179 replies to this topic

[Safari Suit]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

I would say CR took itself a lot more seriously than QOS, which in spots made it feel rather silly indeed.

Interesting. Tell me, where do you see that excessive artistic seriousness in CR??

I don't know quite what you mean by "articstic seriousness", but the scene where Vesper visits Bond after his torture is the most over-earnest scene, and rather risible in places.

[sorking]

I think some people are confusing 'Forster was better for the second film' with 'Forster is a better choice for the franchise'. The two are totally different statements.

While I'd argue that some artistic blood is needed to reinvigorate the franchise now and again - hiring Haggis a case in point - I don't think you'd find many who'd disagree that, with a locked script of CR's quality, Campbell is the guy to get it on the screen right.

But the question was whether Campbell should have directed QoS. And that's a very, very different issue. That particular film, in those particular circumstances - Forster's an infinitely preferable creative force.

(I also argue that anyone who dismisses the films as guilty pleasures is missing why CR was such a hit. Populist drama can still be good drama. Nobody financed A Few Good Men thinking it'd only play to the art house crowd. The line isn't that simply drawn.)

Edited by sorking, 19 January 2009 - 09:01 PM.

[Judo chop]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

I would say CR took itself a lot more seriously than QOS, which in spots made it feel rather silly indeed.

Interesting. Tell me, where do you see that excessive artistic seriousness in CR??

I don't know quite what you mean by "articstic seriousness", but the scene where Vesper visits Bond after his torture is the most over-earnest scene, and rather risible in places.

I’m also not sure what is meant by artistic seriousness (or “articstic seriousness”, for that matter ), but if it has to do with dramatics, I would add:

Despite a greater frequency of appearances in QoS, M’s character is oversaturated in CR as compared to her character in QoS.

The way she talks to Bond in her apartment, the way she says “when I knew you were you”, and particularly the way she scrambles for the phone when Bond calls from the security door in the airport are more guilty of dramatic pretentiousness than anything in QoS, even the concluding scene (which I think is somewhat justified).

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

What is 'high art'?

Art is art. High, low, medium. I could care less. Art is a creation which moves me in some capacity.

Did Q0S 'move' me in some capacity? I say "yes".

Is "Citizen Kane" "high art"? I have no Idea. I've watched bits and pieces of it as a youngster on tv and was bored to death by it. So I hit the remote and switched channels every time.

Does that help answer you question?

Well, there's definition for 'high art' (or 'high culture') in opposition to popular culture- and art-. If you want to know, please read this: http://en.wikipedia....ki/High_culture

To make it short, in my words... the former is something that gives profound emotions, and makes it to take it very seriously. While the latter, it's something that is pure entertainment, and itsn't meant to be taken that seriously (that often- even not necessarily- fits in the category of 'guilty pleasures').

And I believe that Bond represents this second category of art- which in my view, isn't a diminish thing-.

[Safari Suit]

I'm pretty tired of this whole "Guilty pleasures" thing. "Oh Look, I'm watching a Police Academy film/listening to Def Lepperd, I'll never live it down!!!" All seems like tedious posturing to me. If you enjoy something, what does it matter what category of art it fits into, or whether it is "credible" (credibility being something which varies greatly both spatially and with time)?

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I'm pretty tired of this whole "Guilty pleasures" thing. "Oh Look, I'm watching a Police Academy film/listening to Def Lepperd, I'll never live it down!!!" All seems like tedious posturing to me. If you enjoy something, what does it matter what category of art it fits into, or whether it is "credible" (credibility being something which varies greatly both spatially and with time).

Well, if the concept of 'guilty pleasure' is tedious for you, what about the difference between something that is (high quality) pure entertainment and something that is more profound for you, or is it all the same for you???

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 19 January 2009 - 09:25 PM.

[HildebrandRarity]

This "high art" and "artistic seriousness" business is a bit too much for my simple tastes. Give me a fine looking lady, some good food and drink, the love of my family, some nice clothes and a great James Bond adventure and i'm a happy man.

The snobs can have their Citizen Kanes.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

This "high art" and "artistic seriousness" business is a bit too much for my simple tastes. Give me a fine looking lady, some good food and drink, the love of my family, some nice clothes and a great James Bond adventure and i'm a happy man.

The snobs can have their Citizen Kanes.

OK, now I understand your view.

P.D. I just put it "Citizen Kane" as an example, I'm not such a big fan of that Welles's work either.

[HH007]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

I would say CR took itself a lot more seriously than QOS, which in spots made it feel rather silly indeed.

Interesting. Tell me, where do you see that excessive artistic seriousness in CR??

