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
That doesn't change the notion that had SP been better it would have been recieved better by audiences. I liked SP a great deal and I don't expect perfection but still, I'm not blind to its obvious shortcomings. Expectations are a given and I for one was hoping and expecting for a more engaging story, for characters to be fleshed out more, giving a more credible feel to the relationship dynamics between the lead cast and a stronger execution of the villain's motivation where we see a greater sense of threat to Bond but that was all absent for me and clearly many others. SP was fun and entertaining but it just came off as flaccid and despite that it's doing exceptionally well financially and like I said, irrespective of external circumstances and ER, it would be doing better business if the film itself was better.
I've been asking that myself. Let's take for instance Madeleine Swann. I hear many times that she wasn't that convincing as a Bond-girl, that her character wasn't fleshed out much. Especially compared to Vesper Lynd, Tracy di Vicenzo and Elektra King.
But I find that a bit unfair. The latter three mentioned Bond girls were complex yes, absolutely. But 'complex' doesn't necessarily mean 'less fleshed out'. Vesper, Tracy and Elektra had a build-in twist:
--> Elektra started out like a fierce, but good business woman. And then later she turns out to be the actual villain, the mastermind behind the entire villain's scheme.
--> Vesper started out like a fierce, though overall good finance professional. A woman who has all her emotions in check and who makes clear choices. But during the film we find out how troubled her character is, how emotionally torn her character is between two sides, that of good -Bond- and evil -QUANTUM-.
--> Tracy started out the other way around, a woman with severe emotional hardships, depressions, borderline syndrom, you name it. She even commits a suicide attempt. But thanks to Bond she becomes the fierce, good, loyal and strong 'überwoman'.
Obviously, we don't see such developments with Madeleine during the film. Her character is for a large part written with twists and backstories that have happened before the actual film starts. But that doesn't mean her character is less 'fleshed out' or less interesting and complex.
And let's compare her character a bit with some past Bond-girls:
--> Honey Rider
--> Domino Derval
--> Kissy
--> Tiffany Case
--> Mary Goodnight
--> Anya Amasova
--> Holly Goodhead
--> Magda
--> Stacey Sutton
--> Lupe Lamora
--> Natalya Simonova
--> Wai Lin
--> Christmas Jones
--> Jinx Jordan
Compared to the above characters, I still find Madeleine Swann a more compelling Bond-girl. She has, like Bond, a personal background. She is hiding, because her father is an assassin. She is entirely bored with her life. Until Bond comes in her life.
Moreover, does every Bond girl need to be complex? Does every Bond girl need to be another Tracy or Vesper? In real life most girls don't have so much 'shit' going on in their lifes and the actual start of a love relationship comes about way more easily and with less complications.
Relationships and love in films are as old since Shakespeare started experimenting with it. Hence why many times people get bored of 'just' a love relationship. Which really is the case between Madeleine and Bond. A simple love relationship, with not too many complexities. Bond-girls like Holly Goodhead and Mary Goodnight didn't have that luxury. They were just 'female meat' for Bond.
I don't think Swann was terrible and all the ingredients were there but compared to Vesper, Tracy and to a small extent Elektra she comes off as a weaker character and that's because of the lackadaisical execution in which she way conveyed. Despite Craig Bond absconding at some point with varying degrees from MI6 in every single one of his movies it was still believable for him to walk away at the end of SP but to be honest, it felt like he could do that with any woman he was happy to shag if they suggested it to him, particularly after the ghost of Vesper being brought up at least twice in the movie. There was nothing convincing or immediate in the way she was shown to identify Swann as uniquely special enough in the manner that the film asks us to. Swann in a nutshell to me, comes off as a character so full of potential but ultimately underutilised. When it comes to motion picture not all things need to be explained but there are some things that need to be shown.
Holes or not SF generated a far more positive consensus and remains Mendes quintessential Bond film. ER only explains the lower conversion back to dollars but SP is performing lower in both UK and the US.
And yes we were Bond/British crazy in 2012 but they also gave us something to watch.
I want bullet points. I want proof. I want examples. That makes you think why the filmmakers are trying so hard to convince us that Madeleine is far more than just eyecandy. And only examples from the film please.
1. the song with its mushy lyrics
2. the 'jump each other' scene in the train
3. the "Madeline....don't look at him......look at me" line and panicky behaviour from Bond in Morocco
4. the "I love you" scene in the torture chamber.
5. the "daughter of an assassin....the only one who could have really understood him line" by Blofeld
6. the "I'm leaving......you're a good man James" line in London
Those were the insertions that I recall that indicated a more than casual intention on Madeline's part, as well as Bond's. I agree @mcdonbb that it may not have worked for some. I noted previously that I saw people fiddling with their phones throughout the L'Americain setting on my second watch, and that was a 'connecting scene' that should not have solicited such response.
The fact that I noticed it clearly each time I saw the film suggests that it was not properly integrated. I agree @doubleoego that the story seems to suggest that Bond just wants out at the end of it all.....and Madeline just appears to be his way out. It's not an undying love for this woman like in CR, but more a mutual appreciation of one another's life paths and a time for new beginnings for both. Forgive and forget.
Given this, perhaps removing the "passion" scene in the train may have helped to sell it better, along with less mushy lyrics from Smith.....something more casual and upbeat but also suggesting that it was time to move on and get out of the service.......
This Madeline scenario was not the worst part of SP for me, and she was definitely good in the role. However, like a lot of things for me, it didn't connect in a standout way.....it's just there.....like reading about it on the pages of a book. I'm not sure why, but I'm sure with more rewatches in time I'll figure it out.
It's one of the best scenes in the movie. Why people go to the cinema and fiddle with phones is beyond me. They should be neutered on the way out.
I think what mainly worked in Vesper's favor as compared to Madeleine, is Vesper's double agenda.
That made the character interesting. That made people wanted to find out parts of the villain's scheme. Vesper was directly involved in the scheme of the villain. That's why Vesper worked.
All other romantic exposition in CR for me felt very much like similar romantic exposition scenes in SP. The scenes between Bond and Vesper in the garden of the private clinic, the scene where Bond and Vesper were on the beach...they all carried extra weight because of Vesper being some sort of 'double-spy'.
Madeleine didn't have that advantage.
Furthermore, when looking at the relationship between Bond and Tracy, it all felt more believable, because many of the lines written for Bond and Tracy felt slightly more real, more...human. George Lazenby really had the quality to...soften himself during these love scenes. And there was that famous barn scene. The scene were Bond and Tracy discuss Bond's professional life as a spy:
I think it would have helped if Daniel Craig would have uttered a bit more transparent and honest lines like:
It's a more honest kind of...line if you ask me. It's devoid of too much intellectual blabla and it enters the core of Bond's emotional problems. With words. By doing so, you automatically give more reason for Madeleine to react on that.
Paul Haggis to a certain extent was also able to do that with Vesper (the train sequence between Bond and Vesper, Vesper and Bond on the beach). Though he never excelled at it like Maibaum did for "OHMSS".
That would surely end this generation. And @bondjames thanks for responding and citing another well worded argument.
@GG just so you know yes the Bond/Swann relationship seemed shakey to me but I do agree with @doublego's take. Swann has major daddy issues in the subtext of the film. Like I said before just the fact she's a psychiatrist is interesting because psychiatry and psychology tend to attract intelligent people that have mood or developmental issues than some areas of medicine and/or social science.
Having said that and in my opinion only and to keep me from being late to work the impression of the completeness of the relationship didn't come across.
Please read my previous post ;-)
For me again, their relationship was sold in the earlier parts of the film. Particularly in the casino when he pays for her, and in the hotel, as well as during her father's birthday. The superb montage with Louis Armstrong's song also did it very cleanly imho. The barn scene was the icing on the cake. I agree with you that Lazenby sold it well.....he was the most 'human' Bond.
I'm not sure that would have worked, but it's an idea. It perhaps seems a little too expositionary and revealing for Bond.
The best line in my view to explain this relatiionship was the Blofeld one "daughter of an assassin...the only one who could understand him.....shame". That to me nailed it because I understood why she liked him. She related....and as @mcdonbb suggests, plays into her 'daddy' issues (repressed). It's Bond's behaviour that wasn't properly explained in my view. Smith's song tries to do it instead....giving us the emotional perspective that we don't see from him in the film.
Ok ...I will. Sorry, I'm rushing :(. Btw please know I greatly appreciate your opinion. I have expressed my concerns as if Mendes reads everything I write lol. But I'm ready to just accept and enjoy the film and add it to my history (in a good way).
True. And we do get vibrant at times, don't we?
I should be a journalist.
The reason Vesper worked as a character and romantic interest for Bond was simple: we actually got to see her fall for Bond, and vice versa. We saw their spiky, bubbly, tumultuous, light, snarky and flirty first meeting, setting the stage for their little chess games with each other. We got to see each of their demons creeping out over time, and the ways in which they attempted to hide them. We got to see each of them subtly realizing that though they were both there for reasons entirely different to play a feigned role, they both wanted to drop everything and be together.
Whether or not Vesper was tied to the villain's plot was largely of no consequence, the essentials were there already, and the script paid the maturation of their love the ultimate service, with the Quantum/betrayal story thread an added bonus to add tragedy to their splendor.
With Madeleine, I feel that much of what we should've seen of their blossoming love-even saying that makes me feel strange-wasn't there. We are supposed to feel that she is a different woman than all the others, a chance for Bond to get another life, a happier life away from the bullets and risks; hell, she says as much herself to him numerous times. We get beautiful moments between the two, like their train meeting and the Tangier hotel scene, but we needed more before Madeleine's sudden announcement of "I love you" to Bond during the torture scene. Mendes and his team had the wheels turning there; their meeting showed their possible chemistry, the hotel scene drew a bit of a line between them that tested the boundaries of the inkling of that connection, and the Hinx train fight showed them facing a real, serious threat and overcoming it together, followed by them intimately grieving/facing the aftermath together. These moments are found in CR too, the train meeting, the mention of Vesper's lover (the love knot) and the stairwell bout and later shower scene eliciting those same points of impact as found in SP, though much greater.
However, as the train sequence concludes I truly feel whatever feelings Madeleine had for Bond then fast forwarded from there, which results in about a mere fifteen minute period from the point where she tells him her body won't be his in the hotel to the moment when she and him have sex on the train, and not at all long after that when she then professes her love for him. It just doesn't feel natural to me, and Madeleine's character up to the end of the Tangier hotel scene didn't feel like the woman who would do some of the things she did after that point in the film.
I hope, however, that on my second viewing their relationship feels more natural and developed. Fingers crossed.
I understand this is a common thought amongst some, but I don't feel it's quite as poor as some people paint it. You explain perfectly why the Vesper-Bond dynamic works, and I truly believe it does (I know other disagree to some extent) but the situation we find Madeleine and Bond in is wildly different.
Theirs is a chemistry built on the immediacy of danger, extraordinary circumstances and a sense of impending ruin. Within minutes of their first meeting Madeleine is swiped by Hinx. There is no room for a gradual build and the fleeting moments of down time service the dynamic perfectly for me. Even in L'Americain she betrays her facade when she says 'Two James's, lucky me'. I think it's quite clear she saw him as a Knight in shining armour from the get go.
It's pretty much one way traffic from Madeleine to Bond, which to me isn't reciprocated by Bond in anywhere near the way it is with Vesper, so when people say they don't buy the 'love', I don't think that is what is being projected anyhow. Bond is relatively carefree, even nonchalant at times, almost like he doesn't give two hoots if he gets fired or even dies. She gives him a route out and he takes it.
It isn t very different from the Bond/Honeychile relation in Fleming s Dr No. And others. From Fleming and real life.
Absolutely.
There is simply no time in a Bond script, given the emphasis on action, the villain, and everything else to give critical script minutes to develop a love story. I thought they could have added a scene or 2 to show the deepening relationship, but it was pretty typical for a Bond film.
And yet people question the Madeleine-Bond relationship way more than the Honeychile-Bond relationship. And you know why? Time. DN has an evergreen status. SP has the unfortunate bad luck of being produced in an entirely -social media-heavy- society.
It has nothing to do with social media. Bond and Honey weren't in love. They just got out of a crazy situation and needed to get their rocks off. Similar to Bond and Swann's sexual encounter after Hinx get's the boot.
Nicely put!
We've got two very different reads on this film.
@Murdock, exactly. People can try to come up with a list of excuses as to why we didn't get a clearer, more developed romance in SP, but at the end of the day that doesn't fix that essential problem.
While we're on this, why bother comparing Madeleine and Bond to Bond and Honey at all? Those pairings in two very different films had two disparate dynamics; in the former Bond actually likes a woman enough to run off with her, while in the latter he's beside a woman he just wanted to get off with for a bit before moving on, as was the 60s Bond way. Trying to find a connection and comparison/contrast with one relationship that is treated with gravity, stakes and drama and the other which is presented as a flimsy one-off of no great emotional weight doesn't really make sense at all. It'd be like writing a dissertation that examines the dynamics of Vesper and Bond in CR and Jinx and Bond in DAD; the pairings are so far removed from each other in presentation and approach that it makes no damn sense to even begin any kind of examination.