Jump to content


Photo

Daniel Craig Slams the Kardashians


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

Poll: Daniel Craig speaks his brain

This is a public poll. Other members will be able to see which options you chose

Do you agree with him?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Regardless of the above, has he rather cheapened himself by doing this?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

What do you require of Daniel Craig?

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.

Who or what would you like him to have a go at next in his crusade to tell us his necessary thoughts on critical stuff? He's sooo right! C'mon Daniel, you MUST tell us. TELL US. We are nothing without your wisdom.

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#121 JB007YH

JB007YH

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 343 posts
  • Location:Woodmere, New York

Posted 15 December 2011 - 03:56 AM

Im surprised that this topic has 5 pages, for reals?

#122 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13735 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:01 AM

http://www.google.co...51325067766907A

Bigmouth strikes again.

Going for the really hard targets, then. I wonder what's next on his excoriating exposé of the bleeding obvious? "That new bloke in North Korea, he's a right fat ****, but it's not for me as an actor to say anything about politics", says Daniel Craig, 15. "I don't like poverty or child abuse, they're both really [censored]ty, but it's not my place to get involved", said Daniel Craig yesterday. "Idiot actors telling us rubbish from within their passably educated brains really gets on my [censored]ing wick," said Daniel Craig, everywhere.

#123 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:31 AM

http://www.google.co...51325067766907A

Bigmouth strikes again.

Going for the really hard targets, then. I wonder what's next on his excoriating exposé of the bleeding obvious? "That new bloke in North Korea, he's a right fat ****, but it's not for me as an actor to say anything about politics", says Daniel Craig, 15. "I don't like poverty or child abuse, they're both really [censored]ty, but it's not my place to get involved", said Daniel Craig yesterday. "Idiot actors telling us rubbish from within their passably educated brains really gets on my [censored]ing wick," said Daniel Craig, everywhere.


He strikes again - indeed. Jim, 12 tries again, what much smarterf brains fail at - sarcasm.

#124 Jim

Jim

    Commander RNVR

  • Commanding Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 13735 posts
  • Location:Oxfordshire

Posted 30 December 2011 - 08:11 AM

Yes.

#125 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 30 December 2011 - 10:33 AM

"This just in: police in Oxfordshire have stated that they are not treating the death of a man crushed under the weight of his own sarcasm as suspicious. Film at eleven."

#126 honeyjes

honeyjes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:23 PM

There are quite a few of us who wish you would put a sock in it too sometimes Jim, but I doubt we’d deny your right to your faux musings.

“The only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with”. Eleanor Holmes Norton

#127 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:48 PM

Trouble is, in every interview with Craig anytime he gets away from talking about the only thing he's any good at - acting - he comes out with total bollocks, setting himself up for attacks like Jim's.

I put it down to the mind-[censored] of being a left-winger and having to put up with being paid millions for playing dress-up.

#128 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:40 PM

Trouble is, in every interview with Craig anytime he gets away from talking about the only thing he's any good at - acting - he comes out with total bollocks, setting himself up for attacks like Jim's.

I put it down to the mind-[censored] of being a left-winger and having to put up with being paid millions for playing dress-up.


Ever thought about why it is then, many people do agree with him - may it be the K's or the politicians? Maybe speaking your mind isn't such a bad thing after all. Just a thought...

#129 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 30 December 2011 - 02:58 PM


Trouble is, in every interview with Craig anytime he gets away from talking about the only thing he's any good at - acting - he comes out with total bollocks, setting himself up for attacks like Jim's.

I put it down to the mind-[censored] of being a left-winger and having to put up with being paid millions for playing dress-up.


Ever thought about why it is then, many people do agree with him - may it be the K's or the politicians? Maybe speaking your mind isn't such a bad thing after all. Just a thought...


Mm.

Most profound.

#130 elizabeth

elizabeth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2285 posts
  • Location:SDSU - Go Aztecs!!!

Posted 30 December 2011 - 08:22 PM

I say good for him. Those Commies deserve it.

#131 honeyjes

honeyjes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts

Posted 31 December 2011 - 09:12 AM

I’m not really surprised at Mr Schofield’s comments, as he uses every opportunity to have a dig but for the fair minded it’s rather hypocritical to knock someone when what he said has been extracted from the Q & A in Mens Journal cut, pasted and switched around to make a long statement, might I suggest actually reading the article and if you still feel the same way by all means stick the boot in, after all what we say is way more profound and meaningful.

#132 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts

Posted 31 December 2011 - 12:18 PM

I think what David is doing here is provoking argument in the face of a Craig fanboy GroupThink that arises occasionally here on Cb.n (even more so with MI6). Sometimes we need folks to challenge to status quo, even if they're just playing devil's advocate. Otherwise, we'll turn into a bunch of lemmings.

#133 Captain Tightpants

Captain Tightpants

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4755 posts
  • Location::noitacoL

Posted 01 January 2012 - 05:23 AM

he comes out with total bollocks, setting himself up for attacks like Jim's.

Just between you and me - and the rest of the forum - I doubt Daniel Craig is even aware of Jim.

#134 honeyjes

honeyjes

    Sub-Lieutenant

  • Crew
  • Pip
  • 183 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:40 AM

I think what David is doing here is provoking argument in the face of a Craig fanboy GroupThink that arises occasionally here on Cb.n (even more so with MI6). Sometimes we need folks to challenge to status quo, even if they're just playing devil's advocate. Otherwise, we'll turn into a bunch of lemmings.


I think I could buy into his posts but for the fact that this and the other forums are already tainted with the many bilious and personal attacks. If there weren’t now anyone making negative comments I could see the merit in playing devil’s advocate to knock back the DC fanboys, instead what I read on this and other forums are Mr Schoefield’s on many occasions surreptitiously lampooning the current incumbent and his supporters.

#135 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 12:18 PM


I think what David is doing here is provoking argument in the face of a Craig fanboy GroupThink that arises occasionally here on Cb.n (even more so with MI6). Sometimes we need folks to challenge to status quo, even if they're just playing devil's advocate. Otherwise, we'll turn into a bunch of lemmings.


I think I could buy into his posts but for the fact that this and the other forums are already tainted with the many bilious and personal attacks. If there weren’t now anyone making negative comments I could see the merit in playing devil’s advocate to knock back the DC fanboys, instead what I read on this and other forums are Mr Schoefield’s on many occasions surreptitiously lampooning the current incumbent and his supporters.


Er, I don't post on any other forums.

Fact is, I find much of what DC says on subjects other than acting to be totally nonsensical. That just happens to be my opinion.

Just as it is the perogotivie of DC nuthuggers to dive in and say that whatever Craigy comes out with are almost the prenouncements of a veritable sage. They are uber fans, I get that (though it amuses me).

But I suspect that DC agrees that in much he says there is an element of embarrassing hypocrisy. Read his interviews.

I wonder who DC would himself side with afterall?

#136 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2519 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 02 January 2012 - 12:32 PM

I put it down to the mind-[censored] of being a left-winger and having to put up with being paid millions for playing dress-up.


Whether you agree or disagree with what Craig has to say about various subjects... I think that insulting the left-wing as a whole is highly hypocritical and mostly small-minded considering that you are posting in a forum that is dedicated to a phenomena that is for the most part powered and sustained by the left-wing. Sorry.

#137 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 12:39 PM

a forum that is dedicated to a phenomena that is for the most part powered and sustained by the left-wing. Sorry.


You mean Babs Broccoli? We complain about her enough already.

TBH, I'd rather see Bond give up his Walther than see him turned into a Oxfam hitman. QOS was close enough.

#138 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 01:33 PM

I put it down to the mind-[censored] of being a left-winger and having to put up with being paid millions for playing dress-up.


Whether you agree or disagree with what Craig has to say about various subjects... I think that insulting the left-wing as a whole is highly hypocritical and mostly small-minded considering that you are posting in a forum that is dedicated to a phenomena that is for the most part powered and sustained by the left-wing. Sorry.


There is no issue there with genuine, old-school leftwingers. Just the Tom Ford wearing kind.

Bond films may well be made by people predominantly of a left-wing persuasion. But I'd venture that they were"powered and sustained" through the hard-earned coin of all the people paying at the box-office and the bookstore. And for the products of those companies who have tie-in arrangements, of course.

.

#139 deth

deth

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 2519 posts
  • Location:Berlin, Germany

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:55 PM

no argument there! And there's nothing worse than faux-anything... be it faux-hippies or faux-leftwingers...


Anyway, overall I feel that actors and other people in the arts should refrain from public proclamations on socio-political issues unless they really know what they're talking about (doesn't matter if they are left leaning or right). Just my feeling though...

#140 David Schofield

David Schofield

    Commander

  • Discharged
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3026 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 03:56 PM

no argument there! And there's nothing worse than faux-anything... be it faux-hippies or faux-leftwingers...


Anyway, overall I feel that actors and other people in the arts should refrain from public proclamations on socio-political issues unless they really know what they're talking about (doesn't matter if they are left leaning or right). Just my feeling though...


Agree with you totally,

#141 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:51 PM


no argument there! And there's nothing worse than faux-anything... be it faux-hippies or faux-leftwingers...


Anyway, overall I feel that actors and other people in the arts should refrain from public proclamations on socio-political issues unless they really know what they're talking about (doesn't matter if they are left leaning or right). Just my feeling though...


Agree with you totally,



no argument there! And there's nothing worse than faux-anything... be it faux-hippies or faux-leftwingers...


Anyway, overall I feel that actors and other people in the arts should refrain from public proclamations on socio-political issues unless they really know what they're talking about (doesn't matter if they are left leaning or right). Just my feeling though...


Agree with you totally,


Amen.

Just remember...

its nothing but YOUR opinion, that HIS opinion is crap. No more, no less. And its certainly not a huge political statement he made, or was it new to you, that politicians are not THAT nice?

#142 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:12 PM

BTW - I always thought it to be strange, that agreeing, even defending is called insane fandome and hating and dissing the every move of someone (not talking about folks, who just don't agree all the time) is ok for those, who put their noses high up - making it sound like being mature needs being negative and critical to the extend, where it is uncomfortable for everybody else (as often expressed).

Embarrassing hypocrisy.? Indeed...

#143 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:24 PM

We'd like just like you for once to criticise Daniel Craig. Not for the sake of it, but let it come naturally.

#144 Goodnight

Goodnight

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1754 posts
  • Location:England, United Kingdom

Posted 02 January 2012 - 11:14 PM

I love how Kim Kardashian actually went and sold the rights to her wedding (she basically got the wedding free as a result).

Then 70 odd days later she divorces the man.

How callous do you have to be to virtually fake a relationship just to make money, when you all ready have loads of money?

But to be fair the Kardashians aren't the only family with hundreds of millions in the bank, but still desperate to get even more.

Greedy pricks!!

#145 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3570 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 06:50 AM

Is this Kardashoggi business still an item???

Well, have to see that film one of these days...

Edited by Dustin, 03 January 2012 - 06:52 AM.


#146 Germanlady

Germanlady

    Lt. Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPip
  • 1381 posts
  • Location:Germany

Posted 03 January 2012 - 08:50 AM

We'd like just like you for once to criticise Daniel Craig. Not for the sake of it, but let it come naturally.


We?
But I will, once he does something, I feel is worth critisising.
i agree though, that I belong to the group, whose posts are very prdictable in terms, whether or not they will be positive or negative. We have it both ways, as you know. Guess its a matter of balance...

#147 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3570 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 11:45 AM

a forum that is dedicated to a phenomena that is for the most part powered and sustained by the left-wing. Sorry.


You mean Babs Broccoli? We complain about her enough already.


And? Any successes so far?



TBH, I'd rather see Bond give up his Walther than see him turned into a Oxfam hitman. QOS was close enough.


I've heard this complaint from time to time now. Not exactly often, no. Not even often enough to make it a significant voice in the Bond fandom, as far as I can see. But it does come up occasionally.

Now I always wonder what has to be considered more "altruistic" (always provided that's the aim of the argument here), the saving of the entire world from nuclear annihilation (TSWLM, YOLT), the saving of the better part of mankind from infertility (MR), the saving of Western Europe - mind you, not that Britain considers itself part of that - from a Russian blitzkrig (OP), the saving of worldwide agriculture from becoming dependend on BFD - Fertilisers Herbicides Seeds - A Division of Blofeld Biotech ™ (OHMSS) or that relatively small scale and - most important here - entirely circumstantial and accidential saving of a South America country from the schemes of a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats, militarists and small scale politicians?

In fact I think most of cinema-Bond's assignments would have had the approval of Oxfam, never has this been a problem so far, not that I noticed these last forty years. I have difficulty to grasp why ever that particular argument comes up only now. I'm a long time Bond fan and it downright baffles me how the right-fringe (which I suppose would be the point of origin for this complaint) insists on painting Bond as exactly what communist propaganda from behind the Iron Curtain denounced him to be forty, fifty years previously: a selfish, corrupt and exploitative creature, a cog in an inhumane and equally exploitative killing machine.

