CommanderBond.net

"The most interesting place for a James Bond movie to go is inward - deeper into Bond himself."

Marc Forster discusses where 007 will head in 'Bond 22'

I hope to God he doesn't turn out like Michael Apted...

Or as Paul puts it in the latest podcsat, like TWINE
Bond is about action; I'm concerned that an action director is not required for the latest flick. I don't weant to come across as a little Englander either, but I'm concerned too that it's being directed by a non-Brit, or even by someone whose English is a third language; I think an Englishman is bestsuited to convey what Bond represents and the world he inhabits.

I find Die Hard and Aliens being cited as action examples to be extremely promising. Not that you'd expect the guy to ape these films, but they're both movies that keep sight of the characters, aim to be credible, and most importantly work to create 'tension' rather than just 'spectacle'.

That said, Forster's visuals are often interesting...

His nationality doesn't bother me at all. Cronenberg and Curon have no problem conveying characters from London. The Scotts have little difficulty with LA residents. Greengrass feels like a native wherever he is. There are good and bad examples - I'm picking the good ones, natch - but it's not the nationality, it's the filmmaker.

There's no language or culture barrier obvious in Monster's Ball, which is a very specific world to reflect on-screen. Sometimes an outsider can even see things clearer; can find a new perspective on the familiar.

Besides, Bond's well-travelled and half-Swiss... :-)

The difference is that Apted WAS a top director who was pretty much been a has been by the time the helmed BOnd(His last good movie was 11 years prior). Forester on the other hand is a younger director basically in the first half of his career has had just as much acclaim as Apted did in his entire career.

As long as Forester does not cast someone like Denise Richards as the leading lady we should be okay.

Oh, I guess now we get to peel back some layers.

When Forster was hired my mind also immediately went to Apted. Looking back on it, TWINE suffered not from a lack of action but from the style of it: there was no intensity to it (save for perhaps elements of the boat chase). Everything felt so very staged. CR's action was intense and felt real, due in no small part to photography, design, and direction.

Alex Witt turned in a phenomenal effort last time as second unit director. Call me wrong, but I believe he's coming back - I expect no less of him. In fact, with Forster admittedly inexperienced in the genre, Witt may get a chance to REALLY spread his wings as Forster leans on him for support.

EDIT: My mistake. Dan Bradley's doing it according to IMDB. I knew that, I just thought he was designing the action and not taking on full responsibility of directing the second unit.

This post has been edited by MattofSteel: 9 December 2007 - 05:36

I take your point Sorking, but most of the names you provided are Anglo-Saxons who have an acquaintance and affinity with England and share much of its culture. I'm not American, but I understand the in-jokes that my Continental friends don't because they were never brought up on American culture.
I don't want to pull out the old chestnut either about Fleming's Bond, but the fact is that Fleming wrote in a very sparing style which kept the mystery and otherworldliness of the man. By peeling back the layers as Kilkenny describes it, we get not the hero we worship but just another American-type spy. That's not to say I want him to be narrow and 2-dimensional, but there has been enough material over the past 20 films to create nuance without artificially creating new myths. The fact that the last film changed Bond from one with a formidable naval upbringing to another SAS-type is evidence of it. Far from creating a new, intriguing understanding, by ignoring everything it only serves to demean and simplify the character.

Interesting comments. Nice to see that we're finally getting a few more bits and pieces about Bond 22 from the guy.

While the "inward" bit might bring up some worrisome thoughts among a few Bond fans, it'll naturally be different with Craig as Bond and Forster directing.

Isn't that what they said during TWINE, though?

This is probably the only promising news regarding Bond 22 that I've heard so far. Forster is a talented director, and I think that he'll elevate the material that he's given and make a fairly decent movie. Hopefully he gets the Bond franchise back on track, and I think that these comments indicate that there is the potential for a very interesting movie this time around.

Well, I only named two UK-outsiders, a Canadian and a Mexican; but I'm not sure we have any reason to suspect a lack of affinity.

Still, artistic affinity mostly becomes obvious until a filmmaker works in that area. I don't see a history in Germany/Switzerland/New York as immediately contrary to what Bond needs directorially. Finding Neverland, for me, showed no difficulty with language, class, or any other issue one might see as required to maintain a sense of 'British'.

I see no reason to assume the man's origins will a hindrance to making a film already produced, financed and co-written by Americans. Indeed, I think his record to date shows immense versatility, adapting to portray a culture rather than twisting it to his own sensibilities.

Also, Forster's forbidden from changing lines in the script, thanks to the WGA strike... :-)



Well, okay, if CR's direction disappointed you I guess I'm coming from a different place. I absolutely want this to be Casino Royale 2!

But, again, there's no reason to assume 'not being British' equals 'ignoring everything' - or, for that matter, 'going too deep'.

This post has been edited by sorking: 9 December 2007 - 06:27

I don't want to appear completely insular, but from Dr. No to LTK, all but one of the 16 films were directed by Terence Young, Guy Hamilton, Lewis Gilbert or John Glen. As today's NYTimes puts it, "The Bond industry was very much a closed shop, or, to put a more sinister spin on it, a shadowy organization — like Spectre — whose secrets were not to be shared with outsiders."
It's an interesting piece for Bond aficionados, although I take exception to its statement that "nobody who saw Octopussy in 1983 or AVTAK two years later retains a vivid or a particularly happy memory of it."
But it ends thus with a quote from the prospective director: