“Quantum of Solace” References
I thought it was just me. Indeed everyone I confided this theory to has pooh pooh-ed it.
Then I looked up one of Peter Bradshaw’s (two, contradictory) reviews and found that he too had spotted references to other Bond films in Quantum of Solace. And, bar the obvious Goldfinger reference, they’re different ones.
Are there any others? Is it possible that every film was subtly referenced?
Where Do Bond Songs Go To Die?
Or “Bond Songs Are Forever” or “Unlicensed to Sing” or “Sing Another Day” or, as the Guardian puts it in their round up: For Your Ears Only. Because the answer is they go to Youtube where, released as B-sides or discovered in the vaults, they are then married up with the original title sequences by the fans - which is fairly weird with For Your Eyes Only where (uniquely) Sheena Easton actually appears to be miming (badly) to Blondie’s title song.
You may well be familiar with Dione Warwick’s Mr Kiss Kiss Bang Bang or Julie Rogers You Only Live Twice but there are many more out there of which the Guardian links to only a few. These include Johnny Cash, The Pet Shop Boys and Saint Ettienne, but, alas, not Vic Flick and Eric Clapton which sounds awesome. Most of the songs here are pretty awful, though a couple are better than the official ones largely because the official ones are even worse…
Their link to Ace of Base’s Goldeneye doesn’t have the film’s titles so here’s a better link.
I’ve just re-read the book and re-watched the film. I haven’t read the book for years, and I haven’t watched the film since it came out. I’m re-reading the books in order (though I’m not going to watch the film for each book - that would be torture - I may take another look at From Russia With Love, Doctor No, Goldfinger, For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights when I get to books 5-8 and 14 respectively if only because those are the films I like!)
The film’s really still as impressive as it was 2 years ago. It’s incredible how true it is to the book, and how much it dares to improve on it. Yet at the same time, it’s notable (and perhaps unfortunate) how true it also is to the traditions of the films, with all of the trademarks, from the naff quips to the disfigured villain’s tic (in this case the ventolin inhaler which Bond bugs). The cold war and SMERSH update unexpectedly well to a post-9/11 secret organisation engaged in bankrolling terrorists in a symbiotic relationship that is only threatened by Le Chiffre’s failure at the card table; the stakes are as high as in the book and even when tension of the card game that provides the heart of the film is unfortunately interrupted by disgruntled clients it is to reinforce the peril that Le Chiffre faces simply from Bond’s skill and luck at the table. Even the silly difribulator in the glove compartment is an improvement on Fleming’s walking-stick gun. And all for all the fuss made about Daniel Craig and his swimming trunks, in the book he takes them off!
Although the sequence in Madagascar has to be one of the best stunt sequences in any Bond film ever, after this it’s not until the card game that the film really gets going. Here the excitement and the tension of Fleming’s story is realised so well it eclipses the book. It’s only the last quarter of an hour of the film where doubts about the changes made set in. It is good - but does it match up to Vesper’s final evening with Bond in the book, where in the knowledge of what she will do she is so cold she almost makes Bond look human?
Show ▼
And I missed Mathis’ talk about playing Red Indians which, while not very politically correct, would have had some resonance given Bond’s behaviour in the Nambutu embassy, as well has helping to define Bond’s conviction to stay with MI6 to prevent such traitors simply strolling off with state secrets.
Performance-wise, Mads Mikkelsen is a little cartoonish as Le Chiffre. While it’s true that there’s not a lot of the character in Flemings original to realise, his portrayal has little depth and it’s not until his final scene that he pushes the desperation he must feel at his predicament. On the other hand, Eva Green is incredible; similarly poorly served by Fleming’s sketch of the character Green makes Vesper cooler, smarter and sexier than her literary precursor. Both the sparky encounter on the train and the shivery scene in the shower give the her a range and depth that Fleming failed to capture. I’ll admit I’ve fallen in love with a few previous Bond girls but Green’s Vesper is peerless. And the chemistry with Craig, who it has been widely noted is simply excellent, is electric.
