Spectre

[swan_tower]

The new Bond movie is . . . not very good.

I’ve mostly liked the Craig movies, by which I mean Casino Royale and Skyfall. I basically remember nothing of Quantum of Solace, and the only reason the same won’t be true of Spectre is that I’m bothering to post about its shortcomings.

The main thing that disappointed me with Skyfall was the feeling that, at the end, we had returned to the usual classic Bond status quo. Craig’s Bond didn’t have gadgets, didn’t have Q, didn’t have Moneypenny, and M was a woman. By the time Skyfall ended, you had gadgets (albeit minor ones compared to past films), Q, Moneypenny, and a male M. The whole film was explicitly about looking back to history, both of the franchise and of the characters in it, and so as an ending to the story I think I would have been okay with it. But then we got Spectre.

Which is an utterly conventional Bond movie that fails to be anything more than the sum of its parts. One villain is so obvious that I assumed, the minute he showed up, that the script was doing that as a red herring and the real situation would turn out to be more interesting. Alas, no. The plot is phenomenally stupid; it hinges on the idea that nine countries have decided to share 100% of their intelligence information — and those nine countries include the UK, Russia, and China. I’m sorry, what? Suspension of disbelief is one thing, but the notion that those three countries would be peachy keen with sharing all their secrets because surely they’ll be BFFs forever and never end up in conflict with one another is so far outside the bounds of reality, I lack the words to describe it. (And I write fantasy.) Nothing gets explained enough to have any impact: Monica Bellucci shows up for long enough to babble something about how she hated her husband but her marriage was the only thing protecting her from being killed by nevermind we’ve run out of infodump time GET TO THE MAKEOUTS. And then she vanishes from the film, with nothing about her entire situation having any relevance to the story whatsoever, except that we’re twenty minutes into the movie and the schedule says Bond has to get into bed with somebody. The main villain is clearly supposed to have all this personal resonance for Bond, but unless he came up in Quantum of Solace and I forgot it (entirely possible), we don’t know anything about that personal resonance until the last third or so of the movie, which is far too late for it to mean anything to the audience. Bond commits inexplicably stupid errors: we see him notice a not-at-all hidden security camera, but apparently he decides there’s no point in wiping it before he leaves, just so there can be a later scene where somebody else is horrified to see what it recorded.

Skyfall, though not perfect, was in every way a better movie. It had the personal weight this one seems to think it has, but doesn’t. It had a thematic argument about human intelligence vs. the technology of the new age, which gets stuck in a microwave for Spectre and does not reheat well. It had a meaningful relationship between Bond and M, instead of a Bond girl who almost manages to be interesting but again, her backstory is not explored very well and somehow I’m supposed to believe Bond retires and settles down with her or something? It had genuine tension; I’m not a filmmaker, but even I can tell this movie dragged stuff out for too long, kept the score at too THRILLING! EXCITEMENT! of a level with insufficient dynamics, made things more complicated than they had to be so I’m wondering why there are all these string things set up instead of worrying about the characters’ lives. It had entertaining moments, but they added up to nothing whatsoever.

It turns out the best part of Spectre was Daniel Craig’s press tour.

Originally published at Swan Tower. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[sovay]

I basically remember nothing of Quantum of Solace

I have fond memories of it. It's a weaker film than Casino Royale: it reverts to a shadowy global conspiracy rather than a tight one-shot mission with personal stakes and the detour with Gemma Arterton's "Strawberry" Fields is terrible. On the other hand, it has Olga Kurylenko as the Bond girl who doesn't sleep with him (but does sleep with whoever she needs in order to further her mission, which the script explicitly acknowledges is no different than Bond romancing any number of villains, villains' mistresses, double agents, and passing pretty faces along the way) and Mathieu Amalric as the villain who may be able to organize a coup in Bolivia, but hasn't the first clue about hand-to-hand combat. He's dangerous in his fight scene not because he knows what he's doing with that fire axe, but because he really doesn't, laying around himself so wildly that he hits himself in the foot and berserks all over again. I genuinely like the theme song, Alicia Keys and Jack White's "Another Way to Die." And because I went to see the movie with my mother accidentally on the night when Twilight opened at the local theater and the line wrapped round the block, I had the entertaining experience of hearing a mother go by patiently explaining to her child, "If it's girls, they're here for Twilight; if it's boys, Quantum of Solace," at which I put up my hand and called—in concert with my mother—"We're here for Quantum of Solace!" (In an ideal world, some guys in the line would have immediately declared for Twilight, Spartacus-style, but my life is not scripted that way.)

I was surprised when Spectre was announced because I had thought Skyfall was going to be the final Craig Bond: among other things, the character was tied up so closely with Dench's M that it was difficult to imagine one without the other; and then, as you mention, the restoration of the typical Bond status quo. I am sorry Spectre did not find a way to be something else entirely, as that could have been neat.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I vaguely remember that about Kurylenko, now that you mention it. I quite approved of that. And your waiting-in-line anecdote is wonderful. :-)

it reverts to a shadowy global conspiracy rather than a tight one-shot mission with personal stakes

Spectre manages to fail in two directions at once, there. First of all, it's about a shadowy global conspiracy, a literal boardroom full of people talking about how their profits are up a bazillion percent on account of all the terrible global catastrophes they've orchestrated -- and that kind of story is really hard to do well, because it's so implausible and impersonal. But then at the same time, it's about this villain with a personal connection to Bond who was apparently pulling the strings of all the villains in the previous movies in order to Make Bond Suffer in a truly byzantine scheme of bespoke psychological torture. Which does it want to be? Global, or personal? It tries to be both, and winds up failing hugely at both.

