81 replies to this topic

[DamnCoffee]

After the discussion in the Quantum Of Solace Photo-Bin that's going on. I think we need a thread, because it's just an interesting subject.

Did you feel, that Fields death could've been handled a lot better? The emotional side of things? I for one, thought some of the scene was wasted. The scene itself focus' more on Bond and M, rather than the poor dead woman on the bed.

This post is from Qbranchtech...

I feel the scenes in the film never really let you feel "OMG! What have they done to her!?" as they never really show the complete picture or invest time on her condition until the final scene she fades out. I think it's a cheat that robs her of audience's sympathy and diminishes her emotiboxonal weight.

This is completely agree with Imo. I love the scene, don't get me wrong, but I think it would've been a lot better if the scene had a lot more emotional impact.

For instance, what would you say if this happened instead...

BOND and CAMILLE enter the hotel, the HOTEL MANAGER walks over to them.

HOTEL MANAGER: Excuse me Sir, your wife left a message, the english woman, she left it for you this morning.
BOND: Thank you.

BOND takes the note, and opens it. It tells him to RUN

CAMILLE: What is it?
BOND: Would you mind waiting down here?
CAMILLE: I’ll be outside.

BOND walks up the stairs and along the landing, untill he comes to his hotel room. He slowly opens the door. Nothing. He walks into his room, slowly and suspiciously. His room is too quiet.

BOND: Fields?

BOND continues walking, His head turns sharply, and he walks towards the bedroom door. Once there, he takes a deep breath and opens it.

The site before him is shocking. FIELDS is on the bed, covered completely in oil. The room itself is quite tranquil. A light breeze is blowing the curtains slightly. The room doesn’t appear to be in that much of a mess. Only a few magazines and a broken lamp on the floor.

BOND runs to her aid.

BOND: NO. Fields? FIELDS!?

He checks her pulse – Nothing. He runs his hand over her face, gently, and rises up from the side of the bed. His breathing increases in anger. BOND leans out of the window, to get some air. He sees many black vehicles pull up outside, people get out of them and head in the hotel. He turns to leave, takes one last look at FIELDS, then walks out of the bedroom.

Just then, we see many armed guards enter the room, M leading them in. The Guards look around the hotel room.

BOND looks up at her. Angrily.

BOND: Oh, I’m dissapointed.
M: You Are?
BOND: How much oil did the Americans promise you?
M: This isn’t about oil.
BOND: Well that’s good because there isn’t any!
M: It’s about trust, you said you weren’t motivated by revenge.
BOND: I’m motivated by my duty..
M: No, I think you’re so blinded by inconsolable rage that you don’t care who you hurt. When you can’t tell your friends from your enemies it’s time to go.

BOND looks incredlby angry. TANNER walks up to M.

TANNER: Ma’am....
M: What is it?

TANNER signals M to the bedroom, M walks in and see’s FIELDS’ body.

BOND follows her in.

M: You might like to tell her your theory about there being no Oil... HER LUNGS ARE FULL OF IT.
BOND: It was Greene...
M: No doubt... but why?
BOND: It’s just misdirections...
M: I MEAN WHY HER BOND!? She was just supposed to send you home. She worked in an office, collecting reports. Look how well you charm works, James. They'll do anything for you won't they? How many is that now?

BOND looks like he’s about to explode with anger.

M: You’re removed from duty and suspended, pending further investigation. You’ll give what ever weapons you have to these men and leave with them now.

A GUARD puts his hand on BOND’s shoulder. BOND pulls out his GUN and throws it across the room. He gives M a very angry look and is escorted out of the room.

Or, would you rather it stayed as it is?


Discuss?

[s.a.s. Malko]

I would have liked to have a bit more screentime with Bond and Fields together, thought they had a pretty good chemistry. Maybe they could have killed her and Mathis together so that Bond looses all his contacts at once? And maybe a little bit later so there is more screentime for Mathis too. So I guess I just want to have 30 minutes more Quantum :-)

[DamnCoffee]

I would have liked to have a bit more screentime with Bond and Fields together, thought they had a pretty good chemistry. Maybe they could have killed her and Mathis together so that Bond looses all his contacts at once?

