142 replies to this topic

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order).

It's not out of order - Forster is trying to give us a sense of simultaneity without resorting to a split screen. Anyway, montage doesn't require temporal relativity.
"Artistics" Nicolas? - it's nothing of the sort. In fact it's very old school that owes a lot to the principles of montage set down by Sergei Eisenstein 80 odd years ago. The palio intercutting is a foreshadowing of a physical space that Bond and Mitchell will soon cross, as well as a visual metaphor for a chase.

Well, I did get that 'metaphor', but then again... so what?? I mean, what's the input to the development of the story of put that- beyond the cosmetic merit- or even more so, how that intercutting really makes more emotional that scene??

Away from Nicolas now, but for me, Forster's decision to edit and approach violence in the manner he did is what sets QoS above most Hollywood thrillers by deconstructing the usual fantasy, "no consequences" MO and instead bringing in a thoughtful European sensibility.
It was always the height of cinematic dishonesty for me in Bond films when people would stagger out of car wrecks, shaking their heads, so that noone would get upset at the thought of an innocent person being harmed in the crossfire... none of that rot for Forster, thankfully!

I support that approach for many movies, but c'mon, this is Bond!! From a Bond movie you should have come to expect a high degree of escapist fantasy, because Bond films are pure entertainment, and never have been- or pretended to be- absolutely realistic movies, that you have to take very seriously.

Edited by Mr. Arlington Beech, 14 March 2009 - 07:08 PM.

[tim partridge]

What an insult to QOS! Topaz is a hideous mess indeed.

I am also a big Hitchcock fan, so I am delighted to see so many posts on the man here. Rope is my favourite Hitch movie.

As I have said in other threads, Guy Hamilton was clearly very Hitchcock influenced, in and out of 007. The only time he sounds interested on the Goldfinger commentary is when he's sharing that anecdote (posted above by Sniperscope) about Hitch's praise of the machine gun wielding old lady (and Hitchcock was known for always seeing older women as monsters). Hamilton was all about over drawn out suspense set pieces and dark, farcial humour. His performances are also quite knowingly stilted and heightened, drawing more upon Hitch's love for expressionism (while Terence Young's films go for a more straight, realist aesthetic). Another Hitch similarity is how Hamilton had that slight misogynist approach towards women in his films. The Andrea Arm scene in MWTGG is an obvious example, not forgetting the countless other moments in his Bond movies. Like Hitch, Hamilton liked to linger on the violence against women too, which is something all of the other Bond directors were much more tasteful about (imagine if Hamilton had directed Corrine's death in Moonraker)! I definitely feel that Forster is in the same boat.

Edited by tim partridge, 14 March 2009 - 06:42 PM.

[blueman]

Forster made everyone feel dizzy with his "artistics" paralells: the Palio/Bond and Mitchell chase was acceptable (even tough he cuts to the woman falling to the ground after being shot by Mitchell when they're getting to the roofs - totally out of order).

It's not out of order - Forster is trying to give us a sense of simultaneity without resorting to a split screen. Anyway, montage doesn't require temporal relativity.
"Artistics" Nicolas? - it's nothing of the sort. In fact it's very old school that owes a lot to the principles of montage set down by Sergei Eisenstein 80 odd years ago. The palio intercutting is a foreshadowing of a physical space that Bond and Mitchell will soon cross, as well as a visual metaphor for a chase.

Well, I did get that 'metaphor', but then again... so what?? I mean, what's the input to development of the story of put that- beyond the cosmetic merit- or even more so, how that intercutting really makes more emotional that scene??

Away from Nicolas now, but for me, Forster's decision to edit and approach violence in the manner he did is what sets QoS above most Hollywood thrillers by deconstructing the usual fantasy, "no consequences" MO and instead bringing in a thoughtful European sensibility.
It was always the height of cinematic dishonesty for me in Bond films when people would stagger out of car wrecks, shaking their heads, so that noone would get upset at the thought of an innocent person being harmed in the crossfire... none of that rot for Forster, thankfully!

