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
I get what your saying - but you're dealing with different filmmakers, different actors, different writers and a vastly different time period - with a different audience who have a different level of expectations when it comes to film... doing something like what you suggest, sends the message (at least it would to me as a filmmaker) of "see that there? Just duplicate that." - i wouldn't feel like I had the freedom to tackle the project and put my own creative touches on it - its like instead of being handed a blank canvas and being told "paint a picture of a dog", you'd be handed a coloring book and be told "here's a dog, now color him in, but color him in how we tell you to." ....... by that time, what is the point?....
I personally like the dark scenes in Craig films - because it adds a bit of an edge that had been lacking since Dalton....... Craig's portrayal of Bond brings out more of his duality as a character. It's always been there in small doses, but they've really expanded on it from CR on - he does do heroic things - but he also (as you've said) is a bit anti-hero as well.... i really like that. It makes the character not so 2 dimensional and cookie cutter.... thats what makes Craig such a joy to watch in Skyfall - he can be charming one minute, then on a dime flip to being cold and callus, punctuated with a bit of dry humor.... that is Bond..... i think often times we get too wrapped up in the heroic side of the character, that we often forget - this man is a government licensed assassin, he kills people for a living.... as Vesper asked him in CR, "Doesn't it bother you killing those people?", Bond coldly replied with "I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."
His emotion, her fear, the villainy. You knew what was coming, and while Severine wasn't Bonds wife, I think it could have been worked better.
But still even if that is a direction, the portrayal can be done more like Campbell did in CR or even QoS, but suddenly we have scenes in SF that IMO don't fit, that are off-putting. Darker doesn't have to be so off-putting. But I do realize the "off-putting" is a very subjective determination, but the three scenes in question, Severine's death, Severine's seduction and the art-dealer killing have all prompted a lot of complaining, unlike anything we saw in CR or QoS. QoS gets ripped for other reasons.
Meanwhile SF had some great Bond moments such as the Casino fight with the komodo dragons and Silva thugs, and other moments. The final battle at the Manor was good Bond being Bond IMO. Same with the pts.
SF though, I find to be a very uneven film in terms of tone and the lead character's portrayal.
Personally I don't think Mendes is a good choice to be directing Bond films. I don't think he quite gets Bond. He pretends he does, but I think he overextends himself.
Even though I never would have picked Craig to play Bond because of his look, that aside, he is a good actor, and with a director like Terrence Young or even continued work with Martin Campbell, might have really eased nicely into the Bond role.
Instead he's been saddled with drama direcors such as Forster and Mendes.
But again, thats all personal preference.... I really like Mendes direction on SF, and i think for not typically being an action director, he handled the action very well - and in some cases very artistically.... I think he gets Bond. I think he understands the character.. but he is making the Bond movie he wants, and that he envisions - and in filmmaking, you aren't going to please everyone - it's an impossible task, so there is no point in even trying... i think SF hit all the right notes.. it very much tip toes the line between the dark and the light without going full one way or the other IMO..... the three scenes you mentioned...
Patrice killing the art collector... It is a bit off putting, as we all know Patrice is assembling a rifle to execute someone in the next building.. and Bond does nothing to prevent this........... but, on the other hand - Bond is sneaking through glass rooms, trying to stay as stealthy as possible until he gets to Patrice - who, had he seen Bond, had a clear line of sight with no obstructions and could've easily had shot him.. so Bond has to take his time getting to him... but who is this art guy?... if he is getting set up to be killed, it can't be anyone worth saving either - if he is dealing with the likes of Severine and Silva... so what does Bond care... his mission was to find Patrice, find out who he works for and kill him.
Severine being seduced in the shower.... i really got nothing on this one - it does feel a bit shoehorned in and dirty.... but the sexual tension between them could be felt during their repartee in the casino, at least to me it could...... but i think Bond's seduction of Pussy Galore and Octopussy are far worse..
and I've waxed poetic on the William Tell scene enough - not going to beat that dead horse again. lol
Exactly.
Bond's mission was to track down Patrice. As you said, if he made any sudden moves to try to save the art dealer, then that's the end of Bond. He's in a glass room, with the only cover being the neon light show that provides him with some semblance of cover. Any sudden moves, Patrice sees him, and that's the end of Bond.
It comes down I think, to how we want Bond presented in the films. Clearly there is no consensus.
Me? Again, I think they went too far, much as Rog, Jaws and pyramid van-fight went too far in the other direction.
I would like to see them work with the tone of the first six films. Dangerous and exciting. Dark villains, but not a dark Bond. Rather a pragmatic Bond, who has to blunt-instrument deal with the menace these villains present, so he can get back to the golf course, card table or lunch with Sylvia Trench, or the Ocean Club Receptionist from CR. Sorry, most of Craig's girlfriends are dead, and he didn't really have much of a thing with the living one (Camille).
The original film's tone isn't dated. It pretty much stretched right through the Brozzer era too.
The real tonal shift has come with the Craig era. I know. Bitch, bitch, bitch. :\">
I don't know where the dark Bond comes from. I've read all the Flemings several times over. I don't see it. Bond was blunt instrument but with style and loads of charm. Generally very honorable,loyal and loathe to kill in cold blood, but able to when duty rquired. This characteristic was Fleming's need to humanize Bond, to distinguish him from the amoral types that he battled. Fleming portrayed Bond as having killer eyes. Vivienne Michel instinctively saw how dangerous he was in TSWLM, but he was still a swell guy, if not a bit on the dangerous side. She at first thought he was another hoodlum.
Fleming said that one of the reasons he wrote TSWLM the way that he did, was so that young women wouldn't romanticize the James Bonds of the world. He wanted them to know that they were dangerous dudes, better not to get mixed up with, but I don't think he ever intended Bond as dark -but instead as very dangerous, lethal and maybe a little cold sometimes.
To be fair the "liberties" taken in SF with Bond's "dark side" ( which again doesn't interest me because I don't think its actually there) aren't so grevious, that they fundamentally changed the character. Rog, Anya, Jaws and the pyramids didn't change Bond either. When all was said and done, he was still quite recognizable as Bond, even if Rog didn't move that well.
It's just that some of scenarios we were presented with in SF were somewhat off-putting. This long time Bond fan can do without them. Other Bond scenarios were really good, especially the happenings at the Macau casino. My 2 cents.
I agree; that was an excellent scene, and one of the best parts from Dr. No. It is completely cold and ruthless, but you can tell Bond took no real pleasure in it.
I don't see why it's viewed as such a giant revelation that Bond doesn't find pleasure in it. I mean, he's just an agent who knows that sometimes things have to be done, not a psychopath, after all.
Killing is never a healthy way of existing.
Fleming said that one of the reasons he wrote TSWLM the way that he did, was so that young women wouldn't romanticize the James Bonds of the world.
I'd say for the most part I'd agree with you regarding Bond's depiction as being ruthless rather than romantic (the adventures he went on were romantic rather than Bond himself). Fleming does often talk about how "cold" Bond is but I wonder whether (occasionally) he too was capable of unintentionally romanticising the character a bit. I vaguely remember a passage in FRWL when Tanya first see's Bond in his hotel room. The passage goes something like this:
"This would be a dangerous mission but he made it easy...made it fun with a spice of danger. He was devilishly handsome and he looked very clean".
Oh man, I hate it when I suffer from Pre-Title Sequence syndrome. I thought I was the only one... ;)
That is why Bond is practically a comic book character.
:)) :)>-
And before anyone says '' Oh Bond is fooling Silva and his goons here '' sorry i just dont buy it and you are giving Craig way too much credit.Just look at Goldfinger in the scene where Bond is giving his report to M after Jill Masterson was killed.Bond is clearly angry due to her death at the orders of Goldfinger but is barely keeping it contained.Craigs Bond is just a remorseless thug, hammered home by his non reaction to Severines death and his complete indifference to Patrice killing several guards in Shangai while he just sits on his ass and lets it happen.
When Silva asks him what he thinks about that, Craig let's out a sigh that is almost like a whimper. When I first watched this, it felt to me like Bond was shocked and emotionally drained at what just transpired. After that quick moment of a sigh, Bond puts his wall up as it is the only way he knows how to react anymore and is what makes him good at his job. The ability to shut out the emotional torture he is going through. The quip is his way of deflecting and removing any humanity he is feeling so he can muster up the energy needed to neutralize his enemy.
The key to the whole scene and how it works for me is that sigh right before he responds. For a quick moment his guard was taken down by the emotional damage of what was done in front of his eyes. One more atrocity that Bond has experienced for which he feels partially responsible. Its only his training and ability to put up an emotional wall at a moments notice that allows him to escape both the situation and his emotional torture.
He's covering his emotions, and planning how to escape.
I'm not sure if it's because I was interested in Severine's character and wanted to see more of her (rather than geriatric M or MP) in the film. I have to strip out that possible bias first.
I think they could have handled it better. I think Craig as an actor was too nonchalant in his reaction and I don't know what the script called for.
I could see that he tried to show some concern/worry just before she was killed. It's almost like he was computing what to do and decided to stay pat....perhaps a bad call and as I've said on another thread, I think Craig underacted a little too much here. If he'd expressed a little more concern in his expressions or in his eyes (it's there but it's too subtle) before she was shot, then the quip afterwards (to hide his disappointment) would still have worked.
In the grand scheme of things, I don't have a problem with Bond letting Severine die however, or letting the art dealer die. He is a paid assassin/spy and not a cop. He should not care as long as he is getting closer to his objective. Perhaps they should have not shown him to be a Rambo shortly thereafter, taking down all the goons. That part also grates (if he could do it then, why not do it earlier when she was still alive?)
Problem is,that while his remark after Severignes dead was just as tasteless as possible (and as unfleming you can get) his acting in the art collector scene was simply a most unprofessional (and of course again very,very unfleming) behaviour (and one of the many sociopathic traits Bond showed during the movie).
It is a step away from the male narcissism of the action lead that reached its zenith in the 1960s with the end of national service/contraception thing, eroded a bit with the Rambo/Lethal Weapon/Die Hard of the 1980s (you can be a hero, but you must be a bit screwed up or a reluctant hero) and now is seen in The Avengers and X-Men franchises (you can be a hero but you must be unhinged or alienated or part of a team - it isn't all about you y'know).
Dalton's Bond missed a trick in this arc, as he would have fitted in with the late 80s thing if they'd proactively played up his drinking and his damned side.
This scene did not ring true for me when I first saw it and stil bothers me now. I like the whole set up but Bonds Reaction or non reaction is just weird.
I'm not joking when I say the shades don't help. If we could see his eyes we might get some sense of what MENDES AND CRAIG really intended, but as it is we can all only speculate. A poorly executed scene that could have been a classic.
First reply nailed it.
/thread