question for the experts
Richard--W
USAPosts: 200MI6 Agent
Why does Bond throw the body of Mathis into the dumpster?
Isn't that a bit much?
What is he thinking?
What does this say about Bond?
Richard
Isn't that a bit much?
What is he thinking?
What does this say about Bond?
Richard
The top 7 Bond films: 1) Dr No. 2) From Russia With Love. 3) Thunderball. 4) On Her Majesty's Secret Service. 5) For Your Eyes Only. 6) The Living Daylights. 7) Licence to Kill.
Comments
Maybe worried about crows or foxes or something having a peck or a nibble?
PS - you clearly have too much time on your hands Richard W. My excuse is that I am at work.....!
But as with everthing I'm sure some Love this scene.
I think that's about as good an answer as you'll find... -{
I understand why Bond does this, but I find it uncomfortable too. It's just the producers', director's and writers' way of banging home the point. I feel they catered the two films for an audiance bereft of sense and concentration. It's too visual (all films are visual, but there is no room here for interpretation). The dying scene could have been shot and the next scene could have been Bond and Camille driving down the road. Mathis is dead - we would have all known that.
http://apbateman.com
I agree. it only made any sense to me if Bond still suspected Mathis of duplicity. If this was the case it is in character, if not it's just plain wrong. What makes Bond a Hero in DN is the cold and claculating killing of Dent, and the genuine regret and compassion for Quarrel. This comes out even more strongly in the novel (DN) as Bond reproaches himself because Quarell's trust in Bond " was greater than his fear of the Island" Bond is not and never should be just a 'blunt instrument' if he is he is not worthy of our interest as Diamond hard bully-boys are ten-a-penny.
The fact that we can still debate this is either evidence that QOS is indeed a sophisticated, complex, and demanding addition to the series, or that it is a confused and confusing, ill conceived mess of a Bond Film. You pays your money and...
I think there is ample evidence in this scene that Bond is anything but callous or uncaring. Just the opposite, in fact. And I think that is exactly what the filmmakers are trying to tell us.
The first clue is the look Bond gives Camille when she tells him there is a hospital on the other side of town: hopelessness.
Then Bond holds Mathis in his arms and does his best to comfort him as he dies. Hardly uncaring. Should we really believe he changes into a callous ba$tard in the next five seconds?
Once Mathis is gone, Bond knows what he has to do (operationally) to buy time by delaying the discovery of the body and making Mathis's death appear like a mugging gone bad. But he hates it. Watch his face after he drops Mathis's body into the dumpster and Camille asks "Is that how you treat your friends?" His eyes and mouth during the pause that follows tell the true story, not the throwaway words that come after.
We're not used to subtlety in our Bond movies, but that's what we get in this scene. We're being asked to distinguish between what Bond does and what he feels. He does something cold because he has to. That doesn't mean he likes it or that it represents his true character.
Another clue is the music playing as all this unfolds - it's not like they broke out the Bond theme and tried to make this appear heroic.
So why not skip the dumpster bit completely and just cut to Bond and Camille driving away? That would be the easy way out, wouldn't it. Personally I'm glad to see the film makers deal with some of these details rather than glossing over them - it makes for a more interesting (and, I suppose, more controversial) character and movie. Much better than just seeing Bond straighten his tie and drive away. Yawn.
If they're banging home a point, it's the point that this is a dirty business and sometimes you have to do things you're not proud of.
Given zaphod's options, I'll pick "a sophisticated, complex, and demanding addition to the series." And flawed in several ways too, no doubt, but this scene, in my opinion, is brilliant.
If nothing else, it makes for an interesting debate during the interminable wait for Bond23.
"Mr. James?" the man smiled thinly. "I'm Colonel, let's say - er - Johns."
http://apbateman.com
If he is "cold" enough to kill someone in cold blood in the course of his job then he has trained himself to be "cold"enough to accept the death of s friend.
i really think that DC bond portrays what you would imagine a MI6 agent with 007 status would be like, how ever unpalatable and callous it may appear to some people.
First, there was no need to stage a robbery by tossing Mathis into the trash. The cops were in on the scheme and Bond realized it when he says something like why do they want me to open the trunk. Maybe Bond needed money but still putting Mathis in the trash afterwards? Mathis is the guy who helped Bond in Casino Royale, Bond then falsely thinks he is a traitor (and gets him tortured most likely), then asks for his help, and gets him killed in the process. Throwing Mathis in the trash is like saying this guy has no more use to me regardless of Daniel Craig's acting after the fact. There is just no need for the scene.
No...Mathis WAS a traitor....he says so as he dies...
Wide open for interpretation, Sir Miles.
The scene left me wondering wildly when I first saw it and continues to intrigue me:
"Do we forgive each other?"
Mathis can forgive Bond because he falsely accused him of being a traitor- torture and recompensation next on the menu.
But why should Bond forgive Mathis?
If it's because he's a traitor the whole dialogue doesn't make any sense: Mathis forgives Bond for being tortured and branded a traitor but Bond is supposed to forgive him now for being exactly that? *goes cross-eyed*
The scene is deep and strange and beautiful.
And maybe, just maybe, you're completely right, Sir Miles.
The thought though creeps me out and would add another layer to Casino Royale.
And that's a layer cake all by itself.
Craig pun intended
-Carole Bouquet
Upon reflection it probably isn't overly clear cut either way
But why would Mathis be a cover-name ?
Because Mathis is a spy in a more realistic spy movie. However, I seriously hope it doesn't reference the fact that the Die Another Day director and maybe others feel that the James Bond name is a cover name...
Ouch.
Good point.
-Carole Bouquet
Actually, now that I had a moment to think, why shouldn't he have a cover-name?
Bond met him as a "contact", his liaison- Mathis sure as heck didn't work/live in Montenegro under his real name.
Too easy to track his past, his connections, too easy to uncover who he actually was.
Bond asking him if the name he called him by is a cover-name makes the scene even sadder, along the lines of:
"I don't even know your real name while you're dying in my arms."
Did I mention that I love that scene?
Now even more, I guess.
Great discussion!!
-Carole Bouquet
Hmmmm....
...neither Bond or Vesper had a cover name for working with Mathis (they did have for the Casino showdown, but that was for the card game only - wasn't it ?
You're right, neither Bond nor Vesper have a cover name when contacting Mathis, they aren't the liasion, they are field agents on a single mission- Mathis though isn't a direct operative; he was planted in Montenegro by MI6, and previously planted in South America as we learn in QoS.
If a secret service plants a contact man somewhere, to keep tabs on the local intelligence scene so to speak, I don't think they would send you and etablish you there under your actual real name.
And hey, "convoluted" is what lets CR and its follow-up shine
-Carole Bouquet
Wouldn't it be rather stupid to send two field agents (whom are probably known by the enemy) to contact a guy whose identity you are trying to keep secret ? Once contact had been made the enemy would try and find out all about the other person....Mathis knew who to keep tabs on (hence the arrest of the Police Chief)...wouldn't that suggest they would know who he was anyway..?...and MI6 has never been brilliant at keeping out moles at the best of times
The MI6 set-up was for a Mr Beech and a Miss Broadchest ("No, I'm not!"
The basic idea or hope was that the enemy doesn't know (yet) who Bond is.
Bond though, dismissed the whole cover-idea as stupid.
And rightly so- as you pointed out too.
Bond entered the stage as Bond- and not as Beech.
Mathis was on stage already- with that exact name.
Basically, Bond only knows Mathis under that name- whatever his real name may be.
But just as you, Sir Miles, I may have all this wildly wrong ;p
-Carole Bouquet