Will the Quantum of Solace, a.k.a. New Bond 2, live up to quality of Craig’s first outing? There are several factors against this. There’s the source material: Casino Royale’s best moments, the heart of the film, are around the card game and the torture scene which come straight from the book. Take that away and you’ve got a distinctly less impressive runaround. As noted, the old Bond cliche’s are there - for example in the Nambutu embassy, when the sirens go off and all the men with machine guns run out it’s reminiscent of every film from You Only Live Twice to Tomorrow Never Dies, it’s just that it’s done with a conviction and care that makes it work. So then there’s the Martin Campbell factor: he’s a man with a track record of launching new Bonds; in the past subsequent films have failed to live up to the promise of the first. And for me the most persuasive argument that we’re about to be served a dud is the budget factor - Casino Royale has a smaller budget than the three films that preceded it, yet Quantum’s budget is over twice as big, easily the most ever spent on a Bond film. The final nail in the coffin is that despite having the good sense to use Fleming’s title for the film, this will be marred by naming mysterious organisation from Casino Quantum for, I imagine, no better reason than trying to justify the choice of title.
On the plus side, there’s Daniel Craig again, it’s the shortest Bond film ever (even though Casino Royale was a full 2 hours 20 it would have been a much better film if 40 minutes had been trimmed from the first half). There’s Paul Haggis back writing the script. Then there’s the fact that even if it’s not another Casino Royale, as long as it’s not Moonraker or Die Another Day it’ll probably make me happy.
Here following the announcement of Another Way To Die. I’m a “golden gun” but I only scored 8. In my defence, questions 7 and 9 don’t have much to do with the films, though. Presumably if you give a certain answer to questions 10 a certain composer will start legal proceedings against you…
Toby Stephens to Play James Bond
But not in a film. Radio 4 are adapting Dr No. Bringing Bond to the radio is a great idea, let’s hope this is successful enough to guarantee a series.
With the press apparently in as eager a frenzy to decry the newly announced title for Bond 22 as they were to decry Craig two years ago, there’s a great article in its defence by Evan Willnow on commanderbond.net, and there are Fleming’s own words:
The Governor paused and looked reflectively over at Bond. He said: “You’re not married, but I think it’s the same with all relationships between a man and a woman. They can survive anything so long as some kind of basic humanity exists between the two people. When all kindness has gone, when one person obviously and sincerely doesn’t care if the other is alive or dead, then it’s just no good. That particular insult to the ego—worse, to the instinct of self-preservation—can never be forgiven. I’ve noticed this in hundreds of marriages. I’ve seen flagrant infidelities patched up, I’ve seen crimes and even murder forgiven by the other party, let alone bankruptcy and every other form of social crime. Incurable disease, blindness, disaster—all these can be overcome. But never the death of common humanity in one of the partners. I’ve thought about this and I’ve invented a rather high-sounding title for this basic factor in human relations. I have called it the Law of the Quantum of Solace.”
The Sun are running a story that Bond 22 will be based around the plot of Risico as a sequel to Casino Royale. A previous rumour suggested that Risico, one of the few unused Fleming titles, would be used for Bond 22.
The Sun article suggests that Martin Campbell will return as director, though there’s no further info on who will be writing. I’m still hoping Michael Wilson and Stoppard.
Casino Royale: A New Beginning, Business As Usual?
Before the title was known, this project was referred to as Bond 21. It is the 21st film to be produced by a Broccoli, and the 21st film to feature Monty Norman’s famous theme. Besides the producers returning, writers, the composer and even one of the regular actors returned. But this James Bond is not the same James Bond of the previous films. This is a new take, a different adaptation of Fleming’s character.
So, does it work? Well, the producers essentially had three options in adapting Casino Royale:
I thought the reboot the least favourable option, and would have like to seen a more subtle use of Fleming’s material worked into the series (after all, we’re prepared to suspend our disbelief about the fact that Bond has been around for 40 years without ever ageing more than 20). This is what they did with For Your Eyes Only and The Living Daylights with, in my view, reasonable success. A 50s or 60s set Cold War story might have been good, but would never have had the broad appeal an up to date Bond could have. It would also have suffered unfavourable comparisons with the films that would then be supposed to follow it: an unfair challenge, how could a period film compare with a contemporary picture in capturing the exuberance of the era or the sinister menace of the cold war?