I don't know quite what you mean by "articstic seriousness", but the scene where Vesper visits Bond after his torture is the most over-earnest scene, and rather risible in places.

"If all that was left of you was your smile, and your little finger..." *Gag* *Snicker*

[AgentBentley]

Campbell is already one of the best Bond directors in history, but if he doesn't want to do other Bonds, well that's his choice, nothing we can do about it.
I personally prefer action directors to do Bonds - if you look at the 'arty' ones like Apted and Tamahori, they made fine films of their own, but their Bonds were not among their personal bests and not among the Bond franchise's bests either.
What we need for Bond is really a director who understands action and story.

[blueman]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

Really? I think Campbell barely manages to be workmanlike with the occassional moment of something greater, whereas Forster delivers true Bond Style. IMHO.

OK, I get your opinion, but I don't really see how that is related with my- quoted- point.

More then: I agree with you about both Campbell and Fleming being limited in their respective aims and outcomes, but don't see them as all that similar. Campbell is too much Saturday morning, whereas Fleming didn't write at all for the kiddies - his work might be limited, but it was always squarely aimed at adults. EON definitely softened that edge with their Bond films, so I can see where a sometime-adultish Campbell might be viewed as the more suitable person for the job (his torture seen in CR will rank forever as a classic in the series IMO). But Campbell - like EON's creation - is wildly inconsistent and very much a guy who gives you whatever's written on that page of the script. Forster on the other hand seemingly shifted that with QOS and created a very consistent work: he had a vision of what he wanted to do with Bond and did it. Tamahori from what I've read also had a vision for Bond - his sucked eggs. Campbell's the definition of average, something I would never think of about Fleming's ouvre. Young, Hunt, Hamilton (on a good day), Campbell (in moments), and now Forster have all shaped a filmic Bond out of Fleming's creation. As for Forster being too serious for Bond, his best attribute is his ability to flex with the genre he's working in, IMHO he was exactly serious enough in his approach for QOS (whereas Campbell went a bit far and wide with CR, you can tell he really wanted to create a GF/TB type Bond and had trouble reconciling the more adult sections of the script with that POV, IMHO - he got them in the can just fine, but the mashup with the other, slicker "CLassic Bond" bits kinda sticks out, at least for me).

Forster with QOS created a modern Bond film solidly anchored in Fleming's spy world, but updated; Campbell with CR created a half-throwback to 60s cinema Bond, half Flemingish spy melodrama film that works cuz of Craig more than anything Campbell did for it. Haggis's efforts in both are awesome, but I'm damn glad Forster and Craig and Zetumer rewrote the QOS script Haggis gave them, the difference is night and day between the two films in that regard IMO.

Love CR, but QOS is a perfect Bond film. IMHO.

[Safari Suit]

I'm pretty tired of this whole "Guilty pleasures" thing. "Oh Look, I'm watching a Police Academy film/listening to Def Lepperd, I'll never live it down!!!" All seems like tedious posturing to me. If you enjoy something, what does it matter what category of art it fits into, or whether it is "credible" (credibility being something which varies greatly both spatially and with time).

Well, if the concept of 'guilty pleasure' is tedious for you, what about the difference between something that is (high quality) pure entertainment and something that is more profound for you, or is it all the same for you???

Of course it's not all the same, but the idea that anything which isn't "high art" or "credible", which as I said are qualities which are neigh on impossible to keep track of, must be considered a guilty pleasure, is just ridiculous. I mean do you really feel "guilty" every time you find yourself enjoying an action movie or listening to a piece of music that isn't classical or whatever the NME is telling us is cool this week?

[Judo chop]

I mean do you really feel "guilty" every time you find yourself enjoying an action movie or listening to a piece of music that isn't classical or whatever the NME is telling us is cool this week?

I don't think "guilty pleasure" is meant literally. There isn't actual GUILT involved. I think it's used as an acknowlegement of what was just discussed: that there is simple art and it is different from profound/complex art. Saying something is a guilty pleasure is to say "I recognize it ain't Michelangeo".

Just speculating. I know that I don't use the phrase literally, so I am assuming that there are others like me.

[Safari Suit]

I mean do you really feel "guilty" every time you find yourself enjoying an action movie or listening to a piece of music that isn't classical or whatever the NME is telling us is cool this week?

I don't think "guilty pleasure" is meant literally. There isn't actual GUILT involved. I think it's used as an acknowlegement of what was just discussed: that there is simple art and it is different from profound/complex art. Saying something is a guilty pleasure is to say "I recognize it ain't Michelangeo".

