I think few would dispute that the Daniel Craig reboot of the Bond films saved the franchise, but that doesn't mean it's been all perfect filmmaking since. This great video essay examines why even probably the most famous action franchise can mess up action scenes.
Before you watch the analysis below, watch the opening car chase scene from "Quantum of Solace" shown above. I'll wait. Now that you've watched it, how did you like it? Can you tell me exactly what happened? If you're feeling a little confused or underwhelmed, it's not your fault. This great analysis from Patrick (H) Willems discusses why the opening scene is so problematic, with the main issue being a lack of clear geography, which renders the scene a confusing jumble of fast cuts and unclear circumstances:
As Spielberg said: "I can create suspense if the audience knows where all the players are and what all the stakes are." The problem is that if the audience has to devote too many cognitive resources to figuring out what exactly is going on, their suspension of disbelief is destroyed and watching the scene becomes a tedious exercise instead of a thrilling immersion. It's an important principle to keep in mind when working on a film.
Isn't this sttuff supposed to be the responsibility of the "continuity editor"? That's the line I was fed when I was younger. And it's not limited to geography - it extends to history.
Highlights of my career as a cinema watcher include seeing the following:
- A film starring Cary Grant, where the camera captures him sitting at a table on a balcony in the south of France, with the female star seated opposite - and they BOTH have the sun falling on the front of their face, even though both faces point in opposite directions. My family comes from the south of France - and I can reassure everyone that there are NOT two different suns there!
- A sequence in another film where they obviously shot a heap of stuff all at once, then another heap, and later spliced them - taking different scenes, in whatever sequence was deemed appropriate, from either take. The key might have been that one of the characters was played by someone who wasn't there for the whole time the film was being shot. Whatever - the pricelessly funny outcome was a series of shots disrupted by a motif of "now you see it, now you don't" - because one male character kept coming into the room at a certain point in the movie, then going out, coming back, and this repeated several times - but the extraordinary part was his beard - one minute he had it, the next he didn't, and a few minutes later it was there again. I have a beard myself - and I can assure you that it's impossible to cut it off and regrow it every few minutes, no matter how clever or hirsute you are!
And then of course the alltime classic - a film of Shakespeare's play Henry V, during which the action moves to the scene of the Battle of Agincourt in France, some 6 centuries ago. And to the astonishment of the audience, there are visible tyre tracks from a Land Rover running across the battlefield.
One minor thing, in the Borne movie the big black vehicle was a G-waggon.
I wasn't underwhelmed by the Bond scene. I liked it a great deal and had no trouble working out object's spatial relationship to each other. Maybe I'm a savant or something, I don't know.
Had zero trouble telling what was going on
Honestly think he chose the wrong scene to rant over on this
Three cars driving fast and the first car getting shot at...
It’s not hard to figure out at all... just because they are all black doesn’t mean it’s hard to figure out that the front one is bond...
They show bond.. all it takes is 1/2 second to fully recognize him...
At no point was it confusing...
To me and my limited grasp of film school theory, maybe the intent of the Bond chase is to disorient the viewer with the short choppy cuts, the claustrophobic way it is shot and the which end is up feeling. I think the style is a conscious decision rather than a string of mistakes. Not sure it works as anything more than an action scene.
In the Bourne chase it is much easier to keep track of and more by the book. The viewer has time to relax and figure out what is happening during the slower long street shots. Then the jumbled close ups and action shots to add excitement. This style makes more sense and is easier to keep track of the "geography"
Now I finally know, whyI never liked that opening.
I always felt stupid but I'm happy to see that others struggle with this scene as well.
Thanks for the post!
Never really took Bond movies seriously....It is a British version of Captain America.... another excuse for white males to live out their fantasies. Time for a change....
"People like me"......what the f do you know about people like me...so much for respecting the 1st amendment. So predictable again.
Again...talking through your rear end again. My original comments was directed to the author of this article...not to you. If you want to take offence, that is your problem, not mind. Better things to do than engage with this nonsense.
I will not respond to any further communication from you. Go and pick a fight with someone else.
Good day
The entire world is America, buddy. The 1st amendment doesn't mean anything to 99% of the world.
Nothing complicated here. Jesus was not born in America, Europe or Asia...but there are Christian churches all over the planet. Not much difference with "free speech" or the use of alphabets.........so on and so forth.
Triggered!
Fake News mate. I am hardly in a position to legislate such a view. Just because I watch a Bond / Marvel / Star War movies does not means I cannot think for myself and express a view especially about a fictional movie character. Whats next? The Simpsons are real people?
Do what ever. Non of my business. As movie goer I would like to watch a few more movies with strong female roles....nothing to do with race...more of a gender issue.
Did you see Wonder Woman? That was AWESOME!
On of the positive things about South East Asia is people can go and watch Cantonese, Mandarin, English, Malay, Hindi, Tamil .....movies.
News: Mulan: Disney casts Chinese actress Liu Yifei in lead role...
ha ha....Well there is no more "princess" left in China, Russia, France......... n the world is flat.....
Comparing Bond to Captain America. One can only laugh at such an absurd comparison.
Really......fictional characters apparently saving a fictional world..........honestly. Just like Harry Porter with his magic wand........still fictional.
My heart rate didn't speed up at all. My brain synapses, however, were in over-drive. Maybe the differing responses are due to approaches to movies. Some people can just relax and take what they're given and others need to understand what they're looking at.
I was able to relax, and understand what I was looking at the whole time. I think it's a combination of heightened spatial awareness, background knowledge of the bond stories, and good attention to detail that separate those who felt confused and those who understood what was going on.
See my response to Helmut, below!
I'd still keep my response.
"I don't think you guys easily followed the scene (but of course could be wrong). I think you didn't bother trying."
It really isn't that crazy that some people don't need their hand held to get what's going on.
My initial caveat was designed to be nice. You thought you knew what was going on (I'm talking about precise knowledge of which car, driver, etc.. in EVERY SHOT) but you couldn't. You may have even guessed right but there just wasn't enough information available, probably by design, to have definitive knowledge.
Even when I don't know what's going on, which is more often than I like, I don't need, or want, anyone holding my hand, thank you. :-)
I guess you just don't believe me but I don't know any other way to tell you that this movie intro wasn't confusing for me. I have no way to convince you other than hoping you'd take my word so there's no point in continuing.
I believe it doesn't matter and not worth getting upset over. :-)
Not upset just nothing more to discuss no worries. sort of a agree to disagree
I didn't think you were upset. I meant in general.
I watched it again with a more critical eye, which I don't think you should have to do in a movie like this, and I can see how you mighta, coulda followed it. You win!
That's the problem, though. Confusion does not equal excitement. It equals confusion. And nothing takes the viewer "out" of a scene more than fundamental confusion over what is happening in the scene.
Take the examples of Spielberg scenes just shown in the above clips. Those are real roller-coaster scenes. Yet you know what is happening, and where the people you are identifying with are. To me at least, it makes it more exciting.
IMHO, in an action scene like this knowing where the "hero" is is critical, even if you are involved in moment-to-moment and have no idea of the larger story ("larger story" being "Bond is trying to get away from all these cars full of people shooting at him"). We see trucks crashing and falling off cliffs, but are not supposed to care about those - they are just extras in the scene. We see other autos get smashed up and we are not supposed to care about those for the same reason. But we are supposed to care when one of the pursuers' cars gets taken out, and we are supposed to care when something happens to Bond or his vehicle. So you need to clearly be able to discern "pursuer" from "Bond" from "extras", moment to moment in the chase scene.
For what it is worth, I absolutely hated this scene when I saw it in the theater. Liked the rest of the movie, but the first sequence just left me flat and was a waste of time and the rest of the movie had to dig out of that hole. Never sat and tried to analyze what was wrong with it, but I think this explanation around "geography" makes a lot of sense.
Well, I didn't have problems following the scene neither as Terry Hernlund. So this raises the question: Should you always make movies to please people that lack cognitive powers so the movie appeals to a broader audience?
"people that lack cognitive powers"? I don't think you guys easily followed the scene (but of course could be wrong). I think you didn't bother trying. Personally, I think it's the other way around. That scene delivered on an emotional level. Definitely not cognitive. Nothing wrong with either approach and I'm not sure either would necessarily appeal to a broader audience.
I was referring to the confused sister in Willems' video. Just because she doesn't get the scene or in other words the edit was too quick for her brain to process it doesn't make it bad. In fact how would you portrait a high speed chase through a tunnel? I think the quick cuts add to the emotional stress of the viewer therefore transferring the emotion the drivers should have at that moment in the scene. I am not sure if that is what you meant with "delivering on an emotional level" and we mean the same thing. And yes I thought it was easy to follow.
Thanks for your feedback Sam!
It's not a big deal but I meant, if you try to understand exactly what's going on, who's in which car, in every shot, you can't. You can think you do and there's nothing wrong with that but, you can't. There just isn't enough information available. Going with your intuition is clearly superior in this case because you can enjoy the movie better. Some of us have a difficult time enjoying movies due to over-analyzing them. On a completely different level, but you kinda introduced it, different things elicit emotion for different people. A car chase, such as the one in question, doesn't do anything for me emotionally. When he gets into a close, hand-to-hand fight, later on, absolutely.
