It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It does put some blame at the feet of America, and that will never be a popular choice with some groups. The Americans in QoB did not come out smelling like roses, rather the opposite.
For me the script/screenplay was always the least of its problems.
http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/04/bond-is-bourne-again
"How long will Bond be Bourne-again? I'm not sure, but it is a good sign of the times that even a popular fictional character like James Bond has had travel from being a misogynist pig and an enthusiast for Anglo-American power to fighting the CIA and corporate destruction of the planet to keep the audiences coming into the theaters."
Enough though this is an appreciation thread. The leftist bent (courtesy Forster-Haggis) of QoS got plenty of discussion back in 2008 when it was released. We hammered it to death on these boards. Like it, lump it or indifferent, it is there. Not worth rehashing really.
Many fans, I notice though were pleased with the course correction found in the more brazenly, patriotic pro-England Skyfall. Thelittle Churchill bulldog was a nice touch. Bond looking out over London. Union Jack fluttering in the breeze.
Fears of Bond films traveling further down the QoS roadwere arrested I think with Skyfall. Whew! :P
==== The stuff I was primarily talking about are two items -the JB Theme and the gunbarrel opening. That stuff is timeless. It can go on forever, as it managed to do for four decades and 20 films. It's easily brought back.
Dropping the gunbarrel and use of the JB Theme in CR kind of worked as a thematic device, as CR was an origins film about Bond becoming Bond.
The message at the end of the movie, was clear as a bell. Bond had evolved into the Bond we know. Thus cue the familiar saluation ("My name is Bond...") and crank up the theme music. There was every reason to believe the gunbarrel opening would be returned for beginning of next film...but no.
I don't think opening gunbarel will be back for B24. Mendes, like Forster, seems to want to put his own artistic stamp on things.
As for gadgets they simply evolves with the times. I don't have gadget concerns with the current films.
Bond makes full use of cell-phone tech. Just give him gadgets that work in the current context. Spys and blunt instruments will always use tech. I trust the filmmakers to find the balance from film to film.
The way of Bond IMO is timeless. Bond can exist in any post Fleming time. He was born of the '50s and '60s but his persona can carry forward indefinitely.
Bond cinema will outlive us all, I'm sure.
Back to QoS appreciation. Have I mentioned how much I love Olga as Camille. :x
Craig's brawling is top notch. His fight skills are on par with Connery and Laz.
Great scene at the opera where he exposed the Quantum meeting, and with some very Bondian flippant dialogue. Bond insulting the villains always makes for great moments in these films.
Some very good acting in QoS from virtually all concerned. Forster can cast well.
I do like the look of the film. Nicely shot. Looks great on blu-ray.
Forster's attempts at thematic styling do kinda work. We do sense Bond's isolation not only via Craig's performance, but also via the director's cinematic imaging - Bond in the desert etc.
And then there is Forster's rather ambitious efforts working in the four-elements imagery, in conjunction with Bonds adventures. Interesting technique, even if I don't know what Forster was trying to say with it.
But again, I would prefer such alternative Bond fare as side bar films, and that Eon continue to deliver grand exciting Bond adventure in the spirit of the original classic films.
1 + 1 = 2 is not a political statement.
1 + 1 = 3 is a political statement.
QOS just pushed in a unusual direction for some. :-??
Basic premise of QoS is that Quantum was running a Green Planet Front to exploit and extort the Bolivian water supply. That's just criminal not political. What we would expect Quantum to do.
Haggis and Forster though lace a lot of the peripheral dialogue with their own well known political bent, which is decidedly leftist.
From Socialistworker.org
"Haggis is also co-founder of Artists for Peace and Justice and the Environmental Media Association. He also donated $2,100 to the Dennis Kucinich campaign for president, the most liberal of all candidates in the Democratic primaries.
Clearly, liberal politics is creeping into the Bond films. What this will mean for Bond films during the Obama era will be interesting to see."
Actual socialist media was giddy over this Bond film. SF gave them less cause to celebrate.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about @chrisisall. I don't see how QoS makes any compelling case for western interests effing up.
Rather I hear leftist talking points that leftist publications eat up.
The movie just kind of sneaks its politics in. It does realize, that this being a Bond film that it has to paint Quantum as primarily evil, not political.
As for "laying blame where blame is deserved", QoS, at least is disciplined enough to lay the blame for the exploitation of Bolivian water where it belongs, at the feet of Quantum, so it doesn't go off reservation, in that respect.
The socialistinternational types need temper their enthusiasm. Haggis' Valley of Elah would be better convention fare for them.
This being a QoS appreciation thread, I do applaud the film's restraint. :)
QOS used AN evil, based loosely on existing actual corporate evil, they made reference to actual plots to mess with Central America, they shamed the West a bit, and that's somehow "political".
Is TND somehow "Leftist" for shaming media manipulation?
And TSWLM for showing that not all Russians are 'bad'?