Just speculating. I know that I don't use the phrase literally, so I am assuming that there are others like me.

But everyone knows there's a difference between a Bond film and Citizen Kane, to label the former a "guilty pleasure" to show you know the difference is still silly as far as I'm concerned I'm afraid.

[Judo chop]

But everyone knows there's a difference between a Bond film and Citizen Kane, to label the former a "guilty pleasure" to show you know the difference is still silly as far as I'm concerned I'm afraid.

Heaven forbid you should ever be silly, SAFARI SUIT*.






(*such a serious name )

[Safari Suit]

There's nothing wrong with silliness. The Bond movies, for example, are a good example of right kind of silliness. But labeling them "guilty pleasures" because they aren't "high art" is the wrong kind of silliness. IMO of course

Though I am also right

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I mean do you really feel "guilty" every time you find yourself enjoying an action movie or listening to a piece of music that isn't classical or whatever the NME is telling us is cool this week?

I don't think "guilty pleasure" is meant literally. There isn't actual GUILT involved. I think it's used as an acknowlegement of what was just discussed: that there is simple art and it is different from profound/complex art. Saying something is a guilty pleasure is to say "I recognize it ain't Michelangeo".

Totally agree with you, Judo chop.

And I would say "It's Only Rock 'n' Roll (But I Like It)".

[Safari Suit]

Yes, I'm sure Jagger and Richards see Rock n' Roll as a trivial art form.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

There's nothing wrong with silliness. The Bond movies, for example, are a good example of right kind of silliness. But labeling them "guilty pleasures" because they aren't "high art" is the wrong kind of silliness.

Why?? What's wrong with calling Bond movies a 'guilty pleausure'?? If I do that, I only want to imply that the EON movies (and Fleming's novels) are pure entertainment, and that they aren't works that I take too seriously. Even Fleming said that about his own creation.

[Safari Suit]

I just think it's silly, personally. Everyone knows they're not high art and most people know they aren't meant to be taken terribly seriously, it doesn't need to be said. "Guilty Pleasures" to me implies something which is more or less just plain crap or hideously unfashionable but which you enjoy for some reason, not simply work which isn't "high art". However you seem to be very keen on refering to Bond movies (and everything else on the same level it seems) as "Guilty Pleasures", so I guess it must make you happy, so I suppose I shouldn't stand in the way of your enjoyment.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Yes, I'm sure Jagger and Richards see Rock n' Roll as a trivial art form.

I guess that they have very clear that they aren't the reincarnation of the likes of Mozart and Beethoven in the world of popular music, as composer. In fact, when Dylan dare to them, to write something of the quality of "Like A Rolling Stone", they admited that they weren't capable to do it (however, they stated that they can perform better that song than his creator)

[Safari Suit]

That was meant to be fatuous, but never mind because that was quite interesting anyway. I would say that Rock N Roll is not necessarily quantifiably inferior to classical music (and certainly not the Stones to Dylan), but why bother? I guess your really buy into the high/popular culture division. All I can say is I hope you enjoy it.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I just think it's silly, personally. Everyone knows they're not high art and most people know they aren't meant to be taken terribly seriously, it doesn't need to be said. "Guilty Pleasures" to me implies something which is more or less just plain crap or hideously unfashionable but which you enjoy for some reason, not simply work which isn't "high art". However you seem to be very keen on refering to Bond movies (and everything else on the same level it seems) as "Guilty Pleasures", so I guess it must make you happy, so I suppose I shouldn't stand in the way of your enjoyment.

I think you're confusing the meaning of Kitsh or even Camp with the concept of 'guilty pleasure'. Of course, you can have some guilty pleasure that are camp or kitsh, but not necessarily.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 20 January 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Safari Suit]

Perhaps I am in the wrong there, but I also don't think it was ever intended to seperate high culture from low culture, and leave everything designated as low culture consigned to never rise out of the ranks of being a "guilty" pleasure. Wikipedia defines a guilty pleasure as "something one considers pleasurable despite feeling guilt for enjoying it", which is almost an insult. I think "low" culture deserves more than that; I don't feel it should be dismissed just because it isn't as cerebral or skilled as Tchaikovsky, Kant or 2001. But you don't agree with that, and that's fine, we pretty much have to leave it here because we clearly are not going to make any progress on this or ever come to any sort of agreement on the matter, and while I stand my ground on the matter and strongly believe I'm "right" insofar as I can be right on such a thing, it really doesn't matter.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

... The thing is that I don't make such a big distinction in quality between popular and high culture. I just think that from both categories can emerge good works of arts, only that with different aims.

