The Bond Files #2: From Russia With Love (1963)

So, Bond is back.

He is indeed. The first film was such a success that there had to be a sequel, and there were plenty of Ian Fleming novels waiting to be adapted.

Why this one?

Well, President Kennedy had named the book as one of his ten favourite novels of all time in a 1961 issue of Life magazine. The book is also one of Fleming’s most compelling thrillers, with a really strong plot.

Is the film faithful to the book?

Mostly, with a few adjustments. For example, in the novel the Russians were the antagonists, whereas in the film Bond is up against SPECTRE, the evil organisation introduced in Dr No.

So what’s the story?

MI6 is contacted by Tatiana Romanova, a Russian cipher clerk who claims that she has fallen in love with a file photo of Bond and wants to defect, promising to hand over a cryptographic device called the Lektor in exchange for safe passage to England. Bond and M assume that this is an elaborate trap set by Russian intelligence, but it is in fact the work of SPECTRE, who have recruited Colonel Rosa Klebb as a Soviet mole.

Despite recognising the ruse, the chance of obtaining the Lektor is too great to pass up, and Bond is dispatched to Istanbul to escort Romanova back to England. Meanwhile, SPECTRE assassin Donald Grant secretly works to protect Bond’s life until he has possession of the Lektor, after which Grant intends to murder Bond (in retaliation for the death of Doctor No) and steal the device for his employers.

That’s quite intricate.

Yes, but the plot is really just an excuse for us to enter Bond’s crazy world of excitement and intrigue.

Who’s back from the last film?

Sean Connery is back as Bond, looking just as assured and comfortable as he did the first time round. If I had been alive to see From Russia With Love in 1963, I think I would have had a hard time imagining anyone else in the role. Also back are Bernard Lee as M and Lois Maxwell as Moneypenny, and we also get the first appearance of Desmond Llewellyn as Q, the legendary gadget-master.

Ooh, so does Bond get some gadgets this time?

He gets an attaché case, which contains a hidden knife and releases tear gas if not opened in a particular way. Actually, it’s the villains who get the most interesting gadgets; Grant has a garrotte wire that extends out of his wristwatch, and two of the SPECTRE agents – including Rosa Klebb – wear deadly shoes fitted with a venom coated blade. It makes sense that the villains are better equipped than Bond, since it gives him more obstacles to overcome.

Any supporting players of note?

There’s the totally charming Pedro Armendariz as Kerim Bey, Head of MI6 Station T and Bond’s contact in Istanbul. Kerim is a great character because you really believe that he and Bond are friends, thanks to the fantastic chemistry between Armendariz and Sean Connery. Sadly, Armandariz was suffering from terminal cancer during filming, and died before the film’s release. Also, Daniela Bianchi is really good as Tatiana, coming across as very genuine and sincere.

Are the villains as good as Doctor No?

Yes. This time we actually have a trio of villains: Red Grant, Rosa Klebb, and SPECTRE chief Ernst Stavro Blofeld, who at this point is a hand stroking a white cat. Lotte Lenya delivers a very effective performance as Klebb, but both she and Blofeld remain in the background for the majority of the film. Bond’s main adversary in From Russia With Love is Grant - a coldly efficient killing machine trained for the specific purpose of assassinating James Bond - played by the excellent Robert Shaw.

Henchmen in Bond films are often expected to have a gimmick of sorts, but Grant doesn’t need one; he is just a truly frightening man, casually disposing of anyone who threatens Bond’s life while relishing the prospect of murdering Bond himself. One of my favourite sequences comes in the last third of the film, when Grant masquerades as ‘Captain Nash’, a British agent sent to rendezvous with Bond. Grant’s attempts to come across as a jovial Englishman are painfully forced, and Bond’s suspicions gradually mount until Grant drops the pretence and reverts back to his natural state. It’s incredibly effective and somewhat chilling, even better for taking place aboard the Orient Express.

Are the production values still as high this time around?

Yes, the same level of care that was put into Dr No is applied here, with the same results. There appears to be a little less studio filming than there was last time, but the sets and lighting still look incredibly lavish, and the direction remains well-judged.

The title sequence is also noticeably more ambitious, and this time the credits are projected onto the bodies of belly dancers.

That’s a point: is there a theme song?

Yes: From Russia With Love, written by Lionel Bart and sung by Matt Monro. The full song is heard during parts of the film and over the end credits, and an instrumental version is used for the opening credits. A very nice song in a Frank Sinatra kind of style.

So, in conclusion?

Another really great Bond film, just as good as the last one. Again, it might have less action and stunts than people would expect from a Bond film today, but the sheer quality of the whole production makes it a must-watch.

Any random facts?

Well, Sean Connery and Robert Shaw would face off again in Robin & Marion (1976), where Shaw would play the Sherriff of Nottingham to Connery’s Robin Hood.  

The Bond Files #1: Dr No (1962)

  

What’s the story?

In his first ever big-screen adventure, James Bond is dispatched to Jamaica to investigate the death of a colleague, who was himself investigating a missile toppling crisis. The trail leads to the foreboding island of Crab Key, home of the mysterious Doctor Julius No.

 
What’s Sean Connery like as Bond?

Incredibly good, especially considering this was his first time playing the character. His Bond is a perfect mixture of charm and brutishness, with a bit of humour sprinkled in too.

 
How about the villain?

The villain is, of course, Doctor No, played by Joseph Wiseman. One thing I never noticed before is how little screen time Doctor No actually has, as the majority of the film is spent building suspense for his dramatic appearance in the third act. That he still manages to put in such a memorable performance is a testament to just how good Wiseman is; his commanding voice and unnerving stare serve him very well in the role, and the scene in which he and Bond verbally duel at the dinner table is a delight. He also wears a Nehru suit and lives in a luxurious underground lair, setting the standard for many a supervillain to follow.

 
Are there gadgets?

No, but Bond does receive a new gun from Q Branch.

 
Is there a theme song and title sequence?

Sort of: Dr No’s theme tune is the now iconic ‘James Bond Theme’, and it’s used a lot throughout the film. The title sequence is straightforward and low-key.

How does it stand up on a technical level?

Amazingly well. I was surprised to learn that the film didn’t have a particularly big budget, because it really looks great. The set design by Ken Adam is stunning, aided by some outstanding cinematography and lighting, and Terence Young directs with real style. There isn’t much location-hopping (the movie was filmed at Pinewood Studios and on location in Jamaica) but everything is photographed to the very highest standard.

So you’d recommend it?

Absolutely! Some might find it a bit slow compared with later films, but I enjoyed the lack of gadgets and huge stunts, as it gives the characters a bit more room to breathe. Sean Connery’s Bond is fantastic, definitely one of the most assured and confident performances I’ve seen from any actor, and the movie has a villain for the ages with Joseph Wiseman’s Doctor No. Factor in the first-rate production values and you have a real winner.

 
Do you have any useless trivia?

Yes. When Bond is about to sit down to dinner with Doctor No, he notices a painting on display and looks at it with an expression of shock. The painting is ‘Portrait of the Duke of Wellington’ by Francesco Goya, which had genuinely been stolen from the National Gallery in London on 21^st August 1961, and was still missing at the time the film was released (hence Bond’s shock). Is that useless and trivial enough for you?

Yes.