Spoilers. Obviously.
First, a confession -- I have never been the biggest Bond fan.
I know they are film "events" and I always do end up seeing them, but I don't follow their production with any great interest, nor do I count down the days until their release. The overblown plots, silly villains, its unchanging, unapologetic main character and questionable attitude to women all turn me off. Die Another Day was a low point and I would not have been overly disappointed had the series retired at that point. I just did not see what it offered modern audiences.
Of course, there was little chance of 007 hanging up his martini glass for good. If there is one thing to be said for the Bond series it is its constant potential for reinvention, untethered by concerns about matching inter-film chronology, tone, etc etc.
So I was open-minded about Casino Royale's "reboot" of the series and was pleasantly surprised by the result. It jettisoned so many of the flabby elements that had led the series astray. Gone were the outlandish villains with their ridiculous plans for world domination. As a character, Bond was accessible and believable as both a cold-hearted killer and a vulnerable human being. And although its finale disappointed, with the film fizzling out after the death of Le Chiffre, it was nevertheless an enjoyable return to form for the venerable series.
Its direct sequel Quantum of Solace I can barely remember to be honest, so I shan't dwell on that.
Which in a very roundabout way brings me on to Skyfall.
It has been a good year for British institutions. With the Royal Jubilee and the Olympics, 2012 has not been a time of national introspection but celebration, with the flag, Queen and Country embraced in a way not seen for a generation. As another "national treasue", Bond had to get in on the act, adding an appearance in the Olympic Opening Ceremony alongside the Queen to this, his 50th Anniversary film adventure.
So perhaps it is no surprise Skyfall sees a return to classic Bond features that Casino Royale so studiously avoided - Q and his gadgets, Moneypenny, a shaken not stirred Martini (even if the famous line itself was unspoken). In fact, such is the change it practically counts as a reboot of the Daniel Craig reboot.
A lot of it is great fun though. The thrilling opening sequence that sees Bond rollicking around Istanbul and mounting a train through the unusual medium of a JCB digger is a particular highlight. And it is doubtful that a Bond film has ever looked better.
By the film's end the traditional Bond elements are established, the final scene seeing Daniel Craig's character meet a new male M in his wood-panelled offices, with Moneypenny stationed at the door. It is almost as if Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace represent a penance paid by the film-maker to justify these potentially archaic features; only by stripping Bond down to his basics and then re-building might audiences learn to once again accept an old-fashioned 007.
Javier Bardem has a ball in this film, chewing up scenery to just the right degree even while sporting a frankly distracting blond hair do. But if it is possible to look beyond those alarming locks, Silva is also a useful example of the importance of good character design in writing.
Delightfully foreign, flamboyant, and openly gay he is in many respects the exact opposite of stoically British, aggressively heterosexual lead. Yet he is of course also very similar to Bond. They have both worked for MI6, both operating in the shadows at the edges of morality and legality. In M, they share a "parent", one who has loved and mistreated them both. Much like Belloq to Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Silva is the dark inversion of James Bond and it is in the similarities as much as the differences between the characters that the film's most potent conflicts lie.
What I would have liked however is for Silva to have pushed his humiliation of M -- and by extension MI6 -- further. Obviously in many ways, his plot makes no sense, but to dwell on that is the preserve of pedants and saddos (so, you know, I've relegated it to the footnotes1). But if we accept that his plan does make sense really and that his technological wizardry is such that he could kill M whenever he wants2, then he must desire more than simply her death.
His true revenge is to see her brought low, for everything she has fought for to be questioned, her entire career's conduct doubted...and only then to destroy her. But the film short-cuts M's fall and never really explores the effects Silva's game has on her. Indeed, the villain's own actions cut her descent off, with his escape and failed assassination attempt interrupting a potentially pivotal appearance in front of the government committee.
For my money this robbed the finale and M's death of the much of the emotional heft it was reaching for.
Making her seventh and final appearance as the Bond boss, it is perhaps fitting that Judi Dench's M gets more to work with this time than in her rather more limited "dole out exposition and look pissed off" roles of previous outings. Indeed, arguably she is the emotional and thematic heart of the film.
