152 replies to this topic

[HildebrandRarity]

The Oscar is not worthy of James Bond and Daniel Craig. The PC and Politics is hideous. Is there any wonder why so many don't bother seeing the program. I turned it off as soon as Craig left the stage. Craig himself left the scene as soon as he left the stage. That, in itself, elevated my opinion of the guy even more!

He looked great with his pocket handkerchief in his dinner jacket/tux and that was the highlight of the evening.

[dinovelvet]

No, it's an obvious truth. ROYALE is not up there with STAR WARS, RAIDERS or ET. Those films reframed popular cinema consumption, they were tight adventure stories (the last act of ROYALE makes it far from 'tight') and they were brilliantly directed. ROYALE is a better directed Martin Campbell film (and when you compare it to the lacklustre middling direction of GOLDENEYE it is not hard to claim that one) but it is not the 007 equivalent of Spielberg or Lucas being at the absolute top of their craft.

Also, RAIDERS, ET and STAR WARS were cultural events. They were phenomenoms (spell check?!). ROYALE may have been seen as that amongst the fan community, but it didn't become a cultural and decade defining film. The last time Bond achieved that was probably in 1965.

Following that criteria, I wonder why GOLDFINGER was not considered Oscar-worthy. Its not like they were nominating obscure arthouse fare in 1964, as Mary Poppins(!) was up for Best Picture. Goldfinger did all that you've described above, and designed a template that action/thrillers are still following, decades later, but apparently it wasn't up to par with the flying and singing nanny...

[Harmsway]

No, it's an obvious truth. ROYALE is not up there with STAR WARS, RAIDERS or ET. Those films reframed popular cinema consumption, they were tight adventure stories (the last act of ROYALE makes it far from 'tight') and they were brilliantly directed.

Regardless of how we place CASINO ROYALE among these films, I daresay STAR WARS was far from "brilliantly directed." It was nothing of the sort. The direction is adequate, and has its nice moments (ala the opening space-ship reveal). Most of the time, it's very "point and shoot." Kershner's direction for EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is far more impressive, with a level of visual grace that the first STAR WARS never accomplishes.

And as far as ROYALE's "tightness" goes, I disagree with most and think that the final act of ROYALE is one of its strongest sections. If there's an area where ROYALE fails to be "tight," it's in the first half.

[Harmsway]

And - this is not something I say glibly or to court annoyance - Daniel Craig and the character development in SOLACE is vastly superior to that of ROYALE.

Oh, I'm sure you believe it. But I would disagree.

I'm far more captivated by Craig in CASINO ROYALE. It might not be a matter of his performance, so much as it is the film (I think Craig gets to be a bit showier in CASINO ROYALE, which a much meatier character arc), but I'm emotionally invested in him in a way that I'm not in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. He gets some very fine bits in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but none that really knock me on my .

The skill of that film is that it allows M, CAMILLE and GREENE to develop in a way Bond films don't permit.

This just makes me chuckle.

[Loomis]

No. He was given a role that is far from a blank canvas. The skill he showed was taking on the baton and creating a very intriguing Bond compared to before. But that does not equal Oscar.

So how is the role of Amin more of a blank canvas than the role of Bond? Bond has been played onscreen before, sure, but then again Whitaker is not the first actor to have played Amin; indeed, I'll hazard a guess that Amin has been portrayed even more times in films and on TV than 007.

Furthermore, unlike Bond, Amin was a real person, and, as I say, unless one's going to do an extremely revisionist look at Amin, pretty much the only possible interpretation of the role is Monster™. Same goes for portrayals of Hitler. How, then, is the Amin actor's canvas anything other than a lot less blank than the Bond actor's canvas? With Bond, there's infinitely more scope for new interpretations.

Furthermore, what exactly is this blank canvas of which you speak, as though great titans of ac-ting like Mr Forest Whitaker and Mr Leonard DiCaprio are somehow weaving magical characters out of thin air by dint of their allegedly supernatural ac-ting genius, while workaday strolling players like Craig are given everything on a plate when making lesser things like Bond? As a screenwriter, you surely know that no role is a blank canvas - a role is interpreted by an actor, but interpretation depends on a role having already been written.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying, essentially, that playing Bond is a walk in the park compared to playing Amin (or another Serious and Worthy™ role in a Serious and Worthy™ film). You're saying that Whitaker in SCOTLAND is an example of Proper Acting™ at a very high level, whereas Craig in CASINO isn't actually doing any real work by comparison. And I strongly disagree with you.

Structurally and tonally CASINO ROYALE is very limited (it's set in a card room for most of its dramatic peaks). That is not a criticism. It works well because it tweaks the formula and how it is conveyed, but it doesn't change it. SOLACE does that - i.e. by not adhering to it set piece by set piece.

