81 replies to this topic

[byline]

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. 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.

True, but he's also the main character. Personally, I thought most of the supporting characters were very cardboard-ish and make Judo's point that they're really there to serve the motivations of the main character.

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.

I agree with that. Yet I also found her surprisingly endearing, given how little screen time she had. The little wink she gives at the party, things like that. I really didn't find her bland at all, and thought she was a vast improvement over many "sacrificial lambs" who have come down the pike over the years.

[Judo chop]

I agree with that. Yet I also found her surprisingly endearing, given how little screen time she had. The little wink she gives at the party, things like that. I really didn't find her bland at all, and thought she was a vast improvement over many "sacrificial lambs" who have come down the pike over the years.

And I agree with that.

In fact, I think we can say quite a few things about her, all of which kind of sum up the lambs of the series. She is brave; she takes it upon herself to trip Elvis down the stairs. She is obviously affected by Bond's persona and his rank and folds to his abrupt confidence and taste. But at the same time, she wears her own air of confidence in the way she withholds her first name from Bond as they enter the party. She is typically, slightly ashamed after sleeping with Bond.

But it’s important that she doesn’t get too involved in the investigations. She really can’t have a hand in the plot, or she loses her innocence and her sacrificial nature is itself sacrificed. I think she manages to ‘sum it all up’ and remain quite endearing, as Byline puts it. A perfect balance for what she is intended to be.

[Harmsway]

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.

Exactly, Loomis.

Frankly, I'd rather see a character that starts as a character and becomes a metaphor, than one that begins and ends as a metaphor. The latter is almost always uninteresting.

[Loomis]

I really have to laugh whenever QUANTUM OF SOLACE is held up as some kind of masterpiece of screenwriting, characterisation and subtle meanings. It's no better-written than MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II.

[Judo chop]

Because… the thing that she is metaphorizing is itself ‘uninteresting’. She represents the average, ‘bystanding’ victim of Bond’s reckless tastes.

In order to represent the average, she needs to BE average.

You two… what more would you like to have seen from Fields? What more exploration should her character receive that would not threaten her metaphorical nature*.
(*Which I am now assuming you agree is present.)

(EDIT: And please don't paint me with that wide of a brush, Loomis.)

[Loomis]

You two… what more would you like to have seen from Fields?

I'll let the Harmsmeister field that one. I'm sure I'll agree with him.

(EDIT: And please don't paint me with that wide of a brush, Loomis.)

I'm not painting you with anything, unless you'd declare yourself to be one of those people holding up QUANTUM OF SOLACE "as some kind of masterpiece of screenwriting, characterisation and subtle meanings". While I know that you like the film, I'm not aware that you've ever made any absurd claims on its behalf.

[byline]

I really have to laugh whenever QUANTUM OF SOLACE is held up as some kind of masterpiece of screenwriting, characterisation and subtle meanings. It's no better-written than MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE II.

I'm not sure who you're referring to here, but since I've defended Fields' characterization, let me say that I do not hold "Quantum of Solace" up as some sort of cinematic masterpiece. I enjoy the film, and I think the right choices were made (or, at least, they mostly feel right to me), but that doesn't mean I put it up on the same pedestal as "The Godfather" or other great films. I just happen to think it works, whereas you and others don't.

[Judo chop]

I'm not painting you with anything, unless you'd declare yourself to be one of those people holding up QUANTUM OF SOLACE "as some kind of masterpiece of screenwriting, characterisation and subtle meanings". While I know that you like the film, I'm not aware that you've ever made any absurd claims on its behalf.

There may have been something about the timing of your post which led me to believe it was directly pointed at me and my thoughts in this discussion.

If I was mistaken, I thank you, and my request remains active nonetheless.

[Loomis]

I'm not painting you with anything, unless you'd declare yourself to be one of those people holding up QUANTUM OF SOLACE "as some kind of masterpiece of screenwriting, characterisation and subtle meanings". While I know that you like the film, I'm not aware that you've ever made any absurd claims on its behalf.

There may have been something about the timing of your post which led me to believe it was directly pointed at me and my thoughts in this discussion.

It wasn't, although I can certainly understand why you suspected it may have been. My apologies.

If I was mistaken, I thank you, and my request remains active nonetheless.

I expect that Harmsway and/or marktmurphy will come in and answer your questions ("What more would you like to have seen from Fields? What more exploration should her character receive that would not threaten her metaphorical nature") better than I could. For the moment, though, here are a coupla things about Fields that annoy me:

- Her inexplicable animosity towards Bond and Mathis. Sure, I know that she's been (incredibly) assigned the task of shipping 007 home (which would be rather like sending Villiers to kill Jaws), but there's no need to be a stone-cold bitch about it.

