<blockquote>Martin Campbell backs Sam Mendes as Bond 23 director - 'Quantum' was 'lousy'
Bond 23 - 13-06-11
In an interview with former 007 director Martin Campbell, principally about his "Green Lantern" movie, Crave Online quizzed the helmsman about his thoughts on James Bond - past and future.
Crave Online: What is it about you that is ideal for creating and launching new things?
Martin Campbell: Well, I’m cheap. No, the thing is I’ve never done a comic book movie before. Superheroes, I guess, yes. Bond, I guess is a form of superhero, and Zorro obviously is, but I’ve never done a superhero movie before, and I wasn’t even versed in the comic when it came through the door. Once having read them and so forth, it fascinated me about the whole world of Green Lantern, going to another planet, going to the center of the universe. That’s really why I did it. What it is about me, these things aren’t about me, really. These things are a huge team effort by everybody. It’s always handed across to the director. I’m the guy on the floor certainly, but Donald [De Line], my producer, a huge contribution from him as with Greg [Berlanti] the writer, and the actors. Unlike a lot of movies, these things are very much a team effort, and in this case, particularly so.
Crave Online: What do you think of the way they’ve taken the Bond series after Casino Royale with Quantum of Solace?
Martin Campbell: Oh, I thought it was lousy. And hopefully this next one will be terrific. Sam Mendes is directing it and I’m sure it’ll be terrific.</blockquote>
Well, I still think Campbell shouldn´t talk about things he doesn´t understand.
Comments
And he DOES understand Bond. He's directed 2 of the best entries in the series.
A few examples:
imdb appreciation
and yeah he is right QoS was one of the worse Bond movies,it had potential but i dont know how they ruined it
I wouldn't say that QoS was "lousy" but I thought it was very over-directed. I think that CR is a great example of how you can make a Bond film that is visually interesting but still easy to follow. There are so many little things that Campbell did that make the film more dynamic - for example, when Bond jumps out the embassy window in the "Madagascar chase" the camera pushes forward with him. A small thing, but it makes the action more exciting because the audience is part of it. Same with the interesting angle when Bond jumps out of the bulldozer with the sun in the shot, or the two-level shots of Bond and the bomber (on the lift and the elevator, respectively) that show what each one is doing and how they're mirroring each other yet using different techniques. Or the wonderfully panoramic helicopter shot around the crane that gives the sense of scope to the fight before the close-ups.
I read an interview with Foster (perhaps here) where he explained the *ideas* behind a lot of his decisions. Quite frankly, I found them pretentious. He wanted Bond to have action scenes based on all four elements: earth, air, fire, water. Umm, okay...but *why*? He wanted the action scenes to be edited in a confusing way in the beginning to mirror the idea that Bond doesn't understand what is going on in the beginning of the film. Interesting idea, but you can make the audience feel that they don't understand what is going on in the plot *without* making them check out of an action scene because they can't tell what's going on! Kudos for trying something new, but remember that the first obligation you have is to provide the audience with a good story and film. Once you've established that you're doing that THEN you can start tweaking things to make it more interesting.
Crave Online: Why didn’t you like it? Were there themes from Casino Royale you were hoping they’d pick up on?
Martin Campbell: No, I just thought the story was pretty uninteresting. I didn’t think the action was related to the characters. I just thought overall it was a bit of a mess really.
To be honest he does have a point. The action and story seemed to be jumping back and fourth throughout the film. The threat wasn't substancial enough and the action scenes did seem rather filler and murky when compared to Royale. It's difficult to explain but where Royale had the genuinely exciting chase scenes at Madagascar and Miami airport, Solace's action scenes seemed fairly...underwelming by comparison.
I think at its heart what it lacked was a solid, complete story. The script was re-written several times and the final draft was handed in just before the writers strike began in 2008. The film didn't feel finished and had resolved little by the time it ended.
Campbell should focus on his own post-Bond work. Edge of Darkness was mediocre at best, and judging from the trailers, Green Lantern does not look very promising.
And, no, definitely no, DC007, having directed 2 of the last 6 Bond films doesn´t qualify Campbell more than any of us here to judge any of the Bond films.
Also, its not just him that has called the film "a mess". Critics have and so have A LOT of fans. If you like it and disagree with Campbell that's fine - the film seems to have divided people.
I find nothing lousy or messy about QOS, so, assuming Campbell knows more about it than me (which I doubt, because as he is a professional filmmaker, so am I a passionate film watcher), then all the more so should he be able to detect certain good qualities in it, even if he should hate the film.
Campbell likely knows exactly *why* he didn't like QoS. His life and career are dedicated to filmmaking so he understands very well what he *thinks* works and doesn't work. As was pointed out, given the critical (and popular) response to QoS it's hardly as if his views are outside the mainstream. I'm not a restaurant chef but I'm perfectly entitled to have an opinion about the food I order; in the same vein we are perfectly entitled to have opinions about the films that we watch. However, a good director may have a better appreciation of *why* something doesn't work for a lot of people and can break it down in more textbook-like terms. Whereas I might have a "like/dislike" gut reaction, a director - or editor - can probably think "Oh, the sense of space wasn't clearly defined because of the poor depth of field because of the lens choice which is why the action comes off as less potent leading to less excitement when etc..."
Also, I've never read anything that leads me to conclude that Campbell "thinks his films are some sort of holy grail in the Bond series" like you say. Is there an interview that you could point me to that supports this? It sounds to me like you're reading things into what Campbell said because he dissed a film that you (perhaps) really like and your reaction may be a little more emotional than intellectual. I'm not saying this to make you feel criticised - I mean it as someone who is looking at this from the outside.
dude you nailed it
any thoughts?