I went to see Skyfall yesterday. I had tried to avoid it but I succumbed. I thought yesterday was as good a day as any. Perfect day actually because all the hype had died down and the country’s collective attention has turned to Les Miserables (a film that judging by the trailer I will not be rushing to see any time soon). I’d actually been pretty successful in avoiding reviews and opinions to Skyfall as I knew that would have most certainly influenced/affecting my viewing experience. However, just after I had watched the film, as I was leaving the theatre, my feelings towards the film got me thinking about my general attitude towards the James Bond series and I realised I didn’t just want to write a general review of the film but a wider piece about my personal relationship with what has become a well-established 50-year-old British Institution.

Memories of a Rotten Marriage 

I think that it is true for most people growing up, there is at least one kind of popular culture that seeps into your life unawares and you realise when you’re older that despite your active attempts to avoid it, you know more about this band, film, game, book series or musical than what is acceptable. You end up with an almost encyclopedic knowledge of something you hated as a child, but you endured it for the sake of bonding with family, friends or anyone important to you. And today because you have the privilege of avoiding said thing, if you so wish, because you’re an adult dammit; like me, you look back at that torture affectionately.

Amongst my friends, tools of torture used upon them (of which I will not offer an opinion on because some of these examples I like) were Star Wars, Star Trek, Buffy, musicals, Pretty Woman, Barbies, musicals, New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys, unfunny and/or quite racist comedians on British TV…every night on every programme and variety show. (there were quite a few in the 70s, more than you would like to think) and musicals (this friend really hates musicals).

For me there were two things. My first was at the age of ten I unceremoniously inherited the entire collection of the Sweet Valley High book series from an older sibling who basically didn’t want to haul over a hundred books (if you can call them that) to her new place. Despite my vocal protests against the crappy writing and poor characterisation, I still have read more than what was necessary to justify my hatred and contempt of the books, and over fifteen years later I still know the ‘major arcs’ and the important characters of the mundane tales of the mundane twins Jessica and Elizabeth.

The second was James Bond.

I don’t even know how it happened but alongside The Sound of Music of which I approve of, Bond films became a staple of family time. Every time we saw a Bond film in the TV guide it was a given that we would all be in the front room ten minutes before to endure two and a half hours of Bond. It wasn’t required that you had to pay attention, you could do something else but you were somehow trapped in that room and try as I might not to, I would watch them. I think in some way I really desperately wanted to find what everyone else liked about the series, which is why I’ve probably seen all of them (with the exception of Quantum of Solace and Casino Royale) at least twice. Math tells me I’ve seen Bond in some form at least 40 times and yet the whole appeal was inexplicable to me for various reasons, which I will outline here:

The James Bond character

Could there be a more clearer example of a vacuous poisonous non entity than James Bond. It confounds me that he is many a man’s fantasy figure. A suit wearing, womanizing sophisticate who is always on an adventure that conveniently allows break times for lots of sex with equally unappealing female versions of himself. Well the first part of my description does sound a little appealing if the character wasn’t so one-dimensional. When you really look at him Bond one of the most one-dimensional characters in history. One would think that after 50 years of joining him on his adventures, we would know a little about him other than being a walking suit rack. My main reason for disliking the Bond character was not that he’s a chauvinistic, socially dysfunctional robot of MI6. I can appreciate that a character doesn’t necessarily need a lot of depth if the film is just going to be a fun romp, but when the appeal of the series is predicated on the charms of the completely charmless main character that’s when I get annoyed. With the exception of Sean Connery, who in my opinion is the best Bond because of his natural charisma, Bond is bland.

I had a theory when I was younger that in his time off, it would be completely believable that  Bond has he is a bachelor or loner (he doesn’t appear to have any friends). Not by choice mind, but by destiny. He’s so bland, people would rush to run away from him at a party. With so much antipathy towards this character I always found it an endurance test caring what happened to him. No one on screen was likable, not Bond, not the baddie, not the Bond girl, not superfluous characters used as cannon fodder and certainly not this dude.

