Bond 24 directors you consider.

Salomé wrote:

Tarantino would be a terrible choice. Either he would be reined in by the producers, at which point it would no longer be a Tarantino movie or he would demand to do his own thing, which wouldn't make it a real Bond movie.

I'd take my chances with Tarantino over guys like Foster, Haggis and Mendes though.
Mendes might pull off something decent. Its possible, but I look at middle-America propaganda films like Revolutionary Road, or the anti-American pretentions in Jarhead, and the possibliites for another politically charged Haggis style QoS message movie hover like a dark crowd.
There is no doubt Haggis and Mendes are kindred spirits.

Tarantino, on the other hand would stay clear of the messaging and give us something entertaining at least and likely in the finest Bond tradition. But Babs would likely have none of that!

I haven't seen REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (why bother, we already have MAD MEN, with the guy in MM being the performer who SHOULD have been in INCEPTION) or JARHEAD, so I'll concede I don't know how Mendes' politics would work with Bond. Actually, I haven't seen a Mendes since his DP Conrad Hall died, so maybe my op there is out of date.

trevanian wrote:

I haven't seen REVOLUTIONARY ROAD (why bother, we already have MAD MEN, with the guy in MM being the performer who SHOULD have been in INCEPTION) or JARHEAD, so I'll concede I don't know how Mendes' politics would work with Bond. Actually, I haven't seen a Mendes since his DP Conrad Hall died, so maybe my op there is out of date.

The upside of Mendes though, unlike Haggis, is that he's not married to his politics.
It is possible that he could set them aside and do a good Bond film.
I don't think Babs cares about political messaging that much.
She wants an Oscar and she'll sell out the series to get one.

Salomé wrote:

Mr. Brown wrote:

Brett Ratner directing.
Tom Clancy writing.
Hans Zimmer scoring.

With Angelina Jolie as James Bond.

Orlando Bloom as the Bond girl.

And Johnny Depp as the bearded tattooed Moneypenny.

trevanian wrote:

Going by his work on THE RITE, I think Ben Davis could be a great director of photography for Bond, with traditional cinematic values that aren't clouded by modern trends (at least on this film, which I just saw.) He has already worked with Craig on LAYER CAKE, too.

What did you think of his work on LAYER CAKE, now that you've seen it? I hope it's not indicative of his usual approach, because it's far removed from traditional cinema. Either oversaturated with yellow, or washed out with music-video blues. Much too gimmicky-looking for me, working in childish extremities.

tiffanywint wrote:

Its possible, but I look at middle-America propaganda films like Revolutionary Road, or the anti-American pretentions in Jarhead, and the possibliites for another politically charged Haggis style QoS message movie hover like a dark crowd.

How terribly racist.

How is Jarhead anti-American? It dealt with the disillusionment felt by many of the men and women that served in the first Gulf War. Is it anti-American to tell those people's story?

Sleeper wrote:

tiffanywint wrote:

hover like a dark crowd.

How terribly racist.

I know, it's awful. I've enrolled for sensitivity training.

Salomé wrote:

How is Jarhead anti-American? It dealt with the disillusionment felt by many of the men and women that served in the first Gulf War. Is it anti-American to tell those people's story?

google anti-Americanism in jarhead and you will find lots of commentary and reviews to that effect.

A sampling

Quote :

.....is a silly political manifesto, too, asserting that the Gulf War was fought to protect “the profits of companies, many of which have direct ties to the White House.”

Quote :

But the overall image is a deeply dishonest lie because it relies on a misfit like Swofford for its basic story. It’s unfortunate, too, that many people have gotten their impression of Marines from Swofford’s book or will now do so through this movie.

Quote :

However, the true message of Jarhead -- the one conveyed on an imagistic, subrational level -- and is unmistakable: According to Mendes and Swofford, American soldiers are nothing but bloodthirsty savages. Mendes indelibly evokes the infamous "Mile of Death," with its caravan of bombed-out traffic along an Iraqi highway. Here, among dozens of "carbonized" civilians (read: burned to a crispy black under US air strikes), the film shows the unmitigated horror of our "splendid little war" in the Gulf. As played by Gyllenhaal, Swofford vomits at the sight of all the civilian carnage: One Marine in the film remarks that these people "just wanted to get away." But according to another Marine, retired Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, the film hasn't quite gotten its facts straight:



Number one, we had the bombing of those units, those Iraqi units, coming out of Kuwait City, the so-called Mile of Death. I walked that ground. There was a lot of destruction, not much death, because what actually happened is the Iraqis abandoned the equipment and ran away. I walked the whole thing. I don't think I counted more than maybe 13, 14 dead Iraqis. So yes, there was a lot of destruction in that so-called Mile of Death, but not a lot of death.

