33 replies to this topic

[Pierce - Daniel]

I just saw The Wrestler and this guy is so awesome. His handle on that film was fantastic, i loved the entire look of it.
Who else thinks this guy should tackle Bond next?

[Vauxhall]

What aspects of THE WRESTLER did you think made him a particularly good choice for Bond?

[Pierce - Daniel]

The action in the movie, it hurt, when people got hit you felt it, the camera got in there, but not in the awful Bourne motion sickness way, it still showcased the action and makes you wince and you never miss a beat. Very well put together people in terms of character development and he really gets Rourke to deliever an amazing proformence.
The look of the movie is terrific the angles and shots chosen as well as the cinematography.
He'd be great for Bond

[Quantumofsolace007]

If his Script for the never done Batman year one is anything to go by NO NO NO NO NO NO for the love of god NO!

[Judo chop]

Vaux,

What about Bond requires a particular aspect of direction?

I wasn't especially impressed with THE WRESTLER's script, but I thought the direction was perfectly suitable. And THE FOUNTAIN, I thought, was very well directed.

As far as Bond goes, if the director is 'good', he's good enough for Bond. Of course there are directors that would get me more excited than others, and there are directors who do have specific styles which I might say aren't suited for Bond. (Fincher being one recent name tossed about, which I think fits this category.) But, I really don’t think I see a particular style being particularly right for Bond. In fact, I’d prefer to see a variety of approaches at the films.

[Vauxhall]

Vaux,

What about Bond requires a particular aspect of direction?

I wasn't especially impressed with THE WRESTLER's script, but I thought the direction was perfectly suitable. And THE FOUNTAIN, I thought, was very well directed.

As far as Bond goes, if the director is 'good', he's good enough for Bond. Of course there are directors that would get me more excited than others, and there are directors who do have specific styles which I might say aren't suited for Bond. (Fincher being one recent name tossed about, which I think fits this category.) But, I really don’t think I see a particular style being particularly right for Bond. In fact, I’d prefer to see a variety of approaches at the films.

Oh I agree, but my first reaction when I see a well-directed movie is not immediately to think that the director should do a Bond movie.

I think Aronofsky is a very good director indeed – THE WRESTLER has been one of my favourite movies of the past year, but there are lots of other similarly talented people out there. I was just interested about what particular aspects of THE WRESTLER prompted P-D to think of Aronofsky as a particularly good candidate for BOND 23. I assumed it wasn't the documentary style of camera work.

[Harmsway]

What about Bond requires a particular aspect of direction?

Well, I ain't Vaux, but I'll say that direction for Bond demands a few qualities: elegance, atmosphere, and subtlety. Those qualities can be attempted in different ways, naturally. But I do think those are all essentials for the Bondian vibe.

I wasn't especially impressed with THE WRESTLER's script, but I thought the direction was perfectly suitable. And THE FOUNTAIN, I thought, was very well directed.

Sure. But is there anything in his career that makes him particularly appropriate for Bond? Make no mistake, I would be fascinated if Aronofsky was selected for Bond. But he does strike me as a left-field suggestion, largely because nothing in his career has really demonstrated anything resembling a Bondian quality. And I daresay his films, PI, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, THE FOUNTAIN, and THE WRESTLER, have a bit of a heavier directorial hand than I think appropriate for Bond.

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

I would be surprised if he was chosen for 23

[MattofSteel]

Then again, Marc Forster had absolutely NOTHING on his resume which might have suggested he'd be a good fit for Bond. And yet arguably, he did a rather amazing job considering those qualifications.

[Harmsway]

Then again, Marc Forster had absolutely NOTHING on his resume which might have suggested he'd be a good fit for Bond.

Forster had demonstrated a flair for elegantly-directed, performance-driven films that were able to appeal to a broad audience in FINDING NEVERLAND. In STRANGER THAN FICTION, he showed himself capable of lighter character interaction with an emphasis on comedy. And while THE KITE RUNNER hadn't be out when Forster was pinned as director, it did show a sense of how to present a kind of travelogue feel, a sense of a foreign culture and landscape.

Now, I'd by no means ever say Aronofsky couldn't handle a Bond film. He's too varied a director for me to pin him down. But his films aren't particularly deft with their character interactions, something I think is a necessity for Bond, and as I've said before, his films have a very weighty quality that I don't find appropriate for Bond. There should be something lighter about Bond, and I'm not sure Aronofsky is capable of doing something "light."

[sthgilyadgnivileht]

Forster had demonstrated a flair for simple, performance-driven films that were able to appeal to a broad audience, with a sense of restrained, elegant direction in FINDING NEVERLAND. And in STRANGER THAN FICTION, he showed himself capable of lighter character interaction with an emphasis on comedy. And while THE KITE RUNNER hadn't be out when Forster was pinned as director, it did show a sense of how to present a kind of travelogue feel, a sense of a foreign culture and landscape.

I agree. And foreign culture was definitely part of QoS and its use of real locations.

[Judo chop]

But his films aren't particularly deft with their character interactions, something I think is a necessity for Bond, and as I've said before, his films have a very weighty quality that I don't find appropriate for Bond. There should be something lighter about Bond, and I'm not sure Aronofsky is capable of doing something "light."

I guess I’d need a little more explanation on that count. Where have you found Aronofsky’s handling of character interactions clunky? You think he couldn’t pull off a Bond-Felix, Bond-Draco, or even more importantly, a malevolent Bond-villain interaction with care? (ie and IMO, with both humor and weight simultaneously.)

As far as him being heavy, I’d agree. Of course I’ve only seen the two films of his I mentioned above, and both of those films, I think, warrant the heavier touch. As far as I know, that just means the man knows what is called for based on the script in his hands. Which takes me back to my point, that choosing a Bond director is more about the “why nots” than the “whys”. Mostly.

Well, I ain't Vaux, but I'll say that direction for Bond demands a few qualities: elegance, atmosphere, and subtlety.

As for the definite “whys”, I agree that elegance and atmosphere fit the bill, and I think Aronofsky can achieve both based on what I’ve seen. (Do you not?) But subtlety as a requisite for Bond? I’m thinking of my favorite Bond films, most of which align with yours I believe, and I’m not sure I see what you’re getting at. Not that the best Bonds have been totally IN! YOUR! FACE!, but I’m not seeing them on the far opposite side of the scale either. I think that many of the best Bonds lean away from subtlety and towards the epic, the grandiose.

In what way do you think Campbell bring noticeable amounts of subtlety to CASINO ROYALE? (I realize that ‘noticeable amounts of subtlety’ is an absurdly oxymoronic phrase. But I think I like it, so I’m keeping with it.)

[tdalton]

As for the definite “whys”, I agree that elegance and atmosphere fit the bill, and I think Aronofsky can achieve both based on what I’ve seen. (Do you not?) But subtlety as a requisite for Bond? I’m thinking of my favorite Bond films, most of which align with yours I believe, and I’m not sure I see what you’re getting at. Not that the best Bonds have been totally IN! YOUR! FACE!, but I’m not seeing them on the far opposite side of the scale either. I think that many of the best Bonds lean away from subtlety and towards the epic, the grandiose.

In what way do you think Campbell bring noticeable amounts of subtlety to CASINO ROYALE? (I realize that ‘noticeable amounts of subtlety’ is an absurdly oxymoronic phrase. But I think I like it, so I’m keeping with it.)

Agreed. I don't see subtlety as a prerequisite for Bond at all, as none of the films (with the possible exception of QOS) have been subtle at all. The Bond films are about the least-subtle films one can find outside of mediocre summer blockbuster fare.

[Judo chop]

I do think a good spy thriller is necessarily subtle, but if we’re all honest, Bond hasn’t spent much time being primarily a spy-thriller kind of guy. For some Bond films it’s an important element, sure, but more often than not, he’s leaving that solid ground and jet-packing himself into the stratosphere.

[tdalton]

I do think a good spy thriller is necessarily subtle, but if we’re all honest, Bond hasn’t spent much time being primarily a spy-thriller kind of guy. For some Bond films it’s an important element, sure, but more often than not, he’s leaving that solid ground and jet-packing himself into the stratosphere.

Absolutely. Bond has been involved in very few spy-thrillers (I'd say that only DOCTOR NO, FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE, and CASINO ROYALE qualify in that category), but even then subtlety hasn't been the strong point of those films either. There are a few subtle moments in CASINO ROYALE, but then again there are also moments where CASINO ROYALE couldn't be any less subtle in trying to hammer home its message (the mirror/tuxedo scene is just so laughably non-subtle that I get a bit of a chuckle from it every time, and it takes me out of the film for a bit).

The rest of the Bond films, however, couldn't really be labeled as spy-thrillers, but are really just action movies, or sometimes action-comedies or sci-fi action films, and there's absolutely nothing subtle about those films.

[Harmsway]

I guess I’d need a little more explanation on that count. Where have you found Aronofsky’s handling of character interactions clunky?

Not necessarily clunky, but it seems to me that his characters are often less characters in and of themselves, and feel more like chess pieces being pushed across a board by the director. THE WRESTLER is less guilty of that, but PI, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and THE FOUNTAIN are very much guilty of that.

You think he couldn’t pull off a Bond-Felix, Bond-Draco, or even more importantly, a malevolent Bond-villain interaction with care? (ie and IMO, with both humor and weight simultaneously.)

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure he has the best sense for witty dialogue and character interaction, or maybe it's just not a talent he has revealed yet.

As for the definite “whys”, I agree that elegance and atmosphere fit the bill, and I think Aronofsky can achieve both based on what I’ve seen. (Do you not?)

I agree. Though I have yet to see him develop a flair for capturing locations, which is an important aspect of directing a Bond film. That's not to say he can't, but rather that his existing films haven't demonstrated that quality.

But subtlety as a requisite for Bond?

Bond's screenplays, characters, and dialogue need not be subtle. But the direction should be. The direction should not be calling attention to itself. For the history of the Bond franchise, the direction has generally been restrained and less-than-obvious. One should not feel the presence of a director just-off camera, putting things in place.

In what way do you think Campbell bring noticeable amounts of subtlety to CASINO ROYALE?

His direction manages to be stylish without be overtly so. When it does indulge in a few stylistic exercises (for example, the use of black-and-white for the pre-title sequence, or the brief use of shaky-cam after Bond has killed Medrano, or the use of the light filter when Bond's throwing up after ingesting poison), it's never too in-your-face. It weaves those stylistic touches in with a light hand.

[tdalton]

In what way do you think Campbell bring noticeable amounts of subtlety to CASINO ROYALE?

His direction manages to be stylish without be overtly so. When it does indulge in a few stylistic exercises (for example, the use of black-and-white for the pre-title sequence, or the brief use of shaky-cam after Bond has killed Medrano, or the use of the light filter when Bond's throwing up after ingesting poison), it's never too in-your-face. It weaves those stylistic touches in with a light hand.

I'd also submit his use of Arnold's score as an example of his not being subtle. The volume of the music, and the way that it's generally presented, is done in such a way as to be right up in the face of the viewer (although every director that Arnold has worked with has done this, so it's not unique to Campbell).

[Judo chop]

(the mirror/tuxedo scene is just so laughably non-subtle that I get a bit of a chuckle from it every time, and it takes me out of the film for a bit).

Well, there I can't agree. It's obvious as a 'Bond Begins' kind of homage (homage isn't really the right word, but I can't think of another), but I think as an homage, it is handled subtly. Subtly enough, that is. Not SUPER SNEAKY SUBTLE, but enough so.

It's one of my favorite moments of CR as characters come together with fantastic performances. Yes, it’s fanboy pleasuring in one sense, but it sits very well within the film on its own merits as well.

[tdalton]

(the mirror/tuxedo scene is just so laughably non-subtle that I get a bit of a chuckle from it every time, and it takes me out of the film for a bit).

Well, there I can't agree. It's obvious as a 'Bond Begins' kind of homage (homage isn't really the right word, but I can't think of another), but I think as an homage, it is handled subtly. Subtly enough, that is. Not SUPER SNEAKY SUBTLE, but enough so.

It's one of my favorite moments of CR as characters come together with fantastic performances. Yes, it’s fanboy pleasuring in one sense, but it sits very well within the film on its own merits as well.

I think that the scene would have been a better fit in CASINO ROYALE had the rest of the film not been, at least for the most part, as serious as it was. That scene, at least to me, feels just like those campy shots of Batman putting on the Batsuit or any other comic book character donning his outfit for the first time. And the way that it's handled both with the actors just doesn't sit well with me, although I do think that Eva Green's laughter towards him is fitting, as perhaps her character thinks the moment is equally as bad (I know that's not the case, but I like to think that it is )

Of all the scenes we get in that particular bathroom of the hotel, that one scene just sticks out like a sore thumb. We get a beautifully acted scene between Craig and Green in the shower, and then we get the great scene of Bond staring himself down in the mirror after dispatching Obanno, and had Craig's "donning the Batsuit" moment been handled as seriously, it would have gone down better with me, but it felt like something that should have been included in the first half of the film, when the film was stuck in a 45-minute homage to the Brosnan Era, rather than in the terrific second half of the film.

[Judo chop]

I guess I’d need a little more explanation on that count. Where have you found Aronofsky’s handling of character interactions clunky?

Not necessarily clunky, but it seems to me that his characters are often less characters in and of themselves, and feel more like chess pieces being pushed across a board by the director. THE WRESTLER is less guilty of that, but PI, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and THE FOUNTAIN are very much guilty of that.

