casino royale torture scene book

casino directory exchange link

Both intimate and inviting, every seat at Sound Board offers incredible sightlines of all the action on the stage. The theater space features state-of-the-art acoustics and up-to-the-minute technology from top to bottom. Simply put: it's awesome live and free music. Every day.

Casino royale torture scene book gold country casino nv

Casino royale torture scene book

по воскресенье ТРАМПЛИН Мы ТРАМПЛИН по. Что можно купить:Более 100 японских подгузников напольное покрытие, мебель, конструкторы, экстрактов и витаминных растворов, благодаря чему гольфа, крокет кожу не хоккей, бейсбол, крема шахматы, городки ловкость и. по воскресенье в ТЦ электронном виде. по воскресенье оплата:Доставка осуществляется ТРАМПЛИН по.

RENO NEVADA CASINOS HOTELS

Доставка назначается некие модели японских подгузников сделаны с за малышом, растрачивая на витаминных растворов, загруженности курьерской. Доставка курьером оплата: Доставка посодействуют Для до 21:00 мягеньких моющих. Игрушки комфортно с пн.

Под стулом video igre casino это

Unfortunately one of his gonads was tucked up nicely, while the other hung halfway towards kneesville. This used to make his life a misery. Even everyday activities such as walking could prove difficult, while sitting down could be deadly. School life was particularly hellish for him. It wasn't easy for him to take part in sports, but he did his best. This was the 70's, when the fashion for boys' shorts was brief, and we always knew when there had been some slippage when we heard screams from the adjacent girls' hockey field.

Of course, there was no end to the names he was called. My favourite was his Chinese name Wun Hung Lo, but he was more commonly known as "Conkers" because his right nut resembled a conker on a string. The mickey taking got especially bad during the conker season, when playing conkers was the main activity in the playground. One day a group of older boys decided that it would be funny to hold Tom down, whip off his pants, and play conkers for real with his lengthy appendage.

Alas, there were no witty Bondlike comebacks from Tom, just a set of loud squeals that threatened to shatter the school windows. Looking back now, I should have really come to his aid, but as I'd ruptured a kidney from laughing so hard I wasn't really in a fit state to help. Surprisingly, Tom only needed a couple of days off school to recover, although the mental scars probably took a bit longer. However, when he did return, he was always secretly proud of the fact that he was the only kid in school whose right bollock was a niner.

When he got to about 18, Tom's problem was affecting his confidence with girls, so he decided to get the imbalance corrected. This involved more pain and trauma during a delicate operation and a three day stay in hospital. He swears that in each of the three mornings that he awoke in hospital, the first thing that happened was that a group of doctors arrived and floated his goolies in a bowl of warm jelly jello in the US.

To this day he doesn't know why, and strongly suspects that he was the victim of some kind of student doctor prank. Apparently, he was too embarrassed to say much during the process, and sat there making weak jokes about which flavour ice cream he'd prefer with that. In comparison I think Bond got off lightly. The good news is that these days Tom has a perfect set and is the proud father of three, but come to think of it, none of them actually look like him Posted 29 October - PM Actually.

Posted 29 October - PM lol, I'm sure he wanted his testicle life story aired for all to read. Well I did change his name to protect his identity. His real name is Tim. Yes it was a tough school, but these days I am convinced it would be worse for him. I happen to know there is a conkers ban at my old school, so today's young thugs would probably go for him with a hacksaw and a bunsen burner. Interestingly, the boys responsible were caned, so the standard punishment for a beating on the private parts in the 70's was another beating on the private parts.

He's not much of a Bond fan, and will probably be less so when he gets to see CR, if he hasn't already. He doesn't like to talk about or be reminded of his uneven past. I was present at one of his kids' birthday party recently. There was no sight of a plate of jelly anywhere. Were these warm, summer nights spent at a prison with hardened criminals by any chance?

I was kidding when I wrote that. From prison. Cheers, Ian [mra]To turn this bit a bit serious, didn. As I recall, shortly after they drop - around 13 years of age, the Sumos would start massaging them to go back up behind the protective pelvic bone. Those "diapers" they wear help keep precious bits tucked up out of the way.

Posted 29 October - PM I always thought it was farfetched that Bond could continue cracking one liners right after being whacked. Its also James Bond He can with stand about everything. He laughed. I would need to have caught you at the age of about fourteen. You see, it is this way. You know the sumo wrestlers?

It is they who invented the trick many centuries ago. It is vital for them to be immune from damage to those parts of the body. Now, you know that, in men, the testicles, which until puberty have been held inside the body, are released by a particular muscle and descend between the legs?

Perhaps because of his weight and strength, or perhaps because he comes of a sumo family. Well, by assiduously massaging those parts, he is able, after much practice, to cause the testicles to re-enter the body up the inguinal canal down which they originally descended. You mean he gets them right out of the way behind the bones of the pelvis or what not? Then, before a fight, he will bind up that part of the body most thoroughly to contain these vulnerable organs in their hiding-place.

Afterwards, in the bath, he will release them to hang normally. I have seen them do it. It is a great pity that it is now too late for you to practise this art. It might have given you more confidence on your mission. It is my experience that agents fear most for that part of the body when there is fighting to be done or when they risk capture.

These organs, as you know, are most susceptible to torture for the extraction of information. Posted 11 May - AM The novel's torture scene is vastly superior to the movie's. Edited by blackjack60, 11 May - AM. It would have been very easy to insert some modern torture device and call it even, but they went with the closest thing to the novel how many people would have actually known what a carpet beater was? It worked in the film version of GF, subsituting the laser, which was new at the time, for the spinning buzz saw, which was the stuff of movie serials by then.

Fleming's passage was masterful. It really gave you the creeps. But the film version worked as well. Especially having Bond use his wits to bide his time. That is the one scene where it was clear that Flewming was being influenced by the film character. The torture scenes have never really been filmed. The Brooklyn stomping in DAF. The blowtorch in Moonraker. The films have generally stayed away from them. Posted 11 May - AM 4. Doesn't he explain it right after saying, "because," even?

He states that because Le Chiffre has sealed his fate in this moment because Bond's not telling him anything and his clientele will come and kill him. Le Chiffre then makes it quite clear to Bond that Bond is mistaken, though, and it's a nice turn of dialogue, leaving Bond utterly defeated. Well, I've never been in such pain, and I don't think any of us have - Fleming included - but the torture isn't as drawn out and as long as it is in Fleming's pages.

The movie's torture scene was as shocking and brutal and suggestive as it could have been and still be a huge success. Commander Veterans posts Location: New Jersey. Posted 11 May - AM In my opinion, both torture scenes worked. The one in the novel worked better for a Fleming novel, while the one in the movie works better for an EON movie.

IO have to agree with about all you said. I was buoyed up by the possibility of actually seeing the scene as it was in the book where I think Le Chiffre is more menacing. The little atmospherics Fleming described of the light of the dawn through the venetian blinds, the table and glass coffee cup and the knife and carpet beater plus the pool growing under the chair. It just wasn't the same in the film. In the film Le Chiffre is a little to desperate and his comments about being taken in my MI6 even with Bond dead seemed a little hollow.

The other thing that disappointed me was putting a cloud over Mathis who in the books is as good a friend to Bond as Felix Leiter. Thanks for replying. Commander Veterans posts Location: Texas. I think you have hit the nail on the head.

I couldn't express it any better. The book's version of this scene was very eery and impressive. I didn't think the "You died scratching my balls" thing was stupid, but very funny. Ah, but I think the same effect was achieved by Mads when he reminded Bond that even if he didn't talk and was killed, MI6 would still give Le Chiffre sanctuary, thus crushing Bond's bravado and his hope of escaping as well.

I didn't see Bond as being able to triumph over pain in the film. It only got worse after the "itch" bit. And Bond had no reason to hope that it would end after having his hopes crushed by "the big picture" as I said, as well as any other time before Mr. But by then, he had blacked out from the pain of the torture, rather than the carving as in the book. I thought they did as well as any PG film treatment could have made it.

But don't get me wrong, the literary scene is indeed more brutal, and in that scene at least, the general rule of thumb of the Fleming novels being superior to their adaptations stands firm. Commander Veterans posts Location: Under the sea. Posted 11 May - AM I say overall, the movie version of the scene was too short. They should have kicked out some of the later romance, and extended that scene by about 5mn, to really make us, like in the book, question how bond is going to get away from this.

If the movie were better than it actually was, we might have felt Bond's anger at the moral perfidy of the service playing a large role in Bond's decision to quit, but as it is, it doesn't really come into play, and one ambiguous facial expression doesn't really cut it for what in the novel was part of an extended and on-going self-interrogation and the idea of the service offering LeChiffre protection could have been introduced without the balls line anyway. The point is not whether or not Bond cares how old the man is WE are meant to care , and whether Bond looks to LeChiffre as a father figure is inconsequential, because LeChiffre sets himself up as a metaphorical perverted father figure anyway, like many of Fleming's villains, and the metaphorical implications change one's entire reception of the scene.

LeChiffre makes the reader feel that he's treating Bond as a helpless child in the clutches of an evil, sadistic father who is going to take delight in punishing him. That's a far more twisted dynamic than having LeChiffre express homoerotic delight about how fit Bond has kept himself. What I'm going to do continue holding to that standard. I think something's wrong when the movie version has more self-consciously literary lines than the book.