I was surprised when Spectre was announced because I had thought Skyfall was going to be the final Craig Bond: among other things, the character was tied up so closely with Dench's M that it was difficult to imagine one without the other; and then, as you mention, the restoration of the typical Bond status quo. I am sorry Spectre did not find a way to be something else entirely, as that could have been neat.

I kind of assumed after the last movie that this one would be, as you say, something else entirely. Mind you, I don't know what that would have been -- a truly reinvented Bond would in some senses be a different character entirely, which is to say, any one of a bunch of other action movies/franchises we've gotten over the decades -- but it would have made sense if Skyfall was about saying farewell to the past and then moving on in new directions. But apparently we get wholesale reversion to the past instead.

[sovay]

his villain with a personal connection to Bond who was apparently pulling the strings of all the villains in the previous movies in order to Make Bond Suffer in a truly byzantine scheme of bespoke psychological torture.

Um. Really? That's like the third nested conspiracy we've had in a row.

Which does it want to be? Global, or personal? It tries to be both, and winds up failing hugely at both.

That's a shame, especially since Skyfall contrived to make its threat convincing on both personal and wider political levels—the compromising of British national security is the inevitable byproduct of Silva's attempts to revenge himself on M.

Mind you, I don't know what that would have been -- a truly reinvented Bond would in some senses be a different character entirely

Daniel Craig in Casino Royale contradicted some of the oldest rules about Bond, including the ones laid down in the days of Sean Connery. We had evidence that it could be done. And I was cautiously looking forward to seeing what some of the familiar figures of the mythos looked like in new settings. Moneypenny in Skyfall, for example. She gets out of field work not because she's not good at it—she didn't shoot Bond out of incompetence, she knew it wasn't a clear shot and she obeyed orders and took it anyway—but because she has the self-awareness to recognize, because of that incident, that she's not the kind of person who can live in the shadow world of cold equations. She can't resign herself as a disposable playing piece; she's not comfortable being the instrument of the deaths of friends and colleagues in the service of the greater good. M was willing to be both of these things; it made her a good spy and a good spymaster and it let her die on her own terms. (I love that she regrets, but never apologizes; whatever peace she could make with her past, she did it long before Silva resurfaced to try to squeeze guilt from a stone. Or she does it every day, the reckoning of her life as much a part of her morning routine as her minimal makeup and the short white spikes of her hair, but none of Silva's machinations can increase or lessen its weight. He can threaten her life; he can smear her reputation; he can send her underground. He cannot actually make her feel any more grief or responsibility that she has carried for years. The script never gives an inch on that front and neither do Dench's eyes. She knows what she can live with; she's lived with it. Her dying words have nothing to do with Silva.) Silva wasn't: he needed to be important enough to break the rules for; he was in the wrong career from the start. (I love that his backstory is so ordinary. Tiago Rodriguez was an operative who exceeded his brief; M evaluated his risk-to-reward ratio and then handed him over in exchange for six agents who weren't endangering the handover of Hong Kong. She took the bloody shot. The only thing unusual in this scenario is that Silva made a revenge cult out of it. When he sends her that deliberately crude Flash page blinking THINK ON YOUR SINS, she may guess who it is already—he was a brilliant hacker, she won't have a better until Ben Whishaw's anorak-wearing baby boffin Q—but it's such an imprecise threat. All of them?) One of the open questions of the Craig series was whether Bond himself could reconcile himself to the necessities of espionage rather than vendetta, which Skyfall appeared to answer. Just the fact that the series was asking these questions was fascinating. It could have kept it up! I don't know what the results would have looked like, either, but I would have been really curious to find out.

But apparently we get wholesale reversion to the past instead.

Which is the part I'm just sad about. At the most basic level, it's not as interesting.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Um. Really? That's like the third nested conspiracy we've had in a row.

Yep. And they just get less convincing with every new iteration.

That's a shame, especially since Skyfall contrived to make its threat convincing on both personal and wider political levels—the compromising of British national security is the inevitable byproduct of Silva's attempts to revenge himself on M.

What made it work for me there is that, in the end, the movie cared much more about the personal level. The wider political level mostly amounted to "look, electronic security is really hard to achieve and screwing it up can be really dangerous," instead of it being some megalomaniacal muah-hah-hah scheme. You get a hint of that on Silva's island, but it isn't the real point of the movie.