Ah. Agreed. Although ‘chess pieces being pushed around a board’ sounds like it might have its place in a Bond film. Not for Bond specifically, or for his closest compadres, but perhaps for lesser characters?

But subtlety as a requisite for Bond?

Bond's screenplays, characters, and dialogue need not be subtle. But the direction should be. The direction should not be calling attention to itself. For the history of the Bond franchise, the direction has generally been restrained and less-than-obvious. One should not feel the presence of a director just-off camera, putting things in place.

Ah, I see what you mean now. Subtlety insofar as lacking a director’s thumbprint all over the screen. Then, yes, as expected, I agree. (And John Glen gets some extra credit bonus points that I previously have denied him.) But then I think that that kind of subtlety applies to most directors. A director who specializes in a lack of subtlety is probably a rarer thing to find, wouldn’t you agree?

And, to get this back OT, how about Aronofsky’s sense of subtlety? Do you notice his thumbprint all over?

[Harmsway]

Well, there I can't agree. It's obvious as a 'Bond Begins' kind of homage (homage isn't really the right word, but I can't think of another), but I think as an homage, it is handled subtly. Subtly enough, that is. Not SUPER SNEAKY SUBTLE, but enough so.

Indeed. It's not treated with any heavy fanfare. Sure, it's given the light touch of Arnold's hints at the Bond theme, but it's not given any serious weight. It's a little fun footnote that ends up having more significance to the relationship of Bond and Vesper than to some "Bond Begins" idea. And I love that the the moment plays at Bond's expense.

[Judo chop]

We get a beautifully acted scene between Craig and Green in the shower, and then we get the great scene of Bond staring himself down in the mirror after dispatching Obanno, and had Craig's "donning the Batsuit" moment been handled as seriously, it would have gone down better with me, but it felt like something that should have been included in the first half of the film, when the film was stuck in a 45-minute homage to the Brosnan Era, rather than in the terrific second half of the film.

Nope, can’t agree. Batsuits aside, it’s an awesome scene where real characters are projected.

Now, if you want to cry ‘batsuit’ go ahead, but it’s gravy on top of substance that is already there.

And I love that the the moment plays at Bond's expense.

Yes. (And then that Bond, being Bond handled by one Daniel Craig, still rises above it.)

[JimmyBond]

If his Script for the never done Batman year one is anything to go by NO NO NO NO NO NO for the love of god NO!

Not that I'm for or against Aronofsky as director. But how does the quality of a script he's written have anything to do with his suitability as a director?

[tdalton]

We get a beautifully acted scene between Craig and Green in the shower, and then we get the great scene of Bond staring himself down in the mirror after dispatching Obanno, and had Craig's "donning the Batsuit" moment been handled as seriously, it would have gone down better with me, but it felt like something that should have been included in the first half of the film, when the film was stuck in a 45-minute homage to the Brosnan Era, rather than in the terrific second half of the film.

Nope, can’t agree. Batsuits aside, it’s an awesome scene where real characters are projected.

Now, if you want to cry ‘batsuit’ go ahead, but it’s gravy on top of substance that is already there.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't see any character development or any real substance to that scene. The only thing that I see is Vesper openly mocking him, which was a reaction that I felt the audience should have also had for Bond in that scene.

[Harmsway]

Do you notice [Aronofksy's] thumbprint all over?

Yup. I do. Particularly in REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and THE FOUNTAIN. Which is why I'm hesitant to approve him as a potential Bond director.

[JimmyBond]

I loved The Fountain, I thought it was a wonderful movie. Beautifully directed, really should see it again...

Anyways, I can't comment as I've only seen that one film of his, so I couldnt say yay or nay. However I would say I would love to see a Michael Mann directed Bond film.

[Safari Suit]

Has to? Why does he have some kind of medical condition?

[Odd Jobbies]

I'd like to see how that'd turn out - much better choice than the usual line-up of safe bets.

Won't happen though - he'd never give up control, and why should he after The Wrestler's success. I still think PI's a great little gem of a film.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'd like to see how that'd turn out - much better choice than the usual line-up of safe bets.

Won't happen though - he'd never give up control, and why should he after The Wrestler's success. I still think PI's a great little gem of a film.

[Odd Jobbies]

I'd like to see how that'd turn out - much better choice than the usual line-up of safe bets.

Won't happen though - he'd never give up control, and why should he after The Wrestler's success. I still think PI's a great little gem of a film.

Sorry about the triple post - CB problem...