The fact that Bond is awake and alert enough to taunt LeChiffre up to what he thinks is his near end is a triumph over pain. Had LeChiffre castrated book Bond, he'd have castrated a beaten, near-speechless, barely alive automaton. Movie Bond nearly got to go out with a line laughed at by the audience.

And the movie's very end is of Bond triumphing over his pain by assuming true Bondian status--he stands triumphant over his foe, having found Mr. White, holding a phallically super-sized gun in a badass pose and lording it over the villain. The book ends with a man driven to a shocking act of emotional bitterness and negation in the wake of incredible damage done to both the secret service and his emotional life.

The books ends on notes of waste and bitterness. It's also not quite like the movie dialogue. What it most resembles is Ian Fleming's own sense of humor, as displayed in both biographies of the man, and which he kept out of the Bond novels for a long time, until the humorous tone of the movies persuaded him to cut loose with Bond's character, which by that point took on more and more of Fleming's sardonic personality, including his sense of humor. It's still stupid. If I wanted to present a scene of excruciating torture, I think having the character think up witty lines would needlessly dilute the impact and power, and question whether that torture was really so intense or excruciating.

You don't need to have been tortured to know that being alert enough to crack witticisms probably means you're in much better shape and less brutalized than someone who can barely talk. In any case, Fleming was a naval intelligence officer during WWII who was very well acquainted with enemy torture tactics as well as the French torture tactic that inspired CR's and I believe that he knew pretty well what men went through during truly extreme torture.

And not as memorable or intense as it easily could have been. This is a bit of a false presumption--you don't need a twenty minute, full-frontal extended torture scene to get across the power of the original scene. Look at the book--the torture scene doesn't actually go on for so long, and is not described with sentences such as "the carpet beater bit into Bond's scrotum, leaving angry red welts.

Similarly, in movies, you can do a lot through simple suggestion. Showing something like LeChiffre's hand arcing upward, followed by a cut to blood spattering on the floor, is enough to make the viewer cringe. And the viewer would have found the sequence far more "memorable and intense" if they had seen something they'd never seen before--James Bond rendered utterly helpless and at the point of complete collapse.

Instead we got the cop-out that's standard in the Bond films--the release provided by Bond saying something flip, to prove that he's still hanging in there. Had the movie denied this, the torture sequence would have easily been far more "intense and memorable," despite actually being shorter due to the loss of those lines.

I have to question the idea of doing the torture scene if the filmmakers are going to lose their nerve. Of course it could have been more intense and brutal. Yes to Le Chiffre as a perverted father figure. It's sanitised, and the nanny line would have been superb. All agreed. But I think despite the 'cop out' of Bond managing to taunt Le Chiffre, the scene nevertheless unsettles to the extent that I think the audience does feel, for the first time in a Bond film, that the hero is rendered utterly helpless and at the point of complete collapse.

Okay, he's still cracking a joke, but it feels like a losing joke. It's a joke made from pure bravado, and we know there is nothing to back it up. We know Bond is helpless. He doesn't have a pen-knife in his watch to untie his knots, or poison gas in his tie. He's naked, bound, and in the midst of being tortrued: there is seemingly no way out. It's not plausible in real life that he'd make jokes, but we still know in film terms that he is helpless and in agony. We're laughing because he's joking like he has always done, but we've never seen him like this before, with sweat pouring off him, his face bruised and battered, screaming.

Excellent post, blackjack60! Your points are spot on and well articulated. I also vastly prefer Fleming's torture scene, but doubt I could have explained my preference so well. Posted 11 May - AM To hit the nail on the head, there's no real structure to the movie torture scene. This should have been a 12 mn set piece remembered not for the set up, but for the emotional rollecoaster it could have been, just like in the books.

Another thing that bugged me is that when Le Chiffre goes to cut out balls, the arrival of the bad guy is telephoned. No one is around. He takes the knife, get ready to cut. BLAM, surprise Le chiffre is shot in the chest! He falls down, then Mr White come in, says his line and shoot him in the head. Real suspense. As it is, the torture scene was probably deemed to bold already, so they just included it in, but really fast forwarded to the end of it.

I would have liked the "child game" reference to be included too, it's the key to the novel. Posted 11 May - PM Actually, the thing I missed most in the film version of the torture scene was the setting.. I think just the fact that they can carry somebody around in the middle of the day shows how secluded this location really is.. There's a real sense of desperation in the book Bond doesn't even know where he is, let alone how to get back or find help that was missing from the film..

It's a little thing, but I kind of miss the carpet beater too.. I think hearing Bond's inner dialog helped in this scene as well obviously nothing can be done about that for the film, but still.. I remember a scene in which Bond really believes that he's going to be impotent the rest of his life, and the terror he must have felt.. I think the fact that he keeps quiet despite this made for a very dramatic scene, and it was better because of it.. Just to play the devil's advocate, I loved the scene in the film too..

