This piece IS about James Bond however. Worry not, my Bourne reviews are coming, but there's something like 3,000 years until that fifth Bourne movie comes out so we need not rush. In the meantime I figured I'd take some time to reflect on what it is I love so much about the genre we call spy, and in particular, my personal favorite of that genre's franchises.
James Bond. Yes, the OG for many people.
Not a lot of people realize this, but Dr. No for all intents and purposes is the Richard Donner's Superman of spy films. That is to say, just like the 1978 Superman is to thank for modern superhero movies, Dr. No (the first Bond film in the Eon produced franchise) is largely to thank for the modern spy film formula.
It's a funny, reciprocal process.
Without Bond movies, there are no Bourne movies. Yet when it came time to reboot Bond with Daniel Craig in the lead role, the Bourne films served as a huge source of inspiration to the producers, who wanted to put a less campy, grittier 007 on screen. It's just really cool to think about how that comes full circle.
When I was a kid, Bond movies kept me going. They excited me, they inspired me, they made me want to wear a suit and go beat up weird, eccentric villains. It was something I felt cool for knowing about. I still remember reenacting the Goldfinger interrogation scene with my mom at least thirty times a week.
"Do you expect me to talk?"
"No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die."
FUCK I LOVE THAT SHIT
Like any healthy "stan" of anything, I see the flaws with both Bond as a character, and James Bond as a franchise. I've had the opportunity to read a number of the books (still working on finishing all of Fleming's novels) and of course a number of things have become painfully clear to me about the man, the myth, the misogynist. Bond is a prick, in a lot of ways. A prick born of a different time in history, but a prick nonetheless. He's a chauvinist, he's homophobic, he's just not the greatest of people, as cool as he may seem. I applaud Eon for expelling a lot of these less desirable qualities from the character over the years, and I truly respect the decisions made in characterizing my favorite of the movie Bonds, Daniel Craig's.
Craig's James is a callous, cold man. He drinks like a fish, he kills without remorse, and he treats women like objects. However, where these qualities were glamorized in Bond's previous appearances, in the Craig Bond outings, these aspects of his personality are actually his downfall. His sexism is established as being a broken, fucked up defense mechanism after his love affair with Vesper Lynd falls to pieces (watch Casino Royale please). His blood-lust gets him into serious trouble in Quantum of Solace, at one point forcing M to try bringing him in. His drinking contributes to his substantial physical deterioration in Skyfall, and seems to signify Bond's fast-approaching end. Fun fact, in Skyfall, Craig's Bond is OFFICIALLY diagnosed as having a substance abuse problem. So that's cool.
Everything about Craig's trajectory with the character has been beautifully executed. No longer would Bond films serve as vehicles for showcasing cartoon-y set pieces and hot, young actresses that the public wants to see half-naked. After roughly 40 years of camp and circumstance, we finally got the Bond we never knew we wanted, but the one we deserved.
Then last year, Spectre happened.
Let me just say that Spectre isn't even close to being the worst Bond movie out there. It's not even in the bottom five, in my humble opinion. The thing is, it has problems. Big problems.
My point with this piece is to explain to you that to love something does not mean to blind yourself to anything that might make you love it less. Loving something means understanding why it isn't perfect, and reflecting on why you're ok with that.
Spectre is like a full stop in the middle of a telegram. It feels abrupt, it feels rushed, it feels like whoever put it there wasn't thinking. I'm talking about it because as deeply as I wish I could pretend it's great, it isn't. It's a sad blow to the character after Skyfall seemingly assured us that Sam Mendes and the folks at Eon would never let something like Quantum of Solace happen to James Bond again.
Spectre isn't a bad film. It's a lazy film.
The movie kicks off with one of the franchise's best opening sequences. A sweeping long take, wonderful use of the real world location, and a helicopter sequence that looked every bit as practical as it could have. It was splendor, and I sincerely believed I was in for a treat.
This carries us into the underwhelming title sequence, featuring Sam Smith's attempt at a Bond song.
(THIS [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFSAWiTJsjc] IS A REAL BOND SONG. SHIT IS CLASSIC).
AND THEN we get some scenes of exposition and banter. Now, here's my issue with where Spectre goes from here. The story divides into two primary conflicts, and attempts to connect both conflicts in the climax.
First we have Bond investigating this bizarro secret society, which feels just about as powerful as Quantum, but is somehow more scary (it isn't).
And secondly we have MI6 and Ralph Fiennes' M character fighting new policies under which MI6's field agents will be supplanted by drones and satellite intelligence.
