What's going on with GoldenEye's storytelling and style?
heartbroken_mr_drax
New Zealand Posts: 2,073MI6 Agent
Chucked on Goldeneye the other day and what struck me is that the storytelling is very drawn out, visual, deliberate, linear and slow. The first 3/4s of the film is made up of long drawn out scenes where what's contained within them could be completed within half the time and are so laborious that it comes across as way too much exposition.
Some of it works well, like daytime scenes in Monaco on the water and stealing the Tiger. But others don't, in particular the Servanaya scenes. Especially how long we spend on introducing characters, kinky passwords, stealing the Goldeneye cards, killing everyone, blowing the place up etc.
Is this an attempt at giving Goldeneye a deliberate, perhaps mid-90s European spy feel (Mission Impossible, Ronin, Leon etc.) to give itself a totally different vibe to anything that came before it. Maybe a slower burn more classy attempt at a Bond film? Or is it actually a bad screenplay, terrible story, bad characters and bad directing?
It gives a unique vibe that isn't present in any of the other Bond films - seeing stuff this drawn out. On one hand that's cool and perhaps the early 90s vibe will age well (presently I think Goldeneye is aging poorly). On the other hand Goldeneye feels slow, off-pace and at times just odd as a packaged up movie. On recent viewings I've felt that the movie doesn't fully hit its straps and the pace picks right up when they find the dish in Cuba.
Perhaps we're just accustomed to Bond films being punchier - but this bothers me more and more over subsequent viewings.
"Better make that two."
Comments
GE isn't any slower than any of DC's last three movies. It is positively express train compared to SP and NTTD which dawdle in the mid-part interminably. IMO it has aged rather well and identifies its characters strongly - with one exception - compared to its immediate predecessor which does no such thing with any character [Sanchez excepted]. Even these slow sections you mention are perforated with snippets of action and intrigue that keep the audience watching and wondering. For me, the film becomes less interesting in Cuba when it reverts to a fairly standard Bond film climax of infiltrate and destroy, not helped by some heavy handed humour. Everything in each earlier scene of GE becomes relevant as the story progresses, so it's a well-knotted film. I do agree that it lacks sufficient economical pacing throughout and stop-starts a lot. The biggest issue for me is with the role of Zuchovsky, which is poorly conceived and utilised. As an introduction to a new James Bond it accomplishes the mission more than acceptably. Just my opinion, mind.
^ Yes I am not saying that hitting its straps post Cuba indicates any increase or decrease in quality - it just returns to a much faster pace where it feels like something is actually going on.
" I do agree that it lacks sufficient economical pacing throughout and stop-starts a lot." I think this is my point really. I am not saying that within these scenes that nothing happens, they're just structured and paced in a way that feels like scenes could portray what they want to portray in a much more efficient manner. But perhaps the decision was a clear stylistic decision (like lots of long shots, panning shots, limited soundtrack).
"Better make that two."
I'd agree Goldeneye has pacing and structural issues. it seems to consist of a halfdozen setpieces that go on for a long time, usually until everything blows up real good. The scene at the satellite control station in particular reminds me of one of those Patrick Troughton era Doctor Who stories where theyd save budget by building one big set and let the cybermen attack it for six episodes straight. A lot does happen in that scene, three major characters are introduced, as well as the evil satellite and villains plot. and then everything has to blow up real good which takes a few more minutes (and Bond and M are somehow coincidentally watching it all live on a LanSat feed)
the tank chase also goes on for a long time, so as much property as possible can be destroyed before getting on with a story, but thats a problem with all Brosnans films and several of Moores as well. (the long drawn out motorcycle chase in Tomorrow Never Dies is actually my favourite part of the film)
but all this is better than films like SkyFall or SPECTRE, where CraigBond escapes the villains headquarters without even trying in the space of 15 seconds and then theres another 45 minutes back in relatively boring London.
At the time director Martin Campbell said he'd sat down and watched the previous Bonds and complained that in a lot of them, they were slow and took a while to get going. This is true but it's apples and oranges. The whole Die Hard thing introduced the action film that is basically an extended chase scene - Terminator is the same, then again so is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, or The 39 Steps. Bond has pacing issues compared to those movies because you have more of a plot, then a romance, you have to hit those beats and I think Campbell struggled to do that. I mean, Mission Impossible which of course came along after GE is largely a chase film of sorts, it's a pacey one-issue movie anyway.
For me, the film never felt comfortable in its own skin and Campbell was more used to doing TV dramas anyway. His stuff doesn't particularly charm - I'm not sure it's supposed to, it's about grit and action - and the problem with slowing down a film like that is it does help if you can charm, or have a charming style I should say.
Roger Moore 1927-2017
Can you have too much exposition about kinky passwords?
I think I have skipped the Severnaya bit quite a few times when I've rewatched it. Much like the sinking of the Devonshire in TND, although to a lesser extent. The 'baddie plan' bits are often some of the duller bits (crashing the Vulcan, raiding the lab in NTTD).
the last time I watched Never Say Never Again, I realised the hijacking sequences was one of the bits that was really improved in the remake, its quicker and quite visually exciting (we get the "missiles eye view" as they are diverted after being launched). Definitely the original was a boring bit in Thunderball, only redeemed by Barry's music.
and of course this is actually very relevant here as these early scenes in Goldeneye are yet another variation on that plot, more loosely reimagined (specifically Xenia hijacking the helicopter, and she is playing the Fiona/Fatima role)
Yeah I agree NSNA does improve on that: it's snappier and more exciting. There are a few areas where I do find NSNA is better over Thunderball.
Goldeneye?
Are we talking about this?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097446/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_3_tt_7_nm_1_q_Goldeneye
Roger Moore 1927-2017
God, I hope not.
I've amended that.
A lot of GE comprises set piece dialogue scenes with the new Bond talking to interesting characters in turn or with them talking to each other. But it's all punctuated by violent action so there's an edgy sense of danger to that dialogue. Then there are the extended action sequences which buttress the structure of the whole film. For me, GE would be an ideal structural template for the next Bond film, which will also have to introduce a new OO7.