Production Designer - Peter Lamont

Agent Wade

Peter Lamont has learned from a definite master, the great Ken Adam. He's taken the overlyelaborate vaulting spacious places and managed to just fill up a little more and bring some more realism to the scenes.

Lamont will be putting his hand to work on Bond 21 now doing most likely everything that's built and maybe a few things that are not.

Though likely the famous casino will be his most expensive and provocative set piece in the film, is anyone looking forward to anything else in Casino Royale?

spectre7

That's the problem with Lamont - his designs are too realistic, therefore bland and unexciting. Ken Adam's amazing designs played a huge part in the early success of 007 movies.

Lamont should let himself go a bit crazy on CR. Bond fans demand it.

emtiem

A production designer's job isn't just to create big villains' lairs and I'm not sure a big crazy look will suit this- I'm sure it'll be a heightened reality but no modernist stages like Goldfinger etc. His team's work on Madagascar already looks pretty good- I'm sure he'll be earning his money on this one!

Gassy Man

spectre7 wrote:

That's the problem with Lamont - his designs are too realistic, therefore bland and unexciting. Ken Adam's amazing designs played a huge part in the early success of 007 movies.

Lamont should let himself go a bit crazy on CR. Bond fans demand it.

Yes, visually Lamont is bland! Ken Adam did a fantastic job not only of taking mid-century Modern (and Asian) design and running with it but setting the Bond films light years apart from others in production design. It's a shame that modern cinema spends so much money yet often looks so incredibly boring -- not just in the production design, but the actors, costumes, and cinematography, too.

superado

Thanks Agent Wade for starting this thread.

Ken Adam is definitely a tough act to follow. I for one could appreciate the oomph of the larger-than-life Bond sets, but I wonder if it will figure into the gritty direction of CR. I'd like to think that shooting some of the exteriors in Prague will extensively make use of the more interesting architecture of that city like what they did with Istanbul in FRWL.

Since Lamont's skills will be heavily involved in set design, I wonder if he'll be able to pull off something interesting looking and yet remain within the realistic feel they supposedly are shooting for.

Loeffelholz

I would think a key element of Lamont's sets will be the room in which the infamous carpet beater scene occurs. It should be a relatively small space, but IMHO they'd be wise to follow Fleming's lead in having the light from a single (uniquely shaped?) window tracking across the opposite wall.* A small and potentially unremarkable room can be tweaked and exploited to produce something cinematically memorable.

True, Lamont is no Adam. Giants in any profession are a rare breed; otherwise, everyone would be a giant. Unfair comparisons of later actors to Sir Sean also come to mind...

*I'm not saying, of course, that Fleming indicated that the window was uniquely shaped, but---like Adam before him---Lamont should feel free to use the source material as a springboard to something recognizable as 'Cinematic Bond.'

Agent Wade

That interrogation room scene from Dr. No comes to mind. Often times, simplicity works really well.

Gassy Man

Simplicity can work, but modern film styles, which are busy and show every nook, cranny, and blemish, often work against it. But I will say that something that's evocative, as opposed to simply "realistic," would be a welcome change from the simply gritty that dominates a lot of movie productions. I think the obvious place where the production can get stylish in this way is when showing the villain's home, as was the case in "Kill Bill, Volume 2." I wouldn't mind seeing them pull a "Dr. No," where until we get to the villain's lair, everything is pretty rough and atmospheric.

Agent Wade

Let's just say that if I see intertwining legions of Scottish pipers in an all-white room, there's going to be call for police escort to drag me from the theater after I start capping projectionists.

Loeffelholz

I absolutely agree that the interior of the titular Casino is extremely important---easily the most important set in the picture, IMO...'Madagascar' shantytowns and construction sites notwithstanding

The Casino Royale should be the most glamourous set in the picture---if not any picture released this year. It should summon up, and cater to, every daydream I've ever had about escapist luxury...all the better to juxtapose against the room in which Le Chiffre shows Bond the carpet beater...

Agent Wade

I'm resurrecting this post because it's a legitimate discussion aspect. Having seen the movie, I was blown away entirely by the beauty of places that were meant to be beautiful and mortified by that which was meant to cause incredible unease.

The biggest difference I see between Ken Adam and Peter Lamont is that Adam is a "bleak and bold" kind of designer whereas Lamont is a "stuff all over the walls" kind of decorator, designer. There was plenty to keep your eyes occupied in these sets. My non-fan friend noticed CR's on the windows of the casino that I never saw.

The torture set looked like a little better lit piece of wreckage dredged out of Silent Hill. It was disturbing to say the least.

Everything was so vibrant though, that is except for the first loo battle.

Other thoughts . . . :007)

VampiressRN

I think you have summed it up very well Agent Wade. I am eager to see it again on the big screen...I know I missed lot's of subtle things. That is what is so great about the Bond films....I never tire of looking for things I have missed over the years. CR will keep me busy for a while. The sets really did pull you into the right mood for every scene. :007)

Loeffelholz

Thanks, AW. It's interesting to see how expectations---8 months out---vary from the finished product. I always pictured the interior of the Royale as a much larger space (something more akin, perhaps, to what Ken Adam might have done)...and yet what they chose serves as an effective metaphor for the rest of the production---scaled-down, more true-to-life---though no less glamourous, to my eyes B-)

And the set where the torture takes place... Not even close to what Fleming envisioned, though no less effective.

My compliments to all involved {[]

blueman

Yeah, I thought it was very well envisioned, and for the most part not at all what I was expecting. Lamont's worlds always seem a little more human-sized...not a bad thing for CR. :007)

emtiem

So that big Piazza set in Venice... why did they build that again? It's onscreen for about ten seconds and they don't do anything they couldn't have done on location to my eyes. Was it just for the ending to the sinking scene on the roof?

Moore Not Less

This should interest you. It certainly interested me.

Peter Lamont comments about his work on Casino Royale's sets and locations. And also about his work on previous Bond films.

Casino Royale Production Designer Interview - Peter Lamont

http://www.mi6.co.uk/sections/articles/bond_21_peter_lamont_interview.php3?t=&s=

emtiem

He's 77?! I'd never have imagined that.