I was so struck by this one scene in Quantum of Solace, near the end. Bond and Camille are about to go into the Big Explosive Hotel of Death; they’re crouched behind some big rocks, and Camille is preparing to kill the man who murdered her parents.
If you’ve read Ian Fleming, this scene should remind you of the original short story For Your Eyes Only. Towards the end, Bond and Judy Havelock crouch in the woods as Judy prepares to kill the man who murdered her parents.
But here’s the difference: In the story, Bond does everything he can to try to stop her. Revenge is a man’s business. She doesn’t know what she’s getting into. And in the movie For Your Eyes Only, that theme still applies as Bond tells Melina Havelock the Chinese saying about digging two graves.
But in QOS, Bond respects Camille’s decision, and actually treats her like an adult. It’s genuinely feminist, in the sense of genuinely respecting a woman’s choice as equal to a man’s. Instead of telling her she’s not prepared for the consequences, he prepares her.
It’s maybe my favorite moment in the movie; the respect, the sorrow, the shared acknowledgement between them that this will be painful and perhaps unsatisfying, but it’s what she feels she must do and it’s her own business to make that decision.
19 users commented in " The Quantum of Solace-For Your Eyes Only connection "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThat is a great scene, one of empathy and sharing. The next five or so minutes of action at the hotel are thrilling, especially Bond’s coldblooded revenge of Mathis in going after the Chief of Police first. Where I think they went off the rails on the Bond-Camile dynamic is in the scene in the hotel room as the fire surrounds them. The scene implies that they are trapped and that Bond is going to shoot Camille (and presumably himself) to avoid being burned alive. I cannot buy into that coming from any part of James Bond that I know. He just jumped in there for one thing, and the Bond of Fleming, and of the movies (think Pierce Brosnan in TND to Wei Lee “we’re trapped” Bond “never!”) would not give up under any circumstances. Not sure how such an unBondian moment gets in there, because then he sees a canister, and does what Bond does–blow things up to escape. Good call on both the FYEO story and the movie (with nice RM acting on the Chinese saying)Deborah.
butterfly, the “we’re trapped”/”never” exchange is EXACTLY the correct answer to the apparent acceptance of suicide in that scene. You are 100% right.
Not sure if that’s entirely the case of being “unBondian” re: the implication of suicide if we’re thinking of both the books and the films…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it in Moonraker, the novel, where Bond accepted his fate, that he can stop the Moonraker, but to do so, also meant committing suicide (he would smoke under the jets of the leaky rocket– or something like that)?
And wasn’t it Gala Brand who talked him out of it?
It was only then that Bond got to thinking and guessed they may have a chance of survival if they bunkered up in the bath.
This is serviced by my memory, so I could be wrong.
When I saw that Bond was going to shoot Camille in QoS, I thought it’s something that he would do. That he saw no escape, especially for her, and she had already suffered the traumatizing events of fire in her childhood. She made the choice, begged him not to let her go like that. He made the cold choice to oblige her.
Then he saw his escape…
IMHO, I thought his decision very Bondian.
It’s an interesting thought. I’m reminded, though, that in the novel FRWL, Bond throws away his cyanide pill with a shudder–a scene that is referenced in Die Another Day.
I’m reading FRWL as we speak– just at the beginning. In the Smersh HQ. Haven’t got to the part he tosses the cyanide pills away.
But, from a previous reading, remember it’s there.
However, is it in a different context– when he tosses the pills away, is he, or more importantly, another person, and still more importantly, a person he has feelings for, in danger? Or is he in a passive situation?
Would Bond in FRWL, for example, give the pills to Tatiana if they were in a more than bad situation?
Knowing Fleming’s writing, and loving Bond, I would, perhaps presumptuously, assume he would.
And I believe entirely that Bond was ready to put a bullet in Camille’s head in QoS to save her the savages from flames eating at her flesh.
This is a Bondian quality that sends shivers down this fan’s spine: yes, horrible, but just.
Both you and butterfly are right in a way. Bond is protective, and you’re right, might well give Tanya cyanide to spare her from torture. But he also never gives up.
So Deborah. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m still a little confused on your opinion. Do you think that Bond was going to kill him and Camile was a good thing?
