The brutality of QOS (Page 1 of 3)

Bond is a killer. Simple as that.

It simply reflects the way that society views these things that we are now shown violence for what it really is. Brutal, in your face and usually quite unpleasant.

In the same way, you could compare 'Band of Brothers' to 'The Longest Day'. Both depict some of the same occurences. But in a totally different way that reflects the way society looks at these things.

I like the new Bond, the same as I like Band of Brothers.

But I love classics like The Longest Day and Goldfinger as well, but in a different way, I suppose...

There's something to your thesis, blue.  I think part of Forster's commitment to leaner, meaner Bond film---running time, shorter dramatic scenes, the 'bullet fired from a gun' narrative speed---included bringing his audience closer to Bond's state of mind.  The logical extension of this is bringing us closer to the violence; understandably controversial in a franchise whose primary currency has always been escapism    One of the many reasons I think QoS didn't quite 'hit the spot' for some.

As for the scene in question---the brief but brutal knife fight in the Port-au-Prince hotel room, which for me is a highlight of the film---this sequence crystalises the above idea.  Violent it was, and tsa's note on the shock and bewilderment of a man bleeding to death rings unpleasantly true.  It does step into the realm of the gratuitous.  But what I saw on Craig's face wasn't indifference, or boredom---it was, primarily, concern about getting it over with---and a hint of pity behind an outward mask of indifference, which speaks to the layers of Bond's evolving character.  Some might well say I'm all wet on this, and fair enough, but that's what I saw.  And the scene does also go to the heart of Bond's licence to kill.  All the same, I can see the point of those who'd rather get back to escapism   

But all this deals with the nature of where Bond was after Vesper's death...and now that he's run this crucible, I think a bit of tie-straightening, a cocked eyebrow and some witty repartee has been earned---and will be like a fantastic cinematic feast when we get it.

Hope you ARE reading this, Eon   

I am not a fan of violent movies - in fact, I usually stay away from them. However, in QoS I don't see violence for violence sake - I see a character evolving - and after his 'rare' emotional vulnerability which he showed in CR - seeing him 'getting on' with the job was shown, in my eyes, in such a way as to show his distance from his emotions.... a great scene from both Bond and Slate.

I can understand the question raised though.... we have gone from 3pm Christmas day viewing, to 'once the kids have gone to bed' slot - BUT I like this evolution of Bond. I like the grown up version - the gritty, real, feel his pain/ feel the pain of his adversaries - the darker shade of Bond....but no doubt, it will be brought back to the more 'entertaining' genre... I'm just enjoying the 'rebel era' myself.

"Bond, I need you back....."
....."I never left"

I have to say that like Loeff, I did not read indifference into Bond's face in that scene. Much more the realisation that not too long ago, if circumstances had been different, that could have been Bond himself bleeding to death.

I must say that on repeated viewings of the "bleed out scene" and even on the first viewing I did not interpret this emotion as indifference in Craig's face.  What I was seeing was Fleming's Bond - a trained 00 who has killed and is trained to kill as efficiently as possible - being professional and unemotional as someone in his work would have to be.  The man tried to murder him in cold blood and Bond reacted in self defense with whatever was available as he is trained to do.  He was also trying to get the fight over with as quickly as possible to try to limit the attention from anyone who may have heard it (though he probably assumed that in the neighborhood he was in such sounds were probably not uncommon).  He looked to me as if he was listening and looking to see if there was anyone who might have witnessed the event (since they were outside on a balcony).  Satisfied that no one had, he quickly moved inside to clean up a quick as he could and get out.  The reason this whole scene seems real is because this is really how a pro would do it - in these situations, the trick to survive and escape is to get it over as fast as possible and to get out as quick as possible while try to maintain anonymity.  As far as the blood - I personally always hated seeing people getting shot or stabbed in films causing them to die instantly.  I knew it was always done because of the censors, but I think that is one of the causes of the modern lack of feelings or indifference towards suffering and killing in society.  Films and TV have made it look "adventurous" - even in a ten minute barfight everyone came out with not even a bruised knuckle!  They even did in in the "brutal" bath fight scene in CR.  It started out looking real, but then they show Craig drowning a man in matter of seconds.  In reality, it would have taken much longer and been even more brutal to see.  I know, I know.  They can't go that far in a Bond film.  Then they should have just showed Craig breaking the killers neck.  I personally think all film violence should be realistic and hard to watch.  It's time to stop showing "clean" fantasy killings. I don't want Bond to go back to fluff of the old days - we're grown up and have moved past it.  Leave the winking and one liners to the likes of Austin Powers.

Last edited by CmdrAtticus (31st Jan 2011 20:37)

I agree wholeheartedly. It is not and should not be a crude choice betwen tough realism on one hand, or escapism/lighter tone on the other. Consequently it is possible to regard QOS as irredeemably flawed without nostalgia.
I am all for the toughness, and do not lament the passing of the golden agae of cheesey-ness at all, but I would like some counter -weight to stop Bonds life fom being as joyless as Bourne's, after all who would want to be be that guy ? So the odd bt of tie straightening, some uncomplicated sex without anyone dying either by way of cheap self parady ala Fields, and or Torture in CR plus some sense of suave coolness, and perhaps even the odd plausable toy...
What makes Bond Bond for me is this fascinating mixture and the apparent contradictions between 'blunt instrument' and gentleman playboy. Bond hates killing in cold blood, and this is often very nearly his undoing (think Scaramanga in THE Novel LALD whre failure to finish him off almost gets Bond killed)

I'm hoping that 23 will unite these elements and if it does I can perhaps regard QOS as an unwelcome, but neccessarry stage. I have no problem with the scene under discussion if it had taken place within the context of the kind of balance that I am arguing for. However as it stands, it's just an unpleasant scene in a joyless film.

Understood, but if it is that way around Bond moves from Hero to Anti-Hero. It is important that we at some level like or even approve of him. He sometimes has to do nasty things, but always with regret (" the Kiling of the Arab was messy" etc)
If the Gentlemen is the cloak, and the Brute is the 'real' Bond then he becomes impossible to root for, and essentialy no different to the thugs that he opposes. This fundamentaly changes the dynamic and is not at all Flemingesque, as the 'blunt instrument' has to be more than just that or why should we care about him?  A hero can of course have flaws, and Bond has plenty, but he must never stray towards just being another tough guy. He is and must be more than that. This is the real challenge, to fuse those elements into a coherent whole. Connerry did it on occasion, so did Dalton, and I'm sure that Daniel could do if given the chance. The 'rough Diamond' of CR was acceptable in that context, but now it is time for him to sparkle.