- Her even more inexplicable willingness to go stationery-hunting with Bond ten minutes after meeting after him, after they've been sniping at each other the whole time. I get it: she fancies him. Not hard to believe. But I'd like her to have made him wait a little, at least take her out to dinner (while Mathis dines separately with his buddy the colonel).

- Her refusal to tell Bond her Christian name. Okay, it's Strawberry, but can't she use her middle name or have another name of her own?

Still, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

[Judo chop]

Her inexplicable animosity towards Bond and Mathis. Sure, I know that she's been (incredibly) assigned the task of shipping 007 home (which would be rather like sending Villiers to kill Jaws), but there's no need to be a stone-cold bitch about it.

Is that what you see? Really, really truly? I see a girl who knows she’s into a task well beyond her abilities, putting on a “show no weakness or he'll eat me alive” show. I find her bitchiness to be very explicable; it looks to me like a second layer of acting over a first layer. I’d call the performance quite good if not splendid. (Because I don’t use the word ‘splendid’ nearly enough.) But yes, her ‘task’ is a bit contrived. Can we not give the Craig era a little license to contrive?

Her even more inexplicable willingness to go stationery-hunting with Bond ten minutes after meeting after him, after they've been sniping at each other the whole time.

Ahem. She’s representing “The Average Bond Girl”, as I’ve been saying. This is what the average Bond girl does. (Or haven’t you noticed? )

Her refusal to tell Bond her Christian name. Okay, it's Strawberry, but can't she use her middle name or have another name of her own?

Again, this is all part of the homage. It’s supposed to pique our curiosity so we wait for the credits to find out she’s yet another Bond girl with a sensational name.
Plus, as I said before, this is a good character moment for her thanks to a fairly layered performance. She exhibits some real confidence/attitude, with a wink wink twinkle in her eye as she waits for the audience to pick up on the joke. Great scene, and one which I think stands as a rebuttal to the "she's got no personality" attack.

Still, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I guess so.

[byline]

For the moment, though, here are a coupla things about Fields that annoy me:

- Her inexplicable animosity towards Bond and Mathis. Sure, I know that she's been (incredibly) assigned the task of shipping 007 home (which would be rather like sending Villiers to kill Jaws), but there's no need to be a stone-cold bitch about it.

I didn't see this as animosity at all. She's an embassy clerk who's been sent to collect an MI6 agent and bring him home. She probably has no idea why she was given this assignment, but knows she must do it. (The reason, of course, is because M knows Bond quite well and knows he'd run, and likely escape, if she sent thugs to go get him. But she knows Bond can't resist an innocent, especially a lovely one, and so Fields is chosen for that reason.)

So, here she is, a clerk with no espionage training, who meets not only Bond, but also Mathis, whom she had no idea was going to be there. She's trying to play the cool, collected agent type. She even dresses the part . . . or, at least, what she thinks a cool, collected agent type would look like. (Hence, the trenchcoat.) She's trying to follow orders, but of course Bond thwarts her by changing hotels, and she knows she's being toyed with by two seasoned agents, so she tries to keep her guard up and keep from getting outwitted by them. She's frustrated, yes, because events she thought she was supposed to control are, instead, being controlled by them, and she doesn't really know what to do about it.

- Her even more inexplicable willingness to go stationery-hunting with Bond ten minutes after meeting after him, after they've been sniping at each other the whole time. I get it: she fancies him. Not hard to believe. But I'd like her to have made him wait a little, at least take her out to dinner (while Mathis dines separately with his buddy the colonel).

Well, if he asked me, I'd certainly go find the stationery for him. And pretty much anything else the man asked for.

Yes, the scene moves quickly. But we really don't know how much seduction took place before they got in bed together. We only see her smile, intrigued at what she knows is a line, and walking toward him to see what he's up to. It is her job to keep her eye on him, right? So I think she hopes if she plays along, then she's doing her job. But, of course, she didn't believe she'd completely fall for him, and that's what she's embarrassed about later. She hoped that she'd be stronger than that. But . . . it is Bond, after all.

- Her refusal to tell Bond her Christian name. Okay, it's Strawberry, but can't she use her middle name or have another name of her own?

