Camille's dirty back

cpoulos62

One of the things that really bothered me is that Camille seems to have dirt, sand and so forth on her back on several scenes. I hope I am not the only one to notice this but it rather bothered me.

I am not a clean freak but thought it was rather odd.

Anyone else notice and was set off by it??

Hardyboy

It wasn't dirt--it was her complexion. I don't know if it's Olga's natural complexion or if it was supposed to represent burns from the incident in her childhood referenced in the film.

TonyDP

I always inferred that it was burn marks from her childhood when Medrano killed her family and set fire to her house. If fact, didn't she say something along the lines of "he marked me in his own way"?

cpoulos62

I will have to look again (3rd viewing) but just it looked dirty to me rather then burned ...

Perhaps if a reference that she was hurt/burned, it would have connected more to me.

Higgins

at first it looked like she was sunburnt, but I am sure, that the mentioned somewhere, that these are scars from being burnt in her childhood.
(Have only seen it once...)

darenhat

I'm not familiar with Olga's history, and I didn't do the research, but I was curious if that was an actual skin condition of Olga's and it was written into the story, or if it was a subtle make-up job for her.

Sir Hillary Bray

Albeit a small detail, this is one of my favorite aspects of QOS, because it is a visual clue that goes unacknowledged for much of the film, until she tells the whole Medrano story to Bond on the plane. Whether or not it was an existing skin condition of Olga's (which I doubt) or a makeup job, I love that the filmmakers let us see it for a while without telling us what it was. A typical movie (including, let's be honest, most Bond films) would have her expose her back to Bond and shout something dramatic along the lines of "THIS is what he did to me!" Very glad Forster downplayed it instead -- nice not to have everything spoon-fed to us.

Sir Miles

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

-- nice not to have everything spoon-fed to us.

Amen to that, brother -{

cpoulos62

Sir Hillary Bray, you make a good point and it is now making a sense to me. But for me during both of my viewings, I just thought she had sand or dirt on her back. May have been a preseption issue for me but I did not like it.

Gassy Man

She had scars. You kids spoonfed on the obviousness of movies of the past 20 years are to be forgiven for not realizing this.

TonyDP

A quick perusal of the net would suggest that it is definitely not a pre-existing skin condition:



http://kurylenko.net/pictures/magazines/Olga%20Kurylenko%201.jpg


http://kurylenko.net/pictures/events/quantum/Olga%20Kurylenko%20Quantum%20of%20Solace%206.jpg

Hardyboy

On this site there's a photo of a woman displaying her back, which has second degree burn scars:


http://www.cprpgh.fanspace.com/photo4.html

This is pretty close to what Camille's back looks like. Such scarring happens when burning causes the skin to blister but doesn't penetrate the full thickness of the skin. Draw your own conclusions.

Predator

Gassy Man wrote:

She had scars. You kids spoonfed on the obviousness of movies of the past 20 years are to be forgiven for not realizing this.

I do not doubt that it was meant to represent scar tissue from her burns from her childhood.

Whether or not they were convincing is open to criticism.

This is - IMHO - one of the thankfully clearer plot devices in the film.

emtiem

Don't forget Greene's line to Bond about her being very attractive 'as long as you get her on her back'.

i expect u2 die

emtiem wrote:

Don't forget Greene's line to Bond about her being very attractive 'as long as you get her on her back'.

Ah! If that is referring to the scar, then there's one reference I missed

youknowmyname

Sir Miles wrote:

Sir Hillary Bray wrote:

-- nice not to have everything spoon-fed to us.

Amen to that, brother -{

Yeah, definitely her scar and definitely a finer point of the movie. When she talked about her experiences with Medrano I said to myself...aha! that's what the scar is about.

Gassy Man

Predator wrote:

Gassy Man wrote:

She had scars. You kids spoonfed on the obviousness of movies of the past 20 years are to be forgiven for not realizing this.

I do not doubt that it was meant to represent scar tissue from her burns from her childhood.

Whether or not they were convincing is open to criticism.

This is - IMHO - one of the thankfully clearer plot devices in the film.

True, though they convinced me.

another way to die

i thought it was a tattoo on the traliar ,but then when i watched the film i find out it was a scar :007)

Golrush007

On first viewing, I thought it might be sand - however, on second viewing I picked up that it must be a burn scar. As has been said before, good on Forster for not force-feeding such details to the viewer.

A7ce

Yep I thought it was sans stuck to her back because of the heat of wherever she was, then reliase that they were burn marks from her childhood incident.

agent 00

Green said: You are both how should i put it, damaged goods.
also referring to Camille's back.

JimboBond

I didn't think it was sand or dirt; I thought it was some kind of burn. I kept on thinking how unsightly it was.

sharpshooter

What ever it is, I don't have a problem with it. Camille is fine the way she is.

mpc08

definently scars from the fire

yodboy007

I never thought of her dirty back as scars from her childhood. I always thought it was just dirt on her back from fighting and rolling around on the dirty ground or floor. That kind of impressed me because I saw it as good continuity. This is different from most films where a character may get really dirty after a fight or something but then is remarkably clean just a few minutes later even though we know they had no time or resources to clean themselves up.

Fields

When I first saw it i knew it was a scar or a burn of some sort... the story of her house on fire to me just confirmed my suspicions. I didn't really take any notice of Greene or the General's quotes.