Its been 6 years since I saw it in theatre and it left a sour taste. I have no interest in watching it again in order to refresh the details. The broad strokes are that filmmakers like Mendes purposely choose to make films like Jarhead, that have the net effect of making a segment of impressionable Americans less than proud about their country and their military and their military campaigns. This type of filmmaking titillates the left and makes them feel oh so superior when pontificating on US military campaigns, which of course are always exercises in imperialism or naked oil grabs.

Mendes isn't quite as bad as Haggis but Haggis has the advantage of being Canadian and there is nothing more rich than the Canadian left's superiority when it comes to the US military. You see, we're "peacekeepers" and they're warmongers.


Mind you, all I referenced initially were "anti-American pretensions in Jarhead". The movie is hardly unique in that respect. But if one is not politically sensitive, one can just tune out such stuff and enjoy films for their pure visceral entertainment value, eg QoS, but I'll pick up on it every time and it does leave me less than enthused with such filmmakers. To each his own.
If you can enjoy Jarhead on other merits. Fine. All the power to you. But the film does stir anti-American sentiments among those eagerly seeking to be stirred.

Sleeper wrote:

trevanian wrote:

Going by his work on THE RITE, I think Ben Davis could be a great director of photography for Bond, with traditional cinematic values that aren't clouded by modern trends (at least on this film, which I just saw.) He has already worked with Craig on LAYER CAKE, too.

What did you think of his work on LAYER CAKE, now that you've seen it? I hope it's not indicative of his usual approach, because it's far removed from traditional cinema. Either oversaturated with yellow, or washed out with music-video blues. Much too gimmicky-looking for me, working in childish extremities.

I didn't love it, but that may also be part of my reaction to the film as a whole.

I have a serious 'allergy' to what passes for most modern cinematography, because of the 'pick two hues' approach you see as a result of digital intermediates, which for my money creates an image that distances audiences from the storytelling. The 'shot through sunglasses' yellow/brown and the blue/white choice both are annoying as hell. Why shoot in glorious 35mm if you are going to mess it up so badly in post that it might as well have been originated on digital or 16mm?

I'd really like to give MINORITY REPORT another viewing, but between Cruise and the seriously-annoying look of the thing, nuh-uhh. Movies that scare me off just because I can't dial out their 'look' via my contrast/brightness controls are a fairly new development, because it used to be I'd welcome innovation, but a lot of this is two steps forward/three steps back.

I recently saw Jarhead and didn't find it that anti-American. Yeah, there were a couple of lines (from Chris Cooper's character I think) about the oil, but c'mon... who doesn't what oil? The behaviour and story of those soldiers isn't something that's limited to Americans. One could make the same film about Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980s, Canadians in Afghanistan now, etc. If I'd be American, I wouldn't find the film unpatriotic. Jarhead generalizes and over-dramatizes some things in the typical American cinema manner, but there's nothing wrong with highlighting the experiences and traumas soldiers go through. This and Mendes' other dramas aren't easy or enjoyable films to watch, but they're hardly political. No matter how dramatic or "heavy" Bond 23 may be, Mendes better make it an enjoyable film to watch.

On Bond 24, I wouldn't mind seeing Kevin Macdonald (Last King of Scotland, State of Play) direct.

GeneralGogol wrote:

I recently saw Jarhead and didn't find it that anti-American.

Faint praise.


Anyway yes Mendes impacts us all differently. Suffice to say his movies do not inspire me nor do I find them anywhere near as interesting as he seems to think they are. Time wasters basically, at least Revolutionary Road and Jarhead.
But that is the magic of cinema. I will sit through bad movies simply because I enjoy the medium.
Road to Perdition was OK. Anti-america preaching wasn't noticeable, so I won't write the guy off completely just because of the pandering to anti-American liberal pretensions in RR and JH .
I do hold out some hope that he isn't as unsalvageable as the Haggfish.

I've yet to see JARHEAD.

trevanian wrote:

Why shoot in glorious 35mm if you are going to mess it up so badly in post that it might as well have been originated on digital or 16mm?

I just wish people working in post would have a little more faith in the lighting and set designers' ability to, y'know, design (particularly with respect to colour schemes).

trevanian wrote:

It used to be I'd welcome innovation, but a lot of this is two steps forward/three steps back.

More like two steps forward, three steps back, then fall over.