I actually admired her taking a stand on that. She's knows he's going to make fun of her name; she's heard it a thousand times before. So she keeps that little secret to herself, figuring that he'll probably find it out later, but she wants to savor what they have right now, and she reserves the right to control what she wants to be called. So good for her. She insists on Fields, and Fields it is. I thought it was a deft bit of humor, and a nice piece of one-upsmanship on Fields' part.

Still, different strokes for different folks, I guess.

That's what it's all about.

Edited by byline, 26 August 2009 - 01:20 AM.

[DaveBond21]

Her even more inexplicable willingness to go stationery-hunting with Bond ten minutes after meeting after him, after they've been sniping at each other the whole time. I get it: she fancies him. Not hard to believe. But I'd like her to have made him wait a little, at least take her out to dinner

She's a British girl. They tend to sleep with men on the first date.

(sorry about the generalisations!)

[MkB]

Her even more inexplicable willingness to go stationery-hunting with Bond ten minutes after meeting after him, after they've been sniping at each other the whole time. I get it: she fancies him. Not hard to believe. But I'd like her to have made him wait a little, at least take her out to dinner

She's a British girl. They tend to sleep with men on the first date.

(sorry about the generalisations!)

So... why on earth did you move to Australia?!?


@byline: very good points, as usual!

[Harmsway]

You two… what more would you like to have seen from Fields?

I'll let the Harmsmeister field that one. I'm sure I'll agree with him.

Some shred of actual personality, that she was an actual human being.

"Ah, but your 'run of the mill disposable Bond girl' doesn't have any of that," I hear you cry.

Some don't. Some do have such hints, though, and thus still manage to be average. Why couldn't Fields still have something a bit more distinctive--share a touching anecdote with Bond about her childhood over a nice dinner, perhaps (and a dinner scene could allow Bond a character moment of his own)--and still represent yer 'run of the mill disposable Bond girl'? One can be both a real character and something of a metaphor. After all, it's perfectly fine for a character to play something of a metaphorical role while still not being an 100% perfect metaphor. It's just a matter of whether the truly essential parallels are in place, and I'm not convinced "blandness" is one of those absolutely necessary parallels.

But heck, even if it's not a character moment, I could have just gone for more of her with Bond. More charm. Corrine Dufour's death in MOONRAKER has more sting, and she's certainly no more of a character than Fields is. Y'know why? Because Corinne has more time to endear herself to the audience (her scenes with Bond are actually quite sweet, when you get down to it). Fields is so scarcely a presence in the film that she hardly manages to make much of an impact at all. Even slightly more empty romantic banter with Bond in the bedroom would have made a difference.

All that said, though, I'd sooner see Fields taken out of the film than I would see her improved. Even an improved Fields strikes me as a wholly unnecessary story element that does practically nothing. Can someone explain the allegedly "significant" character development Bond receives from Fields' death?

[byline]

Can someone explain the allegedly "significant" character development Bond receives from Fields' death?

I think her senseless death is one more element that draws him back into the here and now. He realizes now that he used her, and probably underestimated her worth. In hindsight, he wishes he could've prevented what happened, and the fact that he actually feels this is one more sign that he's healing from Vesper's death.

Of course, I'm reading a lot into some pretty rapid-fire reactions Bond shows upon walking in and seeing her body. But, you asked for others' take on this, and that's mine.

Edited by byline, 26 August 2009 - 07:44 PM.

[Judo chop]

But heck, even if it's not a character moment, I could have just gone for more of her with Bond. More charm. Corrine Dufour's death in MOONRAKER has more sting, and she's certainly no more of a character than Fields is. Y'know why? Because Corinne has more time to endear herself to the audience (her scenes with Bond are actually quite sweet, when you get down to it).

IF Corrine’s death has more sting (and I’m not sure I agree with that to begin with) I think it is only because of Gilbert’s fabulous direction in the scene, and very little (or nothing) to do with any prior character establishment. Yes Corrine is cute (in both ways), but the dog chase is simply a harrowing sequence wrought with fear, and would be an effective sequence no matter who you had running, whether it be Corrine, Pussy or XXX. In a battle of personality quotient, I think Fields comes off with more than Corrine even despite having less time to work with. Corrine is a ditz; probably too much of “yer typical Bond girl” for her death to be taken seriously.

I think Fields feels more like an ‘actual human being’ than Corrine. I do not think your idea re: adding a nice dinner w/Bond to enhance her character is a bad one, or that it would threaten her metaphorical nature. It’s a nice addition. But I would not agree that without it Fields is left without ‘a shred of actual personality’. Not at all.

