Skyfall (Sam Mendes, 2012)

"Take the bloody shot!"

 

Introduction

The possibility of Skyfall achieving acknowledgement at the Academy Awards is not without merit. An outstanding cast, Oscar-nominated composers and cinematographers with, for the first time ever, an Oscar-winning director, clearly establishes Skyfall as a film which has broken the rules regarding James Bond filmmaking. Despite this, Skyfall additionally manages to respect the series with the usual tropes of 007 by seamlessly advertising tourist hot-spots including Shanghai, Istanbul and – in the year of the 2012 Olympics – London. It includes exceptionally attractive ‘Bond Girls’ including Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe, but it is Judi Dench’s ‘M’ who is the central female character. We witness the re-arrival of Q (Ben Whishaw), offering a clear attempt at re-aligning all the facets which make James Bond so engaging. This film took "the bloody shot" and is a game-changer – and makes no attempt at hiding its influences.

 

“Storm’s Coming” 

 

It is interesting that, in a year whereby Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight Rises advertised the term ‘a storm is coming’ as Bruce Wayne harked back to his roots, the James Bond film delves deeper than any other James Bond film since On Her Majesty’s Secret Service in exploring where 007 emerged from – and additionally uses the line “storm’s coming” to precede the final act. The film begins as 007 is shot during a mission in Turkey attempting to retrieve a list of undercover-agents, which has managed to get into the wrong hands. The plot is similar to the McGuffin in Mission: Impossible and the infamous ‘Noc’ list. Unlike DePalma’s thriller, Skyfall continues initially under the assumption that Bond is dead – whilst M is held accountable for the loss of the agent and the missing list. Suffice to say, due to a terrorist-attack on MI5, 007 returns to England. But he is a broken-man and has to re-establish himself as the skilled-spy that he truly is.

Producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli have tried to change the Bond series for decades. Licence to Kill changed the formulae as Felix Leiter became a victim to Robert Davi’s ‘Sanchez’ (and his sharks), whilst Bond in true Dirty Harry form, “went rogue” to avenge his best friend’s death. Goldeneye became self-aware as the villain was alternate-agent 006 (Sean Bean), mocking the characteristics of Bond which we love. The World is not Enough saw ‘M’ become a victim as Sophie Marceau’s ‘Elektra King’ double-crossed the whole of MI5 and even Die Another Day pre-dated Daniel Craig as Brosnan’s Bond was tortured by scorpions during the opening sequence. Until Casino Royale all these attempts simply failed under the pressures of the expectations of the Bond series – so Die Another Day jarringly blended the torture at the start with a diamond-laser finale.

In 2006, Martin Campbell and Daniel Craig proved that James Bond can be so much more - and in Skyfall, all these elements come together to create a 007 adventure that truly represents James Bond in the modern era. No more token-gestures at change – Skyfall truly, and literally, destroys the “House that Broccoli-and-Saltzman built", in favour of a series built on firmer foundations. Scott Mendelson writes how these elements are what weaken Skyfall, stating the we are "drudging along recycled territory" whilst the filmmakers themselves offer only mere "periodic pandering" to fans of the series. I would disagree - after 23 films, this is what we have all wanted. It is simply a shame that they have tried (and failed) so regularly since Brosnan was cast to change the formulae without losing what we all love about the series.
 

Influences Further Afield

What separates Skyfall further from the franchise is the incredible direction of Mendes behind the camera. Rather than merely turning to action-films to inspire him, Mendes turns to films as diverse as Apocalypse Now, The Usual Suspects and Chris Nolan’s The Dark Knight to create mood and depict scenes. Marc Forster failed to evoke the action depicted in The Bourne Trilogy in Quantum of Solace, but it seems that Mendes knew that this direction was the wrong tone for James Bond. Whilst Jason Bourne was rough, off-the-radar and uncontrollable – James Bond can be clean cut, exemplifies extreme class and style and his attitude borders on blatant arrogance. His snarky quips representing his personal, supreme confidence in his skill. Jason Bourne would be unlikely to discuss his sexual-experiences with an enemy when tied to a chair – as James Bond does with the brilliant villain Silva (Javiar Bardem). It is this use of character that not-only separates James Bond from the Jack Bauers and Ethan Hunts of the world, but it also separates Skyfall from all of its predecessors.

