76

Re: Bond's flat in SPECTRE

I think this is what M said to Bond:

Oh, we've sold your flat, put your things into storage. Standard procedure on the death of an unmarried employee with no next of kin. You should have called.

77

Re: Bond's flat in SPECTRE

ichaice wrote:

I think this is what M said to Bond:

Oh, we've sold your flat, put your things into storage. Standard procedure on the death of an unmarried employee with no next of kin. You should have called.

(Bond) I'll find a hotel.

(M) Well you're not bloody well staying here.

Haha.  I miss her.

Daniel

Sorry but that last hand... Nearly killed me.

78

Re: Bond's flat in SPECTRE

There were a lot of interesting comments about Craig's flat in SPECTRE given it was such a brief scene and since re-reading my own and the others, I'd like to pitch a few points on this:

1.  IMO the writers chose to make it look as though Bond had just begun to move into the new flat.  It's pretty obvious that as the story is an immediate follow up to SF and they reinforce this given the fact he is following Dench's video order to find and kill Sciarra; that they show the bulldog figurine she bequeathed to him at the end of the last film sitting on his table and that Moneypenny has given him the document remains from the SF estate.

2.  Since he has been chasing after Sciarra since SF, he's had little time to move all the rest of his belongings from his previous flat to the new one.  I thought this was a nice, realistic touch - plus it helped keep some of his private life still a mystery to modern audiences.  Also, a lot of general audiences outside Bond fandom would not really be that keen on what his abode looked like anyway - they would only be focused on the interaction and information being given in that short scene - another reason not to put to much furnishing details in the room.  This logically fit in with the idea Bond had so far only moved in some basic necessities - some places to sit, lighting, tv to see M's video (and probably other intel data he is given at work), etc.  We didn't see the rest of the flat, but we can assume he had his bed moved in and his clothing and some bath necessitites.

3.  Given the above information, it seems to be a weak assumption to suggest Bond does not care about personal possessions or decor - for example, he has several pieces of art in flat. Hardly something a man who is dull and has "no fun" would possess. Also, many people today have been given the impression that the Bond character as portrayed by Craig is nothing more that a professional killer sent out by M to eliminate people.  This is extremely far from Fleming's creation and I don't believe bears any resemblence to what Craig and the producers of the films are trying to show about Bond. Though they may not show Bond's personal life outside his work in the films because of time restraints and the fact they know that's not most audiences go to see the missions (not Bond playing golf on the weekends) - they have a great reverence for the source material even though they've had to modernise it a bit.  In the novels Bond only goes on the missions we see in the films once or twice a year and even from the timelines of the books and films these missions only last a week or two.  The rest of his work consists of keeping his physique and fighting skills up to snuff for his missions along with reading reports and attending meetings. His spare time is taken up with gambling, golf and having the odd affair with married women.  Fleming made Bond a spy who happens to also have a license to assassinate.  Killing is not supposed to be his sole mission - he's just given permission to do so when warranted.  He is not a blunt, dull man at all.  The description Fleming gave was how the government uses him - as a spy who is licensed to be a blunt instrument to be used only when necessary - rather like having a bouncer at a club when things get out of hand and something physical has to be done.  The fact he chose to make Bond an intelligent, literate, knowledgeable spy as well as a lethal assassin is what makes him interesting as a character.

4.  Showing that Craig's Bond only has a few possessions scattered about his mostly empty flat is in no way a reason to jump to the idea he is any way a lazy, messy man.  It was obvious to me straight away that the condition of his flat was purposely designed to communicate the idea he had just been too busy with work and being away to spend the amount of time it would take to get all his belongings out of storage and put in their proper place.  No, Bond may be typically masculine in his little regard for decor (in the novels he disliked indoor flower arrangements), but he does own possessions that are of high quality.  In the novels he ownes an expensive silver service coffee set, Minton china, furnishings and his flat was carpeted and wallpapered by the same firms that the royal familty uses.  He also dresses impecabbly (even though simply) in expensive clothing and consumes expensive food and drink.  All these attributes are hardly the examples of a slob or dull person.  It would be nice one day if the writers' could revisit his flat for a brief moment as they did in SPECTRE if only to show it fully furnished and to also show him playing cards or golf with Tanner.