First impressions last. There was a sense of excitement and intrigue prior to Casino Royale's release some years ago, as I recall trailers for the movie then. But the trailers for Solace sold it as a straight actioner, showcasing the more unrealistic action sequences that invited immediate comparison to Bourne, and therefore was set up for critical panning from the get go.
A better idea would have had to have presented a poetic, contemplative narrative, with flashes of the action, teasingly suggestive (and certainly not the 'falling down shards of glass grabbing gun and accurately firing it' scene), more iconic poses of Bond (especially the chiaroscuro light-dark image of Bond in the caves) and Judi Dench's 'M', even flashes of Gemma Arteton in the buff. That would have been more true to what the movie was about, as well as subverting expectation: it would actually turn out to be a frenetic action movie. People would have seen it anyway - it's the second Bond movie with Daniel Craig! - and word of mouth would have spread...
Forster could have anticipated that the movie, with its arty style and direction would have a fringe appeal. Why hide it then? Would have been better to have treated it as such in the promotional stages. I suspect, however, a conflict of interests with the producers and product placement companies may have made that last suggestion impractical, near impossible... To go full-out selling it as a straight actioner limited the scope of appreciation for the artistic heights the movie obviously aspired to reach.
I don't envy the guy responsible for final cuts to shape a world view on a Director's vision. If you had a conscience, that margin of error you missed, causing a product millions in losses would be quite a weight on your mind. Perhaps a job best suited to heartless bastards, with a more scientific eye in mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment