Originally, I was amused by the name Quantum of Solace. (Admittedly, I was hardly alone in this.) Then I heard that there was a new villainous organization in this new Bond film, that it had actually been hinted at in Casino Royale, and that the title reflected the name of this new organization. And I thought "well, that could work… SMERSH, SPECTRE, SOLACE. Kinda has a 'Bondian' ring to it. (And, if I stretch my brain far enough, I can find a way to make "Quantum of Solace" make sense, if the bad guys are now SOLACE.) However, a few months ago I read in a preview article that the new organization is actually "QUANTUM", and that the producers have no idea what the name means. (I guess it just sounded cool at the time.) Of course, now we're back to square one, where the title of the movie is, if possible, even MORE meaningless than when it was announced. After all, a quantum of the organization SOLACE could, I suppose, mean something. But if the bad guys are QUANTUM, then what the hell do you do with that 'of Solace' in the title?
So I resigned myself to ignoring that particular conundrum (much as I'm attempting NOT to try and rationalize the title of the new "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" movie — trust me, you don't want to go there) and just enjoy the new Bond film.
And, for the most part, I did. I don't think this one's as good as Casino Royale, but that may have as much to do with the fact that Casino had all that "NEW" stuff going for it (new Bond, new attitude, etc.) as it does any failings of the script. I think there was less 'spy' in Bond this time around, as he goes 'off the reservation' once again (another potential Bond cliché in the making), but the action was right up there (albeit somewhat over-the-top by the finale) and I really like Craig's interpretation of the character. It is kind of ironic that this film felt less like a Bond film, considering the teaser at the end of Casino Royale (Craig appearing in traditional James Bond attire, dark suit and requisite sniper rifle) seeming to indicate that the Bond we're familiar with would be back next time. But if I can ignore the nonsense title, I can deal with a little irony.
In fact, most of the problems I see are more potential problems than any failing in this particular movie. We're only two films into this grand reboot of the James Bond franchise, and already tension between the old and the new are present.
The title sequence, for instance. I didn't care much for the opening of Casino Royale. It was a little too retro for me, and not terribly interesting. I tend to fast forward through it if I'm watching on DVD. Quantum returns to the Bond formula of old… James Bond, striking poses and snapping off gunshots, while suggestive images of half-naked women fly across the screen. It's all very Bond. And something we've seen, literally dozens of times in the past.
There's also "Ms. Fields", the operative that meets James in South America, determined to put him on the next flight home. It's never mentioned in the movie (as she pointedly tells Bond that her name is "just Fields") but in the credits, she's Strawberry Fields. Aside from the lack of a sexual reference to the name, it's quintessential Bond, and the lack of any payoff to the name reveals that tension between the old and new Bond idea. They GAVE the character a typically Bondian name, then backed off actually mentioning the name onscreen. (And speaking of lack of payoff, if you're going to tease the 'trench coat and boots, what is (or isn't) she wearing underneath' moment, don't you have to pay it off, one way or another? Fields' outfit when she met Bond at the airport screamed for some kind of reveal, and yet it's never even mentioned. Perhaps the punchline's in the deleted scenes.)
You can also see tension in the way they play against the Bond type. The only time Craig got a typical Bond ride was in the opening chase scene, and he promptly destroyed that particular hot little sport car. And, while I found the "Do I look like I give a damn?" reply to the "shaken or stirred" question in Casino Royale amusing, the joke's already starting to outstay its welcome in Quantum, when he has to ask the bartender what he's drinking.
I can imagine the producers (Barbara Broccoli and the rest of the family) chomping at the bit to try and reintroduce those familiar elements of the Bond universe… "When are we bringing back Q branch and giving James some gadgets to play with? Can we give him a hot sports car in the next one and let him keep it this time? Now that M's assistant has turned out to be Quantum, how do we feel about a female assistant… a 'Miss Moneypenny,' maybe???" Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit… after all, there's no other film franchise with this kind of longevity, so any messing with the formula has got to be scary. But it seemed like they were on a good path with Casino, and there seem to already be hints of recidivism in Quantum.
Having said all that, as I mentioned above, I enjoyed Quantum (all quibbles with the title aside) and I look forward to whatever the next venture is. I kind of hope they look to Casino Royale as a blueprint for upcoming Bond films. There's a wealth of opportunity in remaking the original novels, sticking closer to their actual stories then the earlier Bond films (especially, perhaps, the Roger Moore era Bond). But that may smack a bit heretical to Bond's producers… messing around in the family heritage, as it were. But it would be interesting to see what could be done with Man with the Golden Gun without the diminutive servant and third nipple, or Moonraker without Jaws.
So I resigned myself to ignoring that particular conundrum (much as I'm attempting NOT to try and rationalize the title of the new "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" movie — trust me, you don't want to go there) and just enjoy the new Bond film.