Bollocks is it set in a card room for most of its dramatic peaks. For the love of Richard Maibaum, Zorin, are you trying to wind me up here? And, yes, CASINO ROYALE does change the formula, if by "the formula" you mean gunbarrel at start, Bond theme blasting every two minutes, and so on. I don't see that CASINO ROYALE adheres to the formula "set piece by set piece", as you imply. Quite the contrary, in fact. At any rate, if CASINO ROYALE only "tweaks" the formula then so does QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which is by some distance the more conventional Bond movie.

Daniel Craig and the character development in SOLACE is vastly superior to that of ROYALE. It is not just 007 who goes on a journey in SOLACE. The skill of that film is that it allows M, CAMILLE and GREENE to develop in a way Bond films don't permit.

Zorin, my boy, you are SO! WRONG!

You have seen CASINO ROYALE, right? I mean, I'm starting to wonder.

Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

And?

[Harmsway]

At any rate, if CASINO ROYALE only "tweaks" the formula then so does QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which is by some distance the more conventional Bond movie.

Indeed.

[jaguar007]

Of course Russell Crowe and Kevin Spacey are better in those films than Craig was in ROYALE. Why? Because there is greater scope of character, narrative, motivation arcs, exposition, dialogue and performance than any Bond film would allow. It may not be ideal for us Bond fans, but that's just how it is.


I will say it now (for the CBN record) .... No actor is ever going to get an Oscar from a Martin Campbell film! Sorry. Sam Mendes and Ridley Scott are master filmmakers. They work with material that actors can get their teeth into. Campbell and ROYALE is not - I'm afraid - in that bracket.

Zorin,
I disagree with you and I also agree with you. I don't think Crowe or Spacey gave any better performance than Craig did. Many actors(Craig included) could have been just as good in either Gladiator or American Beauty (Craig could have done both roles, something not many actors could do). In fact Craig one upped them, he did what many people thought would be impossible. He took a legendary film character with a 40+ year history, 5 previous actors in the role, one of the most stereotyped characters in movie history and gave him new life. He made Bond a real 3 dimentional character while still being loyal to the characters roots.

I agree with you that an actor will never be nominated for an Oscar for playing Bond. It is too known of a character and not the type the Academy nominates. That does not mean Craig's performance was less of a performance than other actors who were recognized by The Academy. Was Johnny Depps performance in Piarates of the Caribbean really have greater scope of character, narrative, motivation arcs, exposition, and diolague than Craig in CR?

Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

Really? What films has Marc Forster won (or even nominated)an Oscar for?

[Mr. Blofeld]

Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

Really? What films has Marc Forster won (or even nominated)an Oscar for?

Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland (I think).

And since when did this become the Bash Casino Royale / Bash Quantum of Solace thread?

[tdalton]

As for the argument about whether or not Daniel Craig, Eva Green, and Casino Royale should have been nominated, I think that one has to take a look at the competition in that given year.

Casino Royale's competition in the Best Picture category consisted of: The Departed, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, Letters from Iwo Jima, and The Queen. To me, to say that CR didn't deserve a nomination when films such as The Departed and The Queen are nominated doesn't make much sense. Neither of those films even deserved their nominations, as both are not of a particularly high quality. I did enjoy The Departed, but there have been other movies of that same genre that have been much, much better, and weren't even nominated for Best Picture. As for The Queen, that was simply a bad movie, IMO, and for me, Casino Royale could have easily taken the place of either of those films and have been more deserving of the nomination.

As for Daniel Craig, I would easily place him above two nominees in this category. I like Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor, but Daniel Craig's work in CR is significantly better than DiCaprio's in Blood Diamond. Also, I would say that Craig was more deserving of a nomination than Will Smith that year as well.

The one that I may give in on would be Eva Green's potential for a nomination in that year. While I still think that Green was very much deserving of a nomination, I can't really see a nominee in that category from that year that I would replace in favor of Green. That's not to say that Green's performnce is lessened in my mind by that, but I also can't really argue with any of the nominees that year as it was a great year for performances by lead actresses.

[jaguar007]

Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

Really? What films has Marc Forster won (or even nominated)an Oscar for?

Monster's Ball and Finding Neverland (I think).

Actually Marc Forster was not nominated for either film. Monster's Ball was nominated for Halle Barry(and won) and best screenplay. Finding Neverland was nominated for Best Picture, but it was one of those rare films where a Best Picture nominee was not also nominated for Best Director. Marc Forester himself has never been nominated for an Oscar.

[Double-Oh Agent]

History has shown us that Bond films are not going to be nominated, much less win an Oscar no matter how good they are. (The only possible exception is in a music category and that hasn't happened since 1981's For Your Eyes Only, I believe.) Yeah, how groundbreaking for their time and influential Dr. No and especially From Russia With Love and Goldfinger were it's amazing they weren't nominated (other than Goldfinger's sound which won).