One of these plots is the one you'll actually give a shit about...I'll give you a hint, it's the one with the main character in it.
I have no issue with the plot diverging the way it does, in fact this isn't something Bond movies often (or ever) do, and I believe it could be refreshing to spend more time developing characters like M, Q, and Moneypenny, who are traditionally only seen when Bond needs some piece of information and/or gadget to advance the story. I would LOVE to see how the dynamic between M and Bond could change now that Judi Dench's time in the role is over. That departure opens up the door for some fascinating tension; Bond is now serving a man he actively resented in Skyfall. Not only that, but Bond (In Spectre) is actually operating without the new M's knowledge, working to complete a mission Judi Dench's M has handed down to him posthumously. THAT IS BLATANT INSUBORDINATION IN THE FACE OF THE NEW M, THAT SHOULD CREATE CONFLICT, RIGHT???
Yeah well it doesn't.
The two storylines only converge when it is most convenient for the writers, ergo, when the writers need the end fight to happen and want everyone to be involved in it. By the way, the finale of this film sucks nut-nuggets, but naturally I'll get to that last.
The secondary plot concerning drones replacing field agents is actually a direct continuation of a theme introduced in Skyfall. Bond spends Skyfall fighting to get back into the field as he has been deemed too old and too damaged. In addition, at a point in the film, he actually discourages Eve Moneypenny from returning to field work, stating outright it "isn't for everyone.". During one of Skyfall's best scenes, M (Judi Dench) reads off a poem her late husband loved deeply. The poem, read by M parallel to a remarkable and bad ass chase scene involving Bond, describes the unshakable will within every person to outrun their mortality. The drive we all have to keep fighting even past our prime. Our defiance in the face of obsolescence.
SO TO HAVE ONE OF THE CONFLICTS IN SPECTRE BE THE REPLACEMENT OF FIELD AGENTS IN FAVOR OF MORE ADVANCED AND EFFECTIVE MEANS OF ESPIONAGE IS SUCH A GOOD FUCKING IDEA.
It's too bad it was executed terribly.
The biggest problem?
Bond isn't old anymore. Skyfall spends so much time establishing that years of fighting and running and jumping and drinking have ruined Bond physically and mentally, not to mention he's nearing 50 years of age. Yet in Spectre, all of that is scrapped. He's just as capable as he's ever been, as though he's just "learned" to not to be a physical wreck anymore after the completion of his character arc in Skyfall. So the drone thing doesn't make any sense, and at no point did I genuinely feel like Bond would be replaced by a computer. He was fast, he was strong, his aim was as good as ever, if not better than ever, and his mind was sharp as a tack in any given moment of peril. The need for him to even be replaced wasn't there, and by extension, the need for him to prove himself as an able-bodied agent was completely absent.
Nobody fucking arcs in this movie. That was really sad to see. Every returning character had something interesting going on in Skyfall, and all of it fell by the wayside when it came time for Spectre.
Before I address the finale, I'll talk about the love story, because fuck the love story.
The idea in Spectre is that Bond has finally met his match in a woman by the name of Madeleine Swan, a cunning psychologist and the daughter of one of Bond's past enemies, Mr. White.
After spending half the movie together, the two realize that they are perfect for each other, copulate, profess their love, and then (Spoiler alert...but it really doesn't matter) drive off together at the end.
Here's the issue:
The relationship between Vesper and Bond in Casino Royale was some excellent shit. Vesper, a very one-dimensional character in the novel, was reworked for the film into a complex and driven woman, and you believed that not only was the tension between her and Bond REAL, it was indicative of certain similarities the two shared, in spite of the many differences between them. They had a yin and yang chemistry that was fascinating to watch, and when that fell to pieces, you understood why it would mold Bond into the hard drinking asshole that he was destined to become. If ever there was a way to work a love story into an origin story, that was it.
Then Madeleine Swan shows up and we're expected to believe that she's the only person to challenge and intrigue Bond the way Vesper did since Casino Royale. Maybe I could buy that, if and only if the character was written in such a way that I could. She wasn't.
Swan wasn't a bad character. She was capable, she was snarky, and above all, she was haunted by her past, something Bond could relate to. Introducing her in Spectre I'm sure opens up the possibility of her being "the one" for Bond. However for her to say the words "I love you" to Bond after spending less than a movie with him (yeah she says that) just isn't fucking believable. And for Bond to drive off with her by the end just seems a little too perfect for either of them in that fake, storybook kind of way.
Here's what's interesting though.