Sorry, but this reading was never anything but brain-dead propaganda, a deliberate misinterpretation of films and books. It speaks of a deep and profound misunderstanding of the character and the works of Fleming in general. It confuses Bond with Richard Stark's Parker and his purpose - both in films and books - with that of a political ad campaign. Nothing could be further from the core of Bond, easy escapist entertainment for adult people of all ranks.

#148 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 04:32 PM

entirely circumstantial and accidential saving of a South America country from the schemes of a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats, militarists and small scale politicians?


It's only circumstantial in terms of the mechanics of the plot. It's a merely a stepping stone to interrogating Greene on Yusef's whereabouts. It's something that Bond stumbles upon in his quest for answers, and of course happens to sort right at the end of the day.

But in the greater context of where the filmmakers and screenwriters involved have taken Bond, a cultural figure, and the dominant paradigm with the potential to be subverted - it holds more significance. It's one of the very, very rare occurrences where Bond doesn't save an (insert here) that directly aligns with Britain and America's interests. Not only that, but Bond and Leiter even exchange blows about US/UK foreign policy and colonialism. At times it almost feels like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Johan Hari had a go at the screenplay. Even the direction suffers from a politicisation that's never been seen before in the franchise. Patronising shots of starving locals and dilapidated neighborhoods, usually limited to Hollywood dross like BABEL, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, IRON MAN, the BOURNE franchise and more recently, THE AMERICAN.

http://www.newstates...struggle-solace
http://socıalıstwebz...james-bond.html

However, just because I'm criticising a liberal bias in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, that doesn't mean I want a right-wing, jingoist, imperialist, bukakee-fest of the Military Industrial Complex, written by Frank Miller. A sort of Bond-meets-STARSHIP TROOPERS (without the satire of Veerhoven and Neumeier), or God help us - SPINGTIME FOR BOND. No, I want a de-politicastion, left or right. I want as you say, "easy escapist entertainment for adult people of all ranks."

#149 Dustin

Dustin

    Commander

  • Executive Officers
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3570 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 07:49 PM

entirely circumstantial and accidential saving of a South America country from the schemes of a bunch of corrupt bureaucrats, militarists and small scale politicians?


It's only circumstantial in terms of the mechanics of the plot. It's a merely a stepping stone to interrogating Greene on Yusef's whereabouts. It's something that Bond stumbles upon in his quest for answers, and of course happens to sort right at the end of the day.

But in the greater context of where the filmmakers and screenwriters involved have taken Bond, a cultural figure, and the dominant paradigm with the potential to be subverted - it holds more significance. It's one of the very, very rare occurrences where Bond doesn't save an (insert here) that directly aligns with Britain and America's interests.


Not sure I can completely agree there. Bond does save British and American interests. Only these interests are no longer represented by the respective British and American governments. As such Bond's investment into the assignment doesn't veer from the MO of, say, YOLT where the "official" policy would lead to WW III. Or OHMSS even, where Blofeld is about to get what he wants and only Bond's insubordination (often forgotten apparently) prevents the Baron de Blauenfelder (or whatever the parvenu considers himself to be) from a respected place amidst the very people he blackmailed.

I suspect what made this latest example of an in fact fairly established element in Bond films so controversial is the particular timing, the film hitting theaters at a time when the regime change in the USA was happening and all kinds of political subtext and "hidden agenda" were interpreted into it, of course mostly from the side of the losers. I highly doubt we'd even discuss such questions if that other fellow (forget the name, sorry) had won.

Not only that, but Bond and Leiter even exchange blows about US/UK foreign policy and colonialism. At times it almost feels like Noam Chomsky, Tariq Ali and Johan Hari had a go at the screenplay.


Have you read 'Zero Minus Ten' or the tie-in to 'Goldeneye'? Much the same elements to be found, even a bit broader than in GE or QOS. Never have I heard or read a critical opinion about these parts. I think this is because they were for the most part irrelevant for the actual plot and fairly in line with what I'd still consider to be common sense and conduct. As I said above, I feel sure the three sentences in QOS do not sting so much for the actual content but for the raw flesh they hit with a small part of the American audience. But neither EON nor Broccoli/Wilson nor Craig can be held responsible for the decision of the American voters. And it was their decision, in their majority refusing to see another Republican government, nothing else. Hardly a world-shattering event in a nominal democracy.



Even the direction suffers from a politicisation that's never been seen before in the franchise. Patronising shots of starving locals and dilapidated neighborhoods, usually limited to Hollywood dross like BABEL, CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR, IRON MAN, the BOURNE franchise and more recently, THE AMERICAN.


And to films like THE MAGNIFICIENT SEVEN, THE STING and APOCALYPSE NOW. If you call that already patronising you must feel awfully often patronised. It's a simple element of the direction and hardly a means to convey a political message. It's meant to transport an atmosphere, much like Pussfeller's harbour bar that to me looked a lot like a shed with potted plants.



However, just because I'm criticising a liberal bias in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, that doesn't mean I want a right-wing, jingoist, imperialist, bukakee-fest of the Military Industrial Complex, written by Frank Miller. A sort of Bond-meets-STARSHIP TROOPERS (without the satire of Veerhoven and Neumeier), or God help us - SPINGTIME FOR BOND. No, I want a de-politicastion, left or right. I want as you say, "easy escapist entertainment for adult people of all ranks."



No, I get that you don't call for a right-wing bias instead. But I think you misinterprete as a liberal bias what is in effect just the lowest common denominator of the current mainstream (which in itself is a pretty squidgy thing that defies most attempts at a decent definition). This has little to do with "liberal" or "leftist" or "conservative" and "right-wing". This is what millions of people around the globe - people of all backgrounds and all walks of life - already are able to enjoy as entertainment. They have no problem with a politicisation because they don't recognise such.

Edited by Dustin, 03 January 2012 - 07:53 PM.


#150 The Shark

The Shark

    Commander

  • Veterans
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4402 posts

Posted 03 January 2012 - 09:29 PM

Not sure I can completely agree there. Bond does save British and American interests. Only these interests are no longer represented by the respective British and American governments.


In my book, that doesn't really qualify as British and American interests in the context of foreign policy, if they're not ones maintained by the incumbent governments. Although saving Bolivians from drought is an admirable act, it's not really my idea of Bond. When you think about it, it's more Indiana Jones circa TEMPLE OF DOOM, in its transformation of a cynical hero into the benevolent face of globalisation - saving the children of India. As the strong arm of the civil service, Bond's a different animal.

I suspect what made this latest example of an in fact fairly established element in Bond films so controversial is the particular timing, the film hitting theaters at a time when the regime change in the USA was happening and all kinds of political subtext and "hidden agenda" were interpreted into it, of course mostly from the side of the losers. I highly doubt we'd even discuss such questions if that other fellow (forget the name, sorry) had won.


I think you're onto something there. Although released just after the election win, it was written by Haggis during the last year of Bush's presidency. Like GREEN ZONE, QOS came far too late to the party, and by the time of November 2008 its platitudes feel redundant. Nevertheless, even it was made earlier I still think it would have been critiicised for its politics sticking out like sore thumb in the Bond canon.

Have you read 'Zero Minus Ten' or the tie-in to 'Goldeneye'? Much the same elements to be found, even a bit broader than in GE or QOS. Never have I heard or read a critical opinion about these parts. I think this is because they were for the most part irrelevant for the actual plot and fairly in line with what I'd still consider to be common sense and conduct.


I read DOUBLESHOT around the time it came out, and that permanently put me off Benson. I think why much critical analysis hasn't focused on these novels, is because they are marginal within the world of Bond. Even when they were released, the Brosnan films were considered the genuine article by most fans, and the Raymond Benson books were looked down on.

Even if there was a political bias in the last two books (I haven't read CARTE BLANCHE, but I can't remember anything in DEVIL MAY CARE), it would have been overlooked and forgotten about before long. The truth is that Bond films will always receive the most attention and scrutiny from fans, critics and scholars. They are what's under the spotlight, not Benson, Gardener, Wood, or Deaver.

As I said above, I feel sure the three sentences in QOS do not sting so much for the actual content but for the raw flesh they hit with a small part of the American audience.


I don't really think it's an exclusively American problem with the film. I'm a Brit, and I know several others (mostly right-wing) from here that have complained about its Bob Geldof-as-Bond lunacy.

And to films like THE MAGNIFICIENT SEVEN, THE STING and APOCALYPSE NOW.


The key thing here is the way it's shot, the subtext, what's in between the lines. Forster's direction in these scenes being modeled after Iñárritu's in BABEL is no small coincidence.

No, I get that you don't call for a right-wing bias instead. But I think you misinterprete as a liberal bias what is in effect just the lowest common denominator of the current mainstream


You have a point there. Maybe as if you say, the liberal bias is equivocal to the current mainstream, then what I've got a problem with is Bond adapting to the current mainstream mode of thought. I think he should stand out from the crowd, just as Fleming did from his contemporaries.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users