And, for the most part, I did. I don't think this one's as good as Casino Royale, but that may have as much to do with the fact that Casino had all that "NEW" stuff going for it (new Bond, new attitude, etc.) as it does any failings of the script. I think there was less 'spy' in Bond this time around, as he goes 'off the reservation' once again (another potential Bond cliché in the making), but the action was right up there (albeit somewhat over-the-top by the finale) and I really like Craig's interpretation of the character. It is kind of ironic that this film felt less like a Bond film, considering the teaser at the end of Casino Royale (Craig appearing in traditional James Bond attire, dark suit and requisite sniper rifle) seeming to indicate that the Bond we're familiar with would be back next time. But if I can ignore the nonsense title, I can deal with a little irony.
In fact, most of the problems I see are more potential problems than any failing in this particular movie. We're only two films into this grand reboot of the James Bond franchise, and already tension between the old and the new are present.
The title sequence, for instance. I didn't care much for the opening of Casino Royale. It was a little too retro for me, and not terribly interesting. I tend to fast forward through it if I'm watching on DVD. Quantum returns to the Bond formula of old… James Bond, striking poses and snapping off gunshots, while suggestive images of half-naked women fly across the screen. It's all very Bond. And something we've seen, literally dozens of times in the past.
There's also "Ms. Fields", the operative that meets James in South America, determined to put him on the next flight home. It's never mentioned in the movie (as she pointedly tells Bond that her name is "just Fields") but in the credits, she's Strawberry Fields. Aside from the lack of a sexual reference to the name, it's quintessential Bond, and the lack of any payoff to the name reveals that tension between the old and new Bond idea. They GAVE the character a typically Bondian name, then backed off actually mentioning the name onscreen. (And speaking of lack of payoff, if you're going to tease the 'trench coat and boots, what is (or isn't) she wearing underneath' moment, don't you have to pay it off, one way or another? Fields' outfit when she met Bond at the airport screamed for some kind of reveal, and yet it's never even mentioned. Perhaps the punchline's in the deleted scenes.)
You can also see tension in the way they play against the Bond type. The only time Craig got a typical Bond ride was in the opening chase scene, and he promptly destroyed that particular hot little sport car. And, while I found the "Do I look like I give a damn?" reply to the "shaken or stirred" question in Casino Royale amusing, the joke's already starting to outstay its welcome in Quantum, when he has to ask the bartender what he's drinking.
I can imagine the producers (Barbara Broccoli and the rest of the family) chomping at the bit to try and reintroduce those familiar elements of the Bond universe… "When are we bringing back Q branch and giving James some gadgets to play with? Can we give him a hot sports car in the next one and let him keep it this time? Now that M's assistant has turned out to be Quantum, how do we feel about a female assistant… a 'Miss Moneypenny,' maybe???" Maybe I'm not giving them enough credit… after all, there's no other film franchise with this kind of longevity, so any messing with the formula has got to be scary. But it seemed like they were on a good path with Casino, and there seem to already be hints of recidivism in Quantum.
Having said all that, as I mentioned above, I enjoyed Quantum (all quibbles with the title aside) and I look forward to whatever the next venture is. I kind of hope they look to Casino Royale as a blueprint for upcoming Bond films. There's a wealth of opportunity in remaking the original novels, sticking closer to their actual stories then the earlier Bond films (especially, perhaps, the Roger Moore era Bond). But that may smack a bit heretical to Bond's producers… messing around in the family heritage, as it were. But it would be interesting to see what could be done with Man with the Golden Gun without the diminutive servant and third nipple, or Moonraker without Jaws.
Comments
Recidivism...good word.
And, yes, the tension is there isn't it? Somehow for me, I don't mind them struggling to find their own identity as long as Craig continues to kick ass portraying the character so well.
How did you like the Goldfinger visual reference? A surprising nod to the past. I'm glad they didn't have a smarmy quip follow it.
BTW, Quantum of Solace is a Fleming title to a lame short story. It has nothing to do with anything here other than the fact that they continue to name the films with Fleming titles. They may be out of titles now...so, I'm curious to see what they come up with next.
LOVED the Goldfinger reference, and everyone involved definitely get points for letting it play and not feeling the need to point it out to the audience.
I knew the title came from one of Fleming's shorts… wouldn't surprise me if they were out after this one. They had to be looking at it for years, thinking "now what are we going to do with THAT?"
Maybe they did their best with it… from what I know of the story, there's certainly not much there to help drive a James Bond adventure. One could argue, I suppose that there's a thematic tie-in (beyond the whole QUANTUM thing), based on the quote from the story that got floated when they announced the movie (the one about emotional phenomenon), but that's almost TOO much of a literary thing… smacks of those Lit classes I had in college where we had to work out the subtext and what the author was trying to say, without ever acknowledging that all our analysis was subject to our OWN preferences and prejudices. Bond does deal with his reactions to Vesper's betrayal here, and comes to terms with the relationship by the end. And Haggis is a good enough screenwriter to care about that sort of thing. But how many people are going to see this movie and catch that connection to the movie's title? Or, for that matter, care? I've gotta be over complaining about the title. But I'm still amused.