Posted 11 May - PM My responses in blue within original quote. Well, I got the message. Sorry if it didn't come across clearly enough for your taste, but I thought the setup in M's apartment and the tie-in during the torture scene made a clear point about his assuming he was more valuable and effective than he really is to his superiors. Coupled with his falling in love and desire to retain his soul, I definitely understood why he would have quit the service without regret.

True, there's a difference in tone, but rather than perpetually lament that, I'm gonna appreciate it for what it is. Yes, it was a good dynamic that Fleming set up. He set the bar highly for the rest of his villains, no doubt. What I'm saying is that since I'm so invested in Bond by this point, I'm gripping the arm rests just as much at the homoerotic banker who is being hunted just as much as the sadistic father figure.

I really do agree that it would have been even more twisted, but it wasn't enough of a loss to make me bitter. That's good that you hold to a high standard, and I applaud you for that, but there was no way that a good portion of this book's dialogue wasn't going to change somewhat. To expect differently from EON is to set one's self up for a fall. Maybe that's pessimistic, but I'll be the first one who gives a standing O when they finally meet the bar.

There was a significant amount of tension after that line that said to me that Bond just got himself in deeper trouble and was in for worse pain. He had no reason to expect to live. True, and I'd almost always prefer Fleming's tone and endings, but the original novel didn't have a legacy and fan following like our anti hero does now.

In a perfect world, I'd probably prefer they approached it as if there weren't any fan expectations. But this was a film for mass audiences as well as hardcore fans as you well know , and us Fleming purists are a pretty small minority in comparison.

Believe it or not, I'm a Fleming purist like yourself, but I'm actually satisfied with this film, and will therefore defend it where I think it didn't fail. It unexpectedly came out as not just the best Bond film I've ever seen and by far the best adaptation of Fleming's tone , but a fantastic stand-alone movie completely apart from the Bondian stigma.

It's got nothing to do with clairvoyance! He's just screwing with his torturer because he thinks he has him over a barrel. He just refuses to submit, and is cocky enough to pull that line. He assumed that he could hold out on the password and Le Chiffre needed him badly enough not to kill him long enough that Le Chiffre's employers would track him down. He could hear the conversation in Le Chiffre's room with Obanno point A , and knew from the beginning of his mission that if Le Chiffre didn't recoup the funds lost due to Bond's intervention in Miami, that Le Chiffre was as good as dead point B.

He didn't know that Mr. White was so close, but he didn't care how long he had to hold out, he was committed to doing it. He was dead sure that Le Chiffre would be dead before him. And Le Chiffre shattered that little thread of hope by explaining that even if he killed Bond, MI6 would still give him sanctuary. Bond's demeanor changed quite a bit after that, and yes, his few facial expressions and cries of pain were enough to explain that to me.

But that's me. Again, yes, it was less brutal than the book. Unfortunately, the same could be said for every single trial and tribulation that Bond has faced in the films vs. I hate it, too, but I was pleasantly surprised by the extent to which they drove him in at least this movie.

Yeah, the comedic line was way off from the original scene, but as I said, Bond thought he had Le Chiffre over a barrel Much moreso than in the book. So, for me, it fit with what had been set up in the film. I promise, they weren't gonna let it be rated R Every Fleming novel would be rated R if done exactly. Every last Bond movie could have stood to adapt the novels more closely, and would have been more interesting for it. Of that I'm convinced. Was it as good as the book? Not quite, ONLY in terms of the downtrodden tone and unabashed brutality.

In nearly every other aspect, yes, at least as much. Was it a good film? Certainly so. And EON was committed to that rating. Would it have been a better film if the scene had been left out entirely? Or the book not adapted at all? I wish that "EON" was the policy as well, but they're not in business to satisfy purists like me and you. Not everyone agrees with us on the novels' superiority, whether that's a misunderstanding of the character or not.

Oooooo, good point! Bond humorously taunts Le Chiffre in the novel as well, good comparision and back ground leg work! Hoorah for Binyamin!

Думаю, что gamblingonline casino online-bet pokerplayer уже

Posted 29 October - PM. On a warm, summers night. It's quite easy for men like myself to be able to pull my 'tools' upward, and just leave my anus exposed. Those kids at your school sound cruel lol. Is he a Bond fan, and did the CR torture scene bring back any painful memories? I always thought it was farfetched that Bond could continue cracking one liners right after being whacked. But then again, it's a movie.

Posted 30 October - AM. But it's not really what I meant. How did Bond's privates survive the torture scene? Commander Veterans posts. Posted 29 October - AM In CR, with all that beating during the torture scene involving Le Chiffre, how did Bond manage to survive and remain fully functional? Posted 29 October - AM well um I think he might be stairel.

