The Results of ‘Skyfall’

Well, well, well. Look who came back from the dead with a vengeance! James Bond, a franchise that lasted years in the world of cinema, seen highs, seen very lows, proves once and for all that the world’s favourite spy is not about to keel over and retire like Bruce Willis in Red. No, there is no exit strategy, no pension plan and certainly no plans to escape in a remote beach and drink and fuck to oblivion. This Bond will always report for duty and, to the joy of every fan, Daniel Craig returns from the dead to do his job and do it well!

If you read my previous post, you know what my expectations were. I was waiting for violence, fast-paced action, genre focus and a villain you can shake in front of. I expected a remorseless Bond and an even more remorseless killer on his trail with the charisma to charm and terrify an audience at the same time. I expected realism in characters such as Q and humanity in characters such as M. Were my expectations met? You betcha they bloody were!

There is no doubt that this movie has been a completely different project from the start. After four years of budget issues, scripts and production failures, this Bond has become the most publicised chapter of the British Spy since Casino Royale. As I sat in the theatre and the adverts came on, I knew this was not a regular Bond film. Heineken, Nokia Lumia, perfume, cars, Sony Vio, Omega, all products you see in the movie, advertised non-stop for at least 15 minutes and at some point I was sinking in my seat in despair. What had this franchise become if it sold out so much to major companies? But then again, no franchise that has lasted 50 years can run on its own. It needs money and unfortunately had to swallow its legendary pride and try to support what would become its most celebrated chapter yet.

Sam Mendes took up the challenge of directing and pushed to make this Bond the most memorable one yet and it shows in his work. For a man who has American Beauty, Jarhead and Revolutionary Road in his curriculum, he made this film very much his own. One of my expectations, especially coming from Mendes, was the fact that such a talented director could turn this Bond into a film with heart. It is quite obvious that most Bond films have the action, have the girls, have the drinks but some have just lacked the key characteristics of most spy and film-noir movies. The use of shadows, music and camera focus, all these things have been lacking since Roger Moore, with a few exceptions in the early Brosnan era, so Mendes, a man who manages to play with genre in magnificent ways, brought back the shadows to suit the spy. His way of filming has never been seen in Bond before as he shot magnificent set pieces but never took his camera away from Bond. The place has to be owned by the man, not the other way around. His use of shadows and light is truly gripping, culminating in a final scene when a massive fire in the background seems to reflect the mood for every surrounding character, in one way or another. The sets are sublime either way and one of them, the surprise of the film, is just breathtaking and bigger than life. However, as big as it is, Bond still owns the ground he walks on, only by sheer force of presence and Mendes makes damn sure of that. The director has said in interviews that he put all his efforts into this film and because of that, he does not want to do another. I say that he has done his job in a fantastic way and that he left the director’s chair with enough material to make more Bond films for the next 10 years at least. For that, well done Mr. Mendes.

Now, without too many spoilers, I would like to get into the content of Skyfall. I had many questions as I walked into the cinema. The eternal ‘what’s Skyfall?’ question, followed by the intrigue surrounding Javier Bardem’s villain and the ever rising question of M’s past in MI6. Well, needless to say, all questions were answered and no further questions were raised. The entire movie is completely separate to the previous two, kickstarting the franchise in the most nostalgic way possible. In this film, if you are like me, a huge fan of 007, you will laugh and you will not believe your eyes. Old friends are back, friends thought dead since the 90s, new friends arrive and look ready to follow Craig to the next adventure and Bond looks like his old self again. As a friend said, ‘This film was written by the ultimate fan-boy’ and even though I hate to agree, he has a point. This is an hommage to Ian Flemming’s work and goddamnit, its just beautiful to see.

Craig and Dame Judy Dench hold the reins of this movie more than any other character and it’s about time M got a voice and a gun to shout and shoot her opinions away. Dench, playing M since Goldeneye, did not just play a sour, old woman that hates men. She portrays M as strong because she battles against invisible demons everyday and Bond seems to be the only one by her side who sees them and fights with her. In Skyfall, M’s demons are no longer invisible and they are the most terrifying yet. We finally see M crumbling under her past and struggling to keep a hold of her work before it is take away from her. Dench and Craig have shared incredible chemistry onscreen ever since he got the role and they seem to maintain a mother-son relationship in this chapter that becomes the heart of this film. Dench’s M will remain one of the most memorable characters that grew in darkness, awakened by the ballsiest woman ever to grace the screen within this boy’s world. There ain’t nothin’ like that Dame!

Since Alec Trevelyan in Goldeneye, MI6 has not experienced evil from the inside but this time evil has come seeking revenge, in the form of Silva, a ghost, like Bond, who wants to materialise again to kill the person who made him the monster he is now. Javier Bardem is no stranger to villain roles, one of them got him an Oscar! With the most appalling haircut in the history of cinema, he scared entire audiences with his role as Anton Chigurh and now he is back to make us shake in our boots. His performance fully lived up to my expectations! The poise, the charisma, the traumatic background story, the mannerisms and that smile, on the corner of his mouth, just made him hands down one of my favorite Bond villains. There is one scene in this film, approximately in the end, where Silva walks forward, a trail of utter destruction left behind him, yet he just does not notice it like we do. To him, this is not destruction but only a means to an end and his end-goal is much more important to him than Bond, MI6 or even his own life. This purpose is made grand and even justifiable at times, as Bardem gives logic and sense to this demented man. He makes him sound and look like a martyr and till the end, that’s what audiences will see him as. A martyr and a victim, tormented by the people he most loved.

As mentioned in my previous post, the Bond girls in this movie are not vital in any way. Naomi Harris’ Eve does not start the plot by shooting Bond, it was M who gave the order. The same goes for Berenice Marlohe’s Severine so it is quite obvious that the only Bond girl in this film is M herself. With the most screen time and the call to action, M is the one woman who can team up with Bond and stand up to him like a man. Truly a wonderful turn to the role of M and a duet that does not cease to amaze. Ben Wishaw, the man that has been in the shadows of cinema, waiting, participating in mostly independent films like Perfume: The Story of a Murderer, I’m Not There and Bright Star, took Q and made him cool again. Since the late Desmond Llewelyn, there has not been a Q (let’s all collectively forget John Cleese and his buffoonish portrayal) since Die Another Day. Now, then new, young and kinda cocky Q is about to get seriously techy with 007. Since the Quartermaster needs to keep up with the latest gadgets to give to agents (return the equipment in one piece, my ass!), it is only natural that this generation’s Q looks and sounds like a nerd. Ben Wishaw made that nerd the most interesting new character in the movie, along with Ralph Fiennes, who seems to look angrier and angrier as he gets old. His role is minimal but vital and he provides intrigue within MI6 and the lasting question of whether he can be trusted or not. But then again, the spy genre wouldn’t be very good if questions didn’t arise every couple of minutes to keep audiences on their toes.

Finally let’s talk Craig. The man who returns from the dead and looks like absolute shit. Well, we get to see a lot more of our legendary spy and just like I expected, he is broken down and made to look closer at his friends and his superiors. Draped with lies and deceit, his life is still a mystery to the audience and M might just have something to do with it. Craig lets the audience in on secrets that even Flemming might not have thought of, and that is to the credit of the scriptwriters and Craig himself, who goes much further into his character than his predecessors. He gives a stellar performance, even though his lines seem to be way too cheesy at times, thus ruining the mood in certain scenes. In a way, he tries to emulate other Bonds again, something he rightly chose not to do, so hopefully this is not going to become a habit. This movie has cemented him as one of the best Bonds in the movies and hopefully the next outing will not take four years! We fans do not want to wait that long after such an ending!