I think there was a lot wrong with the scene. It was too murky and too open for interpretation. I do think he was going to kill Camille. I can see peter’s point: It’s just possible that it is “Bondian” for him to kill her, but I don’t like it. It’s not possible, though, for him to hold her in his arms while the flames engulf them both. So no, not a good thing.
Interesting point on Moonraker–I seem to remember that too.
I suppose I was really thinking more of the cinematic Bond than the Fleming Bond.
In watching the scene, Bond briefly points the gun at Camile’s head. My reaction is okay, she is reliving her childhood fear, Medrano etc. Then he moves the gun away and I believe in the context of what has occurred in QoS Bond realizes no more killing unless necessary. Then he sees the way out and acts. I’m with Deborah, its too confusing.
How about the scene in the book version of Doctor No where he is crawling to escape through the hot piping, and etc. That is a classic which the movie does not capture the pain and determination of Bond the way Fleming’s words do.
Bond did cock the gun when they were trapped, there was no reason to do this if he was’nt going to shot her,I think Bond gave Camille more leeway since he knew she was once a Bolivian secret agent
Let’s also remember that Bond is still devastated by Vesper’s suicide, which was 2 years ago for us but mere weeks ago for Bond. Would he really condone another woman’s suicide?
But with him doing it, it wouldn’t be suicide.
He was going to release her the horror of re-living and subsequently dying from the oncoming and consuming flames.
Hey I agree that I think it was the wrong thing to do. But I watched the scene again, and it is obvious that Bond was going to kill her. If he knew she was going to die, he didn’t want her to die by her childhood fear. Now answer this, was Bond going to kill himself afterwards?
I don’t think so.
Bond has that sado-masochistic thing happening.
He would have released her through murder. Laid the gun down. Let the flames lick him to his finale, a punishment that he would accept with grim submission, like he somehow deserved this fate.
And that’s what makes Craig’s Bond so great in its three dimensions; this (or another conclusion of equal ambiguity/depth) could be realized.
His portrayal is, without a doubt, the most multi-layered. No matter what you think of the execution of QoS (and I blame Forester’s laissez faire attitude to the 007 franchise and action genre in general), Craig is game for Bond.
That is precisely the problem (I have anyway) with the scene as written and filmed. How can be kill Camille without killing himself. If Bond kills Camille, then escapes himself, they would have to make two sequels to give DC a chance to get over that one lol. And I can’t get past why he would want to kill himself over Camille. Not saying there’s no other ways to look at it. It’s just a weird twist in the QoS stream.
I think peter has a clear vision of Bond and I appreciate that, but I’m on butterfly’s side.
I didn’t think Bond was going to kill Camille and then find an escape for himself.
I think Bond saw that, until the canister in the wall was revealed, both of them were cooked anyways. He’d release her of the pain of her past with a bullet (since they were going to roast).
Would he then turn his gun on himself? I don’t think so. I think he would have waited for the flames to get him.
However, this latter part is more speculative on my part.
From what the scene shows, IMO, is that Bond thought they were both dead, no escape. She doesn’t want to go by the flames, he can be an angel of mercy and end her pain with a quick bullet.
Luckily he saw a last ditch escape plan by shooting the cannister.
The Bond of the books truly would take one for the team (or Her Majesty or the free world or the girl in danger).
Goldfinger comes to mind right away. Bond calculates whether he can leap across Goldfinger’s desk and throttle him before Oddjob snaps his neck. Both men would die and Bond only hesitates because he believes Oddjob is faster and deadlier than he is and can stop him from shutting Auric Goldfinger down.
In the films, it makes me wonder why Bond doesn’t simply pop one fist into Blofeld’s face in the films on several different occasions such as in OHMSS, YOLT and DAF. “Merry Christmas, 007. Blah-blah-blah… It takes more than a few props to turn 007 into a herald. Blah-blah-blah…” Just beat on him already! Great scene and great work by Savalas and Lazenby both in that scene, but really… just pop him one in the kisser already!
I read QoS as Bond is going to put a cap in Camille’s head at her request, before he perishes in the fire. The exposed canister he shoots is thus one of the better placed “deus ex machina” items in all the films.
Not really a deux ex machina. More like a machina ex deux. Ha!
Leave A Reply