Last night I went to see “Quantum Of Solace” with my friends. We spent a big chunk of time on lining up for entering the auditorium, so crazy…. Thinking that it would be the same amazing pictures as Casino Royale, unfortunately, it wasn’t. It still has the action, the girl and the explosions that everyone expected, but it still could not cheer me up. The intro car chase made me dizzy since we sat too close to the screen. Its fast paced action was somehow lost by the camara set too close to the action and the flicking between camera shots. After a few seconds I was totally lost.
However, the most thing matters is the language. All the actors speak fast and have strong Brith accent. I tried to follow up all of their conversations, but I still lost sometimes, it is hard. The scenes keep changing all the time which made me even more confused. I fell asleep and was awaken by my friend’s shake. I feel bad and waste of time. It was primarily an action film that I couln’t feel and identify anything for the characters.
“Bond” film like other Hollywood mainstream films, is bearing a great deal of expectations from the audiences. It is no longer just one film, it becomes a culture that goes along with one or two generations’ spy dream which is still passing on.
I am a fan of all kinds of Hollywood movies which always has great scenes, rich plots and gadgets, and also dulcet music. However, I know that those films which embeded western values and culture are counted for objectified cultural capital (Bourdieu, 1986). When I watching these movies, I absorb culture, language, value system even the accent unconsciously. Those things conveyed by films are of course unneutral. Moreover, each person’s intepretation of the plots and meaning behind the plots are different. Those different intepretations are also influenced by different “habitus” within certain “fields”. In other words, the same movie can be intepreted differently in different social context even to different individuals. 
(This is the pic we were doing the group work on Bourdieu’s “symbolic capital”)