Instead, the reboot gets its edge from the current global political climate, and it works. Casino Royale is a great opening to a new Bond series, and I’m looking forward to see Craig’s Bond in several more films evolving into the sophisticated super-spy he is destined to become.
Channel 4 did one of their “greatest” countdowns, purely on Bond themes, on Saturday night. The programme was rather amusing, with a selection of Bond artists and rejected singers bitching about each other (Alice Cooper on Lulu, John Barry on a-ha: “well, they call themselves a-ha, for a start”) and some cheeky editing of clips from the movies.
Here are Channel 4’s results:
For Your Eyes Only at No. 5? Blimey!
Beside the inevitable fact that they ranked the themes wrongly, it wasn’t clear whether they were taking into acount all the music for the films, just the songs, or just the title song. For example, Casino Royale (number 21) seemed to be there on the strength of “The Look of Love”, which was not a title song. For O.H.M.S.S (number 12) it was “We Have All The Time In The World” that was mentioned, and it’s a great song, but would any one regard their Bond theme collection complete without Barry’s terrific instrumental title theme? And whilst they mentioned closing title songs “Surrender” and “If There Was A Man” they didn’t mention “The Experience of Love” from the end of Goldeneye. But they did discuss the score to Goldeneye (compared to the music from Tetris by one commentator, but as “ahead of its time” by David Arnold who has scored every Bond film since). So does the score count? Do the other songs count? Should we mark down “Nobody Does It Better?” because of Hamlisch’s cheesy score, or boost a-ha’s feeble “Living Daylights” because of the contributions from Barry and The Pretenders?
No the only way to do it is to rank soundtracks separately from the title themes and songs, and rank each song separately (and forget the unofficial Bond movies). So, here’s my themes and songs ranking:
I’ve probably missed a few. Let’s say they didn’t make it into the top 29.
Casino Royale: This Never Happened to the Other Fellas
When Sean Connery strolled onto the screen in 1962’s Dr No, James Bond was already a popular fictional character. Behind the scenes, Fleming had been unconvinced by the casting, but the producers were hoping the success of this debut would ensure it became the first of a series of adaptations of the novels. Connery had a daunting task. But if he’d failed, the project would have been forgotten.
It wasn’t, and, after 20 blockbusting films and 44 years later, an actor has stepped into the role Connery originally defined, and this time he’s being asked to begin it all again, to convince us not just that he’s Bond, but that in him lie the origins of the agent we all feel we know so well. Without any of the trademarks or the formula we recognise, Craig was asked to create a new character that already existed; to pursuade us not that he’s Bond, but that he will be Bond. That never happened to the other fellas.
Each time a new actor stepped into the role before, whether they took things up a notch (Moore) or pared things back (Dalton), the essential formula was carefully preserved with all its familiar trappings, and you felt you could get the true measure of each new Bond only by how they looked in a DJ, how they ordered a Martini, and how they uttered the line “Bond. James Bond.” It was only with Lazenby they dared to try anything new or different in adapting the novel in which Fleming married off Bond: On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. With its downbeat ending it wasn’t in the mold of the five films that preceded it, and the Connery was brought straight back in for the next one, a thought that must have been present in Craig’s mind when he considered taking the role.
But there’s one reason why Craig’s been a success: he can act. There’s no doubt in my mind that Daniel Craig is the best actor to take on the role. Good actors have played the part before (as well as some clothes horses) but none as good as this man. They assembled a good cast for this film: Judi Dench, Eva Green and Mads Mikkelsen are all terrific, and contribute in no small measure to making it a drama as well as an entertainment. But the success of Casino Royale rests on the shoulders of one man: Craig. Daniel Craig.