Ironically enough for a series with an essentially immortal hero, old age and death are among the prime concerns of Skyfall. Throughout the film M faces extinction. Firstly it is just her career, but in the final act she faces a rather more permanent sort. Intertwined with her struggles are those of Bond. Left for dead at the beginning of the film, he makes a recovery unprecedented since biblical days and eventually returns to MI6's bosom. But his rebirth is an unsuccessful one. He fails his tests and is only cleared for service by M's executive decision, a reflection of her own personal rage against the dying of the light. This folly has disastrous consequences for M and the rest of the security service -- by the end of the second act she and her favourite son are in flight with MI6 in disarray and Silva in the ascendency.
So following the classic three-act structure the final act has to pull our heroes back from the abyss. Thematically the ending is clever. Bond's earlier resurrection was a false one. Only in returning to the place of his birth can he be truly reborn3; a phoenix rising from the flames of his childhood home. An orphan already, he is orphaned once more following the death of M, his new mother dying in the place where his real parents are buried. Thus reborn, with his enemy vanquished, he is ready to rejoin MI6 as an accomplished operative, ready to serve Queen and Country once again.
Structurally then, the film ends on a strong note. In other ways though this third act disappointed.
References
1. Why it was necessary for him to allow himself to be captured? Was it the only way he could get into the country? Surely a man of his means could get around the UK Border Police. His capture only seems to make life more difficult for himself. And isn't the whole "villain lets himself be captured" thing becoming a bit of a movie cliché these days anyway?
2. The movie trope of the computer as a magic box that can do anything (somehow cause explosion in M's office? What did he do, overclock her computer's CPU?) makes an irritating reappearance. I thought in these more technologically savvy days we were past such silliness.
3. The rumours have it that Sean Connery was asked to play the role taken by Albert Finney. I can understand to a certain extent -- Bond returning to the well and all that -- but I wonder how audiences would have reacted.
4. But then the entire act felt a little bit derivative, its action sterile and unoriginal. A shame really that its scene work didn't really match its structural and thematic strengths.
First, a confession -- I have never been the biggest Bond fan.
I know they are film "events" and I always do end up seeing them, but I don't follow their production with any great interest, nor do I count down the days until their release. The overblown plots, silly villains, its unchanging, unapologetic main character and questionable attitude to women all turn me off. Die Another Day was a low point and I would not have been overly disappointed had the series retired at that point. I just did not see what it offered modern audiences.
Of course, there was little chance of 007 hanging up his martini glass for good. If there is one thing to be said for the Bond series it is its constant potential for reinvention, untethered by concerns about matching inter-film chronology, tone, etc etc.
So I was open-minded about Casino Royale's "reboot" of the series and was pleasantly surprised by the result. It jettisoned so many of the flabby elements that had led the series astray. Gone were the outlandish villains with their ridiculous plans for world domination. As a character, Bond was accessible and believable as both a cold-hearted killer and a vulnerable human being. And although its finale disappointed, with the film fizzling out after the death of Le Chiffre, it was nevertheless an enjoyable return to form for the venerable series.
Its direct sequel Quantum of Solace I can barely remember to be honest, so I shan't dwell on that.
Which in a very roundabout way brings me on to Skyfall.
Back to the Future...
It has been a good year for British institutions. With the Royal Jubilee and the Olympics, 2012 has not been a time of national introspection but celebration, with the flag, Queen and Country embraced in a way not seen for a generation. As another "national treasue", Bond had to get in on the act, adding an appearance in the Olympic Opening Ceremony alongside the Queen to this, his 50th Anniversary film adventure.
So perhaps it is no surprise Skyfall sees a return to classic Bond features that Casino Royale so studiously avoided - Q and his gadgets, Moneypenny, a shaken not stirred Martini (even if the famous line itself was unspoken). In fact, such is the change it practically counts as a reboot of the Daniel Craig reboot.
A lot of it is great fun though. The thrilling opening sequence that sees Bond rollicking around Istanbul and mounting a train through the unusual medium of a JCB digger is a particular highlight. And it is doubtful that a Bond film has ever looked better.
By the film's end the traditional Bond elements are established, the final scene seeing Daniel Craig's character meet a new male M in his wood-panelled offices, with Moneypenny stationed at the door. It is almost as if Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace represent a penance paid by the film-maker to justify these potentially archaic features; only by stripping Bond down to his basics and then re-building might audiences learn to once again accept an old-fashioned 007.
Silva Lining
Javier Bardem has a ball in this film, chewing up scenery to just the right degree even while sporting a frankly distracting blond hair do. But if it is possible to look beyond those alarming locks, Silva is also a useful example of the importance of good character design in writing.
Delightfully foreign, flamboyant, and openly gay he is in many respects the exact opposite of stoically British, aggressively heterosexual lead. Yet he is of course also very similar to Bond. They have both worked for MI6, both operating in the shadows at the edges of morality and legality. In M, they share a "parent", one who has loved and mistreated them both. Much like Belloq to Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, Silva is the dark inversion of James Bond and it is in the similarities as much as the differences between the characters that the film's most potent conflicts lie.
What I would have liked however is for Silva to have pushed his humiliation of M -- and by extension MI6 -- further. Obviously in many ways, his plot makes no sense, but to dwell on that is the preserve of pedants and saddos (so, you know, I've relegated it to the footnotes1). But if we accept that his plan does make sense really and that his technological wizardry is such that he could kill M whenever he wants2, then he must desire more than simply her death.
His true revenge is to see her brought low, for everything she has fought for to be questioned, her entire career's conduct doubted...and only then to destroy her. But the film short-cuts M's fall and never really explores the effects Silva's game has on her. Indeed, the villain's own actions cut her descent off, with his escape and failed assassination attempt interrupting a potentially pivotal appearance in front of the government committee.
For my money this robbed the finale and M's death of the much of the emotional heft it was reaching for.
Dial M for Mummy. And possibly Mortality too.
Ironically enough for a series with an essentially immortal hero, old age and death are among the prime concerns of Skyfall. Throughout the film M faces extinction. Firstly it is just her career, but in the final act she faces a rather more permanent sort. Intertwined with her struggles are those of Bond. Left for dead at the beginning of the film, he makes a recovery unprecedented since biblical days and eventually returns to MI6's bosom. But his rebirth is an unsuccessful one. He fails his tests and is only cleared for service by M's executive decision, a reflection of her own personal rage against the dying of the light. This folly has disastrous consequences for M and the rest of the security service -- by the end of the second act she and her favourite son are in flight with MI6 in disarray and Silva in the ascendency.
So following the classic three-act structure the final act has to pull our heroes back from the abyss. Thematically the ending is clever. Bond's earlier resurrection was a false one. Only in returning to the place of his birth can he be truly reborn3; a phoenix rising from the flames of his childhood home. An orphan already, he is orphaned once more following the death of M, his new mother dying in the place where his real parents are buried. Thus reborn, with his enemy vanquished, he is ready to rejoin MI6 as an accomplished operative, ready to serve Queen and Country once again.
Structurally then, the film ends on a strong note. In other ways though this third act disappointed.
The Torch. Seriously. The torch. Come on.
You're on the run through a dark Scottish wilderness. The bad guys are only yards away. You're hurt so you can't run fast, but you've got someone with you. Someone who knows the terrain. Someone who has just proved himself a mental Scottish badass with a shorn-off shotgun and shit. He won't let you down.
SO WHY USE THE BLOODY TORCH.
Go on, give it a good wave around. Don't bother concentrating on the ground, or pointing it away from Silva and his gun-wielding gang. No. Flail it all over the place. Make sure he can't miss it.
I realise that for the ending in the chapel Silva had to know where they had gone. But this attack of the stupids really annoyed me4. In fact, it was so obvious, so out of character, I just assumed it was a bait and switch, with maybe the old man valiantly making himself obvious to lead the bad guys away from M. But no. The head of the British Secret Service is really that stupid.
No wonder she lost the disc.
References
1. Why it was necessary for him to allow himself to be captured? Was it the only way he could get into the country? Surely a man of his means could get around the UK Border Police. His capture only seems to make life more difficult for himself. And isn't the whole "villain lets himself be captured" thing becoming a bit of a movie cliché these days anyway?
2. The movie trope of the computer as a magic box that can do anything (somehow cause explosion in M's office? What did he do, overclock her computer's CPU?) makes an irritating reappearance. I thought in these more technologically savvy days we were past such silliness.
3. The rumours have it that Sean Connery was asked to play the role taken by Albert Finney. I can understand to a certain extent -- Bond returning to the well and all that -- but I wonder how audiences would have reacted.
4. But then the entire act felt a little bit derivative, its action sterile and unoriginal. A shame really that its scene work didn't really match its structural and thematic strengths.
No comments:
Post a Comment