Was Martin Campbell the right man to direct CR?

DarthDimi

I wouldn't say CR is a 'perfect' film. Perfection is hard to define anyway when dealing with something as subjective as a taste for films. I view 2001: A Space Odyssey as a perfect film yet no doubt it has its flaws too even if I choose not to spot them. However, I do think CR is one of the least imperfect Bond films - if that makes sense. Whatever its flaws, they are too few for me to be bothered by them. When I look back for the previous 'almost perfect Bond film' - at least in my opinion - I stop at GE. Is it any coincidence that both were directed and photographed by the same man? Hardly if you ask me.

Shoreline

The great thing about Campbell is that he pulls so much energy from the actors he works with.
He is clearly a driven man, and I would assume his on set enthusiasm and work pace would be infectious!
Goldeneye is my favourite Bond, and there is little wrong with CR, wish he would do one more, but I think that ship has sailed...

Pierce2Daniel

The thing that struck me in this discussion:
http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=24013

Was the talk of Campbell's direction being a bit "bit meat and potatoes' and the talk of the film being "pretty uninterestingly photographed". I really disagree with this.

I'm sorry but how is this uninteresting photography:
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=8001&fullsize=1
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=54&fullsize=1
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=38&fullsize=1
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=5949&fullsize=1
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=7912&fullsize=1
http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/Movies0/displayimage.php?pid=7848&fullsize=1

Another thing as well: In the article they mention that the parkour chase is "shot in a “boring” way". They further state: "The way it’s shot bothers me though...really great stunt choreography and editing, but the shots are so static and the framing is so boring at times. Not to mention I’m really conscious of when they’re using a soundstage."

What do we think?

DarthDimi

We all know that nowadays people don't consider photography any good unless the camera moves, even during a simple conversation, as if the cameraman has seizures of some sort. Also, many people find a more than 5 second shot boring. And if something doesn't blow up, preferably in our face (see 3D), every couple of minutes, a film isn't appealing anymore...

... yet luckily that's not true. It begins with a great story, well scripted and well executed. It's lifted to greater heights by excellent acting. Make the stunts real: people notice. Add some seasoning (music, set design, great locations, ...) and wrap it up in photography that isn't meant to please the red bull crowds.

CR was a very successful Bond film, both critically and financially. We can't deny that. People have embraced it. You want boring action? Try the QOS PTS or the TWINE Parahawk sequence. Nothing about CR's action is boring IMO.

CommanderRoss

I think these guys are full of it. Selfrighteous ass-covering prinks. They hardly come up with arguments, they just flaunt their opinions. And what's wrong with meat and potatoes anyway? ;-)
I prefer the cinematography of SF and QoS, but in both cases the directors are specialists at that, and it fits Craigs Bond. You couldn't have done that with Brosnan.

doubleoego

Of course he was! Campbell's CR is the best Bond film since OHMSS and since his debut in 1995 with GE, there hasn't been a single director IMO that has topped his excellent output with his Bond movies. If Mendes can create something really fantastic for Bond 24, then that'll put him on equal footing with Campbell but CR is too great a movie worthy of every accolade and praise it gets.

Aziz_Fekkesh

The first half of GE sags terrribly but Campbell had definately improved for CR.

M_Balje

Yes and No. Yes because of to get fandom back. No because of the agression.

Martin Campbell mabey partly be responsible for the violence editing in specialy in the beginning, the starfight and Airport scene i have a problem with. I have liked to see a bit les violence style for that. Inspecialy because the movie whas in the disapointed promotion promoted as entertaining movie aka Twine.

Taken Michael Apted as replacement stil not be enough. But i am disapointed in Vesper chacter and 24 subject is out of place.

In CR there happend to much whyle is Skyfall there not happend enough.

Dragonpol

M_Balje wrote:

Yes and No. Yes because of to get fandom back. No because of the agression.

Martin Campbell mabey partly be responsible for the violence editing in specialy in the beginning, the starfight and Airport scene i have a problem with. I have liked to see a bit les violence style for that. Inspecialy because the movie whas in the disapointed promotion promoted as entertaining movie aka Twine.