[Safari Suit]

Fine, use your own criteria, whatever you think suits you best. I personally think you seem to be categorising vast swathes of stuff as "guilty pleasures" and I dislike this idea, but it's pointless arguing about it, I see that now.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I think that Forster sometimes takes himself too seriously, forgetting that he's directing just a Bond movie, unlike Campbell who knows the limitation of the Fleming’s creation, and of his own work. Undoubtedly, Forster is overall a better director for serious drama, but not for divertissement (or ‘guilty pleasures’) like Bond.

Really? I think Campbell barely manages to be workmanlike with the occassional moment of something greater, whereas Forster delivers true Bond Style. IMHO.

OK, I get your opinion, but I don't really see how that is related with my- quoted- point.

More then: I agree with you about both Campbell and Fleming being limited in their respective aims and outcomes, but don't see them as all that similar. Campbell is too much Saturday morning, whereas Fleming didn't write at all for the kiddies - his work might be limited, but it was always squarely aimed at adults. EON definitely softened that edge with their Bond films, so I can see where a sometime-adultish Campbell might be viewed as the more suitable person for the job (his torture seen in CR will rank forever as a classic in the series IMO). But Campbell - like EON's creation - is wildly inconsistent and very much a guy who gives you whatever's written on that page of the script. Forster on the other hand seemingly shifted that with QOS and created a very consistent work: he had a vision of what he wanted to do with Bond and did it. Tamahori from what I've read also had a vision for Bond - his sucked eggs. Campbell's the definition of average, something I would never think of about Fleming's ouvre. Young, Hunt, Hamilton (on a good day), Campbell (in moments), and now Forster have all shaped a filmic Bond out of Fleming's creation. As for Forster being too serious for Bond, his best attribute is his ability to flex with the genre he's working in, IMHO he was exactly serious enough in his approach for QOS (whereas Campbell went a bit far and wide with CR, you can tell he really wanted to create a GF/TB type Bond and had trouble reconciling the more adult sections of the script with that POV, IMHO - he got them in the can just fine, but the mashup with the other, slicker "CLassic Bond" bits kinda sticks out, at least for me).

Forster with QOS created a modern Bond film solidly anchored in Fleming's spy world, but updated; Campbell with CR created a half-throwback to 60s cinema Bond, half Flemingish spy melodrama film that works cuz of Craig more than anything Campbell did for it. Haggis's efforts in both are awesome, but I'm damn glad Forster and Craig and Zetumer rewrote the QOS script Haggis gave them, the difference is night and day between the two films in that regard IMO.

Love CR, but QOS is a perfect Bond film. IMHO.

I agree with you in some point, but in others definitely disagree.

I disagree with your qualification of average for all the Campbell's work. All right, Campbell isn't a genius as a director, and GE indeed was average, but CR wasn't at all like that, and I think a takes good director takes advantage of a good scrip like the one from Craig's debut. A real mediocre director could not have delivered such a critical acclaimed and successful (at the BO) film. The script- aslong with Fleming's novel- make a good a deal of that, but certainly not all.

In the other hand, I mostly agree with your description of CR, even when I think that this movie did update a little the 60's formula in the action department. Maybe that's why I like so much CR, for its retro sixties Bond feel, thing that I believe they did try to some lesser extention, in the nineties with Brosnan, but never really achieved.

[danielcraigisjamesbond007]

Look, with Ian Fleming provinding the book, anyone would have gotten CR right.

Well, Fleming did provide us with the Moonraker, TMWTGG, YOLT and DAF novels, but the films, IMO, are nothing compared to the novels. These four novels are far better than the actual films.

Also, as a side note, what about the '67 Casino Royale?

Edited by danielcraigisjamesbond007, 26 January 2009 - 12:06 AM.

[HildebrandRarity]

Look, with Ian Fleming provinding the book, anyone would have gotten CR right.

Well, Fleming did provide us with the Moonraker, TMWTGG, YOLT and DAF novels, but the films, IMO, are nothing compared to the novels. These four novels are far better than the actual films.

Also, as a side note, what about the '67 Casino Royale?

I meant any director chosen by Wilson and Broccoli in 2005...with the choice being between Campbell or Forster specifically. I think I clarified the choice of words in an earlier post.

Also, the 67 movie was a spoof and done as a spoof.

[Colossus]

Look, with Ian Fleming provinding the book, anyone would have gotten CR right.

Well, Fleming did provide us with the Moonraker, TMWTGG, YOLT and DAF novels, but the films, IMO, are nothing compared to the novels. These four novels are far better than the actual films.

Yes... because they didn't try to adapt them.