I was an ambulance driver for the red cross during my community service over a decade ago. You got to be quite good at anticipating other people's movement on the road when they suddenly see the flashing lights and hear the siren. Most of them don't react as you would like them to and it can get quite stressful at times so there is my emotional connection to high speed driving in difficult situations. ;)
There's no way I could do that. I'd end up in the back, with the passenger, having a heart attack! :-)
The difference in cars is easy for anyone who loves sports cars and knowing Austin Martin is famous for being one of Bond's favorite cars helps. There wasn't a single frame that confused me as to where Bond was or who was chasing who.
I would think anyone who loves sports cars would know how to spell Aston Martin. :-/
We were dining downtown when I noticed this parked out front. The guys guarding it didn't seem to mind my taking the shot. :-)
Spelling hasn't always been my greatest skill I'm not afraid to admit.
I was just messing with you. I really don't like communicating with people this way because it really limits my ability to add expression to my words. :-/ <- See what I mean? What does that even mean, anyway? And half the time, people ignore them. :-(
"Lack of clear geography" I am not sure about that. When I first saw it in the theaters, I knew right away it was filmed in Europe because I had driven on roads very similar. Maybe it was for more sophisticated audiences?
Absolutely. James Bond movies are definitely highbrow. I always watch while sitting in my Hadley Button Tufted Leather Chesterfield Club chair, wearing a Brooks Brothers Supima robe and Ascot slippers while sipping a snifter of cognac. ;-)
I don´t agree with the premise that disorientation of the audience is bad per se. Judging by the comments above some people are more disoriented than others, but I think that was the point of the whole scene. To me it works because I think it is more about a general feeling of chaos rather than a string of events that needs to be told one after the other. Also I think the scene only works so well because there is that drawn out conclusion. First I think: "Ok, he made it out alive. So far, so Bond." Then I realize that Mr. White was in the trunk the whole time, making me go through the chase scene in my head again, imagining him being in there.
I didn't see a problem with the scene. It established excitement and danger quickly. From a filmaking point of view, it didn't bother me that the coastal road, quarry, and Siena were not geographically connected, because I know they are not. I have been to Siena and it's 40+ miles inland from the coast.
I have seen bad films and bad scenes, I just don't see this as one of them.
"Geography" is a bad term for this, but the point is not where the actual geographical features are, but where the individual characters are in relation to each other throughout the sequence. It's one of those "film school terms" that seem nonsensical to normal English-speakers.
Not knowing which car is which, who is chasing whom, etc, keeps me from getting much out of the scene. Maybe a few drinks to shut off higher-order brain function would leave me staring at the cacophony on screen and just say "wow, danger! excitement!" (definitely been there!) but instead I spent the first sequence of this movie trying to figure out what was going on and why I should care.
Ppfff. Nothing messed up or confusing about Bond Scene. In fact it was very effective so that when he opens the trunk, his calmness impresses us after all that carefully choreographed fast action scene.
Patrick Willems relies on his sister’s confusion and his own ignorance of cars.
I couldn’t believe he called a Mercedes Benz a Land Rover and black cars are not just black cars. The difference between an alpha Romeo and a Jaguar is not subtle.
The audience knows all this.
He and his sister were confused because they just aren't real Bond fans or know anything about the franchise. Maybe that doesn't help new people fall in love with the movies but it certainly doesn't equate to this being a bad scene.
This could have been fixed for them by having one clear shot of Bond driving the Austin Martin before the chase sequence really ramps up. It wouldn't have to be more than a couple seconds at most and if someone still doesn't get it then maybe Bond movies aren't for them.
Maybe I don't know cars as well as you but I didn't notice an Alpha [sic] Romeo anywhere in the scene.
Gave it a second watch and found the Alfa Romeo! :-)
Quantum of Solace entirely looked like that: rough hand held, quick fast paced editing, fast paced and straight to the point with few scenes where the film slows down (all without buildup to the action and drama), etc. Instead of keeping the classic James Bond aesthetic of longer takes, slower editing to let the audience take in every shot, and next to no shaky cam/handheld. The filmmakers decided to change everything around.
Yes I can follow along everything happening in the chase, but to me that just isn’t how a James Bond car chase should be (Borne yes though). Quantum to me is the worst Bond film and yet it could’ve been so good: a direct sequel to Casino Royal with a great and Flemming-like James Bond with Craig’s interpretation on the role... But all lost on the filmmakers vision of the film-forgetting about the distinct style of the Bond franchise that was established in 1962 :(