That's pretty interesting, considering I just mentioned that in my 'How Would You Direct Quantum of Solace' thread. You and I seem to be thinking along the same track.

[DAN LIGHTER]

As it was a nod to Goldfinger I think enough time was spent on it. Anymore might have been tacky.

[Turn]

I think Fields and everything to do with her is one of the few missteps with QoS. It's like in previous films where they needed to squeeze in an extra plaything for Bond to seduce, and secondly to work in a nod to GF. I thought we'd expired all those types of nods way back with DAD.

She comes off alright. Seems to be a bit of a Goodnight at first, but holds her own nicely. But when she is found dead it's no surprise and I felt no real emotion over it. We know everything Bond touches turns to death already in QoS and Mathis' demise meant so much more. We didn't need the extra death of Fields to drive this home to the point of overkills (no pun intended).

Not to mention making her first name Strawberry didn't do anything but make it more obvious than it needed to be.

Perhaps they should have made Fields the girl in the hotel Medrano gets rough with. That would have made more of an impact and given Bond yet another reason to succeed and her death would have felt like more than just an homage to another film.

[Aris007]

Yes! The scene needed more time! The whole M-Bond dialogue is completely useless! Instead they should have both focused on Fields. It's like she's not in the bedroom! If M had come after Bond, things would have been different since she'd ask an explanation from Bond. In general Arterton was underused in the film! She should have taken a bigger part!

[pgram]

I think Fields and everything to do with her is one of the few missteps with QoS. It's like in previous films where they needed to squeeze in an extra plaything for Bond to seduce, and secondly to work in a nod to GF. I thought we'd expired all those types of nods way back with DAD.

She comes off alright. Seems to be a bit of a Goodnight at first, but holds her own nicely. But when she is found dead it's no surprise and I felt no real emotion over it. We know everything Bond touches turns to death already in QoS and Mathis' demise meant so much more. We didn't need the extra death of Fields to drive this home to the point of overkills (no pun intended).

Not to mention making her first name Strawberry didn't do anything but make it more obvious than it needed to be.

Perhaps they should have made Fields the girl in the hotel Medrano gets rough with. That would have made more of an impact and given Bond yet another reason to succeed and her death would have felt like more than just an homage to another film.

Absolutely agree. DAD-type nightmares re-emerged with the ''homage'' to GF. When you start paying homages to yourself, you admit you belong in a museum. I thought we had got rid of this stupidity, but I was wrong...

Fields could have been a far more interesting character, given more screentime. Your suggestion is interesting. What I suggested in my reviews was that she should be the Canadian agent; this way, Yusef would be more central to the plot, too, rather than what seemed like an afterthought.

[byline]

I'm fine with the amount of screen time the character receives, but feel there should have been extended camera angles of her body on the bed to give what happened to her more resonance.

[s.a.s. Malko]

I would have liked to have a bit more screentime with Bond and Fields together, thought they had a pretty good chemistry. Maybe they could have killed her and Mathis together so that Bond looses all his contacts at once?

That's pretty interesting, considering I just mentioned that in my 'How Would You Direct Quantum of Solace' thread. You and I seem to be thinking along the same track.

First time this here, then the second time on the "I want the NSNA collectors edition really bad" forum: Hmmmm, when it comes to Fleming, the third time is enemy action :-)

[MkB]

I would have appreciated it if Bond had touched Field's oild-covered body, and if he had considered with anger the stain left on his hand reflecting her death on his conscience, à la Lady Macbeth. It would have been a more original homage than the GF one, and would have served the purpose perfectly.

[Jeao007]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

[byline]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

I don't think that's true. He stops to tell M that Fields showed true bravery, and he wants that mentioned in M's report. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have said that.

[DaveBond21]

I would have liked to have a bit more screentime with Bond and Fields together, thought they had a pretty good chemistry

I agree, If anything, it would have been nice to have seen 5 more minutes of Fields and Bond together.

[Judo chop]

Fields’ character is handled perfectly.

