The Controversial Mathis Death Scene in Quantum of Solace (2008)
Silhouette Man
The last refuge of a scoundrelPosts: 8,845MI6 Agent
This thread is about a very specific scene in Daniel Craig's second James Bond film Quantum of Solace. It relates to James Bond's treatment of Rene Mathis in the film in the scene where Mathis is shot dead by the Bolivian policemen. Please read the excerpt from an article I wrote on 'Cubby' Broccoli in 2009, where I deal with this very controversial scene in BOLD TEXT:
"Broccoli, Saltzman and the scriptwriters incorporated the more unpalatable elements of the Bond character in the first film Dr No, in the scene where Bond shoots Professor Dent once in the front and then once in the back with his silenced gun (“That’s a Smith and Wesson, and you’ve had your six”, says Bond[17]). Professor Dent had already emptied the chamber of his own gun into Bond’s mocked up bed, and director Terence Young’s “preferred version had the unfortunate Professor being shot a further four times”[18] beyond the two shots fired by Bond in the finished film. Bond’s first screen kill was “cut down from the original at the behest of the censor.”[19] Although neither this scene nor the minor villain character of Professor Dent appeared in the original Fleming novel, of which the film is otherwise a faithful adaptation, it shows that from the very start the Bond producers were willing to follow Fleming’s advice of not always showing Bond in a heroic or particularly popular light. James Bond was first and foremost a government-sanctioned assassin with a licence to kill the enemies of the state in the line of duty, but he was conversely also a hero. Another clear example of this juxtaposition between the heroic, likeable Bond and the unappealing, cold and ruthless killer may be found in the most recent James Bond film, Quantum of Solace (2008), a post-Cubby Broccoli production, where Bond’s ally and friend René Mathis is shot and fatally wounded by enemy police officers. After a very poignant scene where Mathis’ life ebbs away in the arms of Bond, Bond takes his friend’s lifeless body and roughly places it onto a dumpster at the side of the road. Camille, his female ally, asks, “Is this the way you treat your friends?”, to which Bond replies that Mathis was “not the sort to care”.[20] As Bond and Camille walk to their Land Rover and drive away, the director’s camera lens stays purposefully on the shot of Mathis spread-eagled atop the skip. The purpose of this approach appears to be to point out to the viewer, “What sort of a man is James Bond to do such a thing with his friend?” The silent lingering of the scene is one of the most powerful statements (and indictments) that the film makes of James Bond as a character, yet none of this should come as a surprise to the reader of Fleming’s novels, as Bond does sometimes do inexplicable, and seemingly uncaring and inhuman things in them. However, from a practical point of view, the viewer might also consider that Bond is too practical an agent in the field to allow the death of an ally and friend to alter his determination to see the job in hand through and it was perhaps neither the time nor the place to be distracted by a corpse or to be overly sentimental. Robert Harling, a friend and wartime colleague of Fleming revealed the possible source for Bond’s sometimes cold and unfeeling character in a television interview in 2002. Harling referred to how Muriel Wright, a wartime girlfriend of Fleming’s had been killed in an air raid and its subsequent effect on Fleming:
“I said to Dunstan [Curtis, of Fleming’s wartime 30 Assault Unit] that Fleming had gone off to identify her. I said he was so cut up. Dunstan said, ‘Well, you know that’s one of the troubles with Fleming. You have to get yourself killed before his emotions are involved.”[21]
In these examples from the Bond films, it is clear that the spirit of Fleming still lives on in the film series that Cubby Broccoli more than any other helped to initiate and sustain, even after the departure of his partner Harry Saltzman following The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). Broccoli recounted in his autobiography how Fleming continued his detailed description of the headquarters of the British Secret Service, and his recommendation that it be located “on the entire upper floor of a modern block of offices with shops below”:[22]
Now that you've read this excerpt, I'd really love to hear your views on the Mathis scene ansd what it tells us about Daniel Craig's interpreation of James Bond. Does it send out a good message etc.?
I've always meant to start a thread on this and I'd really love to hear your views on this very controversial scene from QoS., which can be viewed on You Tube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5INLbmW-HVo
P.S. The full article can be read here:
http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/albert-r-cubby-broccoli-and-blueprint.html
"Broccoli, Saltzman and the scriptwriters incorporated the more unpalatable elements of the Bond character in the first film Dr No, in the scene where Bond shoots Professor Dent once in the front and then once in the back with his silenced gun (“That’s a Smith and Wesson, and you’ve had your six”, says Bond[17]). Professor Dent had already emptied the chamber of his own gun into Bond’s mocked up bed, and director Terence Young’s “preferred version had the unfortunate Professor being shot a further four times”[18] beyond the two shots fired by Bond in the finished film. Bond’s first screen kill was “cut down from the original at the behest of the censor.”[19] Although neither this scene nor the minor villain character of Professor Dent appeared in the original Fleming novel, of which the film is otherwise a faithful adaptation, it shows that from the very start the Bond producers were willing to follow Fleming’s advice of not always showing Bond in a heroic or particularly popular light. James Bond was first and foremost a government-sanctioned assassin with a licence to kill the enemies of the state in the line of duty, but he was conversely also a hero. Another clear example of this juxtaposition between the heroic, likeable Bond and the unappealing, cold and ruthless killer may be found in the most recent James Bond film, Quantum of Solace (2008), a post-Cubby Broccoli production, where Bond’s ally and friend René Mathis is shot and fatally wounded by enemy police officers. After a very poignant scene where Mathis’ life ebbs away in the arms of Bond, Bond takes his friend’s lifeless body and roughly places it onto a dumpster at the side of the road. Camille, his female ally, asks, “Is this the way you treat your friends?”, to which Bond replies that Mathis was “not the sort to care”.[20] As Bond and Camille walk to their Land Rover and drive away, the director’s camera lens stays purposefully on the shot of Mathis spread-eagled atop the skip. The purpose of this approach appears to be to point out to the viewer, “What sort of a man is James Bond to do such a thing with his friend?” The silent lingering of the scene is one of the most powerful statements (and indictments) that the film makes of James Bond as a character, yet none of this should come as a surprise to the reader of Fleming’s novels, as Bond does sometimes do inexplicable, and seemingly uncaring and inhuman things in them. However, from a practical point of view, the viewer might also consider that Bond is too practical an agent in the field to allow the death of an ally and friend to alter his determination to see the job in hand through and it was perhaps neither the time nor the place to be distracted by a corpse or to be overly sentimental. Robert Harling, a friend and wartime colleague of Fleming revealed the possible source for Bond’s sometimes cold and unfeeling character in a television interview in 2002. Harling referred to how Muriel Wright, a wartime girlfriend of Fleming’s had been killed in an air raid and its subsequent effect on Fleming:
“I said to Dunstan [Curtis, of Fleming’s wartime 30 Assault Unit] that Fleming had gone off to identify her. I said he was so cut up. Dunstan said, ‘Well, you know that’s one of the troubles with Fleming. You have to get yourself killed before his emotions are involved.”[21]
In these examples from the Bond films, it is clear that the spirit of Fleming still lives on in the film series that Cubby Broccoli more than any other helped to initiate and sustain, even after the departure of his partner Harry Saltzman following The Man with the Golden Gun (1974). Broccoli recounted in his autobiography how Fleming continued his detailed description of the headquarters of the British Secret Service, and his recommendation that it be located “on the entire upper floor of a modern block of offices with shops below”:[22]
Now that you've read this excerpt, I'd really love to hear your views on the Mathis scene ansd what it tells us about Daniel Craig's interpreation of James Bond. Does it send out a good message etc.?
I've always meant to start a thread on this and I'd really love to hear your views on this very controversial scene from QoS., which can be viewed on You Tube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5INLbmW-HVo
P.S. The full article can be read here:
http://thebondologistblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/albert-r-cubby-broccoli-and-blueprint.html
"The tough man of the world. The Secret Agent. The man who was only a silhouette." - Ian Fleming, Moonraker (1955).
Comments
Bond can be a cold SOB.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
1) Bond gets Mathis's money but leaves everything else in his wallet behind without even looking? Why? Watch the scene in slow-mo a couple times. Bond literally goes straight for the cash but doesn't even bother looking at anything else in Mathis's wallet. At the very least, cold SOB or no, Fleming's Bond would have gone completely through his wallet (or even flipped through it) as opposed to randomly grabbing a wad of cash. Without looking, who knows? Bond may have missed something important.
2) The music doesn't match the scene and seems out of place. It should change to cold and dark to match Bond's mood, rather than simply continuing on as it was when Mathis was dying. This, to me, just seems weird and upon seeing if youtube had it (they do) a few minutes ago, I played the scene both on mute and with the volume on normal. Guess what? I wasn't half as bothered by the muted scene as I was by the poorly-scored scene.
3) I think the reason this scene disturbed some people on the subconscious level is that only three films earlier in TWINE, you had a bad guy's body disposed of in basically the same way. Continuity reboot or none, odds are that you saw that movie as well and are thinking "WTF?" upon initial reaction. You can't help it. It's your subconscious mind. You can reconcile it if you make an effort, like I did, but think of it this way: did Bond dispose of an ally with a mercy kill by shooting him multiple times? For that matter, has he ever done so in a repeat of the series? No, so I don't think the DN analogy holds water.