This politicising is a bunch of nonsense. Bond references real world, but Bond movies are fantasy. I could write an essay on why QOS is Left wing propaganda, but I could ALSO write an essay on why it's RIGHT wing propaganda.
But it's just entertainment.
B-)
For every real world reference we have ten tonne of bollocks. I can find a lot to like in QoS, but for all it's faults SF bums it into next week.
:))
In simple terms, QoS tries to be clever, as does SF, but SF has heart, QoS, well, doesn't.
I respectfully disagree.
I'm always here, if you need to talk.
Do you charge for listening?
b-(
To reference your math parallel.
You see 1+1=2.
I see 1+1 =3 and I would expect nothing less from filmmakers such as Forster and Haggis, given their well known leanings.
QoS though is pure fiction, and it does ultimately at least have the decency to blame the criminal element that is Quantum, and corrupt local element that is Medrano for Bolivia's water problems, even if the filmmakers like to hint that maybe "corrupt" western business and intelligence agencies are the root of the poor indigines problems. That's what has the hardcore socialist media praising the film to the high heavens or more appropriately the great utopian collective in the sky.
If anything, socialist international's love of this "breakthrough" Bond film validates charges of the movie's activist leanings.
Luckily us non-leftist Bond fans can tune it out and work with the film as a Bond film,
Local politicos like Medrano are the actual problem for this fictional Bolivia - guys who sell out their resources to criminal cabals like Quantum.
That at least is 1+1=2
but virtually everything Forster and Haggis touch is 1+1=3. Thats how they roll.
I'm done with QoS and its activist poltics. We hashed it all out back in 08. The extent of the perfidy is all documented somewhere, in fact I know where to find it, but it would warrant its own thread.
You can have last word, I promise. I'm done with this angle. I prefer to enjoy QoS for Bond's triumph over the evil that is Quantum and Bond's reconciliation vis-a-vis Vesper.
btw have I mentioned how much I love Olga's performance. That black mini-dress! The way she chides Bond.
QoS can be appreciated on many levels of Olga. Arterton has her moments too. :)
I don't, but their enthusiasm does validate etc etc as I mentioned above.
Bond has certainly never been a lefty icon. But the movies always had an element of liberal tolerance about them. As someone else pointed out they always portrayed the Soviets in quite a sympathetic light.
What I liked about "Quantum Of Solace" was the political theme behind it. Perhaps less than "Skyfall", but using "shortage of drinking water" as a theme kinda worked for me. There were some scenes in QOS where you saw local people (Peru) complaining about shortage of water and the fact that there was a drought. The same thing when Mathis, Fields and Bond were in the taxi to their new, more luxury hotel. Complaints about water.
So in a sense, this plot theme could be seen as a mirror for real-life geopolitical ecological events. Just think about China. The Chinese government is building these enormous dams to provide the big cities with fresh water. But in the end local farmers need to pay the price, as their lives are being destroyed, due to drought and absence or even poisoned drinking water.
Another thing is the post-Bush era (until 2008). You can clearly see that the CIA is being portrayed as a bad guy. As an intelligence service that doesn't give a shit about democracy, ethics and transparency. CIA-chief Gregg Beam (David Harbour) saying sarcastically: "Yeah [Felix], we should deal with nice people." adds to that feeling. And also the fact that the CIA is pro-actively working with commercial companies (the fictitious Greene Planet vs. real-life Google) and philanthropists (fictitious Dominic Greene vs. real-life Richard Branson) gives QOS a sense of realism.
I liked that. And that sense of realism was used again in "Skyfall".
1) What exactly makes QoS "anti Bond"?
2) What makes James Bond James Bond?
3) Can't there be more takes on the character, his world and his surroundings in a franchise that already have explored a wast array of different tones throughout it's fifty year history?
4) Is there really such a thing as a "Bond formula", and if so, how strict should it be?
I can't really understand why QoS "is not a Bond film". I agree it's very far away from tthe Roger Moore era on it's flamboyent heights, but compared to films like Dr No and From Russia With Love, For Your Eyes Only and Goldeneye, is it really that far off? And in the perspective of Fleming and his works; where's the major difference? For me Quantum is very much a Bond film, just as much as The Spy Who Loved Me or Goldfinger, only in a different way. Bond is still Bond although there's no fairy tale ending and he doesn't crack jokes between every killing. And where exactly are the major, "shocking" breaks with the classic formula it supposedly has so many of?
This whole discussion of what is and isn't Bond seems very petty, unnuanced and overly simplistic to me. If Bond wasn't a complex character that could be interpretet in different ways, the franchise would be dead by now.
LOL, It validates NOTHING. If a white supremacist group loves LALD, does that prove the movie is anti-black??? A group's opinion does nothing, only agreeing or disagreeing with said opinion in an overemotional way gives their POV any real weight.
I've noticed that in the 3 Daniel Craig Bond movies, they sure like to beat up his face alot. QoS is no exception.
