Arthouse Bond
M recites Tennyson; Q critiques an oil painting, Adele sings the theme
song, and the villain displays homoeroticism and serious mommy issues. This is
not your father’s James Bond and considering how this movie ends will probably
not be your father’s Bond for several more movies.
What is a James Bond movie? I do not count myself as a huge expert in
the franchise. I have seen all of the Pierce Brosnan and Daniel Craig movies
but only two or three of the Sean Connery ones and none from the 70s and 80s.
What I can tell though is that they all have a similar format: Action Sequence:
either escape or chase. If in cars be sure to run into fruit carts - Song and
Credits – Mission Briefing – Gadgets – Exotic Locale – Exotic Woman -
Disfigured villain with crazy plans – Action Sequence: guns if men, melee
weapons if women – Sex – Action Sequence: explosions this time? – Pithy
one-liners over martinis and poker – Action Finale: use any gadgets not
previously used – Sex: if not all gadgets have been used, here is your final
chance – Credits and hook for next movie.
Of course, the problem with any formula movie is that they tend to be
formulaic. At the same time, if one tried to do something that strayed from the
formula, they might capture the wrath of die-hards that flock to these movies
to get just what they have come to expect. It’s the franchise paradox: Do
something original and make the core audience uncomfortable or do something
standard and succumb to a barrage of comments that the first movies were
better. It’s a lose-lose situation (not counting the box office.)
It is kind of amazing then that “Skyfall” can be persuasively debated as
the best James Bond movie in the fifty years of the franchise. It is actually
debatable. Whether this is true or not should be left to someone who has seen
all the movies. (Not me!) I do however feel comfortable in saying this: This is
the best-looking James Bond movie ever.
In this sense, the franchise has embarked on something truly original.
It has gone through the trouble of hiring an Oscar caliber heavyweight duo to
be the director and cinematographer of this movie. I am speaking of Oscar
Winning director (American Beauty) Sam Mendes and his frequent collaborator and
perhaps the world’s best living cinematographer Roger Deakins. I do not know
the name of many cinematographers but many a time I have seen a truly good
looking movie, looked up the credits and found the name Roger Deakins. Amazingly
he has never actually won an Oscar, but there is hardly a year that goes by
where he has not been nominated for one. His list of nominated movies include: True Grit, The Reader, The Assassination of
Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, No Country for Old Men, The Man Who
Wasn’t There, O Brother Where Art Thou? Kundun, Fargo, The Shawshank
Redemption. I believe after
Scorsese finally won for “The Departed,” Roger Deakins has rightfully taken
over the title of most snubbed. He should be nominated for this movie it is
about time that he finally won.
Outside of a Tarantino movie or something from China, this particular
skill is rarely used in action thrillers. But here it is. When James Bond
engages in a fistfight with a sniper on the 50th floor of a
building, they are silhouetted against a serene vision of skyscraper blue. When
he tussles with some heavies and a couple of komodo dragons in a casino, the
scene is ensconced in delicious Chinese red. Back in Scotland the moors are
distinctively gray, bearish, and heavy with the past. When there are
explosions, the characters are framed just right for the audience to feel the
full effect of the raging fires. Take your girlfriend to see this movie and if
she doesn’t approve of the sex and violence tell her she does not appreciate
great art. How many times after a James Bond movie do you expect to truthfully
be able to say that again?
But hey we did not see this movie for the beauty of it, did we? Let’s
talk about sex and violence.
The action has thankfully been returned to “understandable” after that
sojourn into chaos, which was “Quantum of Solace.” I especially liked how each
set piece differed in the type of action from the chase scene in the beginning
to the standoff in the end. It’s good stuff and people die well, especially the
victim of that giant lizard.
The women are not especially memorable and Daniel Craig continues his
trademark Bond style of not being particularly focused on swinging his way
through his movies. This is the third movie in a row where a female is
introduced, seduced and murdered (by the bad guys) in a span of let’s say five
to ten minutes. In fact, I think it is fair to say the Bond Girl in this movie
is none other than Judi Dench, as the MI6 boss, M. Her part in this movie is
substantial as the bad guy’s plot revolves around specifically exacting revenge
on her. Much has been said about the misogynistic nature of James Bond, but
like “Casino Royale,” this movie provides an actual excuse for his behavior.
Bond is already taken. He is married to England and M, well, that abbreviation
may as well be for ‘mother.’ At least that is what the bad guy, a disgruntled
ex-MI6 agent out for revenge, played by Javier Bardem, seems to think.
It has been noted before that the novelty of franchise movies is
contained in its villains. They are after all are the newness of the
installment. I think it is a less of an insult to Javier Bardem’s Julian
Asssange tinged cyberterrorist and more of a big compliment to the sure-handed
competence of the last three movies to say that Daniel Craig’s orphaned thug of
a James Bond still remains the most interesting character in these stories.
That’s a big thing. This is not just a great Bond movie; it is a very good
movie in general. Not just for diehards, for everyone.