Has this film exceeded my expectations? Nope, it answered them and that is rare in a film nowadays. Everything I could hope for was there, amazed me and now I cannot wait for this franchise to continue. Even if Craig decides to leave Bond, he will always be remembered as the man who gave it new life and a new image that fits our generation and for that we all have to, at least, show him gratitude. As my last comment, I would like to leave you with this clue (SPOILER ALERT): The credits and the song? Linked to the film in a major way!! Enjoy the show!

My Expectations of ‘Skyfall’

Right, so tomorrow I am going to see the new James Bond movie, directed by Sam Mendes and starring Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judy Dench and Ben Wishaw. It has garnished very good reviews so far but I have not read any of them. With this movie, I am not leaving anything to chance! I need to go in clear-minded and as neutral as I can be. I have read some interviews here and there but for some reason, I had no desire to know more than the snippets of information I got from the trailer and the few words exchanged by Mendes and Empire magazine. The story goes thus: Bond is accidentally shot by Naomi Harris on the roof of a train, he fakes his death to drink a lot and play with scorpions and Judy Dench has to write his eulogy. Then out of the blue, MI6 is compromised, bombed and sensitive information on all agents is leaked on YouTube. The man who did so is called Silva and has a major grudge against M, something Bond does not like so he returns to England to save the day. However he really looks old and weak. Is he a match for the evil Silva and is he brainwashed by M? What’s Skyfall? Who is Silva? Why is Q using realistic technology? Hmmmm…the questions seem to multiply as I type.

So what are my expectations on this movie? What Bond movie do I expect from this day and age? What things am I hoping they improved after Quantum of Solace?

I have a confession to make. I was never a Daniel Craig fan until very recently. When I saw he would take the mantle from a very confusing Pierce ‘Bond’ Brosnan (remember Die Another Day), I was very sceptical. Actually who the hell am I kidding? I hated the idea! I was absolutely repulsed at the guy. He was not handsome like Connery, he looked too old and too noticeable (in that he was built like a house). All that muscle seemed to somehow make his brain smaller by each passing frame. My mom used to describe the great Hercules as ‘All muscles and a brain like a sesame seed’. I am afraid my mind only screamed that saying when I saw Craig in the first shot of Casino Royale. And yes, I was one of those people that had something against the blonde hair! Yes, I, like a lot of people, am a creature of habit at times and when that habit is broken I start complaining. Like you can sit here, reading this, and tell me that never happened to you. Plus, I can say that the concept of a prequel depicting how Bond got his 00 status was not that intriguing to me. I was born and bred on Connery and Moore, already seasoned spies that have been in the fucking and killing business for a long time. Why would I want to see a character that had started so high in his career go down 10 levels and be a rube again? But then again, I pride myself in giving a second chance to anything that I feel I might have not understood or had disapproved of, from the start. I also pride myself in this particular case to have made the right decision. If not I would not be sitting here writing about Skyfall.

My Bond has always been Sean Connery. Primitive, smooth but not very discreet, resourceful, witty (but not as much as Moore) and seemingly motivated by selfish reasons. If you look at his missions they all seem to end up on a beach most of the time, kick-started by a girl or a photo of one (Dr. No, From Russia with Love, Thunderball) and not once has he shown any sign of actual patriotism. He did this for the fun of it and the kicks (chicks) he got out of it. His look defined a generation of spies. The tuxedo, the signature drink, the cigarette at the end of his lips as he utters his name, like it’s a gift from God (not him, just his name). He had the fighting skills to beat up his enemies, had the talent to land a falling plane safely (although Timothy Dalton took the whole plane stunt to a whole different level in The Living Daylights), attach himself to a harness and grab the girl before flying away thanks to a taxi-plane, had the luck to be let out of an incinerator just in time, and had a Nemesis in Ernst Stavro Blofeld, SPECTRE mastermind and bad guy to the bone! Not many Bond nemeses would come along later on that would be as amazing as this man. Meddling in Cold War relations, NATO nuclear missiles, the diamond business, stealing whole spaceships with another spaceship that is hidden in a fake volcano. The dedication alone is just beautiful. Shame he had to leave the stage so early on and in a less than adequate way for his persona(For Your Eyes Only).