Taken Michael Apted as replacement stil not be enough. But i am disapointed in Vesper chacter and 24 subject is out of place.

So you have spotted the links between TWINE and CR too then, @M_Balje? Great to meet a like-minded person on this issue, I think.

Agent7F

Well I should say he was the right man & right choice because he accepted Daniel Craig as new 007. Saying no way that Pierce Brosnan can be in it because the beginning. I glad it was Martin Campbell not that idiot Quentin Tarantino. No way Eon can accept in any future Bond movie. He would destroy the Bond franchise all together. I never like him or his movies.

Dragonpol

Yes, certainly he was the right man for the job like no other - his work in introducing Pierce Brosnan in GoldenEye meant he was an ideal choice to introduce Daniel Craig in Casino Royale, in my view and I'm sure in the view of many others out there. Predictably, he did a brilliant job, though of course more generally no film or its director is immune from criticism nor will universally please everyone.

Pierce2Daniel

But are we not fanboying here?

I know Campbell knocked it out of the park with this movie but I can understand the comments being made by these guys: http://www.movie-moron.com/?p=24013

Had the director of 'Beyond Borders' and 'Vertical Limit' been hired to make the next Bond movie I would also be a little tentative. But just looking at the film itself and not considering Campbell's history (as the man who bought Bond back to life in the '90s) was he the right man?

Campbell's claim to fame was directing the rejuvenation of the Bond franchise with GE. On paper getting back the same guy to herald in a new era of Bond seems an odd one. Campbell had done the same job earlier but for a different generation.

TheWizardOfIce

Campbell wont go down in history as an all time great director that's for sure.

But the peak of his work is on Bond (although the original Edge of Darkness is pretty good) and its a pretty impressive peak.

Of the Bond directors who did more than one then I would have him second only to Terence Young.

GE isn't perfect but is a very solid entry and the shot of Bond jumping off the dam is more visually impressive than any of Hamilton's or Glen's output.

With CR though he hit it out of the park. Some people are snooty when it comes to directing action, seeing it as a lesser form of filmmaking. Well that's fine but, like Sebastian Faulkes and his clear disdain for Fleming, if its so easy why can't you do it?

The action in QOS is shambolically directed from a guy whose films have won oscars and the action in SF by the great Mendes is only really as good as anything done by Glen.

CR has the two best fights (sorry Necros and Green 5) since Grant v Bond in the PTS and stairwell fights and the parkour chase is a pretty textbook action sequence and better than anything in Bourne or Nolans Batman films no matter what the shaky cam and Nolan fanboy brigades might claim.

But despite him perhaps being a journeyman only good enough to direct action films he also nails the dramatic scenes too. He does as well as he can with the dramatic scenes in GE (lets be honest - Brozza is no Craig) and the dramatic stuff in CR is superb and as good as anything Mendes did in SF.

And the big thing about Martin is he had cojones. Only perhaps Peter Hunt had similar pressure to deliver and even then if OHMSS had been a disaster (as twas perceived by a lot of people) they would have done exactly what they did do and lure Connery back with an astronomical offer.

Campbell didn't have that luxury in 95. GE simply had to succeed or it could well have been game over for the series. But then he goes and repeats the trick and abandons the pastiche but commercially successful route the Brosnan films had taken and introduces a new and unpopular (before the film was released) choice as actor and a complete back to basics tone. In hindsight its easy to see why CR was successful but the negative press against DC and the fact Brozza was so popular means it was far from a done deal that the public would get on board.

So fair play to Campbell - he may never go down as a great director but he really ought to go down as a great Bond director.

MrBond

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Campbell wont go down in history as an all time great director that's for sure.

But the peak of his work is on Bond (although the original Edge of Darkness is pretty good) and its a pretty impressive peak.

Of the Bond directors who did more than one then I would have him second only to Terence Young.

GE isn't perfect but is a very solid entry and the shot of Bond jumping off the dam is more visually impressive than any of Hamilton's or Glen's output.

With CR though he hit it out of the park. Some people are snooty when it comes to directing action, seeing it as a lesser form of filmmaking. Well that's fine but, like Sebastian Faulkes and his clear disdain for Fleming, if its so easy why can't you do it?

The action in QOS is shambolically directed from a guy whose films have won oscars and the action in SF by the great Mendes is only really as good as anything done by Glen.

CR has the two best fights (sorry Necros and Green 5) since Grant v Bond in the PTS and stairwell fights and the parkour chase is a pretty textbook action sequence and better than anything in Bourne or Nolans Batman films no matter what the shaky cam and Nolan fanboy brigades might claim.

But despite him perhaps being a journeyman only good enough to direct action films he also nails the dramatic scenes too. He does as well as he can with the dramatic scenes in GE (lets be honest - Brozza is no Craig) and the dramatic stuff in CR is superb and as good as anything Mendes did in SF.

And the big thing about Martin is he had cojones. Only perhaps Peter Hunt had similar pressure to deliver and even then if OHMSS had been a disaster (as twas perceived by a lot of people) they would have done exactly what they did do and lure Connery back with an astronomical offer.

Campbell didn't have that luxury in 95. GE simply had to succeed or it could well have been game over for the series. But then he goes and repeats the trick and abandons the pastiche but commercially successful route the Brosnan films had taken and introduces a new and unpopular (before the film was released) choice as actor and a complete back to basics tone. In hindsight its easy to see why CR was successful but the negative press against DC and the fact Brozza was so popular means it was far from a done deal that the public would get on board.

So fair play to Campbell - he may never go down as a great director but he really ought to go down as a great Bond director.

Brilliant! Couldn't agree more!

identigraph

Would be interesting to see how Campbell fared with a standard Bond film not a reboot or introducing a new actor?

StirredNotShaken

I want Campbell for Bond 25.

Ludovico

StirredNotShaken wrote:

I want Campbell for Bond 25.

H will be a bit old for that. And to answer the OP, yes, absolutely.

jason_bourne

not the right but the PERFECT one. his action sequences were exhilarating especially the airport one. the melee battles were brutal but not tasteless. The torture scene is dark and funny. He captured the emotions and angst of a "rookie" Bond. I actually liked the Bond-Vesper melodrama even though I hate love stories. Most importantly, he was responsible for the film that introduced me to this great franchise.

Agent007391

Was Martin Campbell right for CR?

Good question. I answer with a very simple statement.

The movie was good.

TheWizardOfIce

jason_bourne wrote:

not the right but the PERFECT one. his action sequences were exhilarating especially the airport one. the melee battles were brutal but not tasteless. The torture scene is dark and funny.

Which it shouldnt be. The one big black mark on CR for me is having the audience laugh in the middle of Fleming's best torture sequence. And thats Martins fault so no, not PERFECT.

StirredNotShaken

No, that would come down to P&W&H for writing the "scratching my balls" line. There's no way Campbell could direct that line without it being humourous. It's Bond being Bond.

TheWizardOfIce

StirredNotShaken wrote:

No, that would come down to P&W&H for writing the "scratching my balls" line. There's no way Campbell could direct that line without it being humourous. It's Bond being Bond.

As far as I'm aware the director has power of veto if he thinks a line ruins a scene. Martin obviously didnt think it did.

StirredNotShaken

But I think Martin interpreted it as Bond's not caving in to Le Chiffre. I would've kept the line for that reason. It's Bond's stubbornness and defiance, exhibited towards MI6 throughout the film beforehand, now being utilized in a situation where Bond is internally fearful.

TheWizardOfIce

StirredNotShaken wrote:

But I think Martin interpreted it as Bond's not caving in to Le Chiffre. I would've kept the line for that reason. It's Bond's stubbornness and defiance, exhibited towards MI6 throughout the film beforehand, now being utilized in a situation where Bond is internally fearful.

Fair enough. But there are other ways of showing Bonds toughness than having the audience howl with laughter. Did you laugh when you read that scene in the book?

