Quantum of Solace (2008) 37

Hi Ken,

Thanks for the kind comment – do you know, I was also scratching my head as to who the treachorous CIA chap reminded me of, and you have definitely hit the nail on the head with Mr Kidd. And, as far as *that* reference goes, you are also spot on – yet, despite the fact they were numerous, didn’t all the nods work so much better than when they last tried it (with crass reference after crass reference) to celebrate 40 years of Bond, in Pierce Brosnan’s appalling final installment, Die Another Day (2002)?

Was wondering whether to mention the Goldfinger set piece in my review, but decided against it – the image is so striking, in its rejuvenated form, that I wanted to leave it as a surprise for as many viewers as possible.

Well, we have Craig for at least two more movies, as per his contractural agreement – hooray say I!

Thanks again – nice hearing from you.

Dear Chris,

Words fail me – thanks SO much for your great comment. As you will see, I have returned the compliment to you in our latest post, which will hopefully draw more of the world’s attention to your great rebuttal of Mr (Matthew) Bond’s inept drivel. Muchos kudos, right back atcha!

My Son Chris,

Go-est thou in peace, and fretteth not thine pretty little head over that which concernest thou not.

If thou gettest it not, thou art simply all that I presumethest thou to be – that is to say, a mere dullard who thinkest that The Bodyguard (1993) is not all that it is crackethed up to be. Or something.

But, I feeleth sure that thou will liketh Quantum of Solace - having saideth that, there truly est no acounting for taste…

Care to be a little more explicit, CD, as to why you’re not happy?

From back to front, then – I agree that it is quite right-wing, but I found that to be a refreshing, almost Dirty Harryesque development of the character.

Emotional weight? Perhaps. Although I enjoyed the film, I also found it rather lacking in ‘soul’, so to speak.

Don’t agree with you concerning Craig’s performance, however – and can you be more specific as to what you thought the ‘post-production interference’ might have been?

Cheers.

Tony (again),

And your website is looking very pro, all of a sudden. Nice one.

Cheers, Tony. I assume you are refering to mine and Colin’s part-ownership of Together – quite a step, but I have put too much work into it to allow it to slip through my fingers, and it’s excellent to be working with Colin in this way.

I’ll speak to you soon, I am sure. J

Oh and, by the way, for the millions of people who have found Picturenose via the Google search terms (i) ‘evil organization in James Bond movies’ and (ii) ‘should my 10-year-old son see Quantum of Solace‘, the answers are, respectively (i) (previously) ‘SPECTRE (Special Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) and (now) QUANTUM (doesn’t stand for anything, yet) and (ii) yes, absolutely. I thank you.

Dear Chris,

And my response is as follows:

“With a record-breaking £50 million of its budget coming from product placement alone, ‘Bond Too’ offered a fascinating insight into where Bond shops but not much by way of character or plot.”

At the risk of being obvious, I don’t think you’re right with this point. Perhaps you were looking for ‘product placement’, as opposed to paying attention to the film? Doubtless, you will now be able to point out dozens of PP moments but, in all honesty, this aspect washed over me – I was too busy enjoying the film.

“It has a corporate advertising silver-blue sheen, where everyone remains beautiful no matter how much rough and tumble they endure. It’s a bit like trying to soften the edges of a grungy rock song by pairing up with an R’n’B singer. Now, I thought this was what the producers were moving away from, rather than towards. In Casino Royale (2006), the punches hurt and Bond was somewhat vulnerable because of his moral doubt over the violence in which he became complicit. I know that Casino Royale was about how Bond became Bond, and so now he is Bond, but since QofS begins only a few moments after CR, he has made a suprisingly large ‘quantum’ leap to über-Bond. He’s been ‘re-Bourne’ as a super hero who offs his victims with the merest pout. So, to Mr Craig. Daniel has two basic modes as far as I can tell – vulnerable and beef-cake. By slicing away vulnerable, the writers have halved his range. While M might be in some doubt as to whether he is just out for revenge, by the look on his gently protruding lips, the audience are never in any and so the ‘what motivates Bond?’ sub-plot never really takes off.”

Here, I am really not sure what you were expecting from Craig Part Two – while the character’s moral doubts and vulnerability were what made Casino Royale such an outstanding reboot to the franchise, never forget that the story, while updated, was essentially faithful to Ian Fleming’s original. Casino Royale the novel ends with the line ‘Yes, I said was – the bitch is dead’, indicating that the 007 has indeed completed a very swift character arc in terms of his attitude to women, after being betrayed by Vesper Lynd – an attitude that continues until he makes the mistake of falling in love in OHMSS, with all the tragedy that this brings. And so, my point? If you don’t like the fact that Bond is no longer vulnerable, I’m sorry, but his vulnerability was only one facet of his character, one that was quickly hardened by his life as a gun-for-hire – an aspect of the Bond persona that I believe QofS combines very well. Let’s face it, we can’t very well have Bond going to see his counsellor to help him deal with his grief issues, now can we?

“But the most serious gripe is this – it was glum, James. My better half commented – perhaps unfairly – that Craig looks ugly when he smiles. But she does have a point, and I think the producers sympathize with that view, because I could swear that he doesn’t smile once. In my humble opinion, superheros can be mean, they can have a dark side, they can be bitter and twisted, heck, they can even be plain evil if you like … but glum? I’m sorry, but I just don’t think the ’sulky superhero’ is a good look for Bond.”

Glum?
It’s defined as:
1. Moody and melancholy; dejected.
2. Gloomy; dismal.

Now, how are any of these reactions not appropriate to a man who is getting over the death of his love? Forgive me, but your criticism of this aspect of the film seems to be a direct contradiction of your point about Craig’s range being halved? So, is he vulnerable, or isn’t he, in your opinion?

I await the continuation of this fascinating discussion.

Hey Chris,

Point taken. It’s just a damn shame (not even with the franchise ‘reboot’) that the Broccoli empire seems unprepared to remake some (if not all?) of the original novels in a faithful fashion. For example, although I concede that Lazenby was a somewhat bland Bond when compared with Connery, I still feel that On Her Majesty’s Secret Service (1969) is without doubt one of the top three Bond films of all time (From Russia With Love (1963) and Casino Royale being the other two), and the reason for that is very simple – it was near-enough absolutely faithful to Fleming’s original, and had the element of tragedy that every subsequent Bond (with the exception of Casino…) made reference to. The follow-on (in literary terms) was in fact You Only Live Twice, which went very deep into the agony that Bond was suffering in his bereavement which, I also concede, QofS does not, apart from showing him getting very drunk on Vesper martinis.

My reasons still stand as to why I enjoyed it, but I am glad to have heard your take on why you felt it wasn’t up to snuff.