I think she has exactly what you’re arguing for. A little personality – enough so that she is a person - without becoming so much an individual that it threatens her ability to become an homage to the disposable Bond girl.

[Tybre]

You two… what more would you like to have seen from Fields?

I'll let the Harmsmeister field that one. I'm sure I'll agree with him.

Some shred of actual personality, that she was an actual human being.

You and I must be watching very different films. I think Fields has plenty of personality.

[Judo chop]

Can someone explain the allegedly "significant" character development Bond receives from Fields' death?

I'm reading a lot into some pretty rapid-fire reactions Bond shows upon walking in and seeing her body.

Yeah, QOS does not take the time to spell anything out. The impact Fields' death has on Bond is all in Bond’s immediate reaction and short discussion with M. Narratively speaking, any such development is 'forgotten' after that, but I do not see that as necessarily a bad thing. (Do we really want it revisited?)

There’s a lot of reading-between-the-lines required to see any character development in Bond, but I do believe Craig packs in a lot of emotional punch in the short scene; from his expression to first seeing her dead body, to the way he quickly tries to rationalize her death, to the way M cuts him off and hammers home the reality that she was not at all deserving of her fate.

As I said, this scene really kind of establishes itself as being the FIRST TIME Bond has seduced and lured an innocent to her death. It reads like it, but better yet, it feels like it. IMO.

[Harmsway]

Yes Corrine is cute (in both ways), but the dog chase is simply a harrowing sequence wrought with fear, and would be an effective sequence no matter who you had running, whether it be Corrine, Pussy or XXX.

Naturally. But even if she died off-screen at some point, only to have Bond find her body, I still think I'd feel it more than Fields' death. I have no emotional attachment to Fields at all. Nor do I find her that attractive.

[Loomis]

I think Fields feels more like an ‘actual human being’ than Corrine.

Unarguably. But MOONRAKER is so much more entertaining a film than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (and in that context Corinne's death really stands out, possibly more than the filmmakers even intended it to do so) that her death has more impact.

By contrast, the doomandgloomfest that is QUANTUM OF OVERKILL has misery and angst and chest-beating in every frame (Christ, poor old Bond is even portrayed as an insomniac - whoever thought that would ever happen?*), and gruesome deaths and suffering aplenty (hell, it begins with innocent people mashed in a head-on collision and even regular members of the public get glipped in a gunfight**). How does what happens to Fields register at all?

*Although it would have fitted LICENCE TO KILL, admittedly.

**Touches I applaud, BTW, sadistic though it makes me sound.

[Judo chop]

I have no emotional attachment to Fields at all. Nor do I find her that attractive.

Perhaps if she were prettier then?

But MOONRAKER is so much more entertaining a film than QUANTUM OF SOLACE (and in that context Corinne's death really stands out, possibly more than the filmmakers even intended it to do so) that her death has more impact.

More impact on whom? You, or Bond?

Of course “you” is the only rational answer you can give. Not that I would say I don’t feel any pang of loss over Fields' death. I do. At least as much as I do for Jill or Tilly or Kissy or Plenty or Corrine or Elektra or Solange… and then some. But truly, insofar as Fields’ death is concerned, I’m more interested with how it affects Bond, as is QOS. That’s what QOS is; Bond being put through the ringer (and opening the door to Quantum a crack). It’s a 100 minute ringer. A baptism by fire. A gauntlet. And yes, it’s grim, as ringers often are. And no, it’s not MOONRAKER. I thought we established that long ago?

[Loomis]

Yes, but I care about Bond being put through the wringer and feeling things only insofar as those things also have an emotional impact on me, the viewer (a good example would be the torture scene in CASINO ROYALE). I don't give a damn how affected he is by, say, someone's death if I don't find the film engaging.

Take TWINE as an example (please, take it!): 007 is put through the mill, falling in love with and being betrayed by Elektra (well, that's what the script would have us believe, anyway). However, it all leaves me cold as a viewer, for it's not enough for a flick to be A Baptism By Fire™ or A Gauntlet™ - it must also work as a piece of drama, which, for me, QUANTUM OF SOLACE doesn't.

[Harmsway]

Yes, but I care about Bond being put through the wringer and feeling things only insofar as those things also have an emotional impact on me, the viewer (a good example would be the torture scene in CASINO ROYALE). I don't give a damn how affected he is by, say, someone's death if I don't find the film engaging.

Exactly.