After Connery, the forgotten and underrated George Lazenby took over, however I will be completely honest, he has not left any particular trademark as Bond. I was very young when I saw On Her Majesty’s Secret Service and was very sad that Bond got married, until the obvious little glitch on the way to the honeymoon. Lazenby was not a big part of my idea of Bond and realistically neither was Roger Moore. Something just did not sit right with me and his Safari suits, his little one liners and his weird missions. However, Moore had the immense privilege to be in films where the focus was put on the villains. Yep, all sorts of villains and megalomaniacs but hell, they were the pinnacle of sneaky, malicious, crazy, napoleonic figures  and had the best henchmen. Don’t believe me? Let’s tally: Kananga and Baron Samedi (Live and Let Die), Fransisco Scaramanga and Nick Nack (The Man with the Golden Gun), Carl Stromberg and Jaws (The Spy who Loved Me), Hugo Drax and The Cat (Moonraker), Aristotle Kristatos and Locque (For your Eyes Only), Kamal Kahn and Gobinda (Octopussy) and finally Max Zorin and May Day (A View to A Kill). I remember all of them as clear as day; Hugo Drax setting the dogs on Corine Dufour, Jaws chewing some cable car wire in Rio, Nick Nack loyal to his master till the end, Gobinda crushing dice in his fist, reducing them to powder in front of a very worried Moore. If the Connery era defined the spy, the Moore era defined the villain.

Who combined both? My close favorite and the Bond I found the most gritty till Craig came along, Timothy Dalton. It took two movies and one Colombian drug lord to show that Dalton knew how to deal with trash. He fed rotten CIA agent Killifer to a great white shark and ignited Franz Sanchez to the sky to avenge his best friend. There was not that much dedication to avenging his dead wife was there? That’s probably because in the 80s there was no room for tact within a spy’s lifestyle. This was a time of violence and Timothy Dalton was the violent Bond. The one that looked like a remorseless killer, the darkest side of Bond yet. Brosnan took the darkness to the next level but his movies suffered from scripts that could not cope very well in the post-Cold War era. The last great Bond in my opinion can only be Tomorrow Never Dies because it contained a realistic Bond and an extremely plausible villain in Elliot Carver (read Rupert Murdoch. Huh? Who said that?). The death of Paris Carver shocked me when I first watched it, as well as the frigging monster of a man that killed her! It was also surprisingly the first Bond I ever saw in English because all the VHS copies we had at home were all dubbed in French. To this day I can quote you From Russia with Love in both English and French. Funny how that turned out!

Then came Craig. Following my six years of objecting, complaining and turning down all positive reviews about the actor’s portrayal, I looked at him differently. I scrapped all the Bonds from my mind and looked at a man, a spy, a borderline sociopath working for an organization that does not approve of him but believes in him (God bless you M) and battling the enemies of the country that trained him and made him a ghost for the rest of his life. Craig played just that. He played the man all of the previous Bonds could not play because of time, place and context. For every era comes a different hero and Daniel Craig successfully embodies this generation’s anti-hero with a heroic purpose.

For Skyfall my expectations are simple. Craig’s Bond almost lost credibility with the latest outing but through no fault of his acting. Surrounding issues such as script, villain and Bond girl made this 007 chapter bearable but I expect Skyfall to take Casino Royale and transpose the major characteristics of the other movies. So far, the villain looks properly old-school and it helps that Bardem, like a lot of kids, grew up with Bond. If his villain reaches the charisma the previous ones had (namely Emilio Largo, Max Zorin, Franz Sanchez and Elliot Carver) then that would culminate to an unforgettable character like Ledger’s Joker in the latest Batman franchise. The arrival of a new Q deserves attention as well, since that means that this shit is about to get technological, something Craig’s movies have not explored yet. From the trailer, I am thinking Big Brother surveillance and tracking to get to Silva. M and MI6 look like they have a lot more secrets than a regular secretive agency and they all look human, prone the error (only their errors seem to have graver consequences than the regular Joe). This humanity culminates with Bond. I want to see him suffer, confused, double-crossed and run down, not for any other reason than to see him rise up from the ashes and stand, proud and angry. I do not hold much hope for the Bond girls. This seems to be a man’s adventure with little around him to distract him long enough from his ultimate goal. Finally, I expect from Mendes to turn this film into a thriller, fast-paced, structured, respectful of its genre and a film that you would want to see like you would want to see Dr.No, again and again. But this time Craig has to face real an present evil that would terrify you, me and the whole audience. I want a Bond you hate to love, a Bond that will laugh at his enemy because he does not care whether he lives or dies so long as he gets the last word! A Bond that represents this era of confusion, violence and fear, that he vanquishes through fire and blood, because in the end, it is the only way this current world deals with its evils.