Even putting Mathis's body into a culvert or storm drain would probably have helped (especially since he's less likely to be found there). I think timing was another factor in why this scene either was or came across as problematic. Still, I think the worst offense committed is the musical scoring of the scene. If you think that has no impact, watch virtually any dramatic movie scene muted and odds are you'll get a very different perspective of it.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Count me in, too. It's a stand-out moment that's perfectly in character. Shame to see the Mathis character die at all, though.
I was expecting someone to bring this up. If you want to make it look like a robbery, why don't you take the credit cards (and Mathis had some that were visible)? This is so basic regarding police methods that even as the son of a Manhattan ADA, you catch on that it's likely a poorly-disguised attempt to make it look like a robbery.
But that's my point. Brosnan is exceptionally cold when it comes to killing Davidov and disposing of his body; it makes it stick out. By doing the same thing three movies later only dialed back a bit with a good guy, odds are there's gonna be subconscious recall on the part of the viewer, like it or not.
Agreed on the music accompanying the scene - it just follows on from what went before! But perhaps, in so doing, it does suit the scene as Mathis' death seems to not register with James Bond. Perhaps he's "crying on the inside" as befits the macho man Conneryesque James Bond that he's playing here in QoS.
I think that there's a lot more to this scene than at first meets the eye. -{
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Exactly, the TWINE scene didn't register with me, either. It's been like years!
You've at least got my point now about the judgmental plan view camera angle here. It says something...and is thereby the most effective scene in the whole film. -{ It could be God, the audience or the director looking down upon Mathis' lifeless body.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
I did only say "some people", not all.
If the latter were the emotions he wanted to convey, I honestly think that by changing the soundtrack to almost an insecure/childish one or alternately slowing the score down for emphasis likely would have had more of an impact. The problem here is that in reconciling this scene (because I hated it at first), I came to the conclusion that Mathis's death really DOES register with Bond (for once) and that standing there and staring for a few moments is almost him trying to blot out the image/reconcile what happened in his own mind. For that to happen, you need to do SOMETHING with the musical score, else you risk some of the poorer musical bits that blunted Goldfinger in its more powerful moments near the very end.
Follow the example set either by On Her Majesty's Secret Service or even For Your Eyes Only (after the PTS, anyway). Although I don't even particularly like the latter film, I will say that it makes superb use of its musical score to emphasize moments that it wants emphasized, and aside from OHMSS is one of the better Bonds in this regard (sometimes even refraining totally from having any music when the scene "speaks for itself").
Someone better tell that to the crooks...I have the empirical data edge on you this time, chrisisall, sorry (as well as speaking with a few NYPD officers about this scene). If you find a body with cash stolen and credit cards intact, you might as well stick a red flag there with huge white print saying "this was made to look like a robbery but wasn't."
Yes, that's quite true, I'd imagine. Brosnan seemed quite blase about the death of villains. As Flemiing himself said, the heroes and villains are changing their parts so often nowadays. -{
The scene is controversial, but also judgmental. Look at how the camera stays on Mathis' body in the plan view end scene. Why? An indictment on the ice cold heart of James Bond - "Look upon his work. Not anyone to look up to, surely," it seems to me to be saying. It's almost as if the cautionary tale told by the police inspector at the end of the TSWLM novel has come to life more subtly in film. The whole TWINE thing is a red herring, an irrelevance. Bond shoots at people in other Bond films too; it doesn't mean that we recall these scenes for their similarities. The QoS scene is saying something to its audience - this version of James Bond is the true anti-hero of Fleming's oeuvre. Bond is not a likeable character here, as Roger Moore's Bond very often was - here he's seen as a jerk, mean spirited, careless, in sum what Fleming intended. A secret agent with ice in his heart and a dark profession. He's not someone you would immediately gravitate to in a room, quite the opposite of his creator Ian Fleming, of whom Roald Dahl said that there was "a great red glow" as he walked into a room.
Then explain to me why two people who do not know one another as well as myself seperately formed that opinion. It's not an irrelevance. You wanted possible explanations; rejecting them out of hand is what you seem to be doing.
But then why does Bond reflect on Mathis's death at all? If this is the point Forster is trying to convey, he conveys it pretty poorly, ironically. To me, Forster was trying (albeit with middling success) to convey that no matter what, Bond would not forget Mathis, contrasting his cold attitude, his insecurity, and yet some recognition that Mathis did something right for him.
Ever hear of convergent evolution? My guess is "probably". Although Daniel Craig read all the novels, Marc Forster hadn't read one by his own admission. How could he be making a commentary on something that he didn't know existed or would only have vague notions about?
Well, the TWINE scene never came to my mind. I kind of blank Brosnan's films. Any relation is surely pure coincidence, no? Yes, I see the links there, but try, if you will, to focus solely on QoS for a moment. The oil scene reminds one of the gold paint scene, too. I'm not saying you're wrong, just try not to think of the TWINE scene for a minute and hear out another argument.
