Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Fields: who is she?
DarthDimi
Behind you!Moderator
Does she taste like strawberries? We don’t know and I guess we’ll never find out. Hurricane Fields rushed by so quickly, she’s a blink-and-miss obstacle in my appreciation of QOS. It could have been great though. Gemma’s a very beautiful woman and from what I’ve seen her do in other films, she’s a fairly decent actress. I like her looks, voice, line reading and her stamina. QOS, however, didn’t, for its script left hardly any space for Gemma or her character to breathe.
There’s a lot of love for Gemma and her Fields character. I may be risking my life as I’m openly criticizing her part in the 22nd Bond film. I suppose many gasp for air when she appears in her stripper outfit halfway through the film. It’s no surprise to me that a woman of such elegance has that effect on people, and in fact there’s a lot more woman to indulge when Fields fills the screen versus when Camille squeezes her bones through two layers of air. However, beauty alone isn’t satisfying (anymore). She needs some personality on the side as well. Unfortunately they give her so little to do in QOS, she’s virtually an object used to somewhat advance the story (but not all that much).
Allow me to demonstrate of how little importance she is in the story and how clumsily her character was developed. She firstly fails to deviate Bond from his course. She awaits his airport arrival in order to send him back home, but little can she do. Bond ends up in a hotel he would have picked anyway. She later attends Greene’s party with Bond (note that it was Mathis who got them in), where she ‘saves Bond’ life’…? So what if she trips Elvis! The guy could never have touched Bond without losing two arms and a leg. Yet the film shows Elvis from a ‘menacing’ point-of-view, as if at that point he could really harm Bond. Who is he? Spock? Could he have touched-and-stunned Bond? Clearly not. So why she even bothers tripping him is beyond me. It unnecessarily exposes her and Bond was never in any danger anyway.
But we needed her death, didn’t we? Makes Greene such a bad boy we can justify his brutal death at the end of the film. It also gives M an excuse to – again – lecture Bond on his irresponsible conduct. Yet they don’t show us anything. I don’t see her getting caught, tortured or killed. I don’t see her show ‘true bravery’. She trips the only person at the party who is even less dangerous than toothpaste and she didn’t even have to have done it. Also, where are those scenes that allow me to emotionally invest in her character? The way things are now, her death barely affects me. Who is she? The sum of a cute face and three scenes she’s accidentally and quite purposelessly part of. I was more taken by Mathis’ death (and mostly thanks to CR).
There was room for more Gemma in QOS. At least fifteen or twenty more minutes could have been added to the film anyway, so a couple of extra scenes featuring Fields wouldn’t have hurt us at all. For now I keep wondering: who is Fields? How come she feels to me like no more than a failed attempt at establishing another glamorous Bond girl? What’s with the lack of personality? Clumsy screenwriting or lack of ambition from the filmmakers? Either way, she could have been the film’s key gem, yet now she’s just another <i>wanna-coulda-shoulda</i> in a film that offers little besides precisely that.
Maybe you agree with me. And then maybe you don’t. ;;)
There’s a lot of love for Gemma and her Fields character. I may be risking my life as I’m openly criticizing her part in the 22nd Bond film. I suppose many gasp for air when she appears in her stripper outfit halfway through the film. It’s no surprise to me that a woman of such elegance has that effect on people, and in fact there’s a lot more woman to indulge when Fields fills the screen versus when Camille squeezes her bones through two layers of air. However, beauty alone isn’t satisfying (anymore). She needs some personality on the side as well. Unfortunately they give her so little to do in QOS, she’s virtually an object used to somewhat advance the story (but not all that much).
Allow me to demonstrate of how little importance she is in the story and how clumsily her character was developed. She firstly fails to deviate Bond from his course. She awaits his airport arrival in order to send him back home, but little can she do. Bond ends up in a hotel he would have picked anyway. She later attends Greene’s party with Bond (note that it was Mathis who got them in), where she ‘saves Bond’ life’…? So what if she trips Elvis! The guy could never have touched Bond without losing two arms and a leg. Yet the film shows Elvis from a ‘menacing’ point-of-view, as if at that point he could really harm Bond. Who is he? Spock? Could he have touched-and-stunned Bond? Clearly not. So why she even bothers tripping him is beyond me. It unnecessarily exposes her and Bond was never in any danger anyway.
But we needed her death, didn’t we? Makes Greene such a bad boy we can justify his brutal death at the end of the film. It also gives M an excuse to – again – lecture Bond on his irresponsible conduct. Yet they don’t show us anything. I don’t see her getting caught, tortured or killed. I don’t see her show ‘true bravery’. She trips the only person at the party who is even less dangerous than toothpaste and she didn’t even have to have done it. Also, where are those scenes that allow me to emotionally invest in her character? The way things are now, her death barely affects me. Who is she? The sum of a cute face and three scenes she’s accidentally and quite purposelessly part of. I was more taken by Mathis’ death (and mostly thanks to CR).
