But what I saw on Craig's face wasn't indifference, or boredom---it was, primarily, concern about getting it over with---and a hint of pity behind an outward mask of indifference, which speaks to the layers of Bond's evolving character. Some might well say I'm all wet on this, and fair enough, but that's what I saw. And the scene does also go to the heart of Bond's licence to kill. All the same, I can see the point of those who'd rather get back to escapism -{
I know I'm replying to an ancient post, here, but I can't help but describe what I saw in that scene. To me, it was aversion. He was looking away from the dastardly deed he was performing. He wasn't bored, or preoccupied, but simply averting his eyes to the scene beneath his hands - the brutal killing of a man. He didn't want to look at it, and instead looked up and away.
That's what I got out of it. And it didn't seem out of the Fleming character, if you ask me. In the opening passages to Goldfinger, Bond is haranguing himself over his hand-to-hand-killing of a nameless Mexican street-hit-man. Bond's not an emotionless robot - he's a man; a tough, ruthless, man; but he is affected by what he does.
Yep. I'd say largely to it's own fault QoS is the most misunderstood/misinterpreted Bond film ever. Everything isn't quite laid out in front of the audience. Leaving room for interpretation, and making the viewer put the pieces together. Hence the love hate between people that can enjoy the change and those that have no use for that in a Bond film. Add the dizzy shaky cam that upsets some peoples eyes and stomachs and QOS gets shunned.
QoS isn't perfect, and like the 21 Bonds before it, could've used some rewrites here and there. I like it alot myself and it sits well inside my top 10.
Yep. I'd say largely to it's own fault QoS is the most misunderstood/misinterpreted Bond film ever. Everything isn't quite laid out in front of the audience. Leaving room for interpretation, and making the viewer put the pieces together. Hence the love hate between people that can enjoy the change and those that have no use for that in a Bond film. Add the dizzy shaky cam that upsets some peoples eyes and stomachs and QOS gets shunned.
QoS isn't perfect, and like the 21 Bonds before it, could've used some rewrites here and there. I like it alot myself and it sits well inside my top 10.
Yep. I'd say largely to it's own fault QoS is the most misunderstood/misinterpreted Bond film ever. Everything isn't quite laid out in front of the audience. Leaving room for interpretation, and making the viewer put the pieces together. Hence the love hate between people that can enjoy the change and those that have no use for that in a Bond film. Add the dizzy shaky cam that upsets some peoples eyes and stomachs and QOS gets shunned.
QoS isn't perfect, and like the 21 Bonds before it, could've used some rewrites here and there. I like it alot myself and it sits well inside my top 10.
I always slightly resent the veiled assertion that those of us who dislike QOS are somehow just not up to the job of dealing with it's sublety and nuance.
"I'm with you all the way" zaphod -{,
Only the those truly chosen can Truly see, the rest of us just have to muddle through. )
Because we're all as thick as S**t. ) apparently 8-)
Luckily we have many enlightened members who'll stear us right. :v
It somehow smacks in the face of what's now coming out from those involved in QOS. Craig says there was trouble with the script, Marc forster has said the way it turned out, It wasn't the film he wanted. Yet, without even trying they ( To Some, at least )
have made a Masterpiece, Go figure.
Mabey for Bond 23 they should try and get a Bad script, an Arty Director, a camera man with epilepsy ( juding from the camera work ) mix in a few missing "insert" shots and stand by for another "Masterpiece" ), which will have to be explained to us "less Informed on the aspects of Film story telling", sublety and nuance is lost on us. ).
Oh, I'm so upset I'm off to watch Rocky IV, and see if I can work out all the subtle nuances in Mr Stallone's performance.
"I've been informed that there ARE a couple of QAnon supporters who are fairly regular posters in AJB."
Haha. Why so defensive you two. I didn't say you couldn't grasp it. I said some don't want it in a Bond film. Clearly two different things. Don't be so hard on yourselves.
And also rewrites should be called for Bonds 1-21 as well. It's not a big deal unless it's an entry you hate. Then omg what a mess, how could they let that happen?
I always slightly resent the veiled assertion that those of us who dislike QOS are somehow just not up to the job of dealing with it's sublety and nuance.
Amen to that Z -{ . You can have the most nuanced film in the world AND if it is a weak film, it's a weak film. There were some things about QOS I liked. I think the whole Tosca scene will go down as a classic Bond scene for years to come. I also like Bond being skunked on the plane. But imho not only is the main villain WEAK, but so are his henchman. ) ( Elvis, really )
I also thought Foster made Olga look about as unsexy as possible, and she is a knockout. How could he make her so unglamorous. B-) As for the editing, well, lets just hope we DON"T have a repeat of that crap in anymore films. Some of the fast cutting could have worked, BUT it was just TOOOOOO damn much.
All in all I thought it was quite a letdown after a film as GOOD as CR
Cheers fellow Bond geeks, only another year till we get to dissected a new Bond film
{[] {[] {[] While we wait have a pint on me
Sir MilesThe Wrong Side Of The WardrobePosts: 27,746Chief of Staff
I always slightly resent the veiled assertion that those of us who dislike QOS are somehow just not up to the job of dealing with it's sublety and nuance.
I'm not sure it's been put exactly like that...but similar...
I've posted before that people whom don't like QoS may not 'get' the subtlety....not that they don't understand it...it's all about personal choice and how you are made up as an individual...not that those people 'lack' anything...it's just how you, as an individual, enjoy/process certain films...there is a difference -{
No doubt there are films that those people like that I don't, and films we would both enjoy equally...sometimes the subtlelty will be lost on me...it's not a personal slight at all...
I could imagine Craig's 'aversion' in a film like The Wild Geese but imo QoS needed more of that as well as a French Connection type vibe, actually that might have been what they were aiming at in some respects, but it had too many nods to previous Bond films, it was still too cute and not quite raw or credible enough to make that scene work imo, it's a tad out of context and gets misread.
Comments
I think you nailed it there...spot on.
QoS isn't perfect, and like the 21 Bonds before it, could've used some rewrites here and there. I like it alot myself and it sits well inside my top 10.
great post...i agree.
I always slightly resent the veiled assertion that those of us who dislike QOS are somehow just not up to the job of dealing with it's sublety and nuance.
Only the those truly chosen can Truly see, the rest of us just have to muddle through.
Because we're all as thick as S**t.
Luckily we have many enlightened members who'll stear us right. :v
It somehow smacks in the face of what's now coming out from those involved in QOS. Craig says there was trouble with the script, Marc forster has said the way it turned out, It wasn't the film he wanted. Yet, without even trying they ( To Some, at least )
have made a Masterpiece, Go figure.
Mabey for Bond 23 they should try and get a Bad script, an Arty Director, a camera man with epilepsy ( juding from the camera work ) mix in a few missing "insert" shots and stand by for another "Masterpiece"
Oh, I'm so upset I'm off to watch Rocky IV, and see if I can work out all the subtle nuances in Mr Stallone's performance.
And also rewrites should be called for Bonds 1-21 as well. It's not a big deal unless it's an entry you hate. Then omg what a mess, how could they let that happen?
Some like QOS and some Don't. -{
Now back to Mr Stallone's Marvelous Preformance.
Amen to that Z -{ . You can have the most nuanced film in the world AND if it is a weak film, it's a weak film. There were some things about QOS I liked. I think the whole Tosca scene will go down as a classic Bond scene for years to come. I also like Bond being skunked on the plane. But imho not only is the main villain WEAK, but so are his henchman.
I also thought Foster made Olga look about as unsexy as possible, and she is a knockout. How could he make her so unglamorous. B-) As for the editing, well, lets just hope we DON"T have a repeat of that crap in anymore films. Some of the fast cutting could have worked, BUT it was just TOOOOOO damn much.
All in all I thought it was quite a letdown after a film as GOOD as CR
Cheers fellow Bond geeks, only another year till we get to dissected a new Bond film
{[] {[] {[] While we wait have a pint on me
I'm not sure it's been put exactly like that...but similar...
I've posted before that people whom don't like QoS may not 'get' the subtlety....not that they don't understand it...it's all about personal choice and how you are made up as an individual...not that those people 'lack' anything...it's just how you, as an individual, enjoy/process certain films...there is a difference -{
No doubt there are films that those people like that I don't, and films we would both enjoy equally...sometimes the subtlelty will be lost on me...it's not a personal slight at all...
Roger Moore 1927-2017