Personally, I think Daniel Craig gave the best debut performance of a 007 actor in Casino Royale. He was at various times throughout the film charming, witty, serious, funny, loving, suspicious, dangerous, and athletic--each equally well. It would have been nice to see him get a nomination, but I'm not surprised that he didn't. The political, highbrow Academy will never award such a successful franchise for its achievements, however justified--particularly in the role of James Bond. As someone said, if Sean Connery, never even got nominated, no way will they nominate any of his successors. (Although how Leonardo DiCaprio got nominated for an action film when he had a far lesser range of emotions to portray in Blood Diamond than Craig who didn't get nominated, not to mention less pressure to succeed in his role, is beyond me--although I did like Blood Diamond.)

As for the film itself, I do think Casino Royale was good enough and should have been nominated for a Best Picture, especially seeing how well regarded it was critically. (I believe it was the highest scored, wide release film by Rotten Tomatoes all year.) Now to have it win in that category, that's another matter. Regardless, the film itself is clearly of a very high quality--good score, good creative stunts, good production design, good script, well acted, well directed, and well filmed. Aren't those ingredients that a Best Picture nominee should have?

Regarding The Departed (a good, but not great, film), its Oscar success further underscores the in-grained politics of the Academy. If one such as Martin Scorsese can win Best Director and Best Film awards for his efforts in The Departed, which let's face it, was mostly a sympathetic/career award since he hadn't won before, why can't EON receive even a NOMINATION when they come up with a superlative film of their own that goes beyond what they have done before (at least in a while)? I don't see how Casino Royale is all that different from, much less inferior to, Raiders Of The Lost Ark. Both are very good action films. Shoot, Raiders is basically a historical James Bond film done as a serial--at least that's how it was conceived--so how is that any more Oscar worthy than the original?

[dee-bee-five]

I'm still baffled why anyone yearns for the Bond films to have anything to do with the whole ghastly, vulgar charade. I mean, Cary Grant - for me the epitome of the 20th century movie actor - didn't win an Oscar, apart from a special one they tossed him at the end of his career. That doesn't alter the fact that I (and I suspect most other people) would rather watch 50 Cary Grant movies over one of Brando's with bloody cotton wool stuffed in his cheeks (something the Academy mistook for great acting).

The Bond films have been going for nigh on fifty years. They entertain a hell of a lot of people and remain culturally relevant. Isn't that enough?

[Double-Oh Agent]

I'm still baffled why anyone yearns for the Bond films to have anything to do with the whole ghastly, vulgar charade. I mean, Cary Grant - for me the epitome of the 20th century movie actor - didn't win an Oscar, apart from a special one they tossed him at the end of his career. That doesn't alter the fact that I (and I suspect most other people) would rather watch 50 Cary Grant movies over one of Brando's with bloody cotton wool stuffed in his cheeks (something the Academy mistook for great acting).

The Bond films have been going for nigh on fifty years. They entertain a hell of a lot of people and remain culturally relevant. Isn't that enough?

As incredible as that is, perhaps even more so is that Alfred Hitchcock never won an Oscar either!

Which only further underscores the Academy's elitism and diminishes much of the luster of its Oscars awards.

[Zorin Industries]

No, it's an obvious truth. ROYALE is not up there with STAR WARS, RAIDERS or ET. Those films reframed popular cinema consumption, they were tight adventure stories (the last act of ROYALE makes it far from 'tight') and they were brilliantly directed. ROYALE is a better directed Martin Campbell film (and when you compare it to the lacklustre middling direction of GOLDENEYE it is not hard to claim that one) but it is not the 007 equivalent of Spielberg or Lucas being at the absolute top of their craft.

Also, RAIDERS, ET and STAR WARS were cultural events. They were phenomenoms (spell check?!). ROYALE may have been seen as that amongst the fan community, but it didn't become a cultural and decade defining film. The last time Bond achieved that was probably in 1965.

Following that criteria, I wonder why GOLDFINGER was not considered Oscar-worthy. Its not like they were nominating obscure arthouse fare in 1964, as Mary Poppins(!) was up for Best Picture. Goldfinger did all that you've described above, and designed a template that action/thrillers are still following, decades later, but apparently it wasn't up to par with the flying and singing nanny...

GOLDFINGER and THUNDERBALL both won Oscars (sound and special effects respectively).

No-one knew that was a template at the time. And there are a myriad of reasons why something gets Oscar noticed and some things don't. The timings of release, how much of a player in Hollywood the producers are (and want to be) and these things have to be courted. Bond was too busy working on his next film to hang around looking for an Oscar. But there are plenty of event films that do not make the Oscars shortlist for Best Picture - JURASSIC PARK, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, TRAINSPOTTING, SEVEN, HOTEL FOR DOGS...

No, it's an obvious truth. ROYALE is not up there with STAR WARS, RAIDERS or ET. Those films reframed popular cinema consumption, they were tight adventure stories (the last act of ROYALE makes it far from 'tight') and they were brilliantly directed.