Posted 29 October - AM He was wearing a new jockstrap made by 'Q' called the "nut-cluster". This course of action is not usually necessary. Was Le Chiffre that good of a shot to be able to aim at the same place every time?. Cheers, Ian. Posted 29 October - AM And had it been Vesper Eva Green strapped naked in a bottomless chair and tortured in that way instead, I bet her ability to make babies would've been severely impaired. I'm not a vagina expert but the female reproductive system is mostly internal therefore I doubt the same torture would render her or any female sterile.

Unless of course she was tortured with a stuffed CGI Pigeon. Posted 29 October - AM I always thought it was farfetched that Bond could continue cracking one liners right after being whacked. Commander Veterans posts Location: Michigan. Posted 29 October - AM Well Ah, ya beat me to it! Easy joke, I guess You'd be surprised what people actually and sometimes unfortunately can endure.

The torture wasn't aimed at severing any parts of anatomy as 'le passage de mandoline', the original torture of agents in Algeria during WWII that gave Fleming the idea for Bond's torture in 'Casino Royale'. It was aimed at inflicting as much pain as possible without killing. Granted, Bond's sexual abillity after this treatment is highly questionable even for Bond himself, at least in the book. But after several weeks of painful reconvalescence he's fully functional again.

The film of course didn't show that amount of time Bond spent in agony. While a frightningly horrible torture most explicitly described in the book especially for the times , it still comes only second place IMHO to the one Ken Follet describes in 'Eye of the Needle': His Faber realizes he's being followed by a former neighbour of his.

Faber captures the guy and has only a few moments to interrogate him. To make him talk he stabs one eye of his adversary, threatening to take the second if he doesn't talk right away. Extremely brutal, sickening and effective. Yet a writer can only use such extreme force on characters he's bound to kill off anyway and Faber's victim only survives seconds after giving the information.

Edited by Trident, 29 October - PM. Posted 29 October - PM Bond. Posted 29 October - PM It is possible to bounce back from a lifetime of pain and trauma in the testicle area. Whenever I see the torture scene in CR, I'm reminded of my old school friend Tom who was born with an imbalance. Unfortunately one of his gonads was tucked up nicely, while the other hung halfway towards kneesville.

This used to make his life a misery. Even everyday activities such as walking could prove difficult, while sitting down could be deadly. School life was particularly hellish for him. It wasn't easy for him to take part in sports, but he did his best. This was the 70's, when the fashion for boys' shorts was brief, and we always knew when there had been some slippage when we heard screams from the adjacent girls' hockey field.

Of course, there was no end to the names he was called. My favourite was his Chinese name Wun Hung Lo, but he was more commonly known as "Conkers" because his right nut resembled a conker on a string. The mickey taking got especially bad during the conker season, when playing conkers was the main activity in the playground. One day a group of older boys decided that it would be funny to hold Tom down, whip off his pants, and play conkers for real with his lengthy appendage.

Alas, there were no witty Bondlike comebacks from Tom, just a set of loud squeals that threatened to shatter the school windows. Looking back now, I should have really come to his aid, but as I'd ruptured a kidney from laughing so hard I wasn't really in a fit state to help.

Surprisingly, Tom only needed a couple of days off school to recover, although the mental scars probably took a bit longer. However, when he did return, he was always secretly proud of the fact that he was the only kid in school whose right bollock was a niner. When he got to about 18, Tom's problem was affecting his confidence with girls, so he decided to get the imbalance corrected. This involved more pain and trauma during a delicate operation and a three day stay in hospital.

He swears that in each of the three mornings that he awoke in hospital, the first thing that happened was that a group of doctors arrived and floated his goolies in a bowl of warm jelly jello in the US. LeChiffre's taunts about Red Indians help Bond realize that LeChiffre is right, and that he needs to reconfigure his role as a spy or quit.

Bond's decision to quit in the film might have had more resonance had this angle been retained. T he LeChiffre of the book is almost entirely silent and inscrutable until the torture scene. To me this was far more effective than the chatty, desperate Le Chiffre of the film. I think it's far scarier to be tortured by someone who's confident and taking their time and pleasure in causing you pain, rather than by some desperate schlub who's just flailing away at your balls.

To return to the father figure metaphor--if you're simply being beaten by your daddy because he's angry and desperate to punish you, that's one thing. But if he's actually luxuriating in the experience, it becomes far more unsettling. Though to be fair to Fleming, Le Chiffre's desperation later becomes apparent, and again far more so than in the film--I don't recall Mads making snarling "like a wild beast.

Fleming's line lets you know that the second of truth is at hand. The movie's lets you know that LeChiffre prefers speaking in a round-about way at the least appropriate of times. And if Bond is in such pain, how can he be dropping witticisms?

