20Nov08
Casino Royale set a pattern, which the second James Bond film in the Daniel Craig cycle has followed, and the both make a bit more sense now. The conclusions are simple:
No more Bond villains. Gone are the days of grandstanding and grandiloquent super-villains. To contend with (or counter...or ignore) modern day globalized super-villainy, the new Bonds lay “Quantum” on us. Replacing the suave international terrorist organization S.P.E.C.T.R.E. from the older Bond films, which gave a steady supply of those now old-school villains of measure and personality, Quantum is an undefined shadow organization which causes shadow mischief. It is certainly not threatening, mysterious, or sinister enough—neither Rivette or Langian conspiracies, nor Dark Knight random terror—but there is something rather unique about the Bond series starting to deploy weasely looking, mischief making effete Europeans as villains far more disposable and interchangeable than in the past.
Case in point is Quantum of Solace’s main villain played by Mathieu Amalric—without a doubt the best actor ever to play such a role and also ingeniously cast: Amalric’s unique brand of fever eyed mania could easily have been taken to an exaggerated level of world-domineering psychosis—but neither the script nor director Marc Foreter seem to ever think this is a good idea. To make up for his weakness—of characterization and of character—the film does think of something quite clever during the final climatic confrontation of Amalric and Craig: resign film direction and script writing to a near-abstract indifference, dose the fight in constant exploding fireballs, and give the flailing villain an axe to wield wildly and see what happens! The filmmakers leave the poor guy all potential; he’s as forgettable as what’s his name who played what’s his face in Casino Royale. Bond's attitude when he finally reveals Amalric's grand plot for world domination is emblematic for how disinterested the character and the new films have gotten to the whole idea of villainy in general. Bond figures it all out in what amounts to a throwaway aside to his girl before moving on to more thrilling activities. His concerns—and that of these new movies—are not in foiling plots but in getting shit done, which leads us to our next realization.
James Bond is not a character. He is a tool, an actor in the sense of someone who does actions. The pretense (and pretension) towards dark psychology shallowly pursued by the scripts of the two Daniel Craig films ignore this new Bond as actor, but thankfully for the most part both directors have likewise ignored the scripts. Craig drives cars, Craig brawls people to death (in a great, casually indifferent killing early on), Craig drives boats and planes, Craig stabs and shoots; witty repartee is minimalized (it is all bullshit); suave come-ons are lazily delivered as utility (the one girl he sleeps with here—one—he bags with the most blasé non-sequitur imaginable); psychology is nil. Simply: this man is force and he gets things done.
Hand director Forest one thing—he gets that. Quantum of Solace may hit dialog scenes like expositional icebergs just waiting for Craig’s bulk to plow directly into, and be momentarily dragged to a halt by, until he powers through. But then it gets moving again, and Forster long lens, shooting action scenes in the usual convention these days going for impressionism over actual interest in action, nevertheless gets the flurry down pat. Forster has an attention towards the physics of objects and the factual way they interact which meshes thrillingly with the confusion of fast editing and spatially flattened zooms: the way a car slams around between things—a spin set in motion by momentum—the way a rubber boat would flip if it was caught on something—silently—and, most impressively of all in the post-Hong Kong martial arts requisite of having a fight on a scaffold, the myriad of ways levers and pullies, ropes, boards, and planks can be bumped into, thrown into relief, flipped upside down, and caught upon. This is the best action of a Bond film since, well, maybe ever; because frankly it is absolutely in tune with Craig as an emblem, jettisoning Bond as a character. He is a look and a physical bulk and that physical bulk given a look through its action. We may have lost much of what makes Bond Bond in the process, but in the very least this propulsive, devil-may-care film, with its perpetual look of high class automobile commercials and action flare, has set up a consistency and a world that should be respected, however minor its ambitions may be.
