Quantum of Solace

“Quantum of Solace”
Marc Forster, 2008

James Bond, in his numerous iterations, has emerged as something more than a character: he is an icon. What this icon represents has changed from film to film, but it generally relies upon several things – the agent's charm, his gadgets, his unprecedented capacity to seduce women, and his ability to enter and leave a film relatively unscathed, in time for the inevitable sequel. On a few occasions, the creators of Bond films have tried to step out of the constraints imposed by such a timeless icon by killing off a character that he truly cares for, with the hopes that the audience will perceive Bond more as a character than an icon, a human rather than a joke (Roger Moore in “Live and Let Die”) or a ruthless machine (Timothy Dalton in “License to Kill”). “On Her Majesty's Secret Service” and, more recently, “Casino Royale,” are such films, and because of their focus on the emotional aspects of the character, they serve as excellent, distinctive chapters in the franchise.

“Quantum of Solace” begins where its predecessor, “Casino Royale,” left off. James Bond, who is played by Daniel Craig, is seeking revenge for the death of his girlfriend, Vesper, who was played by Eva Green. In the process, Bond discovers that there is an international criminal organization called QUANTUM that is largely responsible for much of the world's instability and, perhaps, for Vesper's death.

Craig plays Bond as a resolute and, on rare occasion, sexy psychopath. It is a convincing performance, but the problems with “Quantum of Solace” arise not from Daniel Craig, but from the way in which the film was conceived. The director Mark Forster wants to address the many potentially fascinating aspects concerning Bond, but, while juggling the surfeit of activity, he crafts a disappointing film that is average in nearly every way. First and foremost, Forster wants to make his film a spectacle, but his action sequences are uninspired and poorly executed, entailing an assault of quick edits reminiscent of “The Bourne Ultimatum” (the technique isn't nearly as effective in this case) and poorly implemented C.G.I.

And then there is the nature of Bond himself. Forster attempts, in a rather perfunctory manner, to tackle the contradictions that are at the center of this man. As “Casino Royale” illustrated, Bond was trained as a killer, but he is ultimately a human, fallible to such things as falling in love. In “Quantum of Solace,” Bond is a ruthless killing machine who defies M's (Judi Dench) orders and, while deftly absorbing numerous kicks and punches, kills numerous suspects. Perhaps Bond is reacting, violently, to his own weakness, suppressing his emotions because, when he allowed them to shine through, he was hurt in an unprecedented way, much more so than the physical assaults he regularly endures. But this is my own observation about the matter, taken almost entirely from my viewing of “Casino Royale.”

Forster's film isn't nuanced enough to deal with these implications seriously. One of the film's biggest failings is its insistence on spoon-feeding this concept through its almost sadistic fascination with violence. Violence can be used to powerful effect in films, but in "Quantum of Solace," it is used as an assault on its viewers. We constantly witness Bond beating up various enemies: some are thrown off of roofs, others are stabbed with glass shards, and a number are knocked out cold in an elevator. What we witness - or at least try to, thanks to the shoddy way Forster has shot and edited his film - is an invincible machine doing what he does best. Anthony Lane, in his excellent review, mentions that there is also a masochistic thread running throughout the film; Bond wants to murder people so that he can hide his own troubles, and render himself, to some degree, numbed. But there is no rhyme or rhythm to the violence committed by our machine of a protagonist, and after only a few minutes, we simply don't care what he does or what happens to him.

Everything in the film, the action sequences, the exploration of our complex protagonist and the silly, threadbare plot, feels obligatory, but uninspired. The film is approached with an attitude that, much like its protagonist, borders on the indifferent; the result is neither exciting nor compelling. Once again, the complex humanity, the character, behind Bonds' cold exterior has given way to broad strokes, this time veering towards the portrait of Bond as a machine. Admittedly, Craig's rocklike visage emphasizes the exterior rather than the interior, but, as we've seen with “Casino Royale,” the character can and has been successfully tapped into. This time around, James Bond, the icon, has persevered.

Rating: 5

First Viewed: 11/14/08, in 35 mm projection - IMDb