Regardless of how we place CASINO ROYALE among these films, I daresay STAR WARS was far from "brilliantly directed." It was nothing of the sort. The direction is adequate, and has its nice moments (ala the opening space-ship reveal). Most of the time, it's very "point and shoot." Kershner's direction for EMPIRE STRIKES BACK is far more impressive, with a level of visual grace that the first STAR WARS never accomplishes.

And as far as ROYALE's "tightness" goes, I disagree with most and think that the final act of ROYALE is one of its strongest sections. If there's an area where ROYALE fails to be "tight," it's in the first half.

STAR WARS is a very well directed film. Directing a film is not just about knowing where to put the actors so that you can see them. It is about pace, it is about tempo, it is about creating a project with a timbre and resonance to it. It is about marrying special effects that were not even invented to a narrative no-one on paper understood. It is about being able to convince or part-convince studio heads the film is going to work. It is about knowing how to cast your film. It is always about a lot more than whether a camera is on a dolly or not. And for that reason STAR WARS is a benchmark piece of art from the 20th Century - one that is solely down to the efforts and direction of George Lucas.

And - this is not something I say glibly or to court annoyance - Daniel Craig and the character development in SOLACE is vastly superior to that of ROYALE.

Oh, I'm sure you believe it. But I would disagree.

I'm far more captivated by Craig in CASINO ROYALE. It might not be a matter of his performance, so much as it is the film (I think Craig gets to be a bit showier in CASINO ROYALE, which a much meatier character arc), but I'm emotionally invested in him in a way that I'm not in QUANTUM OF SOLACE. He gets some very fine bits in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, but none that really knock me on my .

The skill of that film is that it allows M, CAMILLE and GREENE to develop in a way Bond films don't permit.

This just makes me chuckle.

Laugh away. Just have a think about the last time a Bond Girl had an emotional journey with a beginning, middle and end in the way CAMILLE does. And M. Why do you think Dench still does the part? It's because there is a narrative function to M now.

[Zorin Industries]

No. He was given a role that is far from a blank canvas. The skill he showed was taking on the baton and creating a very intriguing Bond compared to before. But that does not equal Oscar.

So how is the role of Amin more of a blank canvas than the role of Bond? Bond has been played onscreen before, sure, but then again Whitaker is not the first actor to have played Amin; indeed, I'll hazard a guess that Amin has been portrayed even more times in films and on TV than 007.

Furthermore, unlike Bond, Amin was a real person, and, as I say, unless one's going to do an extremely revisionist look at Amin, pretty much the only possible interpretation of the role is Monster™.

Which is sort of the wrong interpretation when presented with the character by Forrest Whittaker in a film written by Peter Morgan and directed by Kevin McDonald. Yes he was a bloodthirsty tyrant who deserved no sympathy. But good films and good stories are not so because their central characters are 100% monsters. That is where the art of screenwriting and acting comes in to play.

Same goes for portrayals of Hitler. How, then, is the Amin actor's canvas anything other than a lot less blank than the Bond actor's canvas? With Bond, there's infinitely more scope for new interpretations.

Er, no there actually isn't "scope" at all. That is the brilliance of the role, but it is also its Achiles Heel. There is very little for an actor to develop with the Bond character. He is a cypher. He is a blank assassin. He gets hurt by love but has to forget that in the next reel. That is the nature of mainstream entertainment. Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman knew that and everyone who has produced Bond since knows that. Bond films are very specific - a genre unto themselves. It is not about how good the actor is. It is about how narrow and necessarily tight the character's mindset, experience, motivations and actions are.



Furthermore, what exactly is this blank canvas of which you speak, as though great titans of ac-ting like Mr Forest Whitaker and Mr Leonard DiCaprio are somehow weaving magical characters out of thin air by dint of their allegedly supernatural ac-ting genius, while workaday strolling players like Craig are given everything on a plate when making lesser things like Bond? As a screenwriter, you surely know that no role is a blank canvas - a role is interpreted by an actor, but interpretation depends on a role having already been written.

Yes. And - in terms of its screenplay - CASINO ROYALE is vastly superior to a lot of Bond films but it has its flab (flab that is a by-product of this film being a 007 film). If it was such a tight film why have TWO footchases (construction site and airport) that are narratively doing the same thing - i.e. Bond trying to stop an assassin hired by SOLANGE's man. Why too feature sudden stairwell fights (as brilliantly executed as they are) and a Martini poisoning moment when narratively they are treading water? I will tell you why - it is because the Bond films including ROYALE are mainstream action thrillers. Why else do we need to have a crumbling Venetian bank house when the novel doesn't need it? Because it is a film and a cinematic ride for the general public. Bond films need to be punctuated with pace and style as much as they need to show character exposition.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're saying, essentially, that playing Bond is a walk in the park compared to playing Amin (or another Serious and Worthy™ role in a Serious and Worthy™ film). You're saying that Whitaker in SCOTLAND is an example of Proper Acting™ at a very high level, whereas Craig in CASINO isn't actually doing any real work by comparison. And I strongly disagree with you.

