Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Jun 24, 2010 0:38:34 GMT -5
I think I can answer Tom and Derrick's question of how could they make such a great film and then completely fumble the ball with the sequel. And I think the blame lies with the person who wasn't involved with Casino Royale -- Marc Forster.
I think with Forster, you've got a director who a) lives in this snobby world of "high art cinema" and b) flat-out couldn't give two shits about Bond, despite whatever lip-service he may pay the franchise in interviews. I think he views the character and the series as a relic that has no relevance, which is why he's always taking stabs at the conventions of the film and trying to change them. It's no coincidence that, along with the numerous problems in the film, it strips away a lot of the conventions of Bond. We never get the classic introduction. When the theme is used, it's so subtle that it may as well be nonexistent. The credits sequence doesn't open with the gun barrel sequence. Even when he orders his signature drink, Forster can't even bring himself to allow Craig to simply order a martini shaken, not stirred. Instead, they have him already drinking it and when Mathis asks what he's drinking, Bond has the fucking bartender explain it.
And here you have a guy who has no clue how to direct action movies, so what does he do when he gets the job of directing an espionage/action film? Does he take a cue from the brilliant direction in Casino Royale courtesy of Martin Campbell? No! He goes to the horrid, god-awful direction of the latter Bourne films, courtesy of Paul "I Have No Idea What A Tripod Is" Greengrass. And probably because Greengrass did something "different" with the action movie -- he made it incomprehensible. And having dealt with a lot of film snobs, I know for a fact that so many times, they'll equate incomprehensible with genius and sophisticated. "This makes no sense, I have no idea what the fuck is going on, so it MUST be high art."
I get this impression of Forster not only from his horrid direction of the action scenes, not only for his intentional efforts to muddy what is at its core a very basic story, not only for, as Tom pointed out, the fancy title cards and the use of local flavor to try and add more "sophistication," but also because in interviews when talking about the scene when Fields is found dead and covered with oil, what does he say? He says (and I'm paraphrasing here):
"I wanted to make a statement that oil has become so valuable to us now that it is the new gold. So I felt referencing the scene from Goldfinger and substituting oil was a good way to illustrate how the world has changed."
IT'S A FUCKING ACTION MOVIE FOR CHRISSAKES!! Instead of just saying, "oh the oil scene? Yeah, that's an homage to Goldfinger," he had to come up with some "deep" explanation it that's about as deep as the water in my toilet bowl (and full of a lot more shit).
Apologies for the rant. But this movie DID have a lot of potential. It could have been a great addition to the franchise if it was just handled better. But instead, what was a simple story idea that made sense in the real world and could still have been really fascinating for a Bond film becomes almost incomprehensible. I saw this movie twice in the theaters and didn't understand it. Then on a fourteen hour flight from Korea to Chicago, I saw this movie three times because there was nothing else worth watching on the in-flight entertainment. Only after I landed did I finally figure out just what the hell was going on.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think a prerequisite for directing a Bond film should be to have actual AFFECTION for Bond.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 24, 2010 6:19:10 GMT -5
I think when he's on the plane Bond is drinking what he dubbed a Vesper in the previous film.
The scene at the opera, where Quantum discuss "pipelines" and "our most precious resource" as well as Green's plot overall, is meant to convince us that the scheme is about oil. The bait-n-switch payoff is when we find out -- aha!, this actually all about water! Unfortunately, this "clever" twist, is just buried -- pun intended. Then when Bond sees Fields covered in oil and M says "You still don't think this about oil?" -- Bond knows it isn't, and makes no effort to make the case, because, oh yeah -- he's "off the grid" and can't explain anything to M even when they're both in the same room. Easier to kick the shit out my MI6 colleagues in an elevator, escape and go it alone.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 24, 2010 8:04:00 GMT -5
If you want to see an excellent "art house" Bond film, try Jean-Luc Godard's Alphaville, his version of a Lemmy Caution movie (and I can't recommend it highly enough). I suspect that if Quentin Tarantino had been given the keys (and full creative control) to make a Bond film, it probably would have resembled Alphaville much more than Casino Royale (Tarantino is a serious admirer of Godard's).
I have no idea what Marc Foster thought about the Bond franchise, and I have no idea if he's a snob, but I don't consider him a great "art house" director like, say, David Lynch or Werner Herzog. He makes middlebrow, pleasantly unexciting movies that aspire to be "meaningful," just like Merchant and Ivory used to. Man, I wish Quantum really did try to challenge the conventions of the Bond film (the way Inglorious Basterds did with the WWII film), but it doesn't, really. Especially given that it lifts ideas from previous Bond films (revenge from For Your Eyes Only, manipulating the value of a commodity from Goldfinger, etc.) It's just not very good.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 24, 2010 14:04:42 GMT -5
Let's please not let Tarantino anywhere near a Bond film. Three great films and it goes to his head. Mr. Pretention/I only do homages will be another nail in the coffin.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 24, 2010 17:02:56 GMT -5
Let's please not let Tarantino anywhere near a Bond film. Three great films and it goes to his head. Mr. Pretention/I only do homages will be another nail in the coffin. Quentin Tarantino had the most exciting idea for a James Bond movie I've heard in years: he wanted to film CASINO ROYALE in period and in B&W. I'd have pushed an old lady in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs to have that movie made.
