The Associated Press seems to begin its latest report on Quantum of Solace with a major spoiler, but if you skip over that bit, there are some other interesting tidbits about the newest James Bond film:
Despite the heightened realism of the last Bond film, not to mention its commercial success (over $500 million worldwide), the German-born Swiss director was wary of joining the bombastic franchise.
Forster negotiated with producers to ensure he had as much creative control as possible on the $200 million-plus production. Nevertheless, he’s still squeezed into the “framework of Bond.”
“But I like it because you feel like it can make you very creative,” he said. “And a lot of interesting things come out of that. Because, if you look at filmmakers that worked under politically repressive regimes, (they) made sometimes really interesting movies.”
Filming is about halfway done on “Quantum,” which is the name of the organization Bond is going up against. Craig said the emotional tone is lighter than “Casino Royale,” in which Bond’s lover Vesper Lynd betrayed him and then died — but only a smidgen so.
So “Quantum” is the name of the villain’s organization? Oh-kay, if that’s true, then this title may fit into the who-it’s-about category of Bond titles, and perhaps even the techno-threat category, albeit in a more indirect sort of way. It is curious, though, that Paul Haggis, who wrote the final draft of the script, would say that he had “no idea” why the producers gave the film this title. Was the organization called something else in his version of the script, then?
Meanwhile, Reuters notes that this film’s villain will not have any of the overt distinguishing characteristics that previous Bond villains have had — no white cats, no facial scars, no third nipples, no prosthetic limbs. Oh, and this will be the latest film — following the likes of Evan Almighty, The Simpsons Movie and The Day the Earth Stood Still — to pursue an environmental theme:
Amalric’s character is part of a sinister organization helping to restore a dictator to power in Bolivia in exchange for land rich in natural resources. The film is set in the context of global warming and growing water shortages.
The Bond films are, if nothing else, good at capturing the zeitgeists of their respective eras. It will be interesting to see how these themes hold up in a couple decades’ time, compared to how, say, Bond’s support for the religious warriors in Afghanistan in The Living Daylights (1987) now looks to us.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In