Note: Cohen is a big Bond fan and always portrays himself as a leading expert on the subject. He absolutely hates LTK.
Quantum of Solace has been getting some polarizing reviews. The standard media has been rather harsh on it but the cinema buff blogs have been considerably more kind. This film seems be having a polarizing effect on viewers – you either love it or hate it. I may be the rare animal in that I neither hated it nor loved it. I kind of consider this an interesting failure. There were things I liked about it. In fact, there were things I liked a lot. But this is the thing…
Wait. Rewind. Need to digress.
The most understandable theory as to why people are hating on Solace is because this is not a typical “Bond movie.” And, no, I’m not talking about the tone of the script or the kind of story they try to present or whether it’s grittier or more “realistic” than prior Bonds. They’ve tried to go this route before and I’m not talking about Casino Royale either. Let me refer you to License to Kill. Now if you’ve seen our three-part episode on the James Bond canon, you’ll know I absolutely despised this flick. I consider this THE worst of the series (even more so than Moonraker which at least has some camp value going for it). But I think it’s an interesting choice to compare Solace to because there are considerable similarities. You’ve got a rogue 007 out for revenge. They’re both trying to emphasize the violence in Bond’s world. Both attempt a grittier take on the super spy than your standard entry in the series. However, License To Kill felt to me like an attempt to do a grown up action film by eleven year olds. The talent just wasn’t there to pull it off. And, yeah, yeah, I know, the whole purist response to LTK: “this is just the way Fleming would’ve wanted it, this is how James Bond is in the books, yada-yada-yada” I think the kind of fan who tries to defend this film is similar to the comic book geek that would consider certain superhero adaptations great cinema just because they include a reference that seems faithful to the film’s comic book origins. I gotta’ tell you, just because you mention “The Avenger Project” in the Incredible Hulk, just because General Thunderbolt Ross is made up to look JUST LIKE THE GUY IN THE COMIC does not necessarily a good movie make. And so it goes with License to Kill. It’s a flat film. Timothy Dalton is awkward in it. Its concept of “gritty” is childish. It’s a terribly written film. And it looks like it was made for tv. And every element that is associated with the character is completely taken away. It didn’t even have to be a “James Bond Movie.”
This, by the way, is a similar criticism being leveled at Quantum of Solace. That this Bond has been stripped of everything we associate with Bond. And I disagree with those critics.
Solace is sort of the film License to Kill wanted to be. But, strangely, the criticisms I’ve had for LTK are completely antithetical to the ones I have for Solace. While LTK was just flat and unimaginative, Solace goes in the other direction in trying to stand out and becomes something I’d thought I’d never say about a Bond film: it’s really pretentious.
Yes, Quantum of Solace is a pretentious Bond film.
It tries too hard to be “arty.” And, no, I have no problem with the producers taking chances and trying to go in that direction. Because there is an intriguing potential there. Much ado has been made over the film’s Bourne-like editing choices when it comes to the action scenes. And, yes, there are moments that are completely incomprehensible. But what surprised me most while watching this was how this did not strike me as “Bourne-like” at all. The film’s director Marc Forster has said he was attempting a visual style like that of the early 60s Bond movies. But I think he got confused. Because what I saw was an attempt to pay visual homage to late 1960s, early 1970s crime thrillers like Point Blank, Thomas Crown Affair and the loopy Performance. If you haven’t seen those flicks I suggest you take a look. It was the early John Boormans and Nic Roegs that developed that disjointed, abstract approach to both camera placement and editing which has highly influenced guys like Soderbergh and Michael Mann (in fact, there’s a lot in Solace that reminds me of tonal moments in Soderbergh’s The Limey and Mann’s Heat).
I don’t want my thoughts to be misunderstood, however. I am not one of those guys who thinks a Bond film should not be an Art film. I think you can pretty much do anything as long as the intent is clear and the talent is in place to make it work. I understand Forster’s desire for attentiveness to style but he’s unfocused. He’s trying TOO hard.
Where it works wonderfully are during moments like the Opera shoot out and, to a certain extent, the opening car chase. But what Forster (and perhaps the screenwriters) have left out is that each sequence should be a short story in itself with a beginning, middle and end. What made the action sequences so marvelous in Casino Royale was not just in how they told a story, but how much they described Bond as a character. And how each sequence ended with just the right coda. And you can still apply this principle to the abstract. Most definitely. And that’s the trick: if you wanna’ go abstract in your action sequences, you wanna’ reach a little higher rather than do a straight forward commercial Bond film by trying to make “art,” then at least apply an arc to these sequences. Otherwise they don’t register. They won’t have that disoriented, wtf just happened?! response you want from your audience. All you’ll get is a “huh?”
An example of where this doesn’t work is during the boat chase sequence. David Edelstein commented in his NY Mag review on how it was incomprehensible. But this is my problem with it: you know how I mentioned that “coda?” The appropriate finale, full-stop conclusion to an action sequence? They attempt something very interesting here. Bond tries to save the female protagonist as she is being taken away on boat. And this involves riding a motorcycle off a pier, landing on another boat, and then a series of jumping from one boat to another ensues. Then there’s the chase. Then Bond dispatches the pursuant and his boat in what seemed to be a very aggressive and violent way. Now… in prior Bond films, the “coda” might show Bond driving off from the carnage, straightening his tie, etc, with the Monty Norman theme blaring on the soundtrack. It might elicit a smile on the viewers face. It might be tongue-in-cheek. Or take a look at how they concluded that awesome parkour sequence in Casino Royale: Bond surrounded by embassy officials. You think he’ll give up but instead fires his automatic at a gas tank then BOOM! And Bond is gone. But at the end of Solace’s boat chase we get nothing like that nor the tongue-in-cheek coolness under pressure floating away from the carnage as the 007 theme blares away. Instead, we get ominous strings. It’s as if the filmmakers are telling us “this is not fun, there was serious carnage, Bond might be a psychopath.”
So, yeah, I’m down for that in concept. The problem is the sequence hasn’t earned THAT coda. Because the audience hasn’t been given anything to register. We have no idea what the carnage is or if anyone has in fact been killed or violently dealt with in ways we should feel critical of. So it has no impact. You’re just confused and wonder why it ends with these dark, ominous sounds. It supposed to move us emotionally like, “wow, this IS sinister because Bond is a bad-
. He’s SCARY.” But the way it’s edited and shot, the sequence does not earn that response.I can’t help but admire their attempt with this film, though. It feels like the Bond makers are finally growing up and in my book that’s a damned good thing. I’m a huge Ian Fleming fan. I’ve read all of his novels, the short stories, even most of the ones not written by him (actually, I take that back: I haven’t read any of the Raymond Benson ones). And I love the film series as a whole. And the best compliment I can give to this particular entry is that it FELT like Fleming. It captured that dangerous world Bond lives in vibe extremely well. And I love how the Daniel Craig era will be a gray era and not the black and white of Bond films past.
Quantum of Solace is like a deconstructed 007 film. All the elements that are usually fore and center are now so pushed into the background to be rendered almost inconsequential. Which I guess is why the filmmakers chose to go the arty route. Because the abstract action sequences, the disjointed editing and sound juxtapositioning, the unique camera placement seems to be all about reflecting on what’s going on inside Bond’s head. And it helps that Daniel Craig is doing the role now. He really is the best actor to have played this part. Maybe he doesn’t have the quintessential Bond “look” (although I think, and not in a “gay” way, that Craig is looking pretty good as the character and nails it visually in style and look) but damn can that man act. Although there are few moments where he is allowed to display the Bond charm, when he does so he is very successful. It reminded me so much of Connery’s Bond but there’s also something deeper going on there. He handles his lines ever so subtly (not like lead weights as Dalton and Brosnan tended to do) and conveys so much cool.
Do I wish the film were better? Absolutely. But that’s because I “got” what they were trying to do but it didn’t seem to be quite there yet. But I may have to revisit it later and I probably will. I have a feeling time could be kind to Quantum of Solace (much like the formerly dismissed now idolized On Her Majesty’s Secret Service). It’s unique enough that it may find a cult following all its own.