Indeed, supporting cast members Judi Dench and Naomie Harris manage to provide a scope to the film that the lone-wolf in Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace lacked. Harris’ ‘Eve’ is much more than a token ‘Bond-girl’, whilst M manages to garner more screen-time than any other actor other than Bond himself. The fact that Oscar-winner Judi Dench holds the role assures you of the quality of her depiction of ‘M’ in her seventh-outing as 007’s superior. In this film particularly, her role is one to be commended and celebrated. Indeed, she is as conflicted about the morality of her role in MI5, leading men into battle, as James Bond is about his espionage work on the front-line. Therefore, it is simply poetic that Silva is a character (not unlike Alec Trevelyan in GoldenEye and Scaramanga in TheMan with the Golden Gun) who is physically and mentally 007’s reflected-rival, adding a further dimension to the Mother-Child relationship between Bond and M.
 

The Destruction of the Past

As a fan of the series, the final-act is what is noticeably different to previous outings. Even Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace had an almost-cliché finale as huge, exotic locations – Venice and the Atacama Desert in Chile respectively – set the scene for an explosive ending that would-not be out of place in any other Connery or Moore adventure. Skyfall sets the scene in the highlands of Scotland. The misty moors and dusty chandeliers are hardly the expensive ‘quality’ we are used to seeing in the series. But it is Roger Deakins that turns the location into a ghost-town that accurately represents the story which Purvis, Wade and Logan are telling. Again, this is not your usual James Bond film and the end of this film is like no-other. Sam Mendes has peeled back the layers of the character to reveal his history and his past – something that many may see as sacrilege. But Deakins cinematography is simply glorious; capturing the mood and emotion attached to the moment. After Vesper (Eva Green) ‘stripped away his armour’ in Casino Royale - only for him to bury it deep within his soul after her betrayal; Skyfall destroys every other human characteristic James Bond had, and the final act represents how much has been taken away to make 007 a lethal man with a licence to kill.

Fans of the series will leave the film with a similar crooked smile on their face. We will think to ourselves “Now he is James Bond!” the same thing we thought when the sniper-rifle hit Mr White at the end of Casino Royale. In that respect, a niggle of frustration may creep through as it has almost been three films now of ‘understanding’ James Bond. Can’t we simply have a James Bond adventure? Can’t we see a story contained unto a single film without a self-referential collective ‘aah’ when he says the same “You must be joking” line we have heard too many times in the series? Maybe. In fairness, this is what Quantum of Solace should’ve been. This is what the 20^th film, Die Another Day, dreamt it could’ve been. But it is 50 years since Dr No, and this film is a way that truly celebrates that success. No other franchise has such longevity and, therefore, captures 50 years of stylistic changes and cultural shifts over the period of its release. This film will remain a special film for many reasons – the use of James Bond’s home town, London; the political and personal relevance to the nature of terrorism in the 21^st century; the dramatic finale. It is only fitting that the film ends where it all began, almost daring younger and new-fans of the series to pick up the box set and go back to the start. Because behind all the Oscar-nominees and Oscar-winners; behind the cast and crew; behind the two producers who have managed to maintain the series since GoldenEye are fans of the series – like we are. And we only want what is best for Bond – and this could be the very best of the entire series.

Fargo (Joel Coen, 1996)

"And for what? For a little bit of money. There's more to life than a little money, you know. Don'tcha know that? And here ya are, and it's a beautiful day. Well. I just don't understand it"

Introduction

This was the 'mock-simon-for-having-not-watched-it' film for a long, long time. If you have just listened to the 'Bourne's Brain Baffler' on the podcast page, then you'll know that it was only very recently that I have watched it. Anyone who found I had not seen this would go crazy "You haven't seen this! thats madness!". I could wax-lyrical about No Country for Old Men or The Big Lebowski but Fargo - oh no, that was a crime to have not seen. Well, in the words of that fella' from Gone in Sixty Seconds: "Now you've gone and done it [Raines]". And I have. I knew the demise of Buscemi prior to the film - but luckily, that is not what the film hangs upon. The entire style is what makes it so unique- the Minnesota style, the nice-attitude. Minnesota-nice.