The way the romance was handled, and the way the film ended, was all very reminiscent of old Bond. Up until Craig, here's how Bond movie romances worked: Bond ends up with the girl at the conclusion, and by some circumstance is no longer with her at the start of the next installment to ensure that a different young actress can be exploited.
Watch the Austin Powers series, this is something they spoof expertly.
In fact, a lot of things about Spectre scream old Bond.
The villain, and subsequent torture scene
The burly, silent henchman
The gadget-filled car
The spy watch
The action scene on the snowy mountain
The inclusion of SPECTRE, the organization
The inclusion of a male M, and the roles that Q and Moneypenny play in assisting Bond
The list goes on, and some of those things I was happy to see. They were cool blasts from the past for me.
In my opinion however, Skyfall was a much more successful mix of old and new than Spectre. Certain things are better left in the past, and the minds behind Skyfall seemed to be more aware of that.
The romance fell flat for me, and from where I'm sitting, this movie missed a huge opportunity to introduce Swan as no more than a kindred spirit and good FRIEND to Bond. Bond doesn't have to fuck every woman he works/travels with, and considering both the banter between Bond and Swan, and the similarities they share, this was a great chance to establish Swan as a close friend to Bond, and nothing more. It would've been a progressive move on the part of the producers, and also, it would've shown a lot of growth on Bond's part.
OK LAST THING I PROMISE, I COULD TALK FOR SO LONG ABOUT THIS BUT I WON'T
The finale is lazy as fuck. It feels tacked on in every way.
The villain, played VERY well by Christoph Waltz, has organized this weird, convoluted maze within the old MI6 HQ, which was blown up in Skyfall. Bond runs around the building like an idiot for a few minutes before locating Swan, who was being held hostage of course, and the two escape before Waltz detonates the charges he has set, destroying the building. They proceed to catch Waltz and arrest him after Bond makes an impossible shot and hits Waltz's helicopter, bringing it down.
Waltz (Oberhauser is the villain's name...or is it?) is set up in the marketing for Spectre as being the puppet-master behind all of Bond's misfortunes, desiring revenge in light of Bond's annoying tendency to avert global disasters and thwart Oberhauser's underlings. It is implied, nay, outwardly stated that Oberhauser was behind Vesper's death, behind M's death, and behind Quantum. That makes him, in theory, responsible for every catastrophe both professionally and personally in Bond's life. Oberhauser should be the biggest and baddest of the villains the Craig Bond has faced, and in his face off with Oberhauser, Bond should be working towards some kind of closure/catharsis relating to Vepser and M, and the misdeeds of Quantum. The thing is, that never happens. Not in any meaningful or satisfying way. Sure, Oberhauser survives implying he'll return and cause more trouble, but that doesn't change the fact that at no point during Spectre do we feel any terror or intimidation in relation to his character. He doesn't feel like the kind of man that would devote years and billions of dollars to ruining Bond's life. This was our shot at getting a proper nemesis for Craig's Bond, and that just wasn't done.
It all just felt so inconsequential. When it all came to a head, and both plots were resolved, there was no sense of peril, or difficulty. In the wake of it all, no one was permanently affected by any of Oberhauser's actions. Bond had a gun to the man who KILLED VESPER LYND. And he walked away, as though none of it mattered anymore. I kind of hate that.
The plot of Spectre relies on the continuation of conflicts from previous films. It necessitates that wounds that we believed to have healed be reopened, and I fully expected some crazy shit to go down. It didn't. It was all very run-of-the-mill. That makes me sad.
In the end, I'm open to Spectre's sequel being more impressive. Honestly I don't want this to be the movie Craig leaves on. I think we need a proper conclusion to this era of Bond, and Spectre is far from worthy of being that conclusion.
I love Daniel Craig, and he really brought it in this movie, like he always does.
The problem here was not the acting, and it wasn't the action. That train fight scene between Hinx (Dave Bautista) and Bond was fucking incredible. This movie got a lot right, and that sounds weird considering I've just bitched about it for a whole blog post, but it really wasn't the worst entry in the series. It was just disappointing, and it didn't have to be.
This was long-winded, but I had a lot to say. It was nice to get most of it down on a page.
Thanks for reading, and just for shits and giggles, here's a real sex joke that actually appears in the Bond film The World is Not Enough. Not lying, this line is actually spoken.
JAMES BOND
(To Dr. Christmas Jones as they have sex)
"I thought Christmas only came once a year."
What fun.
Later y'all.
No comments:
Post a Comment