M was willing to be both of these things; it made her a good spy and a good spymaster and it let her die on her own terms. (I love that she regrets, but never apologizes; whatever peace she could make with her past, she did it long before Silva resurfaced to try to squeeze guilt from a stone. Or she does it every day, the reckoning of her life as much a part of her morning routine as her minimal makeup and the short white spikes of her hair, but none of Silva's machinations can increase or lessen its weight. He can threaten her life; he can smear her reputation; he can send her underground. He cannot actually make her feel any more grief or responsibility that she has carried for years. The script never gives an inch on that front and neither do Dench's eyes. She knows what she can live with; she's lived with it. Her dying words have nothing to do with Silva.)

There's a reason I wrote a crossover fic where Dench's M is Marianne Straker from The Sandbaggers. In the Craig movies especially, she very much came across as Burnside's intellectual heir.

[sovay]

There's a reason I wrote a crossover fic where Dench's M is Marianne Straker from The Sandbaggers.

I suppose it has since been invalidated by canon (feh!), but in 2013 I was very fond of this theory:

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

It's a lovely theory! I think that for me, Peggy exists in too good-hearted of a world to be Dench's M; the road from one to the other would be too depressing. But I could easily be sold on the idea.

[sovay]

But I could easily be sold on the idea.

Peggy once punched a dude in the face with a stapler. It worked for me.

[sovay]

P.S. because LJ-comment character limits are not and have never been my friend:

Should I ask about Ralph Fiennes' M in Spectre? Mallory in Skyfall interested me because he was so obviously the desk-jockey antagonist that the audience could be forgiven for wondering whether he was orchestrating the flameout of M's career just to clear the way for whatever the Prime Minister believed the future of espionage should look like—it was a genuine pleasant surprise when he was vindicated by his quick thinking and field agent's reflexes during the assassination attempt at Westminster. I just didn't love him in the same instinctive way as Dench's M and I don't see why I should have been expected to. He didn't carry the same inherent tension of gender, era, or attitude; either the script or the actor was going to have to pull some further complication out of him in order for me really to care. I am unsurprisingly concerned now that this didn't happen.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

The film doesn't seem to know what to do with Mallory. As you say, there's a good bait-and-switch with him in Skyfall -- it's why I assumed we'd get a similar complication with the Spectre villain who, alas, turned out to be exactly as obvious and shallow as he appeared to be. The microwave comment in my post had to do with the fact that one of the strands here is Max Denbigh (I refuse to call him C; he's not a good enough character for me to respect him that much) sneering at Mallory about how Mallory's an old fossil who doesn't understand the new realities of modern intelligence blah blah blah -- almost exactly the same conversation we had last film, except with Mallory on the other side. Not enough time has passed for that particular turning of the tables to make any sense. We sort of get a recap of "Mallory may seem like a martinet, but he understands when to break the rules," but it's kind of pro forma and not as good as the corresponding incident last movie. His one really good moment is when they more or less restage the opening of Casino Royale, with the guy at his desk and the agent lying in wait and the gun having no bullets in it, except it's Mallory as the agent instead of Bond. That echo worked for me, as the "you're outdated" rehash did not.

They didn't so much screw him up as waste the potential there, like so much else in this film.

[sovay]

They didn't so much screw him up as waste the potential there, like so much else in this film.

Phooey.

[edit] sneering at Mallory about how Mallory's an old fossil who doesn't understand the new realities of modern intelligence blah blah blah -- almost exactly the same conversation we had last film, except with Mallory on the other side.

I understand it was played straight as death, but I would find it hilarious if that were just the conversation every single head of MI6 realizes they're in for once they take the job and find themselves on the other side of the desk.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Heeeee. Yes, having that be the standard conversation with each M would be amusing. But no, that isn't what the movie intended. (Alas.)

[dyvan.livejournal.com]

I think entering the world of Bond, of 007, I am more ready to suspend my reality settings. To be honest the movie was as I expected, almost a homage to the old style Bond - for example the use of the Medical Centre in the Alps, which reminded me most strongly of the one in "On Her Majesty's Secret Service"....

...however the inconsistencies in the movie....noticing and forgetting/overlooking the camera, the criminal lack of use of M, the introduction of C - who appeared to be parachuted into a different picture, and the entire "evil lair in the desert" scenes.....which were just, apparently, there as filler. Will no evil genius ever design a lair with fire proof doors, automatic cut=offs for the gas or fuel lines running near the base, or even, startling idea, basic sprinkler systems!!!! The fact James went from captor to annihilator of all the security guards once more shows, along with risk management of fire and security systems, evil geniuses need to focus on their HR hiring practices as the men (I can't recall seeing any women) employed as security guards were little more than targets for Bond to knock over.

I did like the fact he signed off by taking the old Aston Martin at the end....of course with Bond's driving record, doubt he got out of London before writing it off...

(which brings us back to "On Her Majesty's Secret Service....and as lifted from Wikipedia: "...Bond and Tracy marry in Portugal, then drive away in Bond's Aston Martin. When Bond pulls over to the roadside to remove flowers from the car, Blofeld (wearing a neck brace) and Bunt commit a drive-by shooting of the couple's car which kills Tracy."...so as they seem to be synchronizing this Bond with that Bond; happier ever after seems unlikely... )

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I felt like Skyfall (being the 20th movie) was the big homage to old style Bond. I didn't really need another one immediately afterward. <sigh>