65 replies to this topic

[Publius]

I found it less emotionally shocking because of the fact it was just a blatant wink to an age old classic scene from Goldfinger. This immediately removes me as a viewer from the immersion in the film magic they are trying to create as it makes you suddenly think "ah, this is a film referencing another film that was great 44 years ago in the hope that people will therefore think this film is great". It doesn't work that way, not for me anyway.

It was handled differently enough that I for one wasn't taken out of the movie, although admittedly it helps that the scene was spoiled for me beforehand (against my wishes).

Then again, I think some of us overestimate how many people recognize it as a Goldfinger homage. We're finishing the first decade of the 21st century, and in my experience most people haven't seen that movie. Yet they still rate it as one of the best.

If they had done something original (and good) it would have been much better. It's all very wel having all these homages to old Bond films but what about creating some new iconic moments at some point?

Agreed.

I'm surprised no one is mentioning how the QoS scene parallels the Solange scene in CR. I don't think you can judge the Oil scene without comparing it to Bond's coldness in the similar scene in CR. A great way to show how Bond is changing as a result of Vesper and maturing.

Yes, although the death of Fields was probably harder on him because they had been intimate, she was relatively innocent (Solange was married to a man she knew was a crook of some kind), and it was a more gruesome death. But you're right that part of it is also Bond having changed since Vesper.

The symbolism of the Goldfinger scene runs far deeper than in QoS, where Fields in oil serves only to recall a great scene and add spice.

Agreed. Good analysis about the multiple meanings of painting Jill gold.

[Qbranchtech]

It didn't have much impact on me, mainly because the tabloid press ruined it by printing photos of the scene everywhere...

Not only that, it just cracks me up that in all of Gemma Arterton's pre-release interviews, she always described her character ended up in "a sticky situation" or having a "sticky end". I just never thought she was oh so literal...

I just rewatched the GF scene and found it to be more fluid and precise. You just feel sorry for Jill, but the same is more difficult to say the same for Fields. I may have to wait until QoS on DVD to watch it again...

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

I liked it, but the original was better. This homage (as everything in the film), looks like done in a hurry.


PS. Anyone remembers that silly tabloid rumor of Fields marrying Bond? I wonder what reaction had all those people who believe what they read in the press.

Pierce did it right: "I never believe what I read in the press anyway"

[byline]

I just rewatched the GF scene and found it to be more fluid and precise. You just feel sorry for Jill, but the same is more difficult to say the same for Fields. I may have to wait until QoS on DVD to watch it again...

Oh, gosh, I feel sorry for Fields. She was an innocent who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; a sacrificial lamb in the Bond tradition.

She has so little screen time, but every time I see her I'm struck by how adorable she is. It's the little things: showing up at the airport in her "spy for a day" costume, her little smile at Bond's stationery remark, admitting to Bond how angry she is with herself, "Fields ... just Fields," her wink at the party, tripping Elvis on the staircase and then apologizing. And then to be able to get that note to Bond before she meets such a terrible end; she's just become very memorable to me, and that black-on-white scene is forever etched in my memory.

Edited by byline, 29 November 2008 - 05:23 AM.

[Qbranchtech]

Oh, gosh, I feel sorry for Fields. She was an innocent who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time; a sacrificial lamb in the Bond tradition.

I don't mean I feel nothing for her, but it's just that her screen time was so brief. I only wish that she did something a little bit more meaningful and it doesn't have to be anything action oriented. A couple more character moments here and there to let her and Bond play off each other (no pun intended) would have made her nasty and awful death carry a little bit more weight to the story and most importantly, the audience.

I find her to be a refreshing character in a rather down and dreary film. It's a huge pity that she was so underused. Like Camille is a mirror image of Bond, Fields could have been what Bond was before Vesper, or simply be his innocence. The death scene was cut too brief either to let its impact to sink in before the fade out.

[Qbranchtech]

For those who want a close up face shot of the oil covered Fields, it actually exists, here it is:

(It is a rather unpleasant and disturbing shot, I might add...)

http://www.kinokadr....ntum/83.shtml#a

Ouch, now I really feel sorry for Fields...Why can't they include this in the film? Arterton must be a super trooper to pull this off!

