I wouldn’t bother reading it again, it’s not good. Just stick with the movie.
I don’t understand it. I bought the Kindle of Casino Royale a few days ago.
I was going to use it as inspiration for a blog post on my website. I thought, “There’s no way I’d write something as amazing as Casino Royale, but at least I’ll be able to pick up a voice to copy.”
So I started reading…
A little way in, I thought, “This can’t be. This must be someone else who’d ripped off the story and sold it as a Kindle book.”
So I googled another copy.
When I realised that I’ve been reading the original, and that it sucks, I googled “casino royale book is terrible” and came across this post.
How did this guy get his stuff published? Did he have inside connections?
I’m finding this impossible to believe.
Yeah, I am as clueless as you are as to how it got published. It’s absolute garbage, and written with the skill of a high-schooler. I think publishers had lower standards back then, they’d publish anything if you had the ability to write a book.
Its important to place context around the book when it was first published. Casino Royale was by no means the best bond book but it was thw first of its kind for the time. Before that book there wasnt shelves full of spy novels with series like jack reacher and bourne. Casino Royale set the trend. It was something new and although not as strong as later books written by flemming it described a war torn bond that is just about to develop into the bond that made him the character he became famous for. Try live and let die or goldfinger. There better books. Moon raker is also rated highly but i didnt enjoy that one.
That’s a sensible answer. I might try one of the others at some point. Thanks for the info.