Mendes quote about Skyfall

Mr. Brown wrote:

Harmsway wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Which bit in QoS did Bond start spouting political platitudes? I don't remember.

He's probably speaking of the Leiter/Bond conversation in the bar.

Possibly one of the worst scenes ever put into a Bond movie. Terrible dialogue, performances, and characterization.

Bond and Leiter hardly knew each other, yet they were given lines that you'd likely hear in a buddy cop movie.

The lines were terrible, the whole script in QoS is shocking.

Like I said earlier, the political undertones didn't really bother me, as there was so much other crap in QoS that I hardly noticed the subtext of any political agenda.

jet set willy wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

You just raised another issue. Fleming's Bond did his duty. Rarely, if ever did he flagrantly disobey orders from his superior. And can you imagine Fleming's Bond breaking into M's house? M would have had him court martialed if he had. Unfortunately, Craig's Bond often comes across as a petulent, dysfunctional adolescent rather than an adult acting in service of queen and country.

I agree with this. I'm not too keen on the whole `Bond going rogue' thing. It's obviously an attempt to cash in on the success of the Bourne films, and has very little to do with Fleming. When was the last time we saw Bond going in to M's office at the beginning of the movie and given a mission to do, then go out and do it? In fact, I think it is as far back as GE that this happened (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Perilagu Khan wrote:

And don't be so goddam sensitive.

Blame the misses....she got me in a riled up mood before she left to go to work.....

Women!

jet set willy wrote:

When was the last time we saw Bond going in to M's office at the beginning of the movie and given a mission to do, then go out and do it? In fact, I think it is as far back as GE that this happened (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

TWINE's got a scene like that. Those scenes got stale and horrible during the Moore years (but what didn't). I do hope Skyfall has an office briefing for Bond, it's been too long.

Louis Armstrong wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

When was the last time we saw Bond going in to M's office at the beginning of the movie and given a mission to do, then go out and do it? In fact, I think it is as far back as GE that this happened (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

TWINE's got a scene like that. Those scenes got stale and horrible during the Moore years (but what didn't).

Er, the music?

Sure, you can have that. =)

Sharky wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

The key difference is that in QOS, the writers (through Bond and the villains) take the opposite end of the straw. They're making cynical platitudes about the evils of colonialism, the free market, CIA, and western foreign policy in general. This is the closest we've got to Bond Aid. You couldn't be further from Fleming if you tried.

I think we need to dredge up Khan's learned analysis of the leftist political leanings found in QoS. This discussion was thoroughly aired out in the the previous forum ( the one that blew up and came back as something else). Now, I can understand why some aren't bothered or even pick-up on the political overtones, because our radars are all tuned differently. And as Ambler said, even the last Bourne film can be enjoyed as a movie, despite its leftist political bent.

But many of us also picked up on what Khan articulates here re. the politics of QoS. I did effortlessly, but my radar is tuned to such things. Khan however details the QoS political Haggisisms as eloquently of any of us, being the gifted wordsmith that he is, so his particular summary has been worth archiving as the definitive summation of the leftist political overtones permeating QoS.

From the learned Khan, PHD (circa 2009 maybe 2010, can't remember)

"In short, this film is chock full of Leftist western-damning ideas and dialogue. We get Greene (supposedly the villain) on the side of the "angels" whining about capitalists bullying Haiti about raising the minimum wage. And contrary to everyman's belief that this is a fad of the moment, it actually could have come from Marxists in the 1930s.

We have Bond crowing about "Coke (or is it coca?) and communism" clearly taking America to task for its "economic imperialism" (Coke) and its opposition to communism. This ties in perfectly with Bond's other bon mot about loving "how you guys have carved this place up." Clearly, America should have just left the Sandinistas and other Latin commies to their own lovely devices.