She’s thin, and one gets the sense that she is deliberately and intelligently made to be so. More than merely being “just another Bond girl”, Fields is designed to represent “just another Bond girl”. And it’s a world of difference.

Likewise, Fields’ death is handled perfectly. If the application of any homage is automatically an unforgivable sin, then there’s no sense in starting a debate. If homages are allowed in any form, this is the form to copy from.

[Harmsway]

Fields’ character is handled perfectly.

Not in my book. She's criminally underused to the point of having almost no emotional impact on the film (while Bond's reaction to her death might have emotional import, her death, as it is, has none). And frankly, I think it's all a little unnecessary. And dull.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't need to hammer in the "sacrificial lamb" idea yet again, and we already had a pretty potent character death that should have been used in Field's stead: Mathis' departure, which is plopped very awkwardly in the middle of the second act, and is thus rather wasted (it has no real import on the story, when you honestly consider it). Now that was a relationship worth developing.

[Judo chop]

She's criminally underused to the point of having almost no emotional impact on the film (while Bond's reaction to her death might have emotional import, her death, as it is, has none).

She’s an homage. Not just in the manner of her demise, but in her being. I do believe that “no emotional impact on the film” is the intent. She represents the filler Bond girl.

And frankly, I think it's all a little unnecessary. And dull. QUANTUM OF SOLACE didn't need to hammer in the "sacrificial lamb" idea yet again…

I can’t help you there. As you said, that’s how it is in your book. I seem to be reading from a different book, one which dedicates an entire chapter to the character of Elvis, case in point.

Now perhaps QOS wasn't the best place for the Fields character since here it could appear redundant in light of the death of another of Bond’s cohorts. But at the same time, Mathis does not qualify as a sacrificial lamb in the way that Fields does. Mathis is a weathered, worldly agent, who probably has killed a few or more times himself. He’s no lamb and is too much of a person to do what the Fields character does, which is “nothing”. By design.

we had a pretty potent character death that should have been used: Mathis' departure, which is plopped very awkwardly in the middle of the second act, and is thus rather wasted (it has no real import on the story, when you honestly consider it). Now that was a relationship worth developing.

With one small edit, no arguments there. Thanks to the performances and better-than-most direction the scene in of itself is salvaged, but I have always agreed that their relationship warranted greater exploration, among other reasons, to give Mathis’ death more sting.

[Harmsway]

She’s an homage. Not just in the manner of her demise, but in her being. I do believe that “no emotional impact on the film” is the intent. She represents the filler Bond girl.

She can still be the "filler Bond girl" and mean more to the audience than she does. Heck, Solange's death in CASINO ROYALE is much more affecting than the loss of the very bland, undeveloped Strawberry Fields, and had the filmmakers wanted, Solange could just as easily have filled the same kind of role Fields does. Fields never really becomes anything resembling a person. With Solange, we at least get a brief sketch of who she is as an individual and what role she plays in life. Even if Fields is meant to stand in as the so-called "metaphorical filler Bond girl," more character definition would be appropriate.

But at the same time, Mathis does not qualify as a sacrificial lamb in the way that Fields does. Mathis is a weathered, worldly agent, who probably has killed a few or more times himself. He’s no lamb and is too much of a person to do what the Fields character does, which is “nothing”. By design.

Mathis, naturally, wouldn't fill the same role as Fields. But seeing as I find the role Fields plays unnecessary to begin with, well...

[PrinceKamalKhan]

I think Fields and everything to do with her is one of the few missteps with QoS. It's like in previous films where they needed to squeeze in an extra plaything for Bond to seduce, and secondly to work in a nod to GF. I thought we'd expired all those types of nods way back with DAD.

She comes off alright. Seems to be a bit of a Goodnight at first, but holds her own nicely. But when she is found dead it's no surprise and I felt no real emotion over it. We know everything Bond touches turns to death already in QoS and Mathis' demise meant so much more. We didn't need the extra death of Fields to drive this home to the point of overkills (no pun intended).

Not to mention making her first name Strawberry didn't do anything but make it more obvious than it needed to be.