There was room for more Gemma in QOS. At least fifteen or twenty more minutes could have been added to the film anyway, so a couple of extra scenes featuring Fields wouldn’t have hurt us at all. For now I keep wondering: who is Fields? How come she feels to me like no more than a failed attempt at establishing another glamorous Bond girl? What’s with the lack of personality? Clumsy screenwriting or lack of ambition from the filmmakers? Either way, she could have been the film’s key gem, yet now she’s just another <i>wanna-coulda-shoulda</i> in a film that offers little besides precisely that.
Maybe you agree with me. And then maybe you don’t. ;;)
^ 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
Firstly, her actions at the party were instinctive. She tripped Elvis in an effort to assist Bond. It was impulsive, and had she given it more thought she may have acted differently.
As for the time she had on screen. Well, many a character has become iconic in the series based on a few minutes air time. How long did Shirley Eaton get? 4 or 5 minutes? That lady still dines out on her two scenes in Goldfinger.
Caroline Munroe? Same thing.
Maybe they were hoping that Fields would have a similar lasting impact. Only time will tell.
Her death did have an impact, and it was because of M's little speach about her being a clerk, inexperienced in field work. It humanised her, and made us regret her death somewhat.
However, I do agree that as I like Gemma Arterton, a few more minutes would have suited me just fine. :-D
Any more may have move it firmly into the 'simply an excuse for a pretty face' catergory.
As it was, her death had the important role of showing 007 the human cost of his 'cavalier attitude towards life'.
Fields is merely a sacrificial lamb.
Agreed. A talented actress and a great opportunity were both flushed down the toilet.
Also, the pointless note she left at the hotel just adds to more frustrated questions about this movie.
I disagree that her character was just an effort to recreate Jill's death in GF. While I agree that I would have liked to see more of Fields (I think she more than anyone suffered from QoS's go-go-go-don't-stop pacing) I think she was effective and memorable.
I agree with Slyfox that Gemma brought a really sparkle to the film - she invested Fields with far more personality than most actresses would. In fact, her calm, confident demeanour reminded me somewhat of Emma Peel. The post-death revelation that she was just a clerk who was in over her head made her death even more tragic than it would have been otherwise. It had the dual purpose of showing a) that Bond was blinded about how his actions were affecting others around him and b) Bond inhabits a dangerous world where you have to be a professional to survive - you can't just bluster and bluff your way through it with a misguided sense of confidence (and how many young people think that they're ten feet tall and bullet-proof until they're shown otherwise).
Would she have been better served by more screen-time or some additional information about her? Yes to the first but no to the second - finding out after-the-fact that she was just a clerk was an effective kick.
Yep, good point. That hit home more than her actual unfortunate demise. I still think the oil death was unnecessary and ultimately she will be remembered for a second rate goldfinger death, as opposed to much else.
I wonder how Bond-girl screen time will pan out in Skyfall. Casino Royale had Solange for roughly the same time as Gemma in QOS.
A sparkle that died very quickly.... It's just a shame and a waste.
I don't agree with the impact it made.. It barely didn't. There was more a "Aaah, look: a goldfinger scene."
Talking of recycling the greatest Bond scene's:
I also missed the quip "What a helpful chap", when DC threw that guy of the roof.
Having said that, I must say that QoS wasn't as bad as I remembered when I rewatched it the other night.
LOL.
I really would have liked a longer seduction scene between Bond and Fields, to see why she softened toward him.
Does anyone care that Paula or Plenty were underused? I dont think so. Fields did her job as eye candy and sacrifical lamb - thats all she was there for.
I would have been quite happy to see Plenty more of her ;)
Apparently there was actually more but it was cut.
Plenty underused? Nah. Pardon me if I sound crass, but Plenty was in that movie for one purpose alone: her plentifulness. Plus, Bond and her had some actual chemistry unlike Bond and Fields. Also, DAF doesn't take itself so damn seriously the way QOS does, so you can have gag throwaway characters and it doens't seem out of left field, the way Fields just shows up and then is gone. Her death is supposed to be moving, but we haven't gotten to know her at all. Plenty on the other hand, is one of a series of killings so it's not of much consequence to the big picture.
Here it is! A good thing it was cut if you ask me!
And what exactly was Fields purpose? If shes axed what difference does it make to the plot? Bond has still gone AWOL which is the main reason M turns up in Bolivia.
I think Plentys death is meant to be moving but because we have Judi Dench not Jill St John selling it to us somehow Fields death is suddenly a moment on a par with Tracys death?
Mathis death is moving because hes an important character. Fields is just the usual sacrifical lamb who is traditionally killed after a couple of scenes like Paula, Rosie, Plenty, Corrinne. No one blinks an eye at any of their deaths so why all the weeping over Fields?