Quantum's editing
jp_beattie
Posts: 7MI6 Agent
I work as an editor (albeit in television) so I tend to notice cutting in movies perhaps more than most. However I'm interested to hear other people's opinions on the editing of QOS. It jars with me, especially the action sequences, which rely on close ups to much making it very frantic. I know the bond series is being modernised, but it loses something of it's charm IMHO. Also I didn't care for the way the location names were featured -not bond?
Comments
I personally really liked how the locations were shown. It's something a bit different, whilst not being too different.
As for the editing, it very easy to compare it with the Bourne trilogy. Fast cuts, close ups and hand-held cameras were a big factor of the Bourne action sequences. It helps to build tension and makes the audience feel more involved.
People might just say that this is another reason why QOD is too much like the Bourne series. Though it's similar, why can't Bond be edited like this too? I think it works great, and just because one film does it, doesn't mean that other films shouldn't give it a go.
However due to the lack of films that use this conbination of close ups and hand-held cams during action sequences, people will inevitably compare Bond with Bourne. Maybe as we see few more films trying this techinque, it will become more aceptable and less people will judge QOS for copying Bourne. We'll just have to wait and see.
But I remember a documentary about the making of YOLT and Lewis Gilbert the director remarked how during the chase and fight scene through the docks he used a long shot that panned out over the tops of the buildings which revealed the various fights between Bond and the henchmen.
At the time this was seen as something totally new and removed from the norm, much like the quick, fast cuts of today.
Looking back now at YOLT that scene is a classic, a masterful piece of film making and right for the time and I guarantee in years to come the same will be said of the direction / editing style of QOS.
I was also trained as an editor (many years ago; remember Betacam SP ?
The location titles surprised me, but they were creative..Forster's input ?
My opinion is same like you guys, you don't know what's happening. I think (but not sure) that this is more easy film making than compared to using total shots, because than you really have to choreograph the fight.
In CR I really like the free running sequence, because in lots of shots you see one guy making his move and the other guy also makes his right move in the background. Then you have to plan very well.
I think that's a great sequence, and I hope they dabble in that style again at some point. It's quite similar to an extreme long shot in the WWII film The Longest Day, where we see Allied soldiers taking a French town from a 'bird's-eye' vantage point.
The handheld/up close camera work of the Bournes, coupled with the quick cuts, has its fans and detractors---like QoS itself, apparently. Someday I'll get to see it ( X-( )...but I can see where it can make the action difficult to track. Conversely, when one is a participant in the action (which is arguably what this method is trying to convey), one hardly has the time and perspective to contextualize everything, so theoretically there's a certain amount of artistic truth achieved...at the expense of viewer convenience.
This is just the sort of thing I mean when I use words such as 'polarizing' and 'challenging' to describe QoS---admittedly I'm basing this solely on the reactions of those who actually get to view the film.
X-(
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
The editing of Quantum's action sequences are awful. God awful in fact. The cutting and angles were so tight it was almost impossible to make se sense of what was going on. This was particuaraly true of the car and boat chases.
Trying to use "first person cinema" - seeing something from a characters perspective is commendable, but it doesn't work if it fails to convey the scene at all, far less from that characters perspective.
I saw the film twice, and although the character pieces made a degree of sense second time round, the action sequences simply hurt my eyes and head. I couldn't watch them. Not fun.
To me a film with action turns on itself if you need to wait for the DVD release so you can hire it, and play it at one quarter of the normal speed in the hope of making sense of it!
The display of the location names was a fashion fad.
The old adage of "you only notice the editing when its bad" may be long dated in this day and age where jarring editing is often a stylistic choice but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.
Action scenes where the character is travelling (e.g. opening chase scene or the following rooftop scene) have to pay attention to geography and time and QOS just doesnt do that. Its disorientating and downright frustrating when you have these beautiful set ups (Aston being chased down a serious of dusty hairpins/ Bond running across rustic rooftops in a beautiful Italian town) and we just are'nt given the opportunity to appreciate them or enjoy them.
Foster has shown with QOS that he should stick to arthouse stuff because he is clearly not comfortable with action scenes.
Immensely disappointing as the opening car chase and the rooftop chase had the potential to be amazing and amongst the best Bond action sequences. Missed opportunity imo.:(
I think he was trying to bring an artistic feel to the action sequences. The trouble with art, is that it's a very presonal thing; some people love it, others hate it.
I think you can say Foster has the qualities of Marmite.
Martin Campbell is a talented director who made insanely overhyped bilge like GoldenEye (which had a storyline much worse and childish than QoS's) a much bigger hit than it would've been in the hands in of most other film directors.
I wouldn't say Marc Foster was entirely useless with the major plot developments and tone setting. Mr. White mocking the MI6 staff, the Tosca opera, the two main Mathis scenes, and scene in the water caverns being the better examples.
I agree, (except for the Tosca bit where the action sequence / opera audio scene felt forced) but this is why I say watch the film twice. - I missed all of these good elements the first time arround, because the action scenes gave me that damned headache! 8-)
I'm quite used to the shaky cam and knew what was going on the for the most part, but the more mixed reviews surrounding QoS should serve as a warning to the producers to pull back on the Jerry Bruckheimer shaky cam gimmicks (but Quantum of Solace didn't get quiet that trashy and incomprehensible, for a start I knew what was happening in the opening car chase, with only the behaviour of the hapless truck drive genuinely puzzling me).
Yes, I liked those scenes too, as well as Camille's
But from what I understood, Forster didn't direct the action sequences anyway. This was left to Dan `Bourne' Bradley - who is used to doing action sequences.
At the time, didn't people resent the initial Connery films for their "lightning fast editing", and look how well they've held up.
The desert scenes, on the other, were handled quite well, with some real drama provided by the contrast of close-up and open space.
I wouldn't say it's unoriginal. Far enough we see it in the Bourne films (and no doubt there are other films too), but it's not a technique widely used.
And I think that's the problem that some people might have with it. Yes it is slightly harder to get what's going on, and you might think that it's annoying, but the Bond films are all about being cutting edge and original.
Rip off Bourne all you like for all I care. Just please do it right. That seems to be the problem here. It wasn't done right.
Particularly bad for me was the chase through the Palio and across the rooftop, couldn't make out what was going on, events happening too quick to register. In fact I wasn't even sure which MI6 agent was the traitor initially, nor who they'd shot when interrogating Mr White. I must have got used to it after the outset though as can't think of any other instances that jarred with me...
1. Cut out DC3 dogfight completely and replace lost time with deleted/extended scenes
2. Move gun-barrel sequence to beginning
Go right ahead.
Man, I've seen a clip of that sequence and it looks like fun. My dad's a big fan of the ol' DC-3; great to see it make the Bond series in 2008. There's a great story in the Bond On Set book about how they had to find a second one in Miami, because the first one they'd used in Mexico wasn't 'up to' the flight to Chile...
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I don't like the Bourne style of editing at all. That said, this was not done as well as that. I hope Forster is not asked back, and I hope next time a fully developed script is used. This is utterly forgettable.