|
 |
QOS = NEW COKE
by Paul Baack
Grade: B-
In 1985, during an escalation of the so-called ”Cola Wars,“ Pepsi Cola began to make significant inroads into Coca-Cola’s previously dominant market share. In one of the most famous marketing blunders in American business history, the latter company decided to change its unique formula, in order to better approximate the former’s much sweeter taste. New Coke, as it was called, was a stillborn disaster; while failing to convert any Pepsi drinkers, it completely infuriated Coke’s loyal customer base, who, at the time, thought that their beloved beverage was gone forever. In the staredown between Coke and Pepsi, Coke blinked -- and validated its competitor’s claim to being a legitimate contender. It’s fairly clear that the Eon Productions team has been observing the growing popularity of the Jason Bourne series; apparently, although I couldn’t say why, with some degree of alarm. Quantum of Solace, the 22nd James Bond film, looks like the result of their... blinking. Coming very close to throwing the baby out with the bathwater, it’s a James Bond movie that doesn’t look or feel very much like one. Philosophically, it reflects a more American attitude towards the notion of secret agents and intelligence services; that attitude being a mixture of cynicism, paranoia, and despair. There’s barely anything of the fantasy world of Ian Fleming here, even taking into account some necessary tweaking for the post-Cold War scene. Maybe the Brits feel the same way about MI5 and MI6 as we feel about the FBI and CIA, but that’s the real world, which has only a tangential relationship with the Fleming/James Bond universe. QOS is kind of like if the story of Ron Howard's Apollo 13 was instead told by the makers of The X-Files, and the celebration became a lamentation. Still and all, the problem isn’t with the script, which gives 007 and the British Secret Service some interesting things to do in the aftermath of the Le Chiffre affair, as detailed in 2006’s Casino Royale. We’ve got a suitably nasty primary villain; appealing Bond girls, on both the principal and sacrificial-lamb levels; a good enough semi-plausible plot; some very interesting locations; some really excellent dialogue (Bond’s scenes with M particularly crackle). Messrs. Haggis and Purvis & Wade -- good job, fellers. Thanks for your efforts. The acting, as we’ve come to expect with the likes of Daniel Craig and Judi Dench on board, is uniformly excellent. Jeffrey Wright and Giancarlo Giannini shine as allies of 007 -- beautifully fulfilling the traditional hail-fellow-well-met stalwart companion role, that we’ve previously enjoyed Pedro Armendariz and Topol in. Mathieu Amalric brings a I don’t know what more I can say about Daniel Craig, that hasn’t been already said. He inhabits the role the same way Sean Connery did -- I’m not 100% sure that that’s Ian Fleming’s James Bond up there on the screen, but I don’t care. He’s simply too compelling a 007 to not go along with. A key scene for me is when Bond is comforting a dying René Mathis. He doesn’t pretend that the situation is anything other than what it is; neither does he sentimentalize it. In a desperately time-sensitive situation, he’s willing to stay as long as it takes to see his friend through to the end; quietly joking with him as he’s soaking in Mathis’ blood. When Mathis is gone, 007 the professional secret agent unsentimentaly dumps the lifeless clay into a garbage dumpster, and takes what cash there is in his wallet. ”He wouldn’t care,“ Bond (correctly) surmises to the mortified Camille. The theme of Quantum of Solace is that ”the dead don’t care about vengeance.“ Craig’s Bond is learning that the dead don’t care about anything -- they’re dead, and that’s that. Wonderfully written and performed material. While on the subject of good things, David Arnold deserves kudos -- and our gratitude -- for putting the aural stamp of a real James Bond movie on this project. His QOS score is, I think, his most mature work to date. Tomorrow Never Dies’ music might be more fun for its sheer volume of Bondiness, but this score gives a deeper satisfaction, while containing enough of the trademark ”James Bond sound“ to tickle a fan’s fancy. As much as I respect John Barry and revere his contribution to the series, I don’t miss him anymore. I hope Arnold keeps this position for years and years to come. (And permanently given charge of the main theme song composition. The man clearly knows how to write a Bond tune. Working on their own, Sheryl Crow, Madonna, and now Jack White & Alicia Keys have hardly covered the series in glory. ’Nuff said, okay?) Let’s see, what else? Oh, yeah... it looks like the editing on this film was done by amphetamine-crazed monkeys. What’s come to be known as ”shaky cam“ can indeed be the correct aesthetic choice for certain types of material. Pictures like Cloverfield and The Blair Witch Project -- both of which I personally enjoyed -- are veritable Tilt-a-Whirls of vomitaceous filmmaking, but the technique makes sense in their faux-cinéma vérité artistic vision; the point is for the audience to be immersed in the character’s situations. More traditional narrative filmmaking requires (if the project is to be successful) that the audience can understand what’s going on. The Bourne films have been widely derided for this (ultimately) sloppy technique; a nice response to them, I thought, was this year’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls. Steven Spielberg is an expert at maintaining spatial relationships during action scenes; neither does his camera shake; nor does he hire teppan-yaki chefs from a Japanese steakhouse to cut the film. His action scenes excite audiences as few other director’s do, and his ”Indiana Jones“ movies are stylistically copied from the James Bond series. Does the student have to become the teacher? The closest cousin to the action film genre is the musical. Both forms’ raison d’être is the set-piece; the action sequence, and the music-and-dance number. If these things aren’t accomplished in an expert manner, then there’s no point to the movie’s existence. If you can’t see Jackie Chan fight or Gene Kelly dance, then why bother going to the movie? This kind of shaky/fast-cut technique might work for you if you’re trying to hide your performer’s physical inadequacies, but my gosh, if you’ve got Douglas Fairbanks or Bruce Lee or Fred Astaire -- or Daniel effing Craig -- you’ve got a rare opportunity to exploit your actor’s physical prowess and really ignite your audience’s enthusiasm for the experience. And then they’ll come back for more... I’m sure the producers are receiving the message loud and clear that the action scenes are difficult to follow, etc., and I hope they’ll learn from these messages and we won’t see this kind of crap again in future Bond films. For the life of me, I cannot imagine who, when viewing this footage, thought it was good. (Actually, I can imagine... cough, cough, MGW, cough... ). If Saturday Night Live wanted to do a parody of the Bourne movies, too bad, because Eon beat them to it. I can only assume that the people responsible are dadaists and not retards, and they thought this was really funny. Thanks for practically ruining a perfectly good James Bond movie, boys. At an estimated budget of US $225,000,000, I hope your little joke was worth it. For a faux Jason Bourne movie with nearly seizure-inducing editing rhythms, there’s still enough jamesbonderie here for me to give it a (generous) B-. I probably would’ve marked it lower, but I’ll accept a little coasting on the residual goodwill generated by the previous, and 10 times superior, Casino Royale. Get back to the drawing boards, folks -- once again. And this time, remember... you’re Coca-freaking-Cola!
Contact the Author: PAUL BAACK
|
 | Return to
HMSS on QOS HMSS FILMS SECTION HMSS CONTENTS |