Analysis/Opinion

William H. Macy begins the story 'setting' up his wife as part of a plot to get some money for a real-estate plan. He is thick as shit, thats for sure. But it is the screw-up that the 'outsiders' make that destroy the 'plan' Macy had in place - Buscemi and Stormare, chatty and mute respectively, don't know Minnesota that well - Stormare having never been before and Buscemi only with a passing interest. This is the set-up and, akin to Hitchcocks finest, this is dark-comedy at its best. Upon kidnapping Macys wife, Stormare and Buscemi laugh heartily as she runs around in the snow with a bag on her head trying to escape. It is that kind-of funny.

So, first off, the entire visual style is part-Coen, part-Deakins who stayed as cinematographer again following two previous efforts with the Coens. While we also have regular collaborator, Carter Burwell, who again provides the string soundtrack - eerie and homely in equal measure. Some shots are almost abstract as entire vistas are covered in snow. One show shows an empty car park, the small marks on the car park forming a geometric pattern. The world is important and Fargo, Brainerd and the locations used in Minnesota are as much a character in Fargo as Sheriff Marge Gunderson, played impeccably by Coen-brothers-wife and regular actress Frances McDormand (In Barton Fink, Blood Simple, Millers Crossing, Raising Arizona... even most recently in Burn after Reading).

This is worth exploring. Her character is only introduced halfway into the film. By the time we see her, Macy has hired the kidnappers, he has spoken to his father-in-law about the deal, the kidnappers have kidnapped Macy's wife in an incredible sequence and, as they drove out of town, the kidnappers not only kill a police officer on their tale but also two civilians who simply happened to pass by when the kidnappers were disposing of the policemans body. Akin to Blood Simple, a murder is never an easy task in a Coen brothers film. Even Gabriel Byrne found how difficult it is to shoot a rat in Millers Crossing. Nevertheless, Frances McDormand's 'Madge' is such a force that as soon as we see her and 'Norm' wake up to the call of a homicide, it is she who is the centre of the story. Everything else turns to dust. Her idiosyncrasies and mannerisms, "yah" simply make every sequence amazing to watch. She notes on the documentary that she can only do 'Madge' when in the wig - which doesn't surprise me. Something so fluid can't be turned on and off - you have to physically become the character.

William H. Macy's lead role is additionally an incredible character - though at the same time, a pathetic man. But thats not the first time we have seen this in a Coen's film. Lets think, pathetic lead men - Barton Fink in Barton Fink, Ray in Blood Simple and most recently Larry Gopnik in A Serious Man. All so self-involved that they don't realise the obvious. Then, another Coen-cliche - the barren landscapes. Rather snowscapes than deserts in No Country for Old Men or the fields that I have seen in the adverts for O Brother, Where Art Thou (yes, I will watch it as soon as possible - next is The Hudsucker Proxy and Raising Arizona...)

Then, as previously mention, the theme of a murder. More precisely, murder-going-wrong after a paid-for-hire killer is hired to do such a job. See Millers Crossing and Blood Simple from the same Coen era. This theme in and of itself comes from the Master of Suspense himself - Hitchcock. It always comes down to Hitchcock. Think Rope or Strangers on a Train ... go further than that to simply murders-gone-wrong and we have Psycho, Frenzy, Dial M for Murder ... the list goes on.

In closing, this is a truly great film. It sure does belong 'up there' with the great Coen brothers films. Not only does it bring together many of the Coen's trademarks - but it does so with the most incredible characters in a place so unique that only Joel and Ethan Coen could bring such a place to life with such interest. I thought the film was great and sorry for not having watched it until now.