Thanks to Pierce - Daniel

Edited by Qbranchtech, 30 November 2008 - 05:18 AM.

[byline]

Ouch, now I really feel sorry for Fields...Why can't they include this in the film? Arterton must be a super trooper to pull this off!

Is this really her, or would they have used some sort of prosthetic double to create this shot?

[Qbranchtech]

Is this really her, or would they have used some sort of prosthetic double to create this shot?

According to this:

http://commanderbond.net/article/5822

It's really her.

Arterton had to film her death scene on her first day on set, she talks about the experience, “Fields is killed by the baddies. She tries to save Bond by stalling them but they know it was her so they kill her by drowning her in oil. She is found naked on the bed she shared with James Bond the night before. Filming that scene was brilliant, although it was quite strange. I was taken on the set and dowsed in the oil and I had to lay there for almost two hours. I couldn’t move, I couldn’t see, I couldn’t breathe properly and I couldn’t hear because all the oil went in my ears. At the time I thought it was quite unpleasant but then I thought this is something I will always remember and it will be an iconic part of the film.”

[byline]

Is this really her, or would they have used some sort of prosthetic double to create this shot?

According to this:

http://commanderbond.net/article/5822

It's really her.

Arterton had to film her death scene on her first day on set, she talks about the experience, “Fields is killed by the baddies. She tries to save Bond by stalling them but they know it was her so they kill her by drowning her in oil. She is found naked on the bed she shared with James Bond the night before. Filming that scene was brilliant, although it was quite strange. I was taken on the set and dowsed in the oil and I had to lay there for almost two hours. I couldn’t move, I couldn’t see, I couldn’t breathe properly and I couldn’t hear because all the oil went in my ears. At the time I thought it was quite unpleasant but then I thought this is something I will always remember and it will be an iconic part of the film.”

Wow! OK, I am impressed.

[DR76]

Aside from M's anger at Agent Fields' death, I wasn't that impressed by the scene.

[quantumofsolace]

It was one of the scenes I was most looking forward to, but when
i saw it I was underwhelmed. Having seen the film a couple more times I think it works well. What happens to her and the reaction of Bond and M is perfect. It's another one of those scenes that work best given multiple viewings.
The whole film needs to be watched more than once. There are some Bond films that get better the more you watch them. OHMSS is the most obvious one. But I think QoS is the only one that demands you watch it more than once, because if you dont then you haven't really seen it.
Because the action is cut so fast it doesn't give you time to think. Watch it again and the action seems normal and most importantly, the subtext is remarkable for a Bond film. It's a shame that some cannot see it.

[byline]

Because the action is cut so fast it doesn't give you time to think. Watch it again and the action seems normal and most importantly, the subtext is remarkable for a Bond film. It's a shame that some cannot see it.

I agree.

[Judo chop]

Loved it. Loved that it was the single blatant copy of previous Bondisms in the midst of many subtle homages.

I love what the scene means, not just to Fields in particular, but to The Bond Girl™, and the danger inherent in James Bond's magnetism.

Visually, it's stunning, and is handled masterfully appearing none too long and none too short, and respectfully.

I love how it ties into the plot and serves as another decoy from the fact that the existence of oil is a set-up.

Love, love, love.

[00Twelve]

Loved it. Loved that it was the single blatant copy of previous Bondisms in the midst of many subtle homages.

I love what the scene means, not just to Fields in particular, but to The Bond Girl™, and the danger inherent in James Bond's magnetism.

Visually, it's stunning, and is handled masterfully appearing none too long and none too short, and respectfully.

I love how it ties into the plot and serves as another decoy from the fact that the existence of oil is a set-up.

Love, love, love.

What he said.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Loved it. Loved that it was the single blatant copy of previous Bondisms in the midst of many subtle homages.

I love what the scene means, not just to Fields in particular, but to The Bond Girl™, and the danger inherent in James Bond's magnetism.

Visually, it's stunning, and is handled masterfully appearing none too long and none too short, and respectfully.

I love how it ties into the plot and serves as another decoy from the fact that the existence of oil is a set-up.

Love, love, love.

Surprise, surprise Judo. I can't say that I love it.

I'd rather not have blatant copies or homages of classic Bond scenes. I'd rather they be original so we can have new iconic images. It was okay in Die Another Day because that was a large part of what the film was about, celebrating the 40th anniversary of 007. But now, we're past that. We don't need any more homages.

Yes, the oil was a nice decoy, but couldn't they have left Fields somewhere else in some other position rather than the exact same one that is seen in Goldfinger? Perhaps on the couch or in the tub? The imitation of Goldfinger ruined the impact of the scene for me. That, and the shot revealing her was too short.

[byline]

FWIW, I'm feeling the love, too. Especially on second and subsequent viewings, that scene has a lot of resonance for me. And we do get a long, sustained shot, but it dissolves as Bond gets on the elevator (just as the shot of Fields dissolves as she approaches Bond after his stationery comment).

[Judo chop]

I'd rather not have blatant copies or homages of classic Bond scenes. I'd rather they be original so we can have new iconic images. It was okay in Die Another Day because that was a large part of what the film was about, celebrating the 40th anniversary of 007. But now, we're past that. We don't need any more homages.

I’d like some new iconic moments too. But I’m not going to demand them in lieu of quality renderings of the old iconic images. As far as what NEEDS to happen, it’s not one or the other. Both can exist. Of course if you just don’t like homages, well, that’s just a different taste and there's no point in arguing over it. As for me, if we can celebrate old iconic moments with tact, give ‘em to me. Forty-five years of Bond gives him the privilege to continually nod to his own past. Every new film is a new achievement and celebration of the old is good and just, in my eyes.

And the real point here is that NEW ones are hard to come by, my friend. Very, very hard. Name every Iconic Bond Moment™ that has occurred in the last 20 years. How long is your list? I’ll be impressed if you can identify two indisputable examples.

Iconic might be out of reach more often than not, so I say let’s be generally satisfied with a few nods and homages, and some ‘really cool’ new stuff. How about the scene at Tosca when Bond encounters Greene and his men, and freezes there in the hall looking so supercool in his tux that MY pants fly off and land on Elvis!

Yes, the oil was a nice decoy, but couldn't they have left Fields somewhere else in some other position rather than the exact same one that is seen in Goldfinger? Perhaps on the couch or in the tub? The imitation of Goldfinger ruined the impact of the scene for me. That, and the shot revealing her was too short.

Too short? Too short for what? What would be the benefit or the point of lingering on the image any longer? It’s supposed to be shocking, positively shocking. It’s captured just long enough to make its impact, and then it fades. I couldn’t have asked for a second more or less.

[Qbranchtech]

I can agree with both of you. On one hand, having watch it twice, I found the second viewing of this oil scene better. But that's the general problem of the film, at first viewing it was just underwhelming and not everybody is going to see it twice or more and to sit through all that action again is a bit hard on the eyes.

I really enjoy the nice updating of the GF scene since nobody else would have done it without getting sued. It fits in the story good enough and visually it popped. Oil is a nice decoy for the story as the West is so focused on oil (hence, the nice little "drowned" in oil message), but it was not executed well enough in the film to go across visually completely. The emotional context is also missing as well, but that's already been covered to the death. (Pun intended)

It would have been nicer to go with a different pose (like Mystique/Romijn in X3) or a different location, but it is good enough for me.

[Judo chop]

It would have been nicer to go with a different pose (like Mystique/Romijn in X3) or a different location, but it is good enough for me.

IMO, if you’re going to attempt the Jill Masterson gold death, you don’t take wild liberties. It’s a top-3 iconic image in Bond, and probably a top-20 of all time in film. It takes balls to even suggest doing it. You stick to the source and do it as honorably as possible.

They were absolutely right to keep her in the same position (not to mention that she’s bucknaked and this is a PG-13 film). They do change the substance from gold to oil, but that’s a change which really isn’t taking any liberties at all. The substance itself is not as important as what the substance means to the story. Gold was used in ’64 because gold was the object of the villain. Oil was used in ’08 because oil was the object of the villain, albeit a object of diversion, but still intrinsic to the story.

It's perfect the way it is.