'a torture scene which still haunts me' - Raymond Chandler. Not in the film.

My suspicion is though that they had to ruin it with that line to keep the 12 certificate.

StirredNotShaken

Yeah maybe the execution was inadvertantly botched by the sadistic connection to comedy that most human beings seem to have. But I think that was Campbell's INTENT. And of course, I didn't laugh at it in the novel. I find it much more horrific in the book.

Pierce2Daniel

StirredNotShaken wrote:

But I think Martin interpreted it as Bond's not caving in to Le Chiffre. I would've kept the line for that reason. It's Bond's stubbornness and defiance, exhibited towards MI6 throughout the film beforehand, now being utilized in a situation where Bond is internally fearful.

It's a definite dark-black humour. It isn't supposed to be 'haha' funny, clearly not as Le Chiffre is far from laughing. Bond really goes through the motions in that scene; he starts as fearful not only for himself but also for Vesper, he's a scared and beat man. Knowing that he's as good as dead, Bond is given the opportunity to grasp on to one last piece of defiance by not giving Le Chiffre the password.

I guess Bond sees the funny side of things because the last thing he wants Le Chiffre to have is the upper-hand. It's a clever trick by Campbell and the writers as despite being bloody and tied to a chair with his knackers out, Bond still has the power over Le Chiffre in that scene. The power-dynamic should have switched in that situation but the only thing Le Chiffre didn't count on was how ready Bond was to die. It's an aspect of his persona that has been consistent throughout the series - he is driven and determined and far from corruptable.

Also here is an interview with Campbell that is very interesting in hindsight of this discussion:

TheWizardOfIce

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

StirredNotShaken wrote:

But I think Martin interpreted it as Bond's not caving in to Le Chiffre. I would've kept the line for that reason. It's Bond's stubbornness and defiance, exhibited towards MI6 throughout the film beforehand, now being utilized in a situation where Bond is internally fearful.

It's a definite dark-black humour. It isn't supposed to be 'haha' funny, clearly not as Le Chiffre is far from laughing. Bond really goes through the motions in that scene; he starts as fearful not only for himself but also for Vesper, he's a scared and beat man. Knowing that he's as good as dead, Bond is given the opportunity to grasp on to one last piece of defiance by not giving Le Chiffre the password.

I guess Bond sees the funny side of things because the last thing he wants Le Chiffre to have is the upper-hand. It's a clever trick by Campbell and the writers as despite being bloody and tied to a chair with his knackers out, Bond still has the power over Le Chiffre in that scene. The power-dynamic should have switched in that situation but the only thing Le Chiffre didn't count on was how ready Bond was to die. It's an aspect of his persona that has been consistent throughout the series - he is driven and determined and far from corruptable.

Also here is an interview with Campbell that is very interesting in hindsight of this discussion:

I understand what they are trying to achieve in terms of Bond having the power in the scene, its just after having waited my whole life to see CR filmed and remembering the first time I read the torture scene being chilled to the bone, the memory of the whole cinema roaring with laughter at the 'scratch my balls' line is something that ruined the whole scene for me.

At least Martin shows he knows of Aunt Charmian to be fair. Theres only Peter Hunt and perhaps Young and Mendes I imagine having the slightest inkling of who she is. Certainly not Tamahori!

Dragonpol

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

jason_bourne wrote:

not the right but the PERFECT one. his action sequences were exhilarating especially the airport one. the melee battles were brutal but not tasteless. The torture scene is dark and funny.

Which it shouldnt be. The one big black mark on CR for me is having the audience laugh in the middle of Fleming's best torture sequence. And thats Martins fault so no, not PERFECT.

I agree. Something I've always thought too! It certainly does ruin the scene for me.

doubleoego

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Campbell wont go down in history as an all time great director that's for sure.

But the peak of his work is on Bond (although the original Edge of Darkness is pretty good) and its a pretty impressive peak.

Of the Bond directors who did more than one then I would have him second only to Terence Young.