Now as to Beam, it would be one thing if he was merely one rotten apple in a good CIA barrel. But the implication is that the CIA sanctioned Beam's activities insofar as M's call to the CIA was immediately routed to Beam who falsely claimed no knowledge of Greene. We therefore have a rather broad condemnation of US foreign and economic policy in the western hemisphere combined with a contemporary animadversion directed at the CIA. It doesn't take Noam Chomsky to see where this all points.

And to top it all off, we have pathos-ridden images of poor, saintly indigenes in Bolivia who are totally ignored by the vile, callous West, which is hellbent on ripping their natural resources out from under them.

All of which reminds me of another brilliant Marxian line from Greene: "We wouldn't want Marxists giving natural resources to the people, now would we?" "

This is what you get when pc pimps like Babs hire Canadian leftists like Haggis to write Bond films.

The political overtones may not be the worst thing about QoS. In fact, to many they don't matter and barely register. QoS' numerous other failings raise the ire instead, and those grievances have been thoroughly aired out as well.

QoS provides fodder for a veritable smorgasboard of gripes. In that sense it's a landmark film in the Bond canon.

tiffanywint wrote:

We have Bond crowing about "Coke (or is it coca?) and communism" clearly taking America to task for its "economic imperialism" (Coke) and its opposition to communism. This ties in perfectly with Bond's other bon mot about loving "how you guys have carved this place up." Clearly, America should have just left the Sandinistas and other Latin commies to their own lovely devices.

Think you missed the point here. The reference isn't to Coke with a big "C," but coke with a small "c." So Bond's talking about drugs, not soda.

Harmsway wrote:

Think you missed the point here. The reference isn't to Coke with a big "C," but coke with a small "c." So Bond's talking about drugs, not soda.

I think the point is that Bond(Haggis) doesn't have any idea what he is talking about. Maybe American facilitation of the drug trade.Leftists love to paint the CIA as the true masterminds of the cocaine trade. Or maybe he is whining about American economic imperialism too (Coke in the red can) Who knows, how the wheels turn with Haggis' great social/economic justice world view?

I'm pretty sure it's a reference to the drug trade.

At any rate, attributing all the dialogue in QUANTUM OF SOLACE to Haggis is probably a mistake, since there was a fair bit of rewriting done by Forster, Craig, and Zetumer. Who knows what Haggis actually contributed?

It's been mentioned before, but the fact that Zetumer was hired to write THE BOURNE LEGACY is probably no small coincidence.

tiffanywint wrote:

Sharky wrote:

jet set willy wrote:

Besides, Fleming's novels touched on politics too, from a British colonial viewpoint, and he knew it was slowly diminishing, and Fleming ocassionally reflected this, particularly in the last couple of novels he wrote.

The key difference is that in QOS, the writers (through Bond and the villains) take the opposite end of the straw. They're making cynical platitudes about the evils of colonialism, the free market, CIA, and western foreign policy in general. This is the closest we've got to Bond Aid. You couldn't be further from Fleming if you tried.

I think we need to dredge up Khan's learned analysis of the leftist political leanings found in QoS. This discussion was thoroughly aired out in the the previous forum ( the one that blew up and came back as something else). Now, I can understand why some aren't bothered or even pick-up on the political overtones, because our radars are all tuned differently. And as Ambler said, even the last Bourne film can be enjoyed as a movie, despite its leftist political bent.

But many of us also picked up on what Khan articulates here re. the politics of QoS. I did effortlessly, but my radar is tuned to such things. Khan however details the QoS political Haggisisms as eloquently of any of us, being the gifted wordsmith that he is, so his particular summary has been worth archiving as the definitive summation of the leftist political overtones permeating QoS.

From the learned Khan, PHD (circa 2009 maybe 2010, can't remember)

"In short, this film is chock full of Leftist western-damning ideas and dialogue. We get Greene (supposedly the villain) on the side of the "angels" whining about capitalists bullying Haiti about raising the minimum wage. And contrary to everyman's belief that this is a fad of the moment, it actually could have come from Marxists in the 1930s.

We have Bond crowing about "Coke (or is it coca?) and communism" clearly taking America to task for its "economic imperialism" (Coke) and its opposition to communism. This ties in perfectly with Bond's other bon mot about loving "how you guys have carved this place up." Clearly, America should have just left the Sandinistas and other Latin commies to their own lovely devices.

Now as to Beam, it would be one thing if he was merely one rotten apple in a good CIA barrel. But the implication is that the CIA sanctioned Beam's activities insofar as M's call to the CIA was immediately routed to Beam who falsely claimed no knowledge of Greene. We therefore have a rather broad condemnation of US foreign and economic policy in the western hemisphere combined with a contemporary animadversion directed at the CIA. It doesn't take Noam Chomsky to see where this all points.

And to top it all off, we have pathos-ridden images of poor, saintly indigenes in Bolivia who are totally ignored by the vile, callous West, which is hellbent on ripping their natural resources out from under them.

All of which reminds me of another brilliant Marxian line from Greene: "We wouldn't want Marxists giving natural resources to the people, now would we?" "

This is what you get when pc pimps like Babs hire Canadian leftists like Haggis to write Bond films.

The political overtones may not be the worst thing about QoS. In fact, to many they don't matter and barely register. QoS' numerous other failings raise the ire instead, and those grievances have been thoroughly aired out as well.

QoS provides fodder for a veritable smorgasboard of gripes. In that sense it's a landmark film in the Bond canon.

Quite a feat pulling this out of the dustbin, Tiffy. I'd forgotten all about it.

I stand by the vast majority of that post, but would add that QOS does get in a few jabs for the good guys too.

Greene, for instance, can be seen as a sort of rogue Al Gore duping the dewey-eyed environmentalists with his eco-claptrap.

When Leiter asks Beam, "You want to put us in bed with these guys?," Beam replies mordantly, "Yeah, you're right. We should only do business with nice people."

And when M whines to the Minister of Defense about all the sordid shenanigans in South America, he responds, "Right and wrong really don't come into it. What with America and China carving up the world, if we only traded with the good guys we'd be out of business." Or words to that effect.

All in all, anti-environmentalism and realpolitik get a decent airing in QOS. So my problem is not primarily with the film's Leftism, but with its politicization. Bond films should not get all balled up in politics, whether those politics be conservative or Leftist. They should be largely apolitical. And I hope QOS' innovation does not continue in SF, but Mendes' quote seems to suggest that it very may well.

Quote :

They should be largely apolitical. And I hope QOS' innovation does not continue in SF, but Mendes' quote seems to suggest that it very may well.

Well, the fact that a member of the main cast is playing a member of Parliament isn't particularly reassuring.

Vesper wrote:

Quote :

They should be largely apolitical. And I hope QOS' innovation does not continue in SF, but Mendes' quote seems to suggest that it very may well.

Well, the fact that a member of the main cast is playing a member of Parliament isn't particularly reassuring.

Are you referring to Finney? I think we only know that he's playing a foreign office bureaucrat, not an MP.

GeneralGogol wrote:

Vesper wrote:

Quote :

They should be largely apolitical. And I hope QOS' innovation does not continue in SF, but Mendes' quote seems to suggest that it very may well.

Well, the fact that a member of the main cast is playing a member of Parliament isn't particularly reassuring.

Are you referring to Finney? I think we only know that he's playing a foreign office bureaucrat, not an MP.

Think he meant Helen McCrory.

I don't care about politics in the film one way or another. As long as the other aspects that make a good Bond film are there, so be it.

Jack Wade wrote:

I don't care about politics in the film one way or another. As long as the other aspects that make a good Bond film are there, so be it.

This is how I feel too. If Skyfall contains gripping actions scenes, superb soundtrack, Craig on top form, a decent plot, scenes borrowed from Fleming, a Bondesque feel, no silly OTT moments, no crappy CGI, etc. I can live with any political undertones.