You wished to pass off its politics as benign, even maybe not there.
I begged to differ. IMO QoS is very 1+1=3. The good folks at socialistinternational also see 1+1=3. @gustavgraves above sees 1+1=3. The list goes on.
In fact it wasn't even me that brought up the politics in the film, it was someone else.
You stepped in and said you didn't understand this contention that there was politics in the film, as if you wished it were not so, and tried to present the 1+1=3 that others see, as 1+1=2.
So the response was to show that the 1+1=3 is indeed there, whether one loves it or lumps it.
Both left and right can see the politics. Some cheer, or nod sagely or muse about "reality" being introduced to the Bond films, others cautions against propaganda.
People do see politics in this film. Sensible conservative types O:-) dutifully draw attention to leftist propagandizing (all such items detailed elsewhere and not really appropriate for an appreciation thread - rather an appreciation thread should probably be celebrating the films political bent)
The cheerleading of socialistinternational does "help" validate assertions that QoS is chock full of political overtones and messaging from a distinctly leftist perspective.
I've watered the language down to "does help" as opposed to ispso facto validates, but IMO its a fine distinction.
The politics are there. Like it, lump it, or indifferent. Forster and Haggis left their mark.
Again this is tired old water under the bridge. It was done to death when the movie was topical. The political tones in the film were more topical circa 2008 as @gustavgraves says, with the winding down of the Bush era and the dawn of the Obama era.
QoS IMO is already dated.
Skyfall has since surpassed as the more topical Bond film soon to be surpassed by B24 and whatever it brings.
6 years after the fact, an appreciation thread for this film is I think appropos as the film does work on many Bondian levels. The politcal perfidy is easily ignored.
Many of us (although understandably not all) who raged against the film, and for so many varied reasons, can now relax, I think. The dust has settled.
Personally, I can now appreciate it for being a Bond film. It has grown on me.
Ben Wishaw is really Blofeld.
Ha ha.
Anyone thought that was a good item in QOS?
I love QOS. Top ten material.
Just my cheesy side coming through, but I think that could have all added a nice trad Bondian touch. The basic concept itself though, I thought was actually pretty good.
But I like QoS. Could have been better, but then so could a lot of the Bond movies. Have to admit, it probably hovers around the bottom of my top 10.
I don't think it's of OHMSS quality, but I do think there will be a reassessment of it overtime, like OHMSS (and LTK to a certain extent).
I think you get some films, like OHMSS and LTK, where there is this received wisdom that just emerges for some reason that they're cr*p. And everyone just goes around saying they're cr*p and doesn't really challenge that thinking. Then, over time, as people come back to the film, and new fans discover it, the view gradually changes.
I really don't think QoS is ever going to be up there with the classics, but I do think future fans will come to see it as one of the better entries in the series.
Agreed. And the CIA agent is more incompetent and lazy than corrupt. Yes, he makes a deal with the Devil, portrayed by a Frenchman whose front is an eco-friendly company.
Exactly. There are plenty of other Bond movies where Bond basically saves the Americans from themselves, or shows them up as incompetent. It's a classic little-British fantasy about putting one over on the Yanks. Look at the end of OP, where the Americans are gamely watching a circus show, unaware that they're all about to be nuked. Takes Bond to save them from their own incompetence. It's all been done a zillion (almost) times before.
Times changes as well. Many people are extremely cynical of western foreign policy and their 'intelligence' agencies. In the wake of the Iraq War, it was understandable that QoS make a small, and pretty insignificant nod to this.
Plus, big corporations like Zorin and Drax have been part of the landscape when it comes to villains for years.
Bond actually represents the British state, it's parliament, monarch etc. and is often battling egotistical indivuals interests of super villains and their business interests - could be 'interpreted' as a bit anti-capitalist if you wanted.
For me the manipulation of the military by a Big cooperation in order to achieve a power basis is done better in Dogs of War, but it was nice to see the 007 franchise finally being a bit more edgy than normal. It is the director who gave us a picture that is not up to the cinematic standards of the franchise, and his choices in making a 007 movie should warrant him a public flogging.
"Political" denotes a slant or bending of data to support a mindset. To say If we do x then y will happen can be political because it's based on a belief system; it's theoretical. To say we DID a then b happened is stating a fact. To reference a fact is not and cannot be "political". The climate change issus for example: to say we've changed the Earth's climate is not political; it's scientific fact. To say we didn't or aren't, or to say we will destroy our environment completely in ten years is political, because the former is incorrect, and the latter hasn't happened. See?
So when QOS references things that HAVE happened, it is just using actual events to help drive a story. Using things not widely seized upon by the consciousness of the general public is a powerful & time honoured storytelling device. (see: Argo).
When TLD shows Bond helping the Muhajadeen you don't see me going into a "That's so Right-wing" tirade, do ya? No, because it was referencing real world events at the time.
I will in no way control my LOL, LOL!
:))