I support that approach for many movies, but c'mon, this is Bond!! From a Bond movie you should have come to expect a high degree of escapist fantasy, because Bond films are pure entertainment, and never have been- or pretended to be- absolutely realistic movies, that you have to take very seriously

Shades of gray, Mr. B, shades of gray.

Fleming wrote escapist fare, and EON started filming them in a slightly different mode, as you point out. Both pure escapism, but subtly (though at times not too subtly) different. What I like about Forster's take on 007 is that he includes a more Fleming-like sensibility in his Bond film, of if you prefer a more early Young/Hunt-ish bent. Definitely one end of the cinematic Bond spectrum but certainly not out of bounds when films like DN, FRWL, and OHMSS have explored such territory before.

QOS isn't a realistic film by any stretch of the imagination, but it does present Bond and his world more realistically than most previous Bond films, and some fans really dig that.

[Joe Bond]

What an insult to QOS! Topaz is a hideous mess indeed.

I am also a big Hitchcock fan, so I am delighted to see so many posts on the man here. Rope is my favourite Hitch movie.

As I have said in other threads, Guy Hamilton was clearly very Hitchcock influenced, in and out of 007. The only time he sounds interested on the Goldfinger commentary is when he's sharing that anecdote (posted above by Sniperscope) about Hitch's praise of the machine gun wielding old lady (and Hitchcock was known for always seeing older women as monsters). Hamilton was all about over drawn out suspense set pieces and dark, farcial humour. His performances are also quite knowingly stilted and heightened, drawing more upon Hitch's love for expressionism (while Terence Young's films go for a more straight, realist aesthetic). Another Hitch similarity is how Hamilton had that slight misogynist approach towards women in his films. The Andrea Arm scene in MWTGG is an obvious example, not forgetting the countless other moments in his Bond movies. Like Hitch, Hamilton liked to linger on the violence against women too, which is something all of the other Bond directors were much more tasteful about (imagine if Hamilton had directed Corrine's death in Moonraker)! I definitely feel that Forster is in the same boat.

What I meant was how Hitchcock deconstructed the the fantasy spy movies of the 60's with Topaz through the way he portrays the spy world in a more realistic way then most spy movies at the time which is what I was infering about what Forster did with QoS and I think Topaz is not a bad film in my mind but it is not great either and is one of the lesser Hitchcock films but thats not an insult to QoS because I was just comparing the tone of both films and not the quality for which QoS is a much better film in my opinion. I agree with you points about Guy Hamilton.

[Nicolas Suszczyk]

For anyone to not be able to understand/comprehend the Bregenz sequence and to not be able to appreciate it for a quality piece of cinema...well, they're just plainly obtuse.

It seems their cerebral capacities are limited.

And I've said this many times back in November and i'll say it again: Graham Rye is a total loser and [censored]head. He's got his head up his useless hole.

I've ripped apart the book "James Bond Girls" I bought years ago and taken the best pics and tossed the dumb text in the bin.

That's what I think of Graham [censored]ing Rye.

mad.gif

Your view of Graham Rye is entirely up to you. But as a person you are constantly slagging people off on this site who do not agree with you. You are everywhere with your nasty childish attitude. Grow up and respect that other people have different opinions than you, and don't use it as an excuse to slag them off. You are becoming boring.

I've always respected Rye as I respect Cork, Benson, Pfeiffer or Worral. I think his opinion on Bond weighs. Fandom are lice politics sometimes...

[Sniperscope]

What an insult to QOS! Topaz is a hideous mess indeed.

LOL! I don't like TOPAZ much either, but when I saw it many moons ago, some of its stylistics, especially in look, reminded me a bit of QoS. Certainly Joe is right about both films being deconstructionist in their approach to the spy thriller.
QoS is of course the superior movie!