|
|
|
Post by james on Jun 24, 2010 17:52:19 GMT -5
Quentin Tarantino had the most exciting idea for a James Bond movie I've heard in years: he wanted to film CASINO ROYALE in period and in B&W. I'd have pushed an old lady in a wheelchair down a flight of stairs to have that movie made. I doubt it would happen (although you never know). The Bond films are producer driven, which is why a director like Tarantino or Spielberg, who would demand creative control and have a specific vision, wouldn't be offered the job. The same thing was true of the Planet of the Apes films; the controlling force on those was the producer, Arthur P. Jacobs. James
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 24, 2010 18:21:14 GMT -5
Derrick, I agree with you in concept. In fact I would love to see the whole series redone, in period, chronologically. But, Tarantino would have fucked it up. He has let his own rep and cutesiness overshadow and bury the material. I do not want post-JACKIE BROWN Tarantino anywhere near Bond. Speilberg would probably be worse. Scorsese I would take a chance on.
Could someone tell me how the hell to put the previous posters quote excerpts in a box like you guys do?
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 24, 2010 19:46:16 GMT -5
But, Tarantino would have fucked it up. He has let his own rep and cutesiness overshadow and bury the material. I do not want post-JACKIE BROWN Tarantino anywhere near Bond. Could someone tell me how the hell to put the previous posters quote excerpts in a box like you guys do? After INGLORIOUS BASTERDS, QT can do no wrong. I would have gone in for his period Bond in a heartbeat. Fortunately, he's supposed to be working up an epic adaptation of Len Deighton's GAME / SET / MATCH. Click on where it says "quote' on the right side of that person's entry in the field with the thread title.
|
|
|
Post by Eddie Love on Jun 24, 2010 20:03:04 GMT -5
I think with Forster, you've got a director who a) lives in this snobby world of "high art cinema" and b) flat-out couldn't give two shits about Bond, despite whatever lip-service he may pay the franchise in interviews. I don't have any problem with the film's pretensions, which are pretty clear, and in some spots effective. I like that the film begins and ends with Bond driving around with someone in his trunk, and the juxtaposition of that foot race getting started and Bond taking off after Mitchell the mole, works. Where this gets heavy handed is at the opera where Tosca's killing Scarpia is inter-cut with the gun battle with no sound, as the action in the opera doesn't compliment at all what we're watching, and we've seen this a million times anyway. No, what bugs me is how clumsy Bond's motivations and actions are in the plot as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 24, 2010 20:23:54 GMT -5
I think I can answer Tom and Derrick's question of how could they make such a great film and then completely fumble the ball with the sequel. And I think the blame lies with the person who wasn't involved with Casino Royale -- Marc Forster. I think with Forster, you've got a director who a) lives in this snobby world of "high art cinema" and b) flat-out couldn't give two shits about Bond, despite whatever lip-service he may pay the franchise in interviews. I think he views the character and the series as a relic that has no relevance, which is why he's always taking stabs at the conventions of the film and trying to change them. It's no coincidence that, along with the numerous problems in the film, it strips away a lot of the conventions of Bond. We never get the classic introduction. When the theme is used, it's so subtle that it may as well be nonexistent. The credits sequence doesn't open with the gun barrel sequence. Even when he orders his signature drink, Forster can't even bring himself to allow Craig to simply order a martini shaken, not stirred. Instead, they have him already drinking it and when Mathis asks what he's drinking, Bond has the fucking bartender explain it. And here you have a guy who has no clue how to direct action movies, so what does he do when he gets the job of directing an espionage/action film? Does he take a cue from the brilliant direction in Casino Royale courtesy of Martin Campbell? No! He goes to the horrid, god-awful direction of the latter Bourne films, courtesy of Paul "I Have No Idea What A Tripod Is" Greengrass. And probably because Greengrass did something "different" with the action movie -- he made it incomprehensible. And having dealt with a lot of film snobs, I know for a fact that so many times, they'll equate incomprehensible with genius and sophisticated. "This makes no sense, I have no idea what the fuck is going on, so it MUST be high art." I get this impression of Forster not only from his horrid direction of the action scenes, not only for his intentional efforts to muddy what is at its core a very basic story, not only for, as Tom pointed out, the fancy title cards and the use of local flavor to try and add more "sophistication," but also because in interviews when talking about the scene when Fields is found dead and covered with oil, what does he say? He says (and I'm paraphrasing here): "I wanted to make a statement that oil has become so valuable to us now that it is the new gold. So I felt referencing the scene from Goldfinger and substituting oil was a good way to illustrate how the world has changed." IT'S A FUCKING ACTION MOVIE FOR CHRISSAKES!! Instead of just saying, "oh the oil scene? Yeah, that's an homage to Goldfinger," he had to come up with some "deep" explanation it that's about as deep as the water in my toilet bowl (and full of a lot more shit). Apologies for the rant. But this movie DID have a lot of potential. It could have been a great addition to the franchise if it was just handled better. But instead, what was a simple story idea that made sense in the real world and could still have been really fascinating for a Bond film becomes almost incomprehensible. I saw this movie twice in the theaters and didn't understand it. Then on a fourteen hour flight from Korea to Chicago, I saw this movie three times because there was nothing else worth watching on the in-flight entertainment. Only after I landed did I finally figure out just what the hell was going on. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but I think a prerequisite for directing a Bond film should be to have actual AFFECTION for Bond. Spoken like a man who knows what the cuss he's talkin' about.
|
|
Dino
Full Member
Tai-Pan
Posts: 166
|
Post by Dino on Jun 25, 2010 4:22:37 GMT -5
I agree completely, he's not a great art house director. But I'd bet my entire DVD library (and that's a lot of DVDs) that he believes himself to be a great art house director. That's what I've noticed about film snobs -- they're the most conceited bastards on the planet. And judging from Forster's comments about Bond and the way he (mis)handled this movie, I'd say he's pretty damn conceited and thinks he's "above" the Bond franchise.
I've heard this argument about Tarantino so many times and for the life of me, I have no idea what the basis for it is. I have never gotten the impression from Tarantino that he's pretentious. He's always just been out to make movies that he wants to watch and he's always been very vocal about the fact that he loves paying reference to the films he grew up with. I don't see how that's pretentious.
And I love post-Jackie Brown Tarantino. If he ever releases Kill Bill: The Whole Bloody Affair, I'm positive it'll be my favorite film he's ever done.
Thanks Derrick. As always, your positive comments are the highest praise I could receive.
|
|
|
Post by Derrick on Jun 25, 2010 9:48:04 GMT -5
This is not going to be a surprise to anybody that I'm in agreement with Dino on the Tarantino thing. I've never once gotten the impression from him that he's pretentious. Quite the opposite: QT knows very well that he's making popcorn/pulp entertainment. But he's determined to make the best popcorn/pulp entertainment he can. He never once tries to con his audience into thinking he's making High Art. But due to his commitment to making movies he himself loves and would want to see, he comes a helluva lot closer than a lot of other directors I could name.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 9:54:18 GMT -5
I guess we see it the way we see it. I see a definite change in his work after JACKIE BROWN. At that point I stopped enjoying his films, gone was the biting, smart dialogue and deep characterization. In it's place I found "clever" in-jokes and in your face stylistic references to past genres. That would be fine if I still saw that early brilliance underneath, but I don't.
I find very few (very few!) films made past the early '80s that deserve to be called great. Probably less than 20. Tarantino was responsible for at least two of those. Hence my heartfelt disappointment in his later work.
|
|
|
Post by smang12345 on Jun 25, 2010 12:02:35 GMT -5
I find very few (very few!) films made past the early '80s that deserve to be called great. Probably less than 20. Tarantino was responsible for at least two of those. Hence my heartfelt disappointment in his later work. What else would be on your list cause I have a pretty long list of great films made since then.
|
|
|
Post by grubl on Jun 25, 2010 13:53:27 GMT -5
Without getting into my long diatribe about the reasons why, (studio strong arm tactics, the fundamental dip in maturity in our country,etc). Here is a quick list of great American movies (I could make a seperate list of foriegn films) after1980 (this is nowhere near complete, and I'm not including merely good films). I've been called arrogant and biased and been told I'm living in the past quite enough for views on the subject, so no need to pile on. I call it as I see it :
RAISING ARIZONA FARGO MOONSTRUCK SLING BLADE PULP FICTION RESERVOIR DOGS BLADE RUNNER ALIEN HANNAH AND HER SISTERS CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS SHORT CUTS THE PLAYER GOODFELLAS THE UNFORGIVEN SOMETHING ABOUT MARY THIS IS SPINAL TAP BEST IN SHOW MAGNOLIA BOOGIE NIGHTS DO THE RIGHT THING UNBREAKABLE THE REMAINS OF THE DAY BLUE VELVET HENRY, PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER DIE HARD MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING STAR TREK 2, 6 and FIRST CONTACT plus many documenmtaries.
Okay, more than I had thought, and I have about ten that are borderline. But, for sure, gone are the days of the innovative silent pioneers, the grand studio films, the noir films, the fantastic maverick films of the '60s and '70s. I blame two great movies, STAR WARS and JAWS for the fall. Pre-1981, going all the way back to the '20s, I can probably name at leats 5 great films a year. Too manmy films are considered great becauseof the "coolness" factor, or for pure smugness in dialogue and humor. Also, the "everything that you thought you knew was a lie" in itself is not enough to qualify a film as great (see THE SIXTH SENSE, FIGHT CLUB, THE USUAL SUSPECTS, MOMENTO, SHUTTER ISLAND, etc.).
|
|