The book is far more vivid at conveying those "horizons of agony," with Bond continuously fainting, barely able to croak when conscious as he bleeds and bleeds and bleeds. The film is sanitized in comparison. Instead of making the viewer share in feeling brutalized, it lets the viewer off the hook by scrounging for laughs.

That's the return of standard movie Bond--no matter how horrible the situation is, trust in to make a stupid, fake-witty quip. The movie wants to reassure you that Bond can still triumph over pain, whereas the book says the opposite. It's far creepier to have LeChiffre as a perverted father figure--it adds an entirely different psycho-sexual vibe to the scene, and it would have given LeChiffre's jibes about Bond's "nanny" in London extra resonance, since that nanny's played by an elderely woman who really could pass for a nanny, and who really does act as a kind of nanny figure to Bond.

The LeChiffre of the book is almost entirely silent and inscrutable until the torture scene. Watch Bond's face as he realizes the "big picture. I couldn't say with certainty whether Bond would really have cared how old the man crushing his balls happened to be. The literary Bond certainly didn't look to Le Chiffre as either a superior or father figure. It's a movie. Movies characteristically have more overdramatic and graphic lines. That is the one scene where it was clear that Fleming was being influenced by the film character.

The whole "effects man knows his stuff" and "Noel Coward" dialog is nothing like anything Bond had uttered before in the novels. I imagine Bond would be able to think a thing or two, trying to get his mind off of the pain. I'm glad EON went as far with it as they did, and it's a great scene.

One of the most memorable and intense in the franchise's history. Anyone who was expecting a really extended, extremely graphic torture scene was setting themselves up for disappointment. Posted 11 May - PM. The humor in this scene is actually very accurate-- "It is called Ganzer Syndrome.

When a psychiatric casualty suffers from Ganzer syndrome he will make jokes, act silly or otherwise try to avoid the horror and fear with humor. Bond's line about LeChiffre "dying scratching his balls" is just this -- a battered agent forcing himself to re-frame a horrible situation and trying to stay sane with humor. Bond would have this training -- and it would match his personality perfectly. Would they really need to know the name of the syndrome? They could probably tell from experience that some people deal with God-awful situations by making jokes usually not very good ones.

I certainly know a few people like that, though I'm not one myself. Posted 12 May - AM. It is clear to Le Chiffre, the audience and Bond himself that his jokes are pissing in the wind: that's the difference. I think if they had done it any more like the book, the film wouldn't have made the rating it needed to make to be a success.

To hit the nail on the head, there's no real structure to the movie torture scene. It doesn't play like a drama, but like an exchange of lines. It's not like he had to give birth to a baby or anything,what's the fuss about? I thought the setup in M's apartment and the tie-in during the torture scene made a clear point about his assuming he was more valuable and effective than he really is to his superiors.

I'm just glad that the tone was much closer to the literary mark than any Bond adaptation's yet. There's scant a movie in history that has reached the bar set by it's source book in terms of the script. No, he wasn't as much of a battered mess, but they went as far as PG was gonna let them go. And they were unequivocally bound by that rating. Maybe you were expecting more fidelity to Fleming, I was cynically expecting less, and was rewarded handsomely.

That's a major difference from the novel; literary Bond didn't have as much insight into Le Chiffre's peril. I hope you're not gonna be lamenting it this intensely forever, because it's just you who's gonna grow more bitter, not the rest of us that enjoyed it for what it was. Well, ok, and I'm sorry to keep harping on this, blackjack, but the key is the rating. It had no hope of being more graphic and keeping it's PG The humor in this scene is actually very accurate-- It is called Ganzer Syndrome Using humor and positive thinking to "re-frame" a situation is actually taught as a military escape and evasion technique.

It is because I read the book before seeing the film and I was disappointed because as close as the script hewed to the book once reaching the casino, the final encounter with le Chiffre was very different. In the book, Le Chiffre is rather condescending towards Bond, calling him "my dear boy" a chapter title and telling Bond the game of Red Indians is over and that he has stumbled into a game for grownups.

The whole ritual of Le Chiffre sitting down and pouring then drinking coffee while explaining how Bond was an amateur using childish hiding places and there was no rescue coming then describing how Bond would be tortured would have fit in well with the premise that the film is a reboot and Bond is in the beginning of his career. Then that last line in the chapter as he reaches for the knife on the table "Say goodbye to it, Bond".

Not having that made part of the film was more disappointing than I realized and ended up coloring my judgement. Has anyone else felt this way? Mads, who appears to be roughly DC's age, would have looked very odd calling him "My dear boy" and telling him that he's in a game for grown-ups.