Of course playing Bond is a walk in the park for an actor like Daniel Craig (!). Let's not get rose tinted about it all. Daniel Craig's efforts and transformation of the role is as much about how he physically portrays it as much as how he delivers what emotion he can in a James Bond film directed by Martin Campbell.

Structurally and tonally CASINO ROYALE is very limited (it's set in a card room for most of its dramatic peaks). That is not a criticism. It works well because it tweaks the formula and how it is conveyed, but it doesn't change it. SOLACE does that - i.e. by not adhering to it set piece by set piece.

Bollocks is it set in a card room for most of its dramatic peaks. For the love of Richard Maibaum, Zorin, are you trying to wind me up here?

No. Not at all. But the film's narrative peaks are ALL centred around that card game - even when the card game has finished the film is all about that card game. The game is being played before Bond even sets foot in Montenegro too.

And, yes, CASINO ROYALE does change the formula, if by "the formula" you mean gunbarrel at start, Bond theme blasting every two minutes, and so on. I don't see that CASINO ROYALE adheres to the formula "set piece by set piece", as you imply. Quite the contrary, in fact. At any rate, if CASINO ROYALE only "tweaks" the formula then so does QUANTUM OF SOLACE, which is by some distance the more conventional Bond movie.

No. That is not what I mean by "the formula". Bond films do not work as formulaic entertainment because of the bloody gunbarrel and explosions. There is much more of a narrative formula at play here - timbre, style, pace, the three act structure, the way story information is conveyed, the way the mission is relayed to the audience and Bond, the way locations are shot, the attitude of the characters in that death-weary world of espionage and political one upmanship... I could go on... but when people say formula in a Bond film - they too often think of the basics.

Daniel Craig and the character development in SOLACE is vastly superior to that of ROYALE. It is not just 007 who goes on a journey in SOLACE. The skill of that film is that it allows M, CAMILLE and GREENE to develop in a way Bond films don't permit.

Zorin, my boy, you are SO! WRONG!

Fine. That is your opinion. But as someone with a little bit of experience of these things I think I am able to recognise what I have just said in SOLACE.
You have seen CASINO ROYALE, right? I mean, I'm starting to wonder.

Oh - and QUANTUM OF SOLACE is directed by someone who has already got Oscars for his films.

And?

[Elvenstar]

Strange how this thread turned into Bond and Oscars thing...
I never expected CR to win but was greatly surprised it was't even nominated for some tech awards or song/score ...
As 4 Dan's work, thank God for some other awards and noms that he got like Bafta, Evening standard or Empire. So glad that after all that he suffered in 2005-06 he finally got some well deserved honours. Strange though he lost to that bland Superman guy at Saturn awards. I was so shocked
I was so drawn to Dan's performance even more because it's far more sifficult to portray a popular character with subtlety that nobody expects him to have than a showy role in an art house fare.

Edited by Elvenstar, 27 February 2009 - 11:00 AM.

[Loomis]

Furthermore, unlike Bond, Amin was a real person, and, as I say, unless one's going to do an extremely revisionist look at Amin, pretty much the only possible interpretation of the role is Monster™.

Which is sort of the wrong interpretation when presented with the character by Forrest Whittaker in a film written by Peter Morgan and directed by Kevin McDonald. Yes he was a bloodthirsty tyrant who deserved no sympathy. But good films and good stories are not so because their central characters are 100% monsters. That is where the art of screenwriting and acting comes in to play.

I never said that LAST KING is a good film because Amin is 100% a monster. I don't view LAST KING on the level of, say, FRIDAY THE 13TH. You point out the art of screenwriting and acting: Whitaker and his colleagues also manage to bring out Amin's charisma.

But I still maintain that the Amin canvas is less blank than the Bond canvas. Unless I'm completely losing my marbles, there are dozens of ways to play Bond. Such is not the case with a role like Amin.

[Mr Teddy Bear]

And M. Why do you think Dench still does the part? It's because there is a narrative function to M now.

Not particularly relevant, but I saw a recent interview where Dench stated her reasons for playing the part and they couldn't be further from the narrative quality of recent Bond films.

Edited by Mr Teddy Bear, 27 February 2009 - 11:04 AM.

[David Schofield]

Look, the Oscars (and other awards ceremonies) are rather like prize winning at school.

Those who brown-nose the best get the prizes. Those who don't, don't.

I really don't need the stamp of approval from a bunch a preaching celebs from la-la land to confirm whether a film's one I should enjoy.

Craig may feel the need to attend to be seen to be "playing the game" and it may all be part of EON's plan to "legitimise" Bond by ingratiating themselves with the Academy by having Craig turn up, I don't know.

But personally, I prefer Craig's stance to the critics pre-CR: "Screw 'em".

Yours,

Unimpressed of Yorkshire.

[ACE]

Look, the Oscars (and other awards ceremonies) are rather like prize winning at school.

Those who brown-nose the best get the prizes. Those who don't, don't.

I really don't need the stamp of approval from a bunch a preaching celebs from la-la land to confirm whether a film's one I should enjoy.

Craig may feel the need to attend to be seen to be "playing the game" and it may all be part of EON's plan to "legitimise" Bond by ingratiating themselves with the Academy by having Craig turn up, I don't know.

But personally, I prefer Craig's stance to the critics pre-CR: "Screw 'em".

Yours,

Unimpressed of Yorkshire.

LOL! I guess you're not a Sean Penn fan.

"I say what I like and I like what I bloody well say!"

At the risk of being Yorkshire-ist...

[Loomis]

With Bond, there's infinitely more scope for new interpretations.

Er, no there actually isn't "scope" at all. That is the brilliance of the role, but it is also its Achiles Heel. There is very little for an actor to develop with the Bond character. He is a cypher. He is a blank assassin. He gets hurt by love but has to forget that in the next reel. That is the nature of mainstream entertainment. Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman knew that and everyone who has produced Bond since knows that. Bond films are very specific - a genre unto themselves. It is not about how good the actor is. It is about how narrow and necessarily tight the character's mindset, experience, motivations and actions are.

You say that there is very little for an actor to develop with the Bond character. How, then, do you explain how Craig has been able to do so much with the role in his two films? Did he take the role purely for the money? As I say, there are dozens of ways to play Bond. An actor can emphasise the humour, or the snobbery, or the sex appeal, or the action man aspect, or make Bond angry, make him apathetic, make him kind, make him cruel, make him a psychopath, make him a cynic, or any combination of any of the above and much more. Screenwriters and directors can do what they like with the character (in theory, anyway - whether Eon would let them is another matter). And in CASINO ROYALE Bond definitely doesn't forget his hurts in the next reel.

No. That is not what I mean by "the formula". Bond films do not work as formulaic entertainment because of the bloody gunbarrel and explosions. There is much more of a narrative formula at play here - timbre, style, pace, the three act structure, the way story information is conveyed, the way the mission is relayed to the audience and Bond, the way locations are shot, the attitude of the characters in that death-weary world of espionage and political one upmanship... I could go on... but when people say formula in a Bond film - they too often think of the basics.

Fair enough, but CASINO ROYALE does surprise in terms of timbre, style and pace. It doesn't follow the three-act structure. It changes the way story information is conveyed (e.g. the B&W PTS, and Bond being promoted during the opening credits), and the attitude of the characters in that death-weary world of espionage and political oneupmanship is something new for a Bond film. Note I didn't say something new for cinema. But why should something have to be something new for cinema in order to get an Oscar nod? Isn't it enough for it just to be good?

And please explain how QUANTUM OF SOLACE abandons the formula more boldly than CASINO ROYALE and how it's an, erm, more artistic and, like, more better movie than CASINO ROYALE, 'cause I just can't see it.

[Zorin Industries]

With Bond, there's infinitely more scope for new interpretations.

Er, no there actually isn't "scope" at all. That is the brilliance of the role, but it is also its Achiles Heel. There is very little for an actor to develop with the Bond character. He is a cypher. He is a blank assassin. He gets hurt by love but has to forget that in the next reel. That is the nature of mainstream entertainment. Cubby Broccoli and Harry Saltzman knew that and everyone who has produced Bond since knows that. Bond films are very specific - a genre unto themselves. It is not about how good the actor is. It is about how narrow and necessarily tight the character's mindset, experience, motivations and actions are.

You say that there is very little for an actor to develop with the Bond character. How, then, do you explain how Craig has been able to do so much with the role in his two films? Did he take the role purely for the money? As I say, there are dozens of ways to play Bond. An actor can emphasise the humour, or the snobbery, or the sex appeal, or the action man aspect, or make Bond angry, make him apathetic, make him kind, make him cruel, make him a psychopath, make him a cynic, or any combination of any of the above and much more. Screenwriters and directors can do what they like with the character (in theory, anyway - whether Eon would let them is another matter). And in CASINO ROYALE Bond definitely doesn't forget his hurts in the next reel.

No. That is not what I mean by "the formula". Bond films do not work as formulaic entertainment because of the bloody gunbarrel and explosions. There is much more of a narrative formula at play here - timbre, style, pace, the three act structure, the way story information is conveyed, the way the mission is relayed to the audience and Bond, the way locations are shot, the attitude of the characters in that death-weary world of espionage and political one upmanship... I could go on... but when people say formula in a Bond film - they too often think of the basics.

Fair enough, but CASINO ROYALE does surprise in terms of timbre, style and pace. It doesn't follow the three-act structure. It changes the way story information is conveyed (e.g. the B&W PTS, and Bond being promoted during the opening credits), and the attitude of the characters in that death-weary world of espionage and political oneupmanship is something new for a Bond film. Note I didn't say something new for cinema. But why should something have to be something new for cinema in order to get an Oscar nod? Isn't it enough for it just to be good?

