3 Modern Action Films, Part 2: Quantum of Solace (2008)

My favourite part of a saga is not the birth of the character; it's the maturation of the character. The second film of a trilogy appeals to me the most (consider The Empire Strikes Back). Or films that are set long after the character's birth(see Chinatown).

I want to see what a character is "made of", not how they were made.

I anticipated great things for Quantum Of Solace.


In my opinion Casino Royale was a solid effort and revitalized a very tired series, but was a traditional action story. Casino Royale was about the struggle of learning to kill: a struggle I cannot identify with at all. Quantum of Solace about the struggle against succumbing to nihilism and vengeance: a struggle I often identify with. Quantum of Solace's content was original, contemplative, and considerably more nuanced than Casino Royale. However...

I submit to the readers the following:

AN ACTION FILM MUST HOLD MY ATTENTION THROUGH CHARACTER INTEREST, THE NATURE OF THE PLOT ITSELF, OR (AT THE VERY LEAST) THE SHEER COOLNESS OF THE ACTION.

The film has some of the best frames I've seen. (Craig in the car chase sequence at the beginning of the film shown shifting gears and concentrating on corners. Also later in the film, the way Craig's motorbike is held in position on frame while tracking the motion almost perfectly.) But these great looking frames are never on screen long enough for us to appreciate the action. We never get more than a quarter second peek at Craig's face. THE CHARACTER INTEREST IN AN ACTION FILM IS ALWAYS DRIVEN BY THE FACE OF THE ACTOR HIMSELF. We never have this. The one time I got a decent look at Craig's face it was quite late in the film... And he had sunglasses on!

BY NOT EVEN BEING ABLE TO LOOK AT THE LEAD, WE ARE NEVER GIVEN A CHANCE TO DEVELOP INTEREST IN HIS CHARACTER.

I think we were supposed to develop a deeper interest in M's character. One of their fellow agents calls her "mother" (I think, but it's so hard to hear) at the beginning of the film... Perhaps her agents hold a matriarchal view of her befitting her code name? I think she was supposed to be smoking in that other scene? But how could I tell? The whole scene was maybe 3 seconds long... These would have been some great details had we actually seen them.

I've never seen such a rushed film. From the constant jump cuts (Bond walking down a hallway 40 ft from the corner cuts to him already on the other side. Or when he dresses himself after killing his assailant with split second cuts: cleaning his bloody nose/cut/putting half an arm through shirt/cut/buttoning one button/cut/walks out door.), to the air being taken out of the dialogue on scale with "Ask A Ninja".

THE PACE IS SO HECTIC WE CAN'T EVEN DIGEST THE PLOT.

The sheer speed everything happens at never lets us even begin to understand what's going on. Hell, not only can we not figure out why somebody did something (the plot)... We couldn't even tell what it was they did! (the action) Sure, you could figure all this out by watching it three times... But who'd want to?

ACTION IS NOT EQUAL TO COOLNESS HERE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL WHAT JUST HAPPENED.

Therefore, the film fails to generate character interest, plot interest, and even sheer coolness. As a member of the action genre, it fails.

I'm not saying that this is an illegitimate way to cut a film. As a post-modern action film, this may be a very legitimate statement: action in reality is so complex, confusing and quick that you really may have no idea what is going on and only instinct will allow survival. (Anyone who's been in a situation of peril will note that this is probably a true statement.) If this was the director/editor's philosophy in the creation of this film, I applaud their chutzpah. If it wasn't, I have even more contempt for this film than I already do.

BUT, even if you were trying to make such a statement, this is still the wrong film to do it in. There is no way around the tradition of a Bond film (and the audience's expectations because of that tradition). Nobody comes to this film for those sorts artistic musings. Nobody is prepared to interpret this film in that way. A James Bond film is not post-modern; it's barely just become a modern action medium.

As a film it was a very artistic effort, maybe... But surely a complete artistic failure.

Postlude:

I actually enjoy the content of Quantum of Solace enough that I prefer it to Casino Royale... But I also admit it's a far inferior film.

If only Public Enemies would hurry to theatre...