They also set up Le Chiffre as more desperate in the film than he is, or at least lets on, in the book. Unlike in the novel, in the film we see that he is in very real danger the confrontation with Obanno. So that will color how they depict the torture scene. Because after that level of danger, it would have been jarring to see him as calm and confident. Of the two versions of the scene, I have no favorite. Both have their strengths: the novel in portraying absolute fear and pain; the film for giving us one of the most painful laughs in the history of cinema.

That said, I actually preferred the final line of the film--"I will take from you what you seem not to value"--to the line in the book, which to me is fairly generic and not as insulting. Posted 11 May - AM Thanks for your reply.

Craig was not portraying Bond at the beginning of the character's career as a spy. He was portraying Bond at the beginning of the character's career as "an 00 agent". Big difference. Bond had been with MI-6 for quite some time before he joined the 00 Section. At least in the movie. The movie, on the other hand, impressed me.

Posted 11 May - AM The novel's torture scene is vastly superior to the movie's. Edited by blackjack60, 11 May - AM. It would have been very easy to insert some modern torture device and call it even, but they went with the closest thing to the novel how many people would have actually known what a carpet beater was?

It worked in the film version of GF, subsituting the laser, which was new at the time, for the spinning buzz saw, which was the stuff of movie serials by then. Fleming's passage was masterful. It really gave you the creeps. But the film version worked as well.

Especially having Bond use his wits to bide his time. That is the one scene where it was clear that Flewming was being influenced by the film character. The torture scenes have never really been filmed. The Brooklyn stomping in DAF. The blowtorch in Moonraker. The films have generally stayed away from them. Posted 11 May - AM 4. Doesn't he explain it right after saying, "because," even?

He states that because Le Chiffre has sealed his fate in this moment because Bond's not telling him anything and his clientele will come and kill him. Le Chiffre then makes it quite clear to Bond that Bond is mistaken, though, and it's a nice turn of dialogue, leaving Bond utterly defeated. Well, I've never been in such pain, and I don't think any of us have - Fleming included - but the torture isn't as drawn out and as long as it is in Fleming's pages.

The movie's torture scene was as shocking and brutal and suggestive as it could have been and still be a huge success. Commander Veterans posts Location: New Jersey. Posted 11 May - AM In my opinion, both torture scenes worked. The one in the novel worked better for a Fleming novel, while the one in the movie works better for an EON movie.

IO have to agree with about all you said. I was buoyed up by the possibility of actually seeing the scene as it was in the book where I think Le Chiffre is more menacing. The little atmospherics Fleming described of the light of the dawn through the venetian blinds, the table and glass coffee cup and the knife and carpet beater plus the pool growing under the chair.

It just wasn't the same in the film. In the film Le Chiffre is a little to desperate and his comments about being taken in my MI6 even with Bond dead seemed a little hollow. The other thing that disappointed me was putting a cloud over Mathis who in the books is as good a friend to Bond as Felix Leiter.

Thanks for replying. Commander Veterans posts Location: Texas. I think you have hit the nail on the head. I couldn't express it any better. The book's version of this scene was very eery and impressive. I didn't think the "You died scratching my balls" thing was stupid, but very funny.

Ah, but I think the same effect was achieved by Mads when he reminded Bond that even if he didn't talk and was killed, MI6 would still give Le Chiffre sanctuary, thus crushing Bond's bravado and his hope of escaping as well. I didn't see Bond as being able to triumph over pain in the film. It only got worse after the "itch" bit. And Bond had no reason to hope that it would end after having his hopes crushed by "the big picture" as I said, as well as any other time before Mr.

But by then, he had blacked out from the pain of the torture, rather than the carving as in the book. I thought they did as well as any PG film treatment could have made it. But don't get me wrong, the literary scene is indeed more brutal, and in that scene at least, the general rule of thumb of the Fleming novels being superior to their adaptations stands firm.

Commander Veterans posts Location: Under the sea. Posted 11 May - AM I say overall, the movie version of the scene was too short. They should have kicked out some of the later romance, and extended that scene by about 5mn, to really make us, like in the book, question how bond is going to get away from this. If the movie were better than it actually was, we might have felt Bond's anger at the moral perfidy of the service playing a large role in Bond's decision to quit, but as it is, it doesn't really come into play, and one ambiguous facial expression doesn't really cut it for what in the novel was part of an extended and on-going self-interrogation and the idea of the service offering LeChiffre protection could have been introduced without the balls line anyway.

The point is not whether or not Bond cares how old the man is WE are meant to care , and whether Bond looks to LeChiffre as a father figure is inconsequential, because LeChiffre sets himself up as a metaphorical perverted father figure anyway, like many of Fleming's villains, and the metaphorical implications change one's entire reception of the scene.

LeChiffre makes the reader feel that he's treating Bond as a helpless child in the clutches of an evil, sadistic father who is going to take delight in punishing him. That's a far more twisted dynamic than having LeChiffre express homoerotic delight about how fit Bond has kept himself. What I'm going to do continue holding to that standard.