And please explain how QUANTUM OF SOLACE abandons the formula more boldly than CASINO ROYALE and how it's an, erm, more artistic and, like, more better movie than CASINO ROYALE, 'cause I just can't see it.

ROYALE does not change the way any exposition is relayed. There is nothing ground breaking about using black and white to denote the past.

Look - this is where I bow out on this one. Let's agree to disagree before we fall out and take this one to the CBN car park where it will only get unnecessarily messy. We can continue it over a beer. At least that way I have something to either drink or throw (!). I am joking.

Come on - it's Friday!!!

Look, the Oscars (and other awards ceremonies) are rather like prize winning at school.

Those who brown-nose the best get the prizes. Those who don't, don't.

I really don't need the stamp of approval from a bunch a preaching celebs from la-la land to confirm whether a film's one I should enjoy.

Craig may feel the need to attend to be seen to be "playing the game" and it may all be part of EON's plan to "legitimise" Bond by ingratiating themselves with the Academy by having Craig turn up, I don't know.

But personally, I prefer Craig's stance to the critics pre-CR: "Screw 'em".

Yours,

Unimpressed of Yorkshire.

LOL!

"I say what I like and I like what I bloody well say!"

At the risk of being Yorkshire-ist...

"Luxury....."

(How are you David?)

[Loomis]

ROYALE does not change the way any exposition is relayed. There is nothing ground breaking about using black and white to denote the past.

Yes there is, dammit.

Look - this is where I bow out on this one. Let's agree to disagree before we fall out and take this one to the CBN car park where it will only get unnecessarily messy. We can continue it over a beer. At least that way I have something to either drink or throw (!). I am joking.

Come on - it's Friday!!!

[Harmsway]

STAR WARS is a very well directed film. Directing a film is not just about knowing where to put the actors so that you can see them. It is about pace, it is about tempo, it is about creating a project with a timbre and resonance to it. It is about marrying special effects that were not even invented to a narrative no-one on paper understood. It is about being able to convince or part-convince studio heads the film is going to work. It is about knowing how to cast your film. It is always about a lot more than whether a camera is on a dolly or not.

I am well aware of what goes into direction, Zorin. But frankly, nothing on that list, aside from the special effects, merits the word "brilliant." Lucas does pretty decent work as a director on STAR WARS, but he's hardly showing himself to be the next Stanley Kubrick.

And for that reason STAR WARS is a benchmark piece of art from the 20th Century - one that is solely down to the efforts and direction of George Lucas.

Granted about the triumphs of special effects on all that, but I firmly disagree that STAR WARS is at all a "benchmark piece of art." It's a benchmark piece of popcorn, Flash Gordon-style entertainment, but that's all.

Just have a think about the last time a Bond Girl had an emotional journey with a beginning, middle and end in the way CAMILLE does.

I won't argue with you about it, I just think that Camille's character arc is so meager that it's not worth getting all excited about. It's a subtle improvement over past installments, for sure, but it's hardly too noteworthy.

And M. Why do you think Dench still does the part?

It's a good paycheck and it's fun. I have a hard time imagining than the "dramatic challenge" she's presented by her brief moments in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE are really what's keeping her around.

[Zorin Industries]

STAR WARS is a very well directed film. Directing a film is not just about knowing where to put the actors so that you can see them. It is about pace, it is about tempo, it is about creating a project with a timbre and resonance to it. It is about marrying special effects that were not even invented to a narrative no-one on paper understood. It is about being able to convince or part-convince studio heads the film is going to work. It is about knowing how to cast your film. It is always about a lot more than whether a camera is on a dolly or not.

I am well aware of what goes into direction, Zorin. But frankly, nothing on that list, aside from the special effects, merits the word "brilliant." Lucas does pretty decent work as a director on STAR WARS, but he's hardly showing himself to be the next Stanley Kubrick.

I don't think that was ever the intention.

I for one tend to judge what is "brilliant" onscreen with what works and not whether it can be traced back to better acknowledged artists attempts at the same genre. "Brilliant" is about how a director like Lucas or Kubrick can realise their visions and stories when everything and everyone is against them. THAT is where great directors show their mettle. It is hard enough getting one minute of non FX film in the can successfully let alone a two hour feature that costs the earth and you can't yet explain to the financiers why.

And for that reason STAR WARS is a benchmark piece of art from the 20th Century - one that is solely down to the efforts and direction of George Lucas.

Granted about the triumphs of special effects on all that, but I firmly disagree that STAR WARS is at all a "benchmark piece of art." It's a benchmark piece of popcorn, Flash Gordon-style fluff, but that's all.

The history books will say otherwise. It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century. And that was down to its director and head visionary, George Lucas. FLASH GORDON (either the Buster Krabbe version or the Queen rock opera) do not really come close.

