A Quantum of...Social Relevance?

By Steven Zeitchik

Say this for "The Quantum of Solace:" It's certainly been reading the newspaper. Few movies in recent memory have made the stakes sound so much like something that might set the heart of a Sierra Cub activist atwitter.

Forget drug deals, political power or even poker kitties. What the villains are after in Columbia/MGM's new James Bond extravaganza -- a stylish set of action set pieces that's unfortunately a little more pedestrian in characterizations and plot than "Casino Royale" -- is raw materials. That means oil, to start with (there's even a very funny nod to "Goldfinger," with the visual joke communicating that oil is the new gold) and water, which is what the villains are really trying to control.

There have been some odd stakes in recent good-guy-vs.-bad-guy movies -- didn't "Superman Returns" have Lex Luthor's devilish plan turning on real estate? -- and nods to current political squabbles over oil in Middle East-set thrillers. But we can't remember a mainstream, high-stakes espionage picture ever getting so nitty grittty with the stuff common to newspaper editorialists.

For years the conventional wisdom was that it if you were going to give people something to fight over, best to make it drugs or obscene amounts of money, in part because villains don't generally pay much attention to NPR and in part because it's assumed viewers don't get that same thrill from watching characters' outmaneuver each other over life's necessities than over its vices.

But "Quantum" may signal a leap, with the new fashion to stage not just a carbon-neutral production but to turn the film itself into an environmental quest. That likely means one of two things: either movies have become more sober -- or filmgoers in tough times are starting to view the pursuit of life's necessities as a little more exciting.

Comments

[Commodity Trading Accounts]

I hope this movie rocks more like Casino Royal

[Sloane]

Thank you for this insightful and interesting post! I am intrigued by your discussion of the new face of Bond, a Bond with social consciousness. Never before have we seen a Bond fighting to protect not only his queen, but the world’s natural resources as well; oil is the new gold, after all, and he who controls it rules the world. Your point that we have yet to see a “mainstream, high-stakes espionage picture ever get so nitty-gritty with the stuff common to newspaper editorialists” is a good one. By now, audiences are used to Middle-East thrillers like Syriana tackling such serious political issues and go into theaters expecting it, but a Bond film that follows suit may take viewers by surprise. This begs the question: do they really want one? Your assertion that “viewers don’t get the same thrill from watching characters outmaneuver each other for life’s necessities as they do from its vices” is valid; in hard times such as these, perhaps what moviegoers really want is to immerse themselves in a world unfamiliar to them, where good guys chase bad guys to stop them from smuggling drugs and obscene amounts of money—something that doesn’t hit quite as close to home. However, as evidenced by Quantum’s record-breaking opening weekend in the UK, it looks likely that the socially relevant angle is actually helping, rather than hurting the movie. With record numbers of voters turning out to the polls today, it may be that people are tired of sticking their heads in the sand and want nothing more than to examine how to deal with such global problems. I agree with your conjecture that “filmgoers in tough times are starting to view the pursuit of life’s necessities as a little more exciting”; in a time of such uncertainty, maybe what audiences want is a hero who is certain, and who we know is sure to prevail; predictable as he may be, Bond always saves the day, and that sounds pretty good right about now. As the polls have shown, America wants a man of action, and James Bond certainly qualifies.