As he is placed face to face with her betrayal, we see that James Bond has indeed become what he is renowned for: detachment as right as rain. And we hope that our beloved British spy never has to rise from these dark depths ever again.
But alas, Sam Mendes forces him down into oblivion, over a mistaken shot - completely authorized and abetted by if you please, by Judi Dench's M. Bond, as detached and calculative as he is, is not meant to "lose it all" as he even drowns with that mistaken bullet, with the full knowledge of M's insistence on it. If he does, then he wouldn't be the spy he is meant to be. For all we know, Bond could have been the next in line to the same metamorphosis a previous British agent (the villain Silva) had, after being dejected in M's judgment. I am hoping this is what the director had in mind - telling us that this Bond has the streak of a hero in him. But I always believed Bond to be more than a hero or an anti-hero.
In GoldenEye, a Russian villain tries to kill Pierce Brosnan, and when the tables turn, he begs of him, "Please don't kill me. It's nothing personal. I am just a professional." Brosnan's Bond shoots him, and replies, "So am I."
Frankly, am tired of seeing him resurrect and find himself through shoddy scripts - I'd want to see his expertise of killing, judgment and action through a script that acknowledges the true potential of his character.
Skyfall, in another way, tries to mould Craig's Bond and not put his character to test really. We are bored of seeing his fundamentals being put to test again and again. Craig's Bond is three movies old; six years this man spends training preparing for his character and moves, and all that he gets in return is his faith in profession and M tested. Can't he simply have a plot where we see his professional excellence? Even that would be evolution of character.
The film is visually stunning and innovative in certain parts - but then, that's expected of a stage director. The film is brilliant in pieces, but one waits for the plot to unfold even till the interval. There's one plus point for Sam Mendes, as he does the impossible: something I never hoped I'd live to see in a Bond film- quoting Alfred Tennyson's poetry. This is the second surprise. The first one was when Martin Campbell's Bond was writing his resignation letter, being in love.
There are several cliches in the film, "There's a storm coming," and "That's how we got things done in the old days," said by Albert Finney, as he lays down a knife besides not so impressive display of guns. One is delighted to see him, but then the final face-off between Dench and Bardem lacks the chutzpah and Finney's addition to the cast seems bland. There are no scorching sarcasms, or witty dialogues between M and Bond - something every Bond fan looks forward to.
Ben Winshaw as the new QuarterMaster, has our attention, but he still has a lot to prove besides his perfectly gelled hair. His self professed love for codes is not really impressive in the film, as Silva continues to hack MI-6's secure system. Javier Bardem's villany is effective, yet lost towards the end. He simply doesn't seem the hacker type.
The Bond women are not too impacting. Bérénice Marlohe's character is in question entirely: was she really needed? Then, Naomie Harris - as a well toned field agent who messes the shot (literally) and throws Bond off the train and off his professional curve - is hard to imagine as Moneypenny.
It is sad to see M gone, but then one feels relieved for her too, for, if this is the way of the Bond now, still struggling to get a foothold, having relapses even after 3 films' old, then she deserves a break. So do we.
No comments:
Post a Comment