Categories: Forster
Comments
Glenn Kenny
on Thu 20 Nov at 01:10 PM
You say Amalric is “without a doubt the best actor to play such a role.” Amalric’s a genius for sure, but come now—Michael Lonsdale’s hardly a slouch, is he? Of course, he played the villain in “Moonraker,” one of the all-time lows of the franchise.
Bond nuts will no doubt find it an amusing coincidence that Amalric and Lonsdale played father-and-son counterintelligence enablers in Spielberg’s “Munich.”
Tony Dayoub
on Thu 20 Nov at 01:46 PM
“No More Bond Villains.”
Really? I think you are way off-base here. If SPECTRE is the model for QUANTUM, then I think it’s safe to assume their will be a Blofeld (I presume this is their way of getting around all the McClory legal troubles SPECTRE and Blofeld have been tied up in).
They seem to be setting up a reveal that Mr. White (Jesper Christensen) is the secret leader of QUANTUM. Why else leave such a disposable character alive after the film’s initial interrogation? Why else cut to him at the opera (notably, he’s the only one not to take Bond’s bait)? Could White be the next Blofeld?
Daniel Kasman
on Thu 20 Nov at 03:26 PM
Interesting theory Tony, I hadn’t thought about the man-behind-the-curtain style of those early SPECTRE films! As you note though, if the series is playing the same game as the original, then the only option could be Mr. White, due to his repeat appearances a la Blofeld in the early ones as a hand stroking a cat.
I wonder though, is he any more or less interesting or menacing than the “main” villains these two films have given us?
Glenn: touche! I did have both Lonsdale and Christopher Lee in my troubled mind when I wrote that line, and it’s a close call, but I stand by what I said! However, after seeing the result, I would certainly say that both Lonsdale and Lee were better in their respective roles than Amalric was here, but that may be due more to the times and the director than anything else…
IA
on Fri 21 Nov at 02:02 AM
Lotte Lenya also belongs up there with Lee, Lonsdale and Amalric. In terms of action direction, for me Peter Hunt’s work in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service stands above Forster’s (It also helps that the film’s editing is so elliptical.)—it’s the most kinetic and spring-coiled style the Bond series ever allowed itself.
Tony Dayoub
on Fri 21 Nov at 02:42 PM
Peter Hunt’s ease with Bond action in OHMSS is no doubt due to his experience gained as a film editor for the franchise on its previous 5 outings.
David Gylfe
on Fri 21 Nov at 03:57 PM
And let us not forget “Never Say Never Again” which featured both Klaus Maria Brandauer and Max von Sydow.
efe
on Mon 24 Nov at 03:24 AM
Nobody mentioned yet the only part that really felt like a Bond film: opening credits. The stylized opening titles, the sickest editing I’ve seen in a while, with Alicia Keys & Jack White in the background was so ridiculous that it was awesome.
Daniel Kasman
on Mon 24 Nov at 08:30 PM
They definitely were an improvement over what looked like Flash-based animation for the CASINO ROYALE credits! I liked the idea of women and guns emerging from cascading gold/black sand (and the female silhouettes that turned into a zoetrope was a nice moment for film geeks around the world)…but I demand more partial nudity in my Bond credits! That’s what everyone remembers, aside from Saul Bass’ wonderful invention.
Kifah Foutah
on Tue 25 Nov at 04:12 PM
The opening credits looked awesome, although that song SUCKED. the movie was o.k, the performances being the best parts, but Marc Forster cannot shoot action to save his life. he has no flair for it and it was really tired.
Which is a shame because I thought Casino Royale was something special. It had a dynamic and interesting story and it was blocked, photographed and edited so well. Its was a breath of fresh air, when every action movie wanted to be Battle Of Algiers
Deleted
on Tue 25 Nov at 08:35 PM
I didn’t want to like Craig or the new direction of the Bond franchise. But CR knocked me out. QOS didn’t. It fell flat for me. I still enjoyed it but not as much.
Looking back i do not think that any of the actors to be Bond were bad. Dalton was a victim of bad scripts, I really liked Lazenby and OHMSS was one of my favorites.