It seems that Bond just compartmentalises grief away in an inner filing cabinet. He can grieve later, but on a mission, the job comes first. It's like Bond mutilating the body of a dead Russian soldier in John Gardner's The Man From Barbarossa (1991) - not very pleasant but he does it to make the Enemy think that he's dead. The same "live and let die" attitude reigns supreme here in QoS.
Yes, but didn't Craig help to write the script of QoS along with Forster. On Forster never having read Fleming, quite shockng and an indictment of the man. 8-)
Well thank yo for your agreement, Blackleiter.
Relation from one movie to another? Obviously a coincidence. But in the human mind? Nope. However, you're asking me what I found problematic with this scene. You initially said this...
You never once said before this post to basically ignore every other Bond film ever made. You asked, I answered, and I'm not sure you like my answer judging by your response to it, even though you said you'd "love to hear [everyone's] views". Well, you heard mine and you're now saying they don't count because I invoked another Bond film, either consciously or subconsciously. Therefore, I can only conclude that you didn't really want to hear anyone's views except unless they were in at least relative alignment with your own, which I find unfair. If you're going to ask a question like that, then state it in the original post. Just my two cents.
That's a possibility, but...
Sorry, but I don't think this is called for, especially since you misunderstood me. I basically posed the question to you "how does anyone make a commentary on anything they've never read/seen/heard/whatever and absolutely nail it?" In other words, to do the impossible. That's why I invoked convergent evolution (of the character) as a possible explanation.
QOS is was a Friend. As I've stated in the Past.
If you can Imagine Bond Dumping the bodies of Quarrel or Kerim Bey
In to a near by Dumster, Then the scene is Fine with No Problems. If
on the other hand you think of Bond regarding Friendship very highly
The scene is jarring.
As whith all things Bond there is NO right or wrong answer, Simply
how you Feel about the scene.
I think I see your point, but if so, it's not well-thought-out. It's still the same film franchise, continuity reboot or none. You didn't reject Dr. No when that came up and even expounded on it. But logically, as per this line of thought, it would be totally irrelevant. Therefore, all points you made in relation to it are irrelevant. Heck, what does Harry Saltzman have to do with the reboot, either? Wouldn't he be irrelevant under this line of thought, too? Honestly, I think you're starting to travel down a road you're probably not going to want yourself on...
Furthermore, who do you think sees new Bond movies? Usually fans before the reboot. And why are they discussed on the same forums and threads as pre-reboot Bond movies? Because they have the same fanbase. In short, it has nothing to do with the film's timeline, the reboot, or anything else. It is a coincidence of the subconscious mind that has an effect; if it didn't, then no one on the planet would ever link the two. My bottom line is this: the human subconscious was not rebooted with the franchise.
Yes, but when you've linked the two scenes in TWINE and QoS respectively, what's the significance exactly? That's what I don't get about your viewpoint. Perhaps you can help me see this...?
One deals with Bond dumping an enemy, the other deals with Bond dumping a friend. Yes, the dumper retakes the stage for a cameo comeback appearance, but there the similarities very much end, I think.
Abso-bloody-exactly.
There's a reason I said that a culvert or even a storm drain (i.e. a sewer!) would work better than a dumpster. The entire point of the scene is either one of two things: how Bond overlooks death, or alternately how it starts to affect him. I agree with you in the sense that Forster's main focus was to show that Bond was not a nice guy. Where I disagree is that, friend or enemy, there were just too many parallels between the two scenes. Brosnan's throwing Davidov in the dumpster was SO crass and unthinking that it was almost as if he was going out of his way to humiliate Davidov. Although that's obviously NOT what the rebooted Bond was going for, it struck a chord here. Or, as my friend put it, "what's wrong with having him just drag him behind the dumpster?"
You're right in the sense of "that's what the filmmakers almost certainly intended". But in the sense of "what comes to your subconscious mind when you think of Bond, a dead man, and a dumpster?" it varies on the individual. And the fact that I was able to find two other people who thought the location being chosen as a dumpster was bad (as well as my father, who disagreees BUT can see where I can make the connection and can see where other people can make the connection) just reinforces the fact that it isn't just me. I only asked eight people and two said yes, it bugged them and reminded them of TWINE. Too small a sample size admittedly to get a solid reading on what everyone thinks? Obviously. But two of eight? I'm guessing there are more.
Incidentally, my father's two problems with the scene were its musical score ("you might as well have a record scratch when he tosses him in the dumpster") and the fact that Bond didn't so much as flip through Mathis's wallet ("Now they KNOW it's badly-covered-up murder made to look like robbery.").
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS
Knowing that guy, Mathis might still be alive. Or maybe Bond betrayed and murdered him. Or maybe he was Bond's father.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.GF 4.GE 5.DN 6.FYEO 7.FRWL 8.TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT/QOS