[Judo chop]

Yes, but I care about Bond being put through the wringer and feeling things only insofar as those things also have an emotional impact on me, the viewer (a good example would be the torture scene in CASINO ROYALE). I don't give a damn how affected he is by, say, someone's death if I don't find the film engaging.

Exactly.

Exactly.

And for that reason it’s a good thing I feel Bond’s confusion, guilt and maddening frustration when he finds her dead.
And for that reason it’s also a good thing I feel the slight pang of injustice and loss over the death of an innocent and briefly charming girl, “at least as much as I do for Jill or Tilly or Kissy or Plenty or Corrine or Elektra or Solange… and then some.”

If the complaints against the meaningfulness of Fields’ death are only in relation to the meaningfulness of Vesper’s death, then of course I have to agree. Fields is not Vesper. But why QOS should be judged solely against its predecessor film is not something I understand. Looking at all of the girls who have died indirectly at Bond’s hands, I say Fields stands near the front of the line in terms of impact as a consequence of being a genuine character. And if she doesn’t, against whom does she lose? (Reminder: you can’t nominate Tracey or Vesper, because these are not mere “Bond girls”.)

Manner of death notwithstanding (only depth of character withstanding)… who cares that Plenty dies? Who cares that Tilly dies? Who cares that Kissy dies? Who cares that Andrea dies? Who cares that Solange dies even? What do any of these girls amount to? Who feels Bond’s loss (and, vicariously, personal loss) when they depart? I don’t understand the standard that, it seems quite suddenly, Fields is being held to.

I’m not making the case that Fields’ death is a tear-jerker. Just that it’s worth something because 1) the sacrificial lamb phenomenon which is a defining element for Bond finally gets addressed with some decent performances, and 2) she’s not made out to be so much of a person that it distracts from her vague, metaphorical, artful “The First Innocent Bond Girl Falls Victim” position, which I would argue seems to be the intent to begin with. It’s as if she’s getting devalued here because QOS tries to make something of her death. As if it’d be better if no attempt was made and it was CUT-TO-NEXT-SCENE as per standard operating procedure.

[DaveBond21]

She's a British girl. They tend to sleep with men on the first date.

(sorry about the generalisations!)



So... why on earth did you move to Australia?!?

They are similar....

[The Richmond Spy]

Fields' death is handled well. I feel as if her death is just part of the life Bond has chosen to live. He used her as a disposable pleasure and maybe felt a little bit of guilt as they never became too socially acquainted before it happened. Then, before he even gets a chance to talk to her privately again, she is found dead. It shows how anything Bond even briefly touches is a candidate for death...even if it's an innocent girl like Fields, who's immature actions on the stairs show just how inexperienced she truly was. Deep down, I don't think she had any clue what she was in. Sure, a little more development would've been nice, but I can say that in about 19 other instances through QoS. I'm not a big fan of the film, but this scene is quite fine as it is.

[DaveBond21]

even if it's an innocent girl like Fields, who's immature actions on the stairs show just how inexperienced she truly was. Deep down, I don't think she had any clue what she was in

Yes, but Bond was right when he said she showed true bravery. She was trying to help and got a bit excited.

[Mr. Blofeld]

So, you're slowly getting to liking the movie, Richmond Spy?

[Harmsway]

And for that reason it’s a good thing I feel Bond’s confusion, guilt and maddening frustration when he finds her dead.

I envy you. 'Cause I don't. But that's not so much a fault of the scene itself. It's more that I'm apathetic about Bond's journey from the get-go. By the time we get to Fields' death, I'm not involved enough to muster any real interest in what the hell Bond's feeling, or whether or not this moment is somehow poignant for him.

But why QOS should be judged solely against its predecessor film is not something I understand.

Because, strictly speaking, QUANTUM OF SOLACE is *not* BOND 22, nor does it feel like such. It's CASINO ROYALE II.

Who cares that Solange dies even?

::raises hand::

I don’t understand the standard that, it seems quite suddenly, Fields is being held to.

Because QUANTUM OF SOLACE isn't "just another Bond adventure." QUANTUM OF SOLACE has such pretensions to being dramatic, gritty, and, well, significant. You can feel it straining for that weight in practically every frame of the picture. And if you're going to go there, you sure as hell better deliver, because it sets up higher demands and expectations.

[The Richmond Spy]

So, you're slowly getting to liking the movie, Richmond Spy?

Hey, it's not healthy to loathe things for an extended amount of time! We probably have no less than two years from now until the next Bond film...sure, I know that is nothing compared to what we've dealt with in the past, but life is ticking!