With Bond it is hit or miss. But i am looking forward to the next one !!!
mr. sweetums
on Wed 26 Nov at 07:30 AM
@ tony— brilliant speculation; the character or Mr. White does seem to be the tip of some villainous iceberg…
I’m personally glad the bond movies are changing; after being seriously unimpressed by Timothy Dalton (it could’ve been that he fell victim to bad scripts AND the 80’s) and basically being able to smell the Pierce Brosnan’s Bond’s stuffy cologne through the silver screen, Craig has been delivering on much more than I expected. Despite the fact that the newest film lacked in the plot department, the villain department, and overall, the typical-bond-motif-department, I doubt that we’re through seeing the very best that the neo-Bonds have to offer. QoS may have just been a segway to something larger.
@ Efe; when i was sitting in the theatre waiting for the film to begin, I remembered that the opening credits were ALWAYS top notch for 007 movies— and I was not let down. Apparently the White/Keys duet was the first duet in Bond music history???
Also, nobody happened to mention Judi Dench’s M! Performance-wise I was dually impressed, without a shadow of a doubt, whether I realized it right away or not.
Number 6
on Thu 04 Dec at 02:09 AM
I loved the idea of the female agent’s death by being covered in oil, ala Goldfinger.
It may have been too heavy handed for some people, but I thought it was a great example of how these films can pay homage to Bond staples, while making them more relevant and authentic.
Tony Stark
on Mon 08 Dec at 05:40 PM
I was also disappointed by the direction Bond is taking:
The latest Bond has now crossed that fine line between charming, good humored, cold-blooded killer and obsessive, bad-tempered, cold-blooded killer.
The whole point of having funny banter, gadgets and unrealistically evil villains was to distract people from the fact that Bond is a psychopathic mass murderer! So now that they’ve stripped it all away, I wonder why anybody cares about Bond the character anymore. Or should I call him the British Jack Bauer?
Alanedit
on Tue 09 Dec at 08:38 PM
Absolutely disagree with the article, and everything it says about Bond. Quantum of Solace does a disservice to the character and the series, evidenced by Marc Forster’s and his team’s handling of the material. Bond has been turned into Jason Bourne, and that’s travesty.
Casino Royale got essence of Bond right, like Ian Flemming would have wanted. This sorry misstep to a good start should be forgotten as a hollow exercise in sound and fury, but no soul. I don’t know anyone who respects the Bond series that could have enjoyed this entry.
Daniel Kasman
on Tue 09 Dec at 09:44 PM
Alanedit, I certainly agree with you that Quantum of Solace does a disservice to the character, but in my opinion the series was already, even with Brosnan, moving away from what people really liked about Bond in the first place. These filmmakers have the guts to start cutting ties, whether are not that’s a good decision…
Josiah Tuano Alfafara
on Thu 11 Dec at 06:20 AM
In my opinion, Quantum of Solace brought disgrace to the character of 007 and the whole James Bond series. There wasn’t any twist at all except for that one scene in the early part of the film. I grew up watching Bond films and I get intrigued by what Mr. Bond could do or face. However, this was nothing but a stunt show. They’ve lost the true essence of the BOND.
filmfreak3000
on Thu 11 Dec at 08:07 AM
I really think the only flaw in this film is that it is 100% dependent on Casino Royale. It cannot in any way stand on its own. All forward motion in it depends on the events of the last half hour of Royale. That said, I actually see that as a plus, in this case. A flaw I welcome. I love the little stuff, like the fact that Mathies had also been working for QUANTUM during CR. Bond was right, the double blind. Personally, I can’t wait to watch both film back to back at home. I think it will make both films the better for it.
I also had the thought that Mr. White was being set up as the leader. The way they’ve used him so far reminds me a great deal of how they set up the character of Ben in Lost as the leader of the others. Could lead to a great moment when Bond realizes he had him where he wanted him.