Book Review: Damaged Goods by Alexandra Allred

Just because this book opens with a disgruntled wife forcing a bloody tampon into the hand of her husband, does not necessarily mean it is a book just for women, although some might be put off by the opening. Damaged Goods follows the life of Joanna Lucas, a well-spoken divorcee who moves to Marcus, Texas to begin a life she can finally be proud of. Unfortunately for her, this town full of possibilities is actually home to the worst case of pollution in the US and a whole host of other issues that are set to make life hard for her, including rape, arson, and a beer-guzzling emu named Eduardo. Amongst this mess she finds herself adopted by a group of outspoken and eternally youthful women who bring out the true feistiness of her nature.
This is not a book to gloss over topical issues in favour of a happy ending, but neither is it didactic in tone. All too often if an author chooses to tackle complex issues you find yourself feeling sometimes enlightened, but rarely entertained and quite often bored. Allred combines her clever narrative techniques with continually evolving conflicts that keep the reader turning each page. Behind all the plot twists, one-legged Lion lovers and the beer-seeking emu there are some very real lessons. Allred makes you face up to the fact that if you want to see change then you have to do something about it. Sitting back and pretending nothing is happening makes you just as guilty as those causing the damage. She also shows the power of female friendship, without painting all male characters in a bad light, which is refreshing.
At times you are given a lot of information about new characters, and that can be a little hard to retain, but this is only at the start. Overall this is a complex story about friendship, politics and free-thinking that will keep you hanging on long after you’ve read the final page.

Film Review: Out of the Past

While it may be true that for some of us, Mamma Mia! or There’s Something About Mary is the best film of all time (Are you sure?), it’s likely that any film aficionado with an eye for quality will draw up a reasonably predictable list of movies that has a certain resemblance to another’s. Of course, there may be the odd obscure title included in there somewhere on account of some personally preferred artistic or inventive merit but generally the same titles will crop up again and again. These lists, and there are countless of them online, are a great way to create a ‘watch-list’.

It wasn’t one of these lists that brought me to watch Out of the Past but rather a moment of web surfing that brought to my laptop screen a poster of Robert Mitchum nonchalantly lighting a cigarette while a demure Jane Greer inspects his ears for wax. The truth is, I’d never heard of this film before but having enjoyed noir-ish revelations with The Killers and Double Indemnity, both of which I watched for the first time a couple of months ago, I felt confident that I was about to view another classic. It came as no surprise to subsequently see all three of these films feature in high positions on numerous lists of best ‘noir’ films ever.

Robert Mitchum plays Jeff Bailey, owner of a gas station in a small out-of-the-way Californian town. His romancing local girl Ann Miller (Virginia Huston) is not viewed well by her parents who are mistrustful of him and sure enough, when a tough guy turns up at his gas station, it becomes apparent that Jeff has a past. This henchman, Joe Stephanos (Paul Valentine) informs Jeff that his boss, Whit Sterling (Kirk Douglas) wants to see him and after some glorious dialogue, Jeff reluctantly agrees to the meeting. That night, after picking Ann up for the drive to Whit’s lakeside retreat, he tells her all about his past.