Combined this with….

Narrative structure and film running time

On average Bond films are a little over two hours long but for me always felt way longer. I think it all boils down to the narrative structure of each film which all seemed to follow a familiar pattern. There would be a few big action scenes peppering the film in the beginning, middle and end, some inordinately lengthy but good fun, others exceedingly dull. My main beef though was with the lengthier quieter moments where convoluted plot lines were allowed to bumpily plod along and the audience was left to observe Bond at his ‘seductive best’. I remember this most vividly when I made the mistake of tagging along with a friend to see Casino Royale. First 20 minutes were brilliant, just like the Bourne Identity, Bond had been given a much-needed facelift I thought. I was mistaken. To this day I don’t remember nor care to find out what happened for the following two hours of the film. I was so put off that I point-blank refused to see Quantum of Solace.

I could never seem to get past the flesh covered one liner quipping coat rack (with again the exception of Sean Connery) sitting down to have a conversation of sorts. I wanted him to be kept busy at all times. And not the kind of busy where Bond shamelessly harangues any female on his radar that he wishes to bed. These scenes of seduction just served to remind me of my next door neighbour’s dog in heat. A completely uncomfortable experience to endure with the family on a Sunday afternoon.

Whenever these scenes threatened to appear, which was all the time, there would be a restless air in the living room as conversations would arise about anything that wasn’t about what was on screen. That wasn’t because our family was any more uncomfortable about the hint of sex on film, well no more than the average family. It was more that we were all agreed that these scenes had a whiff of desperation about them.  They were supposed to be about the ultimate man, having whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted and every woman who appeared on screen would melt at the mere sight of him or succumb to his endless resource of nonsensical quips and one liners. What woman could resist?

Any woman who’s not in a Bond film, but then again, I did say the females were mirror images of himself (with the exception of Miss Moneypenny who I think is supposed to be a female audience surrogate of sorts) so it’s not that incomprehensible. I just used to think Bond’s whole sexual escapades, which are pillars of his character’s enduring popularity reeked of sadness and that was what made them embarrassing, not his insatiable sexual appetite. But then I realized I might be reading more into this non-personality that was necessary and went back to being bored.

Even the fight scenes were frustrating. I now know that this is an old film trope that  has been consigned to history (I hope) where it belongs, but my ten-year old self used to be sent into mini fits of rage when I would see dozens of henchmen waiting patiently in line to square up to Bond. How they managed to graduate to henchmen was beyond me in the first place. How can so many people be so bad at shooting, they all seemed to me to have been given a gun for the first time that very moment…just before they’re killed by Bond who is standing in the most improbable stance with the most obscure view and is still able to get a perfect shot in. This always required some real suspension of disbelief and in other circumstances if I were having fun watching a film then that’s ok, but with Bond, my stubborn self always refused.

After reading all of this you might ask why then would I bother at all to watch Skyfall?

Intrigue. Years have passed since I had last sat down to a Bond film and contrary to the vitriol spilled in this post, time had healed old wounds. I had become intrigued. My relationship with Bond had developed into a sadistic marriage of sorts. I know I don’t like it but I have to keep going back to it to make sure that I still didn’t like it…I really don’t know.

As soon as I heard Sam Mendes name attached, my interest peaked. Sam Mendes body of work has been hit and miss, for every Away We Go that I’ve enjoyed, there is  an American Beauty to ruin the goodwill. But I always am intrigued by his work because he is one of only a handful of directors that have successfully (for better and for worse) transitioned into different genres. Mendes like to experiment and push himself. It was also refreshing to see someone who was a genuine fan of the series take helm. Even though I will question his taste in film from now on, I wanted to know if having someone who genuinely has affection for the series can translate that to the screen and give the series what I believe it lacks a lot of….heart. It is after all a money-making franchise for British cinema and that is evident in the lacklustre, factory like production of previous outings.

Would I forgive Bond for all his transgressions and take him back?