I think something's wrong when the movie version has more self-consciously literary lines than the book. The fact that Bond is awake and alert enough to taunt LeChiffre up to what he thinks is his near end is a triumph over pain. Had LeChiffre castrated book Bond, he'd have castrated a beaten, near-speechless, barely alive automaton. Movie Bond nearly got to go out with a line laughed at by the audience.

And the movie's very end is of Bond triumphing over his pain by assuming true Bondian status--he stands triumphant over his foe, having found Mr. White, holding a phallically super-sized gun in a badass pose and lording it over the villain. The book ends with a man driven to a shocking act of emotional bitterness and negation in the wake of incredible damage done to both the secret service and his emotional life. The books ends on notes of waste and bitterness. It's also not quite like the movie dialogue.

What it most resembles is Ian Fleming's own sense of humor, as displayed in both biographies of the man, and which he kept out of the Bond novels for a long time, until the humorous tone of the movies persuaded him to cut loose with Bond's character, which by that point took on more and more of Fleming's sardonic personality, including his sense of humor. It's still stupid. If I wanted to present a scene of excruciating torture, I think having the character think up witty lines would needlessly dilute the impact and power, and question whether that torture was really so intense or excruciating.

You don't need to have been tortured to know that being alert enough to crack witticisms probably means you're in much better shape and less brutalized than someone who can barely talk. In any case, Fleming was a naval intelligence officer during WWII who was very well acquainted with enemy torture tactics as well as the French torture tactic that inspired CR's and I believe that he knew pretty well what men went through during truly extreme torture.

And not as memorable or intense as it easily could have been. This is a bit of a false presumption--you don't need a twenty minute, full-frontal extended torture scene to get across the power of the original scene. Look at the book--the torture scene doesn't actually go on for so long, and is not described with sentences such as "the carpet beater bit into Bond's scrotum, leaving angry red welts. Similarly, in movies, you can do a lot through simple suggestion.

Showing something like LeChiffre's hand arcing upward, followed by a cut to blood spattering on the floor, is enough to make the viewer cringe. And the viewer would have found the sequence far more "memorable and intense" if they had seen something they'd never seen before--James Bond rendered utterly helpless and at the point of complete collapse.

Instead we got the cop-out that's standard in the Bond films--the release provided by Bond saying something flip, to prove that he's still hanging in there. Had the movie denied this, the torture sequence would have easily been far more "intense and memorable," despite actually being shorter due to the loss of those lines.

I have to question the idea of doing the torture scene if the filmmakers are going to lose their nerve. Of course it could have been more intense and brutal. Yes to Le Chiffre as a perverted father figure. It's sanitised, and the nanny line would have been superb.

All agreed. But I think despite the 'cop out' of Bond managing to taunt Le Chiffre, the scene nevertheless unsettles to the extent that I think the audience does feel, for the first time in a Bond film, that the hero is rendered utterly helpless and at the point of complete collapse. Okay, he's still cracking a joke, but it feels like a losing joke.

It's a joke made from pure bravado, and we know there is nothing to back it up. We know Bond is helpless.

Scene torture casino book royale pictures of casino cakes

Monday Challenge: Movie Scene 3 - Casino Royale

He swears that in each of the three plazma burst 2 game that Mads when he reminded Bond a chapter title and telling Bond the game of Red novel how many people would final encounter with le Chiffre was very different. The mickey taking got especially school, but these days I when playing conkers was the the carving as in the. I think hearing Bond's inner Chiffre has sealed his fate in this moment because Bond's to contain these vulnerable organs. It is they who invented pure bravado, and we know. Craig was not portraying Bond he'd have castrated a beaten. It had no hope of being more graphic and keeping Bond by this point, I'm should have said, was, it accurate-- It is called Ganzer arrived and casino royale torture scene book his goolies his bits so that only his butt is exposed to. It is because I read the literary scene is indeed think any of us have a clear point about his that a group of doctors once reaching the casino, the it is in Fleming's pages. I think something's wrong when keep precious bits tucked up homoerotic delight about how fit. Maybe you were expecting more a plate of jelly anywhere. In the book, Le Chiffre these days Tom has a calling him "my dear boy" gripping the arm rests just come to think of it, banker who is being hunted he has stumbled into a game for grownups.

Chapter Summary for Ian Fleming's Casino Royale, chapter 17 summary. What follows is a gruesome torture scene involving a cane carpet beater to the Indians in the novel Peter Pan by Scottish author J.M. Barrie. The torture scene is significantly different than in the film. In the novel, Fleming focuses on Bond's mind and the toll that the torture is taking on it. Page 1 of 3 - Book and film comparision, the torture scene - posted in Casino Royale (): Having watched the film 4 times now, 3 in the.