A Serious Man (Ethan Coen; Joel Coen, 2009)

"Please, accept the mystery"

Introduction

Her name is Rio and she dances on the plane. No she doesn't. I speak of the Rio Cinema in Dalston where I viewed the Coen Brother's latest movie. The Guardian tells me it is 'magnificent' while Dan Jolin in Empire gives it five stars - even Sight and Sound makes it film of the month as Michael Atkinson expands on the Richard Kind's performance by telling us about his 'magnificent' performance. I was quite excited to watch this. I remember a similar hype around Burn After Reading - the star-studded vehicle following the Oscar winning No Country for Old Men. But I never watched it due to the not-as-enthusiastic-reviews of the aforementioned film. I knew it was about Jewish-ness (Woody Allen links maybe?) and, judging from the trailer, a comedy ... it was not like Woody Allen and was not as funny as I anticipated, but thats not to say I thought it was bad because it was a pleasure to be so close to this personal touch of Ethan and Joel Coen.

Opinion

The film begins with a parable: A rational man brings back a man to his house - a man who his wife is positive was killed months prior. The man walks in and is clearly not dead, os the rational mans wife is convinced he is a dybbuk - a possessed spirit - and, out of nowhere, she stabs the potential-dybbuk. The man asks - 'now who is possessed?' and leaves. I assume, this small analogy, shows how peoples actions dictate how evil they are - whether he was evil or not is neither here nor there, he helped the rational man - but the wife on the other hand, for no real, justified reason, sought it neccessary to stab him making her the evil one in the story. Actions dictate your character - not the events that surround you.

Obviously, this is an anology for the rest of the film. Poor old Larry Guptnik (Stuhlbarg) has, what we believe, every conceivable problem happen to him: his wife wants a divorce, his teenagers are selfish (much like any teenager really), he gets involved in a car accident, etc The list goes on. So he wants answers - he knows the question: what do you do if you lose (pretty much) every thing? He asks a range of Rabbi's and the comment on their assistance is 'struggling' at best. I am forced to recall Ricky Gervais' view on comedy - whereby he felt that Andy Millman in extras had to reach rock bottom before he could reign supreme at the end of the Christmas Special of Extras. Larry hits rock bottom. He feels let down. He feels as if God has let him down. Larry Gopnik wants to know how life can get better.

His son plays an interesting parallel as he struggles to find a music-player that was taken by a teacher so he can pay-off a bully. I would assume the link here is that the bully Larry faces is life. The film climaxes at the bar mitzvah of Larry's Son, Danny. Larry has tried in vain to meet with the head Rabbi and fails, while his son is granted the privilege opportunity to meet him - the head Rabbi hands Danny his music player back. Obviously, as Larry never meets the Rabbi, his 'life' is not returned to normal.

The film begins and ends with a bribe - a student of Larry's, a Korean lad called Clive - the whole film, Larry denies this bribe, trying hard to make sure it is dealt with. But alas, the envelope of money sits on his desk.

[Spoiler] Then comes the incredible finale as everything that has happened, ultimately, affects Larry into changing his morals. The whole film, you see Larry brewing and about to blow a gasket. You feel as if the film has ended as Larry is informed that he may just get his tenure, his wife may love him still, his brother - an amazing performance from Richard Kind - tells Larry how lucky he is. You think that we have seen the storm of Larry's life pass ... but alas, he gets a $3000 bill and, he cracks and takes the bribe. At the same moment a storm moves towards his son and his classmates.

Referring back to Gervais' thought on making someone hit rock bottom before raising them up, in this case, Larry hits rock bottom and tries to make sense of it all. He never does but, eventually, the pressure gets too much and he changes his moral. He chooses to end his 'seriousness' of life and decides to, rationally, accept the bribe - when the reality is, he doesn't see the wood through the trees. His brother is right - he has so much going for him, but he doesn't see it.

I throughly enjoyed this movie. It is set in 1967 and therefore sets the stage for a potential deconstruction of the nuclear family, a possibility Dan Jolin mentions in Empire but I would disagree. Merely a parable - the whole 'grass is greener on the other side' story told in Coen-style. No envy on Larry's part - envy seen as sin by Jews (I assume), merely a frustration that - to stretch out the use of the aforementioned proverb - Larry feels why is his grass not as green as others? Reality is, we all feel this frustration when sh*t happens and it is - as the parable at the start tells us - down to our actions in the face of these events that determine who we are.