My Review

This film was fun. Good even. Though the running time is one of the longest in Bond tradition (143 mins.) I’m happy to state that it really didn’t feel long at all. The plot basic and easy to follow:

When the whole of  MI6 comes under attack, from a mysterious new criminal mastermind (Javier Bardem), he unveils a diabolical plan concerning M. 007 becomes M’s only ally and person able to restore her reputation as emerging Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) raises concerns about her competence while attempting to usurp her position.

This is one strong coherent plot that doesn’t get weighed down by convoluted subplots that threaten to bloat the overall arc of the story like so many previous Bond entries and a lot of recent action films (The Dark Knight I’m looking at you). I really think this lent the film a welcome leanness that meant the story zipped along at a fantastic pace.

What is different about this outing than the other contributors to the series is that Skyfall isn’t really about Bond. This is M’s story. I don’t know whether Mendes felt that although he loves Bond, he’s aware he’s not much of a personality or whether he really wanted to exploit the high calibre of talent he had at his fingertips but I felt that the film’s quieter talky moments, were left to M and others. I feel this was to the film’s advantage. There was enough personality in the other characters for there not to be the usual vacuum of nothingness that is usually prevalent in quieter Bond moments.

This brings me on to the performances. As expected they were very good, not just because the likes of Judi Dench and Javier Bardem are great talents in themselves, but because Sam Mendes is always a good director of actors. This is evident in the performances, especially that of Javier Bardem who looks like he’s having the best time. Despite being the villain, the audience gets to enjoy him every moment he’s on screen. He’s completely camp, but it’s fantastic fun to watch. As we all know, we can measure how good Bardem’s going to be in correlation to how ridiculous his hair looks. When I first saw the hair and eyebrows, I almost clapped with glee. Judi Dench was another highlight, giving grandeur, stature and dominating her co-stars even if she is half the height of everyone in the world.

The other performances from supporting characters were solid too. I like the idea of Naomie Harris as Miss Moneypenny and Albert Finney made a fun cameo. Ben Whishaw was a welcome surprise as Q and despite surrounding hesitance from my fellow audience about his filling in the shoes of a character almost as well-known as Bond, I thought him to be fun, surprisingly capable and more importantly, clearly comfortable in the role.

The same can’t be said for Daniel Craig. This is Craig’s third outing as Bond and although I’ve only seen two out of the three, he still looks to me as uncomfortable in the role as he did in 2006. The man might be very capable in the action scenes which I should state were really well executed, but he just doesn’t seem to do suave very well. For me he has a permanent expression of someone who’s being held against their will. I forgave all when Casino Royale came out because there was a lot of backlash about him being cast in the first place, but my sympathy’s gone now. its 2013, he should be a seasoned pro by now but he still has the look of complete dread in his eyes that makes me think maybe it’s time to hand the Bond hat to someone else if he’s clearly not enjoying it. He’s not without talent, he can go back to serious stuff like Love is the Devil (1998).

My only other criticism of the film is Berenice Marlohe’s character Severine. The performance was fine, it’s just that the character was completely superfluous and her ending served to demonstrated the ongoing issues I have with the treatment of female characters in Bond films. I know this is a man’s film and I’m not going to go on a feminist rant but she wasn’t a nameless henchman (or woman) but she was ultimately treated as such which I thought was more than a little heartless considering her backstory given just moments early was supposed to elicit sympathy and then is unceremoniously forgotten and dismissed. I thought to myself, why devote any time to the character at all if that is what to become of her? The film attempts to make up for this with Naomie Harris’ Miss Moneypenny and Dench’s M its to a ruse to pacify the female cinema goer, which doesn’t impress me much. Embrace your contempt for female characters! It’s what we expect from Bond.

Summary

This was a surprisingly fun and well made latest entry into the longstanding Bond series, which makes it a great tribute to the 50th Anniversary of Bond. It also served to show that in this instance by allowing a long-term fan of the series to take helm, the rewards have paid off in dividends. Mendes clearly expresses his affection for the series with this enjoyable yarn that almost  made me want to maybe consider revisiting my volatile past with Bond with new eyes and open mind.