82 replies to this topic

[MkB]

That scene shows how much of a pro Bond is(M to Bond:"I need you to assess the situation disspassionately"). He also took the money out of his wallet to make it look like a street crime.I wasn't offended but I was dissapointed they killed off a great character.

I see everybody's point, but I still think it's a strange move, and I don't really get why Bond acts so.
If he wanted to be discrete, and to confuse/mislead the police, he should have arranged the bodies so that the first conclusions would be that Mathis and the cops had shot each other. This would have been wiser, IMO, and it would have served the same purpose story-wise (i.e. showing Bond's coldness regarding his dead friend), since he'd have used the body to set the police up.

[Auric64]

That scene shows how much of a pro Bond is(M to Bond:"I need you to assess the situation disspassionately"). He also took the money out of his wallet to make it look like a street crime.I wasn't offended but I was dissapointed they killed off a great character.

I see everybody's point, but I still think it's a strange move, and I don't really get why Bond acts so.
If he wanted to be discrete, and to confuse/mislead the police, he should have arranged the bodies so that the first conclusions would be that Mathis and the cops had shot each other. This would have been wiser, IMO, and it would have served the same purpose story-wise (i.e. showing Bond's coldness regarding his dead friend), since he'd have used the body to set the police up.

Yes, I agree with this, and to me it makes better sense. The arguement from many seems to be that Bond dumped Mathis` body in order to hide it from the police/authorities, to give him and Camille more time to escape. That would be fine if that is what Bond and Camille would actually be doing, but they don`t. They go straight back to Bond`s hotel, and walk into the lobby, bold as brass, not seemingly to worry that more of the police could be waiting to take them away and kill them.

Remember, Bond doesn`t know that M and her MI6 agents are waiting for him. As far as he is concerned, at that moment, he`s on his own. He could have been walking back to the hotel and into a trap. Surely if Bond now knows the police are after him, (having already dealt with the two policemen on the street) wouldn`t it have been better and safer (for Bond) had he not returned to the hotel by stealth, so as not to be caught by the authorities, should they be waiting?

That`s how I see it, and it`s little elements like this, (and in other places throughout the film) that make me feel that the script just hadn`t been thought through properly, whilst in the original 1st draft stage.

Best

Andy

[shady ginzo]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

Reading your comment suddenly made sense of the scene for me, you're 100% right.

[00Twelve]

I love this kind of debate. We're actually debating what could "actually" happen...in a BOND movie!

Sorry, I had some sugary cereal for breakfast.

[krypt]

"but it's not getting good reactions from a lot of fans. I this may have backfired actually. It is a pretty cold thing for Bond to do."

I think that was the point. 007 can in fact be a cold-hearted bastard at times ... and at times he needs to be. Just as Fleming would remind readers of this, the filmmakers are reminding audiences.

The way I read the scene was that 007 simply wanted to get his friend's body out of the street. The dumpster was the fastest way to do that. It wasn't stylish, but it was coldly efficient. And it seemed to me that 007 was angry as he was placing the body in the dumpster.

But as Bond correctly said, Mathis wouldn't care.

[Professor Dent]

I was a bit taken aback by this on the first pass too. I think it is just the nature of the "business" they are in. We also find out that Mathis isn't even his real name but his cover name. I took this to mean that he has been in the business so long that his cover identity has become his life. In Bond's mind, this was an adequate burial for him given the cirumstances. Never thought of this much but we never find out if Bond hid the cops bodies & cycles or just left them in the street. Since he didn't care much about getting caught (as he just casually went back to his hotel after this incident), I figured he just left them there.

[PPK_19]

"but it's not getting good reactions from a lot of fans. I this may have backfired actually. It is a pretty cold thing for Bond to do."

I think that was the point. 007 can in fact be a cold-hearted bastard at times ... and at times he needs to be. Just as Fleming would remind readers of this, the filmmakers are reminding audiences.

The way I read the scene was that 007 simply wanted to get his friend's body out of the street. The dumpster was the fastest way to do that. It wasn't stylish, but it was coldly efficient. And it seemed to me that 007 was angry as he was placing the body in the dumpster.

But as Bond correctly said, Mathis wouldn't care.


Agreed

Bond needed to dispose of the body quickly, and the Dumpster was the nearest thing. Mathis would understand -being an agent himself- that Bond needed to get away as quickly as possible.
I don't see why everyone doesn't see this! If you've read the novels you'd see this is EXACTLY the type of thing he'd do!

[SolidWaffle]

Being dumped in a trash container might even be considered an honor for a scrappy, resourceful agent like Mathis. Like Bond said, "He wouldn't care."

[byline]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

Harsh as it is, I agree with this. As Bond said, the dead really don't care. What we do with them after is more for the living than the dead. Bond knows this all too well . . . as did Mathis.

[sorking]

Yes, I agree with this, and to me it makes better sense. The arguement from many seems to be that Bond dumped Mathis` body in order to hide it from the police/authorities, to give him and Camille more time to escape. That would be fine if that is what Bond and Camille would actually be doing, but they don`t. They go straight back to Bond`s hotel, and walk into the lobby, bold as brass, not seemingly to worry that more of the police could be waiting to take them away and kill them.

They go out to the Tierra project - directly. Bond still has his friend's blood on his shirt throughout the scenes. They don't come back to the hotel until the next night. By which time Greene's people (no doubt with the complicity of the Colonel and his cops) have, indeed, invaded Bond's room.

So, in fact, that all fits together quite well.

That`s how I see it, and it`s little elements like this, (and in other places throughout the film) that make me feel that the script just hadn`t been thought through properly, whilst in the original 1st draft stage.

It's stuff like this that makes me realise people like to blame a script when actually it's that they don't remember the film properly!

Edited by sorking, 16 November 2008 - 07:47 PM.

[Smooth*Vodka]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

Exactly, Seriously, Bond is more brutal in the books which shows his true character. In reality, in that line of work, you have to do some really cold things in order to stay alive, even if it is burying your friend in the dumpster to evade the cops. There was no time to say a few words or even cry about it, just like in in TWINE, when bond shot Elektra when she tried to radio in, he did it because it's his duty and didn't give a damn if he slept with her and hence was very close to M.

Living as a 00 agent isn't such a joyful thing as most newcomers of bond tried to predict it as. Bond is not superman, he is a agent and will do whatever it cost to complete the mission, even if all the people he cared about around him died, he will not stop to cry, because emotion is what will get you killed in that type of work.

[kneelbeforezod]

I agree that it was an unpleasant thing to do... and that's why I like it. Just when you're warming to him, he shows you what a he can be. Makes things more interesting I think.

[tdalton]

I agree that it was an unpleasant thing to do... and that's why I like it. Just when you're warming to him, he shows you what a he can be. Makes things more interesting I think.

Agreed. I thought that it was a great scene that really showcased a wide range of acting on Craig's part. He goes from holding Mathis until the end and showing what appeared to be genuine care for the man and then a few moments later coldly hid him from the police so that he could make a clean escape. I thought that the moment that Bond and Mathis shared just before Mathis met his end was one of the better moments in the franchise in quite a while.

[zencat]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

Exactly.

[sharpshooter]

True, true.

It's a great moment. Bond is caught off guard and things escalate. Before you know it, shots have been fired and somebody is dying on the ground. It was quite a random act of violence that came out the blue. Life is gone at just the spin of the wheel.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

As much as I adored Mathis and I cried when he died, Bond dropping him in the dumpster worked effectively. In their line of work they can't afford to be too sentimental. Bond can be a cold hearted bastard we have to be reminded. He wouldn't be good at his job if he wasn't. It's as if people forget he's a trained killer. Bond isn't paid by Her Majesty to party around the world.

[DaveBond21]

I recall the audience gasping during this moment.

Maybe Bond put the body in the dumpster to avoid Mathis becoming a spectacle of passers-by

Yes, this is the most plausible explanation. I also assume that he didn't throw Vesper back into the Venice canals.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

I thoroughly disagree. Bond didn't act that way towards Quarrel's or Kerim Bey's deaths in Dr. No and From Russia With Love to name a couple of similar instances. He didn't toss Quarrel into the Caribbean or throw Kerim Bey off the train when they died. No. Instead, he made a token gesture of respect to both men before going on his way.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

It didn't bother Mathis (or Bond for that matter) because Obanno and his lieutenant who were left in the trunk were a couple of bad guys who had just tried to kill Bond. They weren't Mathis' or Bond's good friends. The Casino Royale trunk scene and 007's callous disposal of Mathis's body are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and unrelated scenarios.

I recall the audience gasping during this moment.

Maybe Bond put the body in the dumpster to avoid Mathis becoming a spectacle of passers-by

Yes, this is the most plausible explanation. I also assume that he didn't throw Vesper back into the Venice canals.

But that assumption doesn't hold water as Mathis is not hidden from view. His arm and leg are clearly visible hanging outside the dumpster after Bond disposes of the body.

No, this scene does not work and is just a total outrage regarding Bond's callous treatment of his good friend Mathis. His desecration of Mathis' memory is totally out of character and is THE worst scene in Bond history.