Just have a think about the last time a Bond Girl had an emotional journey with a beginning, middle and end in the way CAMILLE does.

I won't argue with you about it, I just think that Camille's character arc is so meager that it's not worth getting all excited about. It's a subtle improvement over past installments, for sure, but it's hardly too noteworthy.

Less can mean more in a Bond film. SOLACE was the first to really trust in that.

And M. Why do you think Dench still does the part?

It's a good paycheck and it's fun. I have a hard time imagining than the "dramatic challenge" she's presented by her brief moments in CASINO ROYALE and QUANTUM OF SOLACE are really what's keeping her around.

[Harmsway]

The history books will say otherwise.

I know they will. They already do say otherwise.

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

And that was down to its director and head visionary, George Lucas.

I'd also disagree, to an extent.

While we can all acknowledge that there never would have been a STAR WARS without George Lucas - and for that, STAR WARS is truly "his" - I don't think it's Lucas' will/vision that really made the film come together. A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Less can mean more in a Bond film.

Yeah, but not in this case. Nobody outside of Bond fandom is going to remember Camille.

[jaguar007]

Star Wars was a great popcorn film where the actors talked about how bad the diolague was as they were filming it. It also happens to be one of the 10 most significant films of all time.

[Loomis]

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

Exactly. If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Was RAMBO popular? Yes, it was a box office smash the world over. Was it influential on other films? Yes, very - not only did it lead to countless straight-to-video imitators, but it helped shape mainstream action cinema (for instance, three years after its release, RAMBO was mated with THE TOWERING INFERNO to produce DIE HARD). Did it have a major impact on popular culture? Certainly. It's referenced or spoofed in everything from WATCHMEN to HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX. It even had a major impact outside popular culture - Reagan, rather frighteningly, gave the impression that he had been influenced by it. Did Rambo become every bit as iconic a character as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader? He certainly did.

However, all that aside, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II is not actually a very good film. And while STAR WARS/EPISODE IV may be a rather better film than RAMBO II, it's certainly nowhere near good enough to be described as "brilliant" on its artistic merits alone.

A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Agreed. I have a friend who's a rabid STAR WARS fan, who's as deeply into STAR WARS as we are into Bond, who straight-out admits that Lucas is an appalling director whose sole strength is as an ideas man. His fatal flaw is that he tends to insist on developing those ideas himself. I repeat, this guy loves STAR WARS (the whole phenomenon, not just the first film), but he's quite upfront that Lucas simply doesn't know the first thing about directing and cannot deal with actors at all. He even told me that Lucas demanded multiple changes to Kershner's rough cut of EMPIRE on the grounds that it was too good.

[Zorin Industries]

It was a key moment in the consumption of cinema in the 20th Century.

Sure. There's no denying the historical importance of STAR WARS. But evaluating historical importance and general popularity is not the same as evaluating its artistic merits.

Exactly. If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Was RAMBO popular? Yes, it was a box office smash the world over. Was it influential on other films? Yes, very - not only did it lead to countless straight-to-video imitators, but it helped shape mainstream action cinema (for instance, three years after its release, RAMBO was mated with THE TOWERING INFERNO to produce DIE HARD). Did it have a major impact on popular culture? Certainly. It's referenced or spoofed in everything from WATCHMEN to HOT SHOTS! PART DEUX. It even had a major impact outside popular culture - Reagan, rather frighteningly, gave the impression that he had been influenced by it. Did Rambo become every bit as iconic a character as Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader? He certainly did.

However, all that aside, RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II is not actually a very good film. And while STAR WARS/EPISODE IV may be a rather better film than RAMBO II, it's certainly nowhere near good enough to be described as "brilliant" on its artistic merits alone.

A careful look at the production of STAR WARS (not the Lucasfilm approved revisionist account, but what actually happened), shows that STAR WARS' ultimate success was really something of a happy accident, rather than the result of a focused visionary director.

Lucas never had a real grasp on his creation, and I think his attitude towards the two sequels, THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (which is pretty superior to the first STAR WARS in all respects, really) and RETURN OF THE JEDI, demonstrates as much.

Agreed. I have a friend who's a rabid STAR WARS fan, who's as deeply into STAR WARS as we are into Bond, who straight-out admits that Lucas is an appalling director whose sole strength is as an ideas man. His fatal flaw is that he tends to insist on developing those ideas himself. I repeat, this guy loves STAR WARS (the whole phenomenon, not just the first film), but he's quite upfront that Lucas simply doesn't know the first thing about directing and cannot deal with actors at all. He even told me that Lucas demanded multiple changes to Kershner's rough cut of EMPIRE on the grounds that it was too good.

And your friend Loomis was on set and in the editing room for how many days exactly?

(sorry - does this count as starting something we both should have left behind..?)

[Santa]

If STAR WARS (EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE) is "brilliant", then so is RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II.

Bless your heart.