GE isn't perfect but is a very solid entry and the shot of Bond jumping off the dam is more visually impressive than any of Hamilton's or Glen's output.

With CR though he hit it out of the park. Some people are snooty when it comes to directing action, seeing it as a lesser form of filmmaking. Well that's fine but, like Sebastian Faulkes and his clear disdain for Fleming, if its so easy why can't you do it?

The action in QOS is shambolically directed from a guy whose films have won oscars and the action in SF by the great Mendes is only really as good as anything done by Glen.

CR has the two best fights (sorry Necros and Green 5) since Grant v Bond in the PTS and stairwell fights and the parkour chase is a pretty textbook action sequence and better than anything in Bourne or Nolans Batman films no matter what the shaky cam and Nolan fanboy brigades might claim.

But despite him perhaps being a journeyman only good enough to direct action films he also nails the dramatic scenes too. He does as well as he can with the dramatic scenes in GE (lets be honest - Brozza is no Craig) and the dramatic stuff in CR is superb and as good as anything Mendes did in SF.

And the big thing about Martin is he had cojones. Only perhaps Peter Hunt had similar pressure to deliver and even then if OHMSS had been a disaster (as twas perceived by a lot of people) they would have done exactly what they did do and lure Connery back with an astronomical offer.

Campbell didn't have that luxury in 95. GE simply had to succeed or it could well have been game over for the series. But then he goes and repeats the trick and abandons the pastiche but commercially successful route the Brosnan films had taken and introduces a new and unpopular (before the film was released) choice as actor and a complete back to basics tone. In hindsight its easy to see why CR was successful but the negative press against DC and the fact Brozza was so popular means it was far from a done deal that the public would get on board.

So fair play to Campbell - he may never go down as a great director but he really ought to go down as a great Bond director.

Masterfully said.

RC7

doubleoego wrote:

TheWizardOfIce wrote:

Campbell wont go down in history as an all time great director that's for sure.

But the peak of his work is on Bond (although the original Edge of Darkness is pretty good) and its a pretty impressive peak.

Of the Bond directors who did more than one then I would have him second only to Terence Young.

GE isn't perfect but is a very solid entry and the shot of Bond jumping off the dam is more visually impressive than any of Hamilton's or Glen's output.

With CR though he hit it out of the park. Some people are snooty when it comes to directing action, seeing it as a lesser form of filmmaking. Well that's fine but, like Sebastian Faulkes and his clear disdain for Fleming, if its so easy why can't you do it?

The action in QOS is shambolically directed from a guy whose films have won oscars and the action in SF by the great Mendes is only really as good as anything done by Glen.

CR has the two best fights (sorry Necros and Green 5) since Grant v Bond in the PTS and stairwell fights and the parkour chase is a pretty textbook action sequence and better than anything in Bourne or Nolans Batman films no matter what the shaky cam and Nolan fanboy brigades might claim.

But despite him perhaps being a journeyman only good enough to direct action films he also nails the dramatic scenes too. He does as well as he can with the dramatic scenes in GE (lets be honest - Brozza is no Craig) and the dramatic stuff in CR is superb and as good as anything Mendes did in SF.

And the big thing about Martin is he had cojones. Only perhaps Peter Hunt had similar pressure to deliver and even then if OHMSS had been a disaster (as twas perceived by a lot of people) they would have done exactly what they did do and lure Connery back with an astronomical offer.

Campbell didn't have that luxury in 95. GE simply had to succeed or it could well have been game over for the series. But then he goes and repeats the trick and abandons the pastiche but commercially successful route the Brosnan films had taken and introduces a new and unpopular (before the film was released) choice as actor and a complete back to basics tone. In hindsight its easy to see why CR was successful but the negative press against DC and the fact Brozza was so popular means it was far from a done deal that the public would get on board.

So fair play to Campbell - he may never go down as a great director but he really ought to go down as a great Bond director.

Masterfully said.

Seconded. EDIT: Actually, I don't think I've agreed with every element of post before. Just recording for posterity.