[honeyjes]

Bond I suspect is not a hypocrite, he’s not the type to spout platitudes after someone’s dead he showed his respect and grief when it mattered most, by staying with Mathis and comforting him in his dying moments. If he’d left him in the road to die on his own I could understand the snivelling but that didn’t happen.

At the end of the day a dead body is just a shell, Bond couldn’t revive him, or drag the dead body around with him, he’d already lost time by staying with Mathis, but he still had a job to do and that took precedents over niceties.

This may be uncomfortable viewing for some when in most Bond outings killing/dying is usually portrayed as cool or fun.

[MajorB]

The scene probably wouldn't seem as shocking if the logic were more obvious--that is, if there were some overt advantage to dumpstering the body and taking Mathis's money. But there are two dead cops in the street, so making it look like a robbery doesn't make sense and doesn't buy Bond any time. Plus, he was being set up anyhow, so no matter what he tried to make it look like, the cops would put out their own version. I don't think I agree with the idea that it was to shield the body from gawking passers-by--the street seemed pretty deserted that time of night, and anyway I don't think putting the body in the trash is any more decorous than leaving it out.

If there had been a good reason to do it, though, I don't think it would be disrespectful at all. In fact, I think Mathis would (from beyond the grave) consider Bond a fool if he didn't do it.

[Sark2.0]

I've never gotten this fascination with respect for the dead. I don't think the dead care much one way or another what one does with their body. You know why? Because they're ing dead! I'd be pleased if my family saved a lot of money on a fancy coffin and buried me in a cardboard box in the backyard like a dog that won't stop pissing on the floor.

[The Shark]

I don't have a problem with it because I think it's very much his character. Both Bond and Mathis have seen their fair share of death and they know that once you're dead, you're dead. The remains of the body aren't anything but the leftovers of life and treating it any differently isn't going to bring back the person who died.

I thoroughly disagree. Bond didn't act that way towards Quarrel's or Kerim Bey's deaths in Dr. No and From Russia With Love to name a couple of similar instances. He didn't toss Quarrel into the Caribbean or throw Kerim Bey off the train when they died. No. Instead, he made a token gesture of respect to both men before going on his way.

It didn't seem to bother Mathis hiding a couple of corpses in some guy's trunk after all.

It's just the business.

It didn't bother Mathis (or Bond for that matter) because Obanno and his lieutenant who were left in the trunk were a couple of bad guys who had just tried to kill Bond. They weren't Mathis' or Bond's good friends. The Casino Royale trunk scene and 007's callous disposal of Mathis's body are two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT and unrelated scenarios.

I recall the audience gasping during this moment.

Maybe Bond put the body in the dumpster to avoid Mathis becoming a spectacle of passers-by

Yes, this is the most plausible explanation. I also assume that he didn't throw Vesper back into the Venice canals.

But that assumption doesn't hold water as Mathis is not hidden from view. His arm and leg are clearly visible hanging outside the dumpster after Bond disposes of the body.

No, this scene does not work and is just a total outrage regarding Bond's callous treatment of his good friend Mathis. His desecration of Mathis' memory is totally out of character and is THE worst scene in Bond history.

I completely disagree - the two examples you cite are completely unrelated - When Quarrel was immolated by Dr No's Dragon Tank, Bond was captured immediately, and therefore there was no time for covering his tracks by hiding him out of clear view. When Bey was murdered, there was no incrimination involved whatsoever, so hiding his body would have been unnecessary.
The truth is something like this has never really happened in the franchise before, Bond being planted with the beaten, unconscious body of an ally, whose then shot by police, who are disposed of by Bond, who then comforts the ally until he dies, then plants his body in a skip and steals his wallet, to make it look like a robbery, and keep him out off the bloody street as a mark of respect. As it was a pretty grubby ally, there wouldn't be any nicer alternatives to a skip/dumpster, and keeping him on the street would be a bad move.

Also the motif of body's being placed in carboots adds a metanarrative to the 2 film story arc (Mathis getting Obanno and his henchman placed in Le Chiffre's heavie's car boots, Mr White being placed in the boot of Bond's Aston Martin, Mathis being dumped in Bond's car boot, and Greene being placed in his own car boot by Bond). You could say it symbolises the hard reality of the world of espionage, never knowing who will next be placed in the dreaded car boot/coffin.

Edited by The Shark, 25 June 2009 - 08:05 PM.