[dogmanstar]

GF will never be surpassed because it was sort of THE iconic image of the movie. It came from no place, is used in the TS and in the publicity for the film and is totally connected to GF's mania RE: Gold.

That being said, QoS got it exactly right. They did it in a way that if you didn't know about GF, you didn't miss anything. If you're a fan, then you get it--right away. The director and producers, thankfully, didn't feel they needed to mention it over and over again. ("Oh, look, her body is painted in oil! It's been known to happen in Gold to cabaret dancers."--which would have made it awful)

[Qbranchtech]

I believe there will be an eternal debate between purists and revisionists. It also depends on your definition of a "homage". If you look at CR, the scene where Craig emerges from the sea was a homage to DN, but he didn't wear a bikini nor was he yielding a knife. To the non-fans, it would have no meaning. That to me is a homage to a concept, not a specific scene reproduction.

Now, if the writers and producers of QoS decide to homage the idea of a stunning visual of a bodypainted dead girl, the concept behind the GF scene, then they can put the girl wherever they like at a pose of their choosing. However, they didn't, if you look at the "Making of" book, they actually had a picture of the GF scene on set to recreate it. They chose to homage the scene as well as the concept. I think it still looks fine and cool and I like the end product, but I just wish that they could have taken it to the next level, come up with their own spin to this concept of presenting a stunning visual of bodypainted dead girl. It certainly would have been a taller order, no doubt.

[Bondian]

Oil or Gold?

Gold. As gold would (as far as I know) dry to suffocate the skin. Oil would not do the same thing. But as Fields apparently died from the oil entering her lungs (they must have killed her somewhere else, and if so, they must have had to cleaned all the traces of oil). Gold is still more expensive than oil, so to me Goldfinger was far more flippant on what he could afford in killing people off.

[joshkhenderson]

Oil or Gold?

Gold. As gold would (as far as I know) dry to suffocate the skin. Oil would not do the same thing. But as Fields apparently died from the oil entering her lungs (they must have killed her somewhere else, and if so, they must have had to cleaned all the traces of oil). Gold is still more expensive than oil, so to me Goldfinger was far more flippant on what he could afford in killing people off.

I agree that the gold sequence was better. However, I'm gonna have to disagree with you on two points:

1.) Gold drying and suffocating the skin.
This is not a real method of death. Skin suffocation is not real. It has never happened. Otherwise swimming would kill us because our skin couldn't "breathe."
2.) Gold being more expensive.
Is spray paint really that expensive? More so than the barrel of oil it would require to drown and cover Fields? Her lungs were full of oil, not just having it enter them.

The oil death is far more gruesome and actually possible. The scene is never going to be the iconic image that the gold one is, but I'd rather be painted gold (as has happened many times on MythBusters) than be drowned in oil.

[mrsbonds_ppk]

My brother and I recognized the homage instantly and loved it. It worked, yes.

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'd rather not have blatant copies or homages of classic Bond scenes. I'd rather they be original so we can have new iconic images. It was okay in Die Another Day because that was a large part of what the film was about, celebrating the 40th anniversary of 007. But now, we're past that. We don't need any more homages.

I’d like some new iconic moments too. But I’m not going to demand them in lieu of quality renderings of the old iconic images. As far as what NEEDS to happen, it’s not one or the other. Both can exist. Of course if you just don’t like homages, well, that’s just a different taste and there's no point in arguing over it. As for me, if we can celebrate old iconic moments with tact, give ‘em to me. Forty-five years of Bond gives him the privilege to continually nod to his own past. Every new film is a new achievement and celebration of the old is good and just, in my eyes.

And the real point here is that NEW ones are hard to come by, my friend. Very, very hard. Name every Iconic Bond Moment™ that has occurred in the last 20 years. How long is your list? I’ll be impressed if you can identify two indisputable examples.

Challenge taken.

Bond bungee jumping off the dam in GoldenEye.
Bond crashing the tank through the wall in GoldenEye.
Bond drinking by himself in his hotel room in Tomorrow Never Dies.
A bedraggled Bond confidently walking into a posh Hong Kong hotel in Die Another Day.
Bond's swordfight with Graves in Die Another Day.
Bond putting on the tailored tuxedo for the first time in Casino Royale.
Bond getting his balls scratched in Casino Royale.