Perhaps they should have made Fields the girl in the hotel Medrano gets rough with. That would have made more of an impact and given Bond yet another reason to succeed and her death would have felt like more than just an homage to another film.

Absolutely agree. DAD-type nightmares re-emerged with the ''homage'' to GF. When you start paying homages to yourself, you admit you belong in a museum. I thought we had got rid of this stupidity, but I was wrong...

Fields could have been a far more interesting character, given more screentime. Your suggestion is interesting. What I suggested in my reviews was that she should be the Canadian agent; this way, Yusef would be more central to the plot, too, rather than what seemed like an afterthought.

Good idea, pgram. I wish QOS had explored more of this aspect as well and would've had a greater connection to CR's events.

[Jeao007]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

I don't think that's true. He stops to tell M that Fields showed true bravery, and he wants that mentioned in M's report. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have said that.

Maybe that line shouldn't have been in the movie..I mean, what did Fields even do other than sleep with Bond and trip some guy down some stairs. I honestly don't know what was so brave about that.

Edited by JEAO007, 25 August 2009 - 03:37 AM.

[byline]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

I don't think that's true. He stops to tell M that Fields showed true bravery, and he wants that mentioned in M's report. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have said that.

Maybe that line shouldn't have been in the movie..I mean, what did Fields even do other than sleep with Bond and trip some guy down some stairs. I honestly don't know what was so brave about that.

She gave Greene nothing he could use against Bond and even managed to leave a note warning Bond before she, herself, was captured and killed. Given the fact that she had no training as an agent, I'd say that merits at least a small badge for bravery.

Edited by byline, 25 August 2009 - 05:11 AM.

[Double-Oh Agent]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

I don't think that's true. He stops to tell M that Fields showed true bravery, and he wants that mentioned in M's report. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have said that.

Maybe that line shouldn't have been in the movie..I mean, what did Fields even do other than sleep with Bond and trip some guy down some stairs. I honestly don't know what was so brave about that.

She gave Greene nothing he could use against Bond and even managed to leave a note warning Bond before she, herself, was captured and killed. Given the fact that she had no training as an agent, I'd say that merits at least a small badge for bravery.

But she had nothing to give Greene even if she wanted to. All she knew was that Bond was interested in him and Greene already knew that. She didn't know where Bond was going after the party and she didn't know what his future plans were other than to learn more about Greene. There's nothing there for her to be brave for. Granted, she did pass the note to the concierge and tripped Elvis, but those are an innocent bystander whose job it is to pass messages to hotel guests and the wimpiest Bond henchman ever, so how brave were either of those acts really?

[Judo chop]

Even if Fields is meant to stand in as the so-called "metaphorical filler Bond girl," more character definition would be appropriate.

I have to say I think that is necessarily not so. I think the more you make her a personality, the less she becomes the metaphor.

I think the writers’/Forster’s intention is to make Fields more about Bond than she is about herself. Upon her death, she is supposed to ‘blend in’ with the rest of them. To become... unmemorable. I suppose, with CR being the reboot and QOS being adventure #2 in Bond’s life, it can be said that she exists as foreshadowing in some sense. I look at Fields’ character and see the manifestation of Trevelyan’s comment to Bond in GE. The bit about “…the ones he couldn’t save”.

Yeah, Solange almost does the same thing, but I think she is a good example of a little too much personality to qualify as an empty, all-encompassing avatar. Plus, Solange wasn’t exactly ‘innocent’, either.

I find it’s a harder distinction to make between the original, Jill Masterson, and Fields. But I would argue that the dialogue exchange between Bond and M over Fields’ dead body is the deciding factor. Where Jill’s death is visually shocking, for that time certainly, but even now as well, there’s really no sense that it has affected Bond in any way. Even then, it doesn’t feel like the first time Bond’s advances on a woman have indirectly led to her death, or that Bond has learned any kind of a lesson. (And the scene in GE which tries to make something of those feelings comes off as a joke.)

I think QOS gets it right. In the hotel room it feels like the first time Bond has charmed an innocent and good-intentioned woman to her death.

