bosef982
Superhero
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2003
- Messages
- 6,211
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I'm going to weigh in here on a few things.
One, I find it strange to compare Ghost Protocol to this film as they are clearly in different leagues, made with two very different intentions.
Those who feel that Skyfall was 'basic shot' say it as a negative. However, an equal argument can be made for films whose flashy camera tricks and angles -- while awesome -- muddle what's in the frame. Deakins' cine in this film is so astoundingly gorgeous in painting a world of Bond that Mendes knew to let the picturesque shots stand by themselves.
Someone saying that the shootout at Skyfall was lazy shooting simply doesn't understand what it takes to make a film look as it did there. Three different environmental planes (fire, marshland, ice) all illuminated in various ways and catching the blanket of frost coming in over the lands? The atmosphere captured there was beyond anything one could expect from a Bond film, and far from 'basic.' Very few cinematographers are capable of producing that type of artistry. What's basic is how effortless they made it seem...
Now what is this film about?
As a life-long Fleming Bond lover, I'm pleased to hear so many people say this is the first time Ian's Bond has existed on screen. While this isn't ALL together true (From Russia, Thunderball, Living Daylights, etc.) all contain fairly loyal versions of Fleming's Bond, this is the first Bond film that captured the WORLD Fleming created.
Fleming was a master at taking the most absurd idea -- island fortresses, squids attacking Bond, army of crabs eating a damsel, or a garden of death -- and wrapping it with his elegant writing style to deliver something that felt authentic and real without calling attention to itself. His writing and plotting was so self-assured and confident, it never let be fantastic or outrageous that which was so clearly such. This elegance and confidence is what made his novels read with the Fleming sweep, and that sweep kept you from realizing exactly how absurd and pulpy the events on the page were. They also beautifully mastered Fleming's tendency to introduce a false action climax (the Enquiry scene). After this, the plot conflates into a more personal and dangerous story -- think the final scenes of the novels for Moonraker, Live and Let Die, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and You Only Live Twice. All -- especially YOLT -- have soft, personal endings that are intentionally anti-climatic and fail to give a big satisfying wallop to the novel's end (Moonraker, Casino, Live and Let Die all see the main villain dispatched off-screen or by someone other then Bond).
Like Bond, the audience is purposefully left slightly empty, clinging to whatever few pages remain to give purpose to the preceding 100. In this, Fleming aligned the audience with Bond -- having them feel the doubt and futility that comes after every mission. I think Fleming did this to paint the chaos of espionage for the audience, and how -- at best -- a good spy is simply a wrench thrown into the cogs of whatever villainous scheme. They don't save the day; they simply muck things up enough that the villain's plan backfires in their face and Bond incidentally saves the day.
Mendes did the same thing here. With Deakins and Logan, they created a film that sweeps along without ever calling attention to how silly it's become. Thus, there's this dissonance in tone that arrives from the execution, and that tone is distinctively Bondian. It's a fantastical world that is full of danger, and a man too beleaguered by his duty to truly see it for what it is. All Bond can do is keep chugging along like the straight bullet that he is.
Someone said they think the film is a statement on England's relevance in the modern world, a callback to Fleming's own fidelity to themes of England's post-WWII power and relevance. However, I think it's not just England -- but rather the West itself -- that is being discussed. Skyfall is basically asking what is the place in the rest in a world without borders?
It is also an argument for the relevance of Bond to this day, and a celebration of what made him great so long ago. M's death is almost done in spite and to make a point, the payoff is a return to the padded-leather door of a male M's office.
More importantly, the film is about trust. M lets Bond go into the field having failed the physical. As the audience wonders why and Silva interprets it as meaning she sent Bond to die...she finally answers in the form of the poem.
She trusts Bond's will to save the day. She trusts in the tried-and-true, in tradition. In the end, she gives her life to save MI-6 and protect that legacy.
I also think this film is about growing up. That Bond, as an icon and a character, needs to grow up. By robbing Bond of all his maternal support, he is finally on his own and ready to face the future.
I'm disappointed that more and more people find themselves disillusioned with this film, and compare it to -- compared to its filmmaking art -- slop like Ghost Protocol .
Also, a side note, those saying Bond was never an action movie is right. That is something that he formed into during the Brosnan era, the machine-gun totting guy double-firing guns in blazes of fire.
Connery's Bond -- for the most part -- was very much the pulpy investigator. He wasn't superhuman. He was a decent fighter. Same goes for Lazenby.
Roger Moore's character was FAR from an action hero, and Dalton was perhaps the most non-action hero Bond next to Craig.
Only Brosnan pushed it more to the action area, where you could literally set your clock to when an action set piece would arise.
Casino started to veer away from this, and then QoS indulged it much to its determiment.
Skyfall represents a return to form of integrated, organic action punctuating an detective thriller -- which is exactly what Fleming created.
One, I find it strange to compare Ghost Protocol to this film as they are clearly in different leagues, made with two very different intentions.
Those who feel that Skyfall was 'basic shot' say it as a negative. However, an equal argument can be made for films whose flashy camera tricks and angles -- while awesome -- muddle what's in the frame. Deakins' cine in this film is so astoundingly gorgeous in painting a world of Bond that Mendes knew to let the picturesque shots stand by themselves.
Someone saying that the shootout at Skyfall was lazy shooting simply doesn't understand what it takes to make a film look as it did there. Three different environmental planes (fire, marshland, ice) all illuminated in various ways and catching the blanket of frost coming in over the lands? The atmosphere captured there was beyond anything one could expect from a Bond film, and far from 'basic.' Very few cinematographers are capable of producing that type of artistry. What's basic is how effortless they made it seem...
Now what is this film about?
As a life-long Fleming Bond lover, I'm pleased to hear so many people say this is the first time Ian's Bond has existed on screen. While this isn't ALL together true (From Russia, Thunderball, Living Daylights, etc.) all contain fairly loyal versions of Fleming's Bond, this is the first Bond film that captured the WORLD Fleming created.
Fleming was a master at taking the most absurd idea -- island fortresses, squids attacking Bond, army of crabs eating a damsel, or a garden of death -- and wrapping it with his elegant writing style to deliver something that felt authentic and real without calling attention to itself. His writing and plotting was so self-assured and confident, it never let be fantastic or outrageous that which was so clearly such. This elegance and confidence is what made his novels read with the Fleming sweep, and that sweep kept you from realizing exactly how absurd and pulpy the events on the page were. They also beautifully mastered Fleming's tendency to introduce a false action climax (the Enquiry scene). After this, the plot conflates into a more personal and dangerous story -- think the final scenes of the novels for Moonraker, Live and Let Die, Casino Royale, Goldfinger, and You Only Live Twice. All -- especially YOLT -- have soft, personal endings that are intentionally anti-climatic and fail to give a big satisfying wallop to the novel's end (Moonraker, Casino, Live and Let Die all see the main villain dispatched off-screen or by someone other then Bond).
Like Bond, the audience is purposefully left slightly empty, clinging to whatever few pages remain to give purpose to the preceding 100. In this, Fleming aligned the audience with Bond -- having them feel the doubt and futility that comes after every mission. I think Fleming did this to paint the chaos of espionage for the audience, and how -- at best -- a good spy is simply a wrench thrown into the cogs of whatever villainous scheme. They don't save the day; they simply muck things up enough that the villain's plan backfires in their face and Bond incidentally saves the day.
Mendes did the same thing here. With Deakins and Logan, they created a film that sweeps along without ever calling attention to how silly it's become. Thus, there's this dissonance in tone that arrives from the execution, and that tone is distinctively Bondian. It's a fantastical world that is full of danger, and a man too beleaguered by his duty to truly see it for what it is. All Bond can do is keep chugging along like the straight bullet that he is.
Someone said they think the film is a statement on England's relevance in the modern world, a callback to Fleming's own fidelity to themes of England's post-WWII power and relevance. However, I think it's not just England -- but rather the West itself -- that is being discussed. Skyfall is basically asking what is the place in the rest in a world without borders?
It is also an argument for the relevance of Bond to this day, and a celebration of what made him great so long ago. M's death is almost done in spite and to make a point, the payoff is a return to the padded-leather door of a male M's office.
More importantly, the film is about trust. M lets Bond go into the field having failed the physical. As the audience wonders why and Silva interprets it as meaning she sent Bond to die...she finally answers in the form of the poem.
She trusts Bond's will to save the day. She trusts in the tried-and-true, in tradition. In the end, she gives her life to save MI-6 and protect that legacy.
I also think this film is about growing up. That Bond, as an icon and a character, needs to grow up. By robbing Bond of all his maternal support, he is finally on his own and ready to face the future.
I'm disappointed that more and more people find themselves disillusioned with this film, and compare it to -- compared to its filmmaking art -- slop like Ghost Protocol .
Also, a side note, those saying Bond was never an action movie is right. That is something that he formed into during the Brosnan era, the machine-gun totting guy double-firing guns in blazes of fire.
Connery's Bond -- for the most part -- was very much the pulpy investigator. He wasn't superhuman. He was a decent fighter. Same goes for Lazenby.
Roger Moore's character was FAR from an action hero, and Dalton was perhaps the most non-action hero Bond next to Craig.
Only Brosnan pushed it more to the action area, where you could literally set your clock to when an action set piece would arise.
Casino started to veer away from this, and then QoS indulged it much to its determiment.
Skyfall represents a return to form of integrated, organic action punctuating an detective thriller -- which is exactly what Fleming created.
t:
