Field Reports, Part II: Journal readings.

Just for reference, my journal is Senses of Cinema.

One article that I read and found interesting was about James Bond. The title is "You Know My Name: On Beginnings and Replications in the New Bond", and it was written by Jeffery Bunzendahl and Robert von Dassanowsky. Overall, this article definitely represents a certain side of Senses of Cinema (focused on narrative film work, in modern day). This article drew me in because I've always been a fan of James Bond for a long time. The authors brought up a lot of good points about the direction the character and the franchise are taking at this point. They discuss how Daniel Craig's "new" Bond exists in a seperate yet parallel world in the Bond time continuum. Obviously, the new Bonds are set in modern day with modern day locations and technology, as opposed to the Cold War backdrop of many of the other Bonds (Connery, Moore, Dalton). So how can Casino Royale be a prequel to all the others if it's set in a time after them? The authors also brought up a theory that Craig's Bond could hypothetically be the son of the "true" James Bond. This would account for difference in time periods between the films (that is, if creators want to keep the elastic time of the Bond series together). Barbara Broccoli (as producer) has stated that there won't be any remakes of older and classic Bond films, as they are "part of Bond history". They are only going to make new stories following the tradition that the new Casino Royale set up. And Daniel Craig has apparently signed on for four more films, so it seems they will have a new "mini" franchise on their hands. Another interesting point brought up is that James Bond, or 007, is just a code name and concept given to a particularily adept agent. And this would mean that Craig is a completely new person to assume the "identity" of a James Bond. In Casino Royale, "He [Bond] admires the 1963 Aston Martin ( from Goldfinger) in an unspoken moment of hidden knowledge that alters Craig’s face dramatically. The sudden realization seems less focused on the car, but with its human connection – that of a previous owner perhaps – a memory he shares with the audience". This is an example of what the authors try to do with this article. They theorize on who or what Bond really is. If Craig is a completely new person as "James Bond" then, according to this quote, he still has some innate knowledge of Bonds past or some trait of the character that has run throughout its history going all the way back to Sean Connery. Overall, this article was really interesting - especially to a fan of the Bond series. I had never really put this much thought into how the new Bond relates to the old one. But in reading this, my mind has certainly been opened to many possibilities.

Another article wasn't so much an article as it was a career biography. In each issue, Senses of Cinema does a profile on one or two film directors. And the one that I read was on Peter Jackson, as written by Matthew Stephenson. I was somewhat aware of Jackson's career trajectory, but not in the detail that this profile gave. This was a very interesting look into how Peter Jackson got involved in filmmaking and how his early films shaped his later success. I always enjoy reading about other filmmakers/directors seeing as this is a fate I hope for myself. I am very eager to here from these filmmakers so I can try to understand the process from someone who has done it. What makes Peter Jackson so intriguing is how his started off in extremely low-budget gore movies (Bad Taste, Braindead) and how he ended up on the highest of ends with The Lord of the Rings. One thing I admire Jackson for is his do-it-yourself attitude toward filmmaking. I believe all of his films have been made in his home country of New Zealand (as he kind of refuses to get caught up in the Hollywood fast lane). For his zombie movies, all of the creations were made in New Zealand and everything was shot there. He told New Zealand stories to the world, such as in Heavenly Creatures. But it's amazing because this do-it-yourself approach carries all the way through the massive Lord of the Rings project. Everything was done in New Zealand by a mainly Kiwi crew. The special effects were produced by WETA Digital, Jackson's home-based effects studio. The article describes the production of Lord of the Rings as "very much like that for a small independent film". This, to me, is truly incredible. I love the fact that a such a big budget epic can be conceived, filmed, and produced away from Hollywood with a sort of small town mindset - and to have it become the success and masterpiece that it did, well that's all the more admirable. At the end of the article, it talks about how Jackson wouldn't mind returning to the splatterfest horror movies that made him in the beginning. That fact that he would want to return to his roots after all the great success he's had is really cool.