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 looks like they may have just done more revisions before shooting. Bond yelling “switch the bloody thing off!” feels more in character with where Bond is at that point than calling her an angel.
Me three
Worse, QOS felt no different than the plethora of Bourne imitators that came in between the late 2000s and early 2010s. It’s like James Bond found himself in a generic actioner that would typically star Gerard Butler or Clive Owen. A dreadful film.
Thank goodness Sam Mendes classed things up with SF. I’ll even take the very flawed SP over the Bourne wannabe. They even rip off the ending of BOURNE SUPREMACY by having him break in someone’s apartment at a snowy Russian locale!
You must’ve missed every direct to dvd action films from the 00’s. They were all shot like that. Fashioned after Bourne and incredibly generic. The reason you don’t see it anymore is because it was a fad that the audience hated.
Could this "angel/cocaine" thing not be something fans "noticed" after reading that early script? There's no trace of it in the film, really. There's no "haziness' or halo or anything in the actual scene...
It is a little odd. None of this "angel" stuff is actually there, but Benecio does a weird line reading, saying "you're dead" as a threat and not out of surprise, and they maybe should have done another take. (Tim also mislreads a line in the PTS! Glen was of course not an actor's director)
Although, Forster apparently didn't direct those scenes in QOS - Dan Bradley from the Bourne Supremacy/Ultimatum did. According to Bradley, anyway. I assume EON hired Bradley specifically to reproduce what he'd done on those Bourne films - bit harsh putting the boot into Forster for EON's decisions and Bradley's filming/directing?
To be fair, the lighting does seem rather 'angelic' when she goes up the stairs, especially with the way she steps from the shadows into this weirdly bright, soft light. There's no halo, but there's certainly a haze being made by presumably what is meant to be the cocaine shredder. And the music with those weird strings. And the fact that she's wearing white... The lighting set up actually changes when it cuts backs to her and she shoots Dario. Seriously, rewatch the scene. I got this sense when I first watched it and I've never even read the script. Seems like a bad joke that was cut down in the editing room, although I don't know for sure. I do like Del Toro's acting to be fair - Dario looks slightly crazed, albeit amused.
But yes, Glen made some funny decisions as a director, or at least went along with them. Another one in LTK is the odd slowed down run that Felix and the DEA men do during the pre titles sequence (it's actually rather unintentionally funny - literally they just run towards two men who put their hands up... it's oddly underwhelming given the fact that there are trumpets blaring... Bond's even in the background and I always got the sense he was a bit confused/annoyed about why he was told to stay there... even in the 80s I'm guessing it veered on being cheesy). It's why I think sometimes people complain LTK can feel like an 80s TV movie. Arguably the direction is the weakest aspect of the film, which is a shame.
Wow. It just never occured to me that Dario was under the influence of cocaine, or that Pam looked like an angel.... The lighting is not unusually bright or anything, just obviously brighter than on the staircase (where Dario did not see her anyway). And the music cue is similar to other cues in the film. And I don't detect any cocaine haze. I just don't know what to say!
What I meant with Dario's line is that "You're dead..." was surely written to suggest he's surprised to see her, but he says it, as Del Toro is wont to do, in an odd and threatening way that doesn't make obvious sense (and perhaps even less so if he thought she was an angel!).
In the PTS, Dalton says "No way, I'm coming with you" in a way that ignores the context. It's meant to be a comic thing where everybody is afraid of Della, and that's clear from Sharkey's lines and delivery. Dalton probably should have hit the "you" and not the "with" so as to go along with the joke...
I find the slow-motion moment in the PTS to be intentionally funny. I guess it's not very effective for everyone, but it seems to be playing up the badassery of these guys with guns and juxtaposing it with the pair of unarmed weenies who immediately surrender. I always saw that as an intentional gag.
But this variety of readings does point to some directorial error. My original point was that it's hard for me to see how this extremely vague "cocaine angel" idea would be hokier than half-assed cornball music video camera work in CR. The LTK thing is hardly noticeable.
I think the idea that Dario is in some sort of cocaine haze is a way a lot of viewers make sense of the scene. Again, whether you find this to be the case or not, it seems there are viewers who got some sort of 'angelic' vibe from the filmmaking and it took them out of the film. I certainly found it odd and it feels jarring whenever I watch it for the reasons I stated. To each their own, but I do think it's telling that there are people in this discussion who got this feeling.
Perhaps that's what separates this moment from the camerawork you dislike in CR. For the majority of people, it doesn't seem to have taken them out of the film or left them confused. In CR it seems most viewers feel and are given the clear sense that this is a way of conveying Bond's intoxicated state. So I would personally disagree with you - it's a noticeable cinematography decision but it goes hand in hand with what the story is trying to convey so immerses me in it. The opposite is true of LTK. These things are subjective though, and at the end of the day this is what it comes down to.
I get what you're saying about the delivery of Dalton's line in the PTS and that does make more sense. Leiter's delivery of the 'Ok, but strictly as an observer' or whatever afterwards is also a touch awkward... as I said, I don't think Glen is quite the great Bond director that many fans believe he is.
The weird slow motion run never felt like an intentional gag to me. Why would it be a comedic moment? Felix and the DEA are Bond's allies. They're not depicted in the PTS as bumbling or incompetent or arrogant etc. Even with the explanation you gave the joke would have to be directed more at the people surrendering, not making Felix/the DEA look superficially 'badass' in a way that puts the spotlight of the joke onto them. Again, it's jarring and doesn't go with what the story is telling you. Perhaps in hindsight it comes off as cheesier today than it did in the 80s, but it's such a bizarre moment it takes me out of the film.
Leaves me confused.
Well, I don't think Glen is an amazing director--his career outside of Bond is more Martin Campbell than Sam Mendes ;) , but he has a real knack for creating lengthy action sequences that ebb and flow and evolve and escalate. The series of scenes leading to the bomb disarming in Octopussy are about as suspenseful as Bond gets, and to have done it with his leading man dressed as a clown is all the more impressive. (Philosophical issues with Bond being dressed as a clown aren't interesting or relevant) Had Glen been in charge of GE's tank chase, I suspect I would be able to remember more of it than the three visual gags.
While I take you at your word that you immediately noticed a minor change in lighting the first time you watched LTK, I feel quite sure that most people wouldn't take any note of it (to the extent it may exist) without being aware of the early script. But as for the hacky camera in CR--many people don't mind hacky things! It's the same with Campbell zooming in on countdowns, doing soap opera beach scenes, clumsily integrating full car adverts, or passing off Prague as Miami (!)--many people find this stuff great. And some people think Sam Mendes doesn't know how to block shots. :))
But I actually checked out this thread for the first time after seeing the results of the Director Elimination Game--Campbell came in 3rd (Glen was 4th!), while several more obviously skilled/acclaimed people came in much lower. So I was wondering which big name directors fans want to start hating in a few years time....! :))
I don't think it's as much the fact that I noticed the lighting change in itself the first time I ever watched LTK. I notice it now and can tell you that's what is happening onscreen mainly because a big part of my current job is videography. I did, however, feel something was a bit weird because I registered the brighter lighting when Pam walks up the stairs and the fact that it changed in the next shot. I wouldn't have been able to tell you why, but I felt it. That's basically how a film works and how people react to them - it's an emotional process. Sometimes if it doesn't work it takes you out of the film. So yeah, even as a ten year old I got a vague sense of 'huh, she looks pretty angelic, what's going on?' and thought it was strange.
It'd be interesting hearing what others make of this scene and how they remember viewing it for the first time. Only one poster even mentioned the script and I'm not sure if many fans have even read it or how much it factors into it.
Anyway, I agree that Glen's directing during the climax of OP is suspenseful and I really like Bond dressing up as a clown because the story foreshadowed it well at the beginning of the film. It's partly a script/story thing, but he directs it well. There are, however, many other questionable decisions Glen oversaw in OP that are eyebrow raising (the Tarzan yell, "SIT!" etc.) I do like OP though. I also like TLD and LTK despite my problems with the direction at times. Hey, even Terrence Young made a Bond film I hate (TB) and also had some odd directing decisions too. I'd say the Directors of the Bond series have been pretty good as of late. I personally rate Mendes and Fukanaga's work very highly despite my problems with SP and NTTD.
This is just so needlessly arrogant sounding. It's not that people "don't mind" hacky things, it's more simply that they don't think they're hacky in the first place. It's not an objective term.
Fair enough. I tried to turn it into an acronym to justify it, but only got so far as Heightened, Affectatious Camerawork before I gave up...! There's a reason K is 5 points in Scrabble!
I actually haven't seen the script until it was shared on this page yesterday. If anything, it simply reinforced what I figured the filmmakers were trying to do with that scene. It's not some strange accident that some Bond fans misinterpret. The lighting and music that plays during that scene is VERY deliberate. Let's do a little walkthrough.
1) Here's Pam emerging from the stairway, with backlight highlighting her outline, while the rest is shrouded in shadow. There's a haziness in the image, probably due to putting a diffuser or pantyhose over the camera lenses.
2) Here's the second image as she emerges toward the lighting. Still hazy.
3) After Dario says "you're dead", we cut back to Pam but now she has no backlight and the diffuser is taken off the camera lenses to give a much clearer view of her. As if reality is kicking back and Dario realizes it's NOT an angel he's seeing firing a gun at him.
4) After we cut to Dario being shot at, we cut back to Pam and suddenly the back lighting and diffuser returns! I assume they when they were shooting this scene they did takes with her shooting at Dario with the angelic effect and then shot new takes that didn't have the diffuser and backlight. It's smart to do it like this so you have options during post-productions on how you want the scene to play out. Not sure WHY they did it in this order, but that's how it turned out in the final cut.
Okay, okay. Mea culpa. :))
Pretty much. It's worth rewatching the scene itself in full for those here don't quite notice those things from the stills/don't know what back lights or diffusers are. It does seem oddly deliberate. I've not seen any commentary about it from Glen or anyone involved. Does anyone know if anything like this exists/would give an insight into their intentions? Might simply be a bad joke or moment that didn't quite work...
Bless your heart.
The halo is the yellow sign behind her head. She looks like one of those Medieval paintings of angels.
https://icondiplomastudent.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/9-complete-angel-gabriel-study-e1419192882523.jpg
John Woo would have given TOMORROW NEVER DIES much needed flair and style that was completely lacking in Spottiswoode.
But how responsible was he for Rogue One’s success?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/star-wars-rogue-one-writer-tony-gilroy-opens-up-reshoots-1100060/amp/
Goodness gracious, that "halo"! :)) I watched this scene the other day and saw what people were talking about with the lighting being a bit different, and I even noticed that it went back and forth the one time, but not the "halo"! And none of this lighting stuff stands out enough to require any explanation at all. Had LTK been a Martin Campbell joint, the director's lack of subtely in comparison to John Glen (!) would have helped me considerably!