I am also a big Hitchcock fan, so I am delighted to see so many posts on the man here. Rope is my favourite Hitch movie.

It sure is! ROPE is a brilliant film - a very daring subtext for the era. Performances are wonderful.
Hard to choose one as a personal favourite - there are so many... but my top 5 would be VERTIGO, NORTH BY NORTHWEST (except for that horrible CIA exposition scene which totally ruins the mystery of who Cary Grant is, or isn't...) and I do very much enjoy SHADOW OF A DOUBT, STRANGERS ON A TRAIN and 39 STEPS.

For me, QoS, in parts, seemed to consciously employ the classic Hitch plot of "falsely accused man on the run trying to prove his innocence and solve a mystery." Perhaps I would have liked them to go further with a NTH BY NTHWST/39 STEPS kind of a story...

Edited by Sniperscope, 14 March 2009 - 11:00 PM.

[Sniperscope]

I support that approach for many movies, but c'mon, this is Bond!! From a Bond movie you should have come to expect a high degree of escapist fantasy, because Bond films are pure entertainment, and never have been- or pretended to be- absolutely realistic movies, that you have to take very seriously.

Mr A-B - I just can't figure you!
I have said this before, but over its history Bond has never been purely one thing or the other - it has always evolved with its zeitgeist. Compare DN to MR or FRWL to DAD. It's pretty clear that the early films were largely more realistic in tone and plot than the series has become in say Moore or Brosnan's eras. When Bond beame buttonholed that's when AUSTIN POWERS was able to take the mickey...
QoS is very much in the spirit of those early Bond films and a reflection of our more serious, cynical zeitgeist, I'm sure you can see that. Mr A-B!

As for "escapist fantasy", I don't know about you, Mr A-B, but I don't have a globe-trotting, Secret Service career, drive an Aston, wear Tom Ford, chase down traitors through a horse race in Italy, attend Tosca and have a shootout, attend a cocktail party and have extraordinarily beautiful women from exotic countries hanging off my arm or every word, fight out a life or death struggle in a burning hotel or pay a call on someone in Russia who was responsible for my girlfriend's misery.
That's more than enough "escapist fantasy" for me, Mr A-B!!!

Edited by Sniperscope, 14 March 2009 - 11:22 PM.

[Colossus]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

Other than some of their clothes i'm befuddled at this nostalgia talk.

[Mr. Arlington Beech]

I support that approach for many movies, but c'mon, this is Bond!! From a Bond movie you should have come to expect a high degree of escapist fantasy, because Bond films are pure entertainment, and never have been- or pretended to be- absolutely realistic movies, that you have to take very seriously.

I have said this before, but over its history Bond has never been purely one thing or the other - it has always evolved with its zeitgeist. Compare DN to MR or FRWL to DAD. It's pretty clear that the early films were largely more realistic in tone and plot than the series has become in say Moore or Brosnan's eras. When Bond beame buttonholed that's when AUSTIN POWERS was able to take the mickey...
QoS is very much in the spirit of those early Bond films and a reflection of our more serious, cynical zeitgeist, I'm sure you can see that. Mr A-B!

Although I love and respect DN and FRWL, I don't think that you could define part of the norm for a series of more than 20 films by the tone of the first two (when the Bond formula wasn't even complete). The early films that you metion as "more realistic" and not pure entertainment, are only two, and hence are an exception, which can't expand the rule to other thing.

I can see that there are big difference between the likes of MR and FYEO or DAD and CR, for instance. However, all have in common that doesn't take theirself too seriously, that's why they don't have problems, to edit and approach violence, among other things, with the "dishonesty"- as you call it- of the usual fantasy of "no consequences".

[Vanish]

I'm still pretty split on my opinion of QoS, but I enjoyed the Forster interview. He seems like an intelligent guy who really valued the experience and wanted to make the best possible movie. I just feel that QoS was let down by its threadbare script and Forster's misguided editing decisions during the action scenes.

Honestly, if he toned down his editing room shenanigans and had a better, more developed script to work with, I'd welcome him back for Bond 23. When QoS "worked," it really worked for me, so I wouldn't mind giving Forster another shot.

[Richard]

I'm still pretty split on my opinion of QoS, but I enjoyed the Forster interview. He seems like an intelligent guy who really valued the experience and wanted to make the best possible movie. I just feel that QoS was let down by its threadbare script and Forster's misguided editing decisions during the action scenes.

Honestly, if he toned down his editing room shenanigans and had a better, more developed script to work with, I'd welcome him back for Bond 23. When QoS "worked," it really worked for me, so I wouldn't mind giving Forster another shot.

I agree with these sentiments.

What is the latest news on Marc Forster's proposed re-edit, does anyone know? I seem to have lost track of other interviews where he talked about this in more detail. Will an alternative edit be released on DVD or theatrically?

Richard

[DamnCoffee]

P robably on DVD.
If this turns out to be true, then this is indeed very exciting news.
Imagine a new Quantum of Solace, at a decent length, new scenes/angles etc.

[Bucky]

maybe that would end the controversy over the end of the boat chase? probably not.

[Orion]

I'm still pretty split on my opinion of QoS, but I enjoyed the Forster interview. He seems like an intelligent guy who really valued the experience and wanted to make the best possible movie. I just feel that QoS was let down by its threadbare script and Forster's misguided editing decisions during the action scenes.

Honestly, if he toned down his editing room shenanigans and had a better, more developed script to work with, I'd welcome him back for Bond 23. When QoS "worked," it really worked for me, so I wouldn't mind giving Forster another shot.

I agree with these sentiments.

What is the latest news on Marc Forster's proposed re-edit, does anyone know? I seem to have lost track of other interviews where he talked about this in more detail. Will an alternative edit be released on DVD or theatrically?

Richard

Expect it near the time of Bond 23's release, Sony has a habit of releasing extended cuts with fantastic special features when they are about to release a sequal (see the Spider-man series, XXX if you so wish, and definitly Casino Royale)

[DamnCoffee]

But Sony don't own Quantum anymore do they?

[Orion]

But Sony don't own Quantum anymore do they?

Thats a point, im not too sure. I thought they they still own CR and QOS, but no longer own any stake on the Bond franchise. Perhaps someone with knowlega can shed some light?

[byline]

I've always wondered about the rule he mentioned "...we don’t want Bond to kill anybody innocent."

Yeah, I was wondering about that, too. If that were the case, wouldn't Bond have stopped to help that woman during the Palio chase???

Well, if we want to get picky, the rule is that Bond doesn't kill anybody innocent. Bond didn't shoot the woman, Mitchell did. So Bond has to weigh his priorities: Catching Mitchell, whom he needs to connect him with this shadow organization, or help an innocent bystander whom Mitchell shot while trying to kill Bond. I think that, given those circumstances, Bond has to keep going in pursuit of Mitchell, knowing that others in the crowd will call emergency services and tend to the injured woman.

[byline]

P.S - Am I the only one that doesn't see any of this 60's nostalgia stuff he's talking about. I never got that nostalgia feeling at all.

A lot of that nostalgia is in the aesthetics of the film: Bond's appearance, especially the pocket handkerchiefs, hairstyle, his Steve McQueen look with the sweater and sunglasses when he visits Mathis. Fields' obviously Hepburnesque look at the cocktail party. The DC10. The Modernist desert hotel. The homage to GF and FRWL. The bleak, literally cold war look of the closing sequence. The grandiose title-cards.
Those sorts of things bring a 60s vibe...

Yup, exactly. It was subtle, but it was there.

[Bucky]

not sure if there is anything bond could have done for her that the other bystanders around her couldnt have done.

[byline]

Who says a piece of editing on a Tosca scene has to be temporally correct? The very act of editing a film destroys real time anyway.