[00Twelve]

I completely disagree - the two examples you cite are completely unrelated - When Quarrel was immolated by Dr No's Dragon Tank, Bond was captured immediately, and therefore there was no time for covering his tracks by hiding him out of clear view. When Bey was murdered, there was no incrimination involved whatsoever, so hiding his body would have been unnecessary.
The truth is something like this has never really happened in the franchise before, Bond being planted with the beaten, unconscious body of an ally, whose then shot by police, who are disposed of by Bond, who then comforts the ally until he dies, then plants his body in a skip and steals his wallet, to make it look like a robbery, and keep him out off the bloody street as a mark of respect. As it was a pretty grubby ally, there wouldn't be any nicer alternatives to a skip/dumpster, and keeping him on the street would be a bad move.

Good stuff.

[gkgyver]

Way more interesting than the dumping of the body is the expression Bond has when he says "Well, it's not a very good one, is it?" trying to make casual conversation with Mathis.
He dealt with his death the moment he got shot, but tried to make Mathis' death as comfortable as possible for him because "it's what you do".
He can't just walk away because he just recently lost a beloved person he never got the chance to say goodbye to, but he feels uncomfortable in the situation, hence Mathis' "Forgive yourself!"

[Col. Sun]

[quote name='dogmanstar' timestamp='1226760037' post='955161']
I agree with sorking--Bond has to 'hide' Mathis' body--because the longer it takes the police to figure out what has happened here the more time Bond gets to escape. He can't hide him too well--they can't overlook him. But I just saw it as a very serious poke in the eye to the authorities.
[/quote

All good points.

I really do not understand how some people cannot emotionally read this scene. They seem to only read it on it's face value.

Bond is not acting coldly toward Mathis at all - in fact the scene is loaded with regret and sadness - and Craig plays it that way.

He needs to get rid of Mathis's body fast - but he also knows it will be discovered at some point, but not as quickly as if he left him on the street. Bond has to hide the body quickly and in the nearest place possible- it's as simple as that; and when Camille challenges him about what he is doing, Bond replies, clearly with regret, that Mathis would not mind - and Mathis wouldn't if he could say so, because there are greater issues at stake.

[Agent Spriggan Ominae]

This is actually one of my favorite secens from the entire franchise. IMO one of the most powerful. It goes pretty deep and it is perfectly in character with Craig's Bond and ties in with what we saw in Royale. The deaths of Vesper and Mathis are when we see Bond most devastated. He's hurting when Mathis dies. And how does our Bond cope with pain? By detachment. In this business Bond can't afford to be sentimental. He needs his armor to keep him safe. Look what happened last time it got "stripped away". He was troubled by Vesper's death. But he needed to get on. Hence the whole "Job's done. The bitch is dead." line.

The whole Mathis in the trash can bit is keeping with this aspect of Bond's character. Bond is clearly in agony over Mathis's death but he can't afford to be sentimental. even more so than with Vesper in Royale given everything else that was going on. If we could know what was going on in Bond's head when he throws Mathis's body away. There's almost a slight hint of contempt towards the corpse. Like he's angry at it for bothering him so much. Emotions like that could get him killed. Part of the running theme of Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale is that being emotional or sentimental in the world that Bond inhabits only leads to death. Like Vesper says, "doesn't it bother you? killing thoes people?" "Well I wouldn't be very good at my job if it did."

There's a contrast between Camille and Bond. And the trash can bit highlights it beautifully. "Is that how you treat your friends?" "he wouldn't care." But Camille does. Hence why she makes a somewhat awkward agent. She would have killed Medrano but if not for Bond she would have died too. Twice she was saved by Bond from a situation she got into because she was being ruled by her emotions. Her mission was personal. We get the payoff with the whole "Do you think they can sleep now?" "I don't think the dead care about vengence." Just us people that are still alive. Bond is evolving. He's learned something from royale and now in Quantum we are seeing the therory in practice. There's kinda of a red herring in the story making it seem like Bond is going out of control trying to get revenge and killing people left and right. The truth was it was always about the mission. Finding the men responsible for the whole affair in Royale. And that he does.

[sharpshooter]

^ Good post, Spriggan Ominae. You nailed it.

[Col. Sun]

^ Good post, Spriggan Ominae. You nailed it.

Yes, very good post. I hope those viewers who have clearly (and blindly) missed the point of the scene, take a moment to re-view it.

[Mr_Wint]

It's Bond. Spare me this sentimental rubbish.

[The Shark]

It's Bond. Spare me this sentimental rubbish.

Then it's not Fleming's Bond. Despite all of his prejudices and frailties, he was a deeply romantic, chivalric, and yes, sentimental man. I could never see him treat Mathis in such an expedient and ruthless manner.