[TraceyBond007]

Horrible. Horrible. Horrible. Same goes for the Original Posters script, and the Goldfinger homage.

[byline]

Well I think it's safe to assume that during the events of QOS, Bond is so Emotionally strained that he really cares little for what happens to people. I mean, he threw Mathis in a Dumpster for christ's sake. I honestly don't think he cared very much for what happened to Fields, and if he did he wouldn't make it obvious.

I don't think that's true. He stops to tell M that Fields showed true bravery, and he wants that mentioned in M's report. If he didn't care, he wouldn't have said that.

Maybe that line shouldn't have been in the movie..I mean, what did Fields even do other than sleep with Bond and trip some guy down some stairs. I honestly don't know what was so brave about that.

She gave Greene nothing he could use against Bond and even managed to leave a note warning Bond before she, herself, was captured and killed. Given the fact that she had no training as an agent, I'd say that merits at least a small badge for bravery.

But she had nothing to give Greene even if she wanted to. All she knew was that Bond was interested in him and Greene already knew that. She didn't know where Bond was going after the party and she didn't know what his future plans were other than to learn more about Greene. There's nothing there for her to be brave for. Granted, she did pass the note to the concierge and tripped Elvis, but those are an innocent bystander whose job it is to pass messages to hotel guests and the wimpiest Bond henchman ever, so how brave were either of those acts really?

But the thing is, Greene didn't know what she did or did not know, and she may well have pretended to know, but be unwilling to reveal, and that pause may have been enough to save Bond and Camille. Of course, this is pure conjecture on my part, but I do think the note reveals that she was thinking, and trying to protect Bond. Also, she didn't know what kind of henchman Elvis was; all she knew was that Greene sent Elvis after Bond, so she tripped him. For someone who is not trained in that line of work, I think that's bravery in the face of something completely unknown.

[TraceyBond007]

"His breathing increases in anger. BOND leans out of the window, to get some air. He sees many black vehicles pull up outside, people get out of them and head in the hotel. He turns to leave, takes one last look at FIELDS, then walks out of the bedroom."

Thats where the series has went wrong. I don't even care about Bond as a character, He doesn't need extra layers...

I just want action....

[byline]

"His breathing increases in anger. BOND leans out of the window, to get some air. He sees many black vehicles pull up outside, people get out of them and head in the hotel. He turns to leave, takes one last look at FIELDS, then walks out of the bedroom."

Thats where the series has went wrong. I don't even care about Bond as a character, He doesn't need extra layers...

I just want action....

And that's your opinion. As this thread alone demonstrates, there are many different opinions, many different expectations of who/what Bond is supposed to be. IMO (and also that of my husband), the series took a big step forward in developing the character enough that we care what happens to him. Different strokes, and all.

Edited by byline, 25 August 2009 - 03:05 PM.

[TraceyBond007]

And what's your opinion on the dire script idea leading this thread?

[Judo chop]

Fee, fi, fo, fnarr … I smell a redbarrrrr.

[byline]

And what's your opinion on the dire script idea leading this thread?

I don't have one. I happen to enjoy "Quantum of Solace" as it is.

[Loomis]

Even if Fields is meant to stand in as the so-called "metaphorical filler Bond girl," more character definition would be appropriate.

I have to say I think that is necessarily not so. I think the more you make her a personality, the less she becomes the metaphor.

I don't see why she can't be both. Why this either/or thing? Rocky Balboa is a "personality", but he's also a metaphor for the American Dream. Those are two major reasons why ROCKY works as a film. His personality is definitely more engaging to the audience than his status as a metaphor, although it hardly diminishes the latter.

But were he to be just a "personality", he'd have no Meaning™. On the other hand, were he just a metaphor, he'd just be dull and lifeless.

I think the writers’/Forster’s intention is to make Fields more about Bond than she is about herself. ... In the hotel room it feels like the first time Bond has charmed an innocent and good-intentioned woman to her death.

True. And that's all well and good. But it doesn't mean that they couldn't have afforded to make the character less bland.