True enough. I'm pretty certain that in "The Godfather III" (and yes, I know, that's probably not anyone's favorite "Godfather" film), those opera scenes were edited into the film out of sequence, too. But they were structured that way to support what was happening in the film. The opera was basically just another prop . . . though, in both cases, a beautifully filmed one, at that.

[byline]

Film is visual and therefore interpretative and there are very few human beings (none perhaps?) who can be 100% objective and uncluttered by their own interpretation, ideas, experiences...
Have you seen another film directed by Forster? If you have you should have noted that he is an intensely serious director in the European style who is very conscious of visuals and their power to convey subtle meaning and symbolism without overt exposition.
That's what directors of quality understand (like Hitch, Godard, Lang, Pabst, Melville etc. etc.) and that's what Forster strives for. He may not be in the same league as those guys, and sure he ain't no Hitchcock, but ALL directors want to be that!

Yup, that's one of the things I love about "Stranger than Fiction" . . . not to mention the fact that he got an absolutely amazing performance out of Will Ferrell, something I didn't believe was possible.

The directors who truly understand that film is a visual medium, and not one that needs to "explain" everything with reams of exposition, are the best, IMO.

[byline]

Another Hitchcock thriller that many overlook is STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. If you haven't seen it - do so! I think it was quite a controversial theme for its time, with an intriguing subtext. The direction is superb.

Isn't the lead character's name Guy Haines?

Wow, I never picked up on that till you mentioned it.

[Richard]

I'm still pretty split on my opinion of QoS, but I enjoyed the Forster interview. He seems like an intelligent guy who really valued the experience and wanted to make the best possible movie. I just feel that QoS was let down by its threadbare script and Forster's misguided editing decisions during the action scenes.

Honestly, if he toned down his editing room shenanigans and had a better, more developed script to work with, I'd welcome him back for Bond 23. When QoS "worked," it really worked for me, so I wouldn't mind giving Forster another shot.

I agree with these sentiments.

What is the latest news on Marc Forster's proposed re-edit, does anyone know? I seem to have lost track of other interviews where he talked about this in more detail. Will an alternative edit be released on DVD or theatrically?

Richard

Expect it near the time of Bond 23's release, Sony has a habit of releasing extended cuts with fantastic special features when they are about to release a sequal (see the Spider-man series, XXX if you so wish, and definitly Casino Royale)

That makes sense.
Roughly about two years from now?
Well, two years is plenty of time to edit a feature.
It will be interesting to see if anything changes drastically.
Bond never mentions the car chase to M when he delivers White to the underground meeting place. She doesn't know it happened. A huge gap in logic there. Did it end up on the cutting room floor?
Forster will have no excuses for editorial decisions after two years.

I'm quite a fan of Forster's work. He is used to developing a film from scratch so he knows it inside and out, and has never had the "story" handed to him before. Considering who he is working for, and the writers he was stuck with, the problems with Quantum of Solace can't be entirely his fault. But some of the problems are. I appreciate the aesthetics Forster brought to James Bond, but I expected a better film from him.

Richard

[JimmyBond]

Bond never mentions the car chase to M when he delivers White to the underground meeting place.

Uh...so? Bond doesnt mention a lot of things to M, and not just in this film. Why should he mention a car chase to M?

[byline]

Bond never mentions the car chase to M when he delivers White to the underground meeting place. She doesn't know it happened. A huge gap in logic there. Did it end up on the cutting room floor?

Actually, that is fairly consistent with Bond's character, especially as played by Craig. He really doesn't tell M much of anything. He outright lies to her in "Casino Royale" (when she asks him if Solange knew anything that could incriminate him, like his name), and he deliberately obfuscates throughout "Quantum of Solace" (for example, he never defends himself when she accuses him of having shot Guy Haines' bodyguard, he never tells her what happened with Greene out in the desert, etc.). So to me, the fact that he never replies, except with a look, when she says he looks "like hell" is, to me, just another one of those things. Bond simply does not reveal more to M than he has to. He knows she will know all this soon enough, so he doesn't waste her time, or his, with the details.

And frankly, I think he deliberately leaves things out to see what she will reveal to him. It's a sort of cat-and-mouse game between the two of them, and I enjoy it.

Edited by byline, 25 May 2009 - 06:22 PM.

[Richard]

Sounds like you've got it figured out, byline.
You also clarify some of the reasons why I dislike this new take on the characters of Bond and M. He is a liar and a sneak thief, and she is a nagging den mother who follows him around the globe. Their interaction is not believable either as spies or as the characters Ian Fleming wrote. I want the old Bond and the old M back only better.

Richard

[Loomis]

Bond never mentions the car chase to M when he delivers White to the underground meeting place.

Uh...so? Bond doesnt mention a lot of things to M, and not just in this film. Why should he mention a car chase to M?

Quite. How would the dialogue have gone?

BOND (to White): Don't bleed to death. (to M): Sorry I'm late. Had a bit of a car chase on the way here.

M: Do you know, Mitchell and I were listening to the radio while waiting for you to turn up with White, and the news mentioned some kind of car chase near here, with gunshots fired. I thought it might be you. How extraordinary!

BOND: Yeah.

MITCHELL: But then it occurred to us it might not be anything to do with you at all. I mean, you know what Italian drivers are like!

BOND: Ha! ha!

M: Ha! Ha!

MITCHELL: Ha! Ha!

M: Hee! Hee! How's your car?

BOND: Badly damaged, I'm afraid.

M: Oh, dear. We'll have to get it repaired. No, wait, let's just buy you a new one.

BOND: That's unusually generous of you, M.

M: Yes, well, it's coming up to the end of the financial year and we still haven't spent our budget. We need to do so, otherwise the Treasury won't give us the same again.

BOND: Good thinking.

M: Heh heh. I'm not the head of this organisation for nothing. And how are you?

BOND: Slight whiplash. Pretty bad headache. Bit of a nosebleed. Some ringing in my left ear from when a bullet went----

M: Oh, you poor diddums. You're a Double-O, get used to it.

WHITE: Look, can we get on with it?

[Zorin Industries]

Sounds like you've got it figured out, byline.
You also clarify some of the reasons why I dislike this new take on the characters of Bond and M. He is a liar and a sneak thief, and she is a nagging den mother who follows him around the globe. Their interaction is not believable either as spies or as the characters Ian Fleming wrote. I want the old Bond and the old M back only better.

Richard

Well unfortunately for you we are not in the era of making old James Bond films but new ones instead - films that have to stand alone before they stand alongside the canon. And there is nothing wrong with Craig and Dench together. You will be hard pushed to emulate THAT casting in decades to come.

[Zorin Industries]

Well, two years is plenty of time to edit a feature.
It will be interesting to see if anything changes drastically.
Bond never mentions the car chase to M when he delivers White to the underground meeting place. She doesn't know it happened. A huge gap in logic there.

No, a huge indicator that some audience members need to be spoon fed every plot point, piece of exposition and internal thought process in order to even understand a film, let alone like one.

You are missing the point I'm afraid Richard. And not just of SOLACE or Bond films. And it is not M's story so why does she need to know what we know Bond knows - or rather what we know he knows. He is the protagonist. And how do you know M didn't know about the car chase? A battered Aston pulls up with MR WHITE in the boot. What would M - the head of the British Secret Service - not understand? I take it you wanted to see her on the plane to the various global locations too - deciding her inflight movie, watching her email TANNER in case there is a scene where he references her but we don't see her or perhaps we needed to see her buying that moisturiser from the shop and follow her home to confirm that it was her moisturiser for her use in that bathroom scene?

And how many films have you edited?

[Jim]

He is a liar and a sneak thief

You forgot "murderer" and "political pawn" and "drunkard".

He's just super, isn't he?