The next section of the film is told in flashback with Jeff narrating the story of his mysterious past as a private investigator. Together with his partner Jack Fisher (Steve Brodie), he was hired by Whit to find his girlfriend Kathie Moffat (Jane Greer) whom he claimed had shot him and run off with $40,000 of his dough. Using his investigative talents, Jeff traced Kathie to Acapulco but on meeting her, fell for her charms and her pleads of innocence and decided not to hand her over to Whit, who would likely have punished her for something she claimed she didn’t do. Instead, the two headed north to San Francisco where they attempted to live together as inconspicuously as possible, out of sight and reach of Whit and his henchman. But (isn’t there always a but?), one day they were spotted by Jeff’s old partner, Fisher, who demanded a heavy payoff for his silence. A fight broke out between the two men, which Kathie brought to a sudden end when she shot Fisher dead. She then drove away, leaving poor old Jeff to cover up her crime. In doing so, he came across her bankbook which had an entry for a $40,000 deposit.

Back now to the present where Jeff and Ann arrive at Whit’s home. Before turning the car around to drive back to town, Ann forgives Jeff for his past and hopes he will return safely to her once his meeting with Whit is over. Jeff is surprised to see that Kathie is back together with Whit, who for his part, displays genuine delight in seeing Jeff again and wants to hire him for one more job in order to make things even between them. The job entails breaking into Whit’s lawyer’s office to steal documents that include income tax records proving Whit guilty of tax fraud, a fraud which his lawyer is using to blackmail him. Jeff refuses the job, suspecting a set-up, but Whit insists and so after trying to warn the lawyer, Jeff returns to the man’s office to find him dead. Now Jeff’s job is to locate the documents, which also include an affidavit from Kathie swearing Jeff was the one who killed Fisher, as well as to prove that he is innocent of the killing of the lawyer but with a henchman on his tail and a femme fatale who switches allegiance more times than Lady Gaga changes outfits, he needs to use all his street-smarts to stay alive. It’s all mildly convoluted, as the best crime dramas are, but well worth paying attention to.

Released in 1947, Out of the Past was directed by Jacques Tourneur, a man perhaps better known for low-budget horror films such as Cat People and I Walked with a Zombie, rather than hard boiled crime films but he had a great team around him, many of whom had already worked together for RKO on numerous pictures. The film was adapted by Daniel Mainwaring (under the pseudonym Geoffrey Homes) from his novel Build My Gallows High with uncredited revisions by Frank Fenton and James M. Cain. This point is clearly evident from the superb dialogue so typical of the genre but here somehow a little less contrived and more natural. Don’t forget, James M. Cain was the genius behind, among others, Double Indemnity.

The role of gumshoe fitted Mitchum as comfortably as the raincoat and fedora he wore much of the time and it’s easy to see why he would later go on to portray Philip Marlowe. He breezes through this film with a cool self-assurance and a likability that make you (almost) overlook his potential for violence. Jane Greer’s femme fatale, with her baby face and deceitful eyes, smoulders, like the best of them and Kirk Douglas plays the gangster with controlled intensity – sure, he seems charming enough but you wouldn’t want to be around when he looses his temper.

For a film noir, the locations are worth noting too. Yes, we get the usual nighttime cityscapes and atmospherically lit bar rooms and office interiors, trademarks of the genre, but we also get out into the wide open Californian countryside as well as sunny Acapulco. The way cameraman Nicholas Musuraca captures this variety of locations lifts the film well and truly out of the murky pool where a high number of the genre languor.

In 1991, the film was included in the US National Film Registry as being deemed, “culturally, historically or aesthetically significant”. Also, it will doubtless come as no surprise to learn that it features highly in many of the American Film Institute’s 100 Years of cinema lists. For me, it’s a recent discovery I’m very thankful for and yet another reminder that the ’40s was an awesome decade for movies. It’s one that has aged extremely well and one that will encourage me to continue scanning the Internet and the lists of films people consider the best ever made.