How'd I do?

[Judo chop]

Name every Iconic Bond Moment™ that has occurred in the last 20 years. How long is your list? I’ll be impressed if you can identify two indisputable examples.

Challenge taken.

Bond bungee jumping off the dam in GoldenEye.
Bond crashing the tank through the wall in GoldenEye.
Bond drinking by himself in his hotel room in Tomorrow Never Dies.
A bedraggled Bond confidently walking into a posh Hong Kong hotel in Die Another Day.
Bond's swordfight with Graves in Die Another Day.
Bond putting on the tailored tuxedo for the first time in Casino Royale.
Bond getting his balls scratched in Casino Royale.

How'd I do?

Well, I did ask for indisputable examples - meaning they'd have to be regarded as ICONIC (not just 'cool') by Bond fans at-large - so my opinion alone probably isn't enough to prove the point.

But, I've stated my opinion nonetheless.

[pgram]

OK, since now everyone has commented on style, tradition and so on (or should I say, recited Forster et al), can someone please explain to me, why was Fields killed? Because she asked Bond to leave Bolivia, because she had sex with him or because she tripped Elvis down the stairs? And why did she have to be killed in such a ritualistic way? And why with oil, I thought the storyline is about water.

To compare this scene to the one in GF is as out-of-place as comparing bloody jinx to Honey Ryder.

Why did GF kill Jill? Because she was his girlfriend (or something like that) who betrayed him. He lost her to Bond, and, as we 'd seen, he hated losing. Why with gold? Because he wanted to make sure Bond would get the point (apart from making one of the most iconic film moments ever. The impact is huge. Not only is the image so elegant, not only is the nudity sexier than before but also Jill is the first sacrificial lamb in the series. From a directing point of view, the scene is the first climax of the film. Sets the tone. For that, it gets all the time, set-up, setting and attention it needs. It's Goldfinger-Bond: 1-0. Now, you have to watch the rest of the film to find out how the hero will come back).

Sorry if this sounds a bit aggressive, but I 've had enough of this 'artistic' approach of Forster et al. This was a scene directly out of DAD. No comparison to GF.

Edited by pgram, 15 December 2008 - 01:05 PM.

[byline]

OK, since now everyone has commented on style, tradition and so on (or should I say, recited Forster et al), can someone please explain to me, why was Fields killed?

My feeling was that it was the same reason Solange was killed in "Casino Royale." Fields was with Bond, had been sent by MI6 to track him down, and Haines or someone else with Quantum was probably aware of that (just as Quantum was able to figure out that Vesper had been assigned to accompany Bond in "Casino Royale"). So Greene and his henchmen tracked her down in the hope of getting Bond. Then, when he wasn't there, she probably got treatment similar to Solange, and when she wouldn't give them what they wanted (Bond), they killed her.

Why the oil? Must be an "in" joke with Quantum, since everyone thought that's what they were after with the Tierra Project.

Edited by byline, 15 December 2008 - 02:10 PM.

[honeyjes]

Perhaps it's the MacGuffin

Edited by honeyjes, 15 December 2008 - 02:30 PM.

[ImTheMoneypenny]

OK, since now everyone has commented on style, tradition and so on (or should I say, recited Forster et al), can someone please explain to me, why was Fields killed?

My feeling was that it was the same reason Solange was killed in "Casino Royale." Fields was with Bond, had been sent by MI6 to track him down, and Haines or someone else with Quantum was probably aware of that (just as Quantum was able to figure out that Vesper had been assigned to accompany Bond in "Casino Royale"). So Greene and his henchmen tracked her down in the hope of getting Bond. Then, when he wasn't there, she probably got treatment similar to Solange, and when she wouldn't give them what they wanted (Bond), they killed her.

Why the oil? Must be an "in" joke with Quantum, since everyone thought that's what they were after with the Tierra Project.

I realised something last couple of times I watched QOS. I wouldn't be surprised if Fields after warning Bond, ran into the seemingly safe Colonel of the Bolivian Police. She wouldn't have known he and the police were actually at Quantum/Greene's disposal as far as she knew they would be helpful to her.