Print this post Print this post

Skyfall

3,353 words

SPOILER ALERT! Do not read this essay until you have seen Skyfall. I would not want to ruin your experience of seeing the best James Bond film in many years.

Bond films always seem to be judged “good” or “bad” relative to other Bond films. But Skyfall is not only a good Bond film, it’s a good film period. Daniel Craig apparently ran into Sam Mendes at a party and, on a whim, asked if he might be interested in directing a Bond film. This was a real stroke of good fortune, as Mendes’s Skyfall is perhaps the most exciting, visually arresting, and emotionally moving film in the entire series.

In the old Sean Connery days the Bond films were both innovative and daring. The cinematography, editing, set design, and music set new standards and were endlessly imitated. The films were also considered daring in their violence and in their rather frank and amoral approach to sexuality. But though the Bond films have made gobs of money for fifty years, they have been neither innovative nor daring since the 1960s.

Yes, they are still imitated. But it’s primarily the elements of the archetypal, ’60s Bond that have been the object of imitation. And, notoriously, the Bond films began imitating themselves practically as soon as the ’60s came to an end. Worse yet, Bond has often been guilty of following trends set by other films. First came the Blaxploitation Bond, Live and Let Die (1973). Then The Man with the Golden Gun (1974) tried to cash in on the popularity of martial arts movies. The nadir was reached when Moonraker (1979) took Bond into space, chasing after the Star Wars audience.

But the Daniel Craig films, which “rebooted the franchise” (an expression I detest), have changed all that. These films, starting with 2006’s Casino Royale, are fresh, original, and feature cutting-edge talent in all areas. And Skyfall is the best of them, by far (better than Casino Royale, which was excellent, and far better than the lackluster Quantum of Solace, which appeared in 2008). This one is going to inspire imitators, and it is destined to be thought of as one of the “classics” in a series that might well celebrate its hundredth anniversary someday.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins has filled Skyfall with scenes that are often extraordinarily beautiful (especially those set in Macau – a location Bond visited in The Man with the Golden Gun, but with rather less spectacular results). The acting is also the best in any Bond film. Craig has managed to turn Bond into a believable, three dimensional character. He is still larger than life, but he contains depths never plumbed by any other actor. And, yes, that includes Sean Connery. Craig is the better actor, and his is the more credible Bond. I realize that this is heresy, but the same opinion was recently put forward (albeit more politely) by Roger Moore, who has never been accused of great acting. (Connery himself could not be reached for comment.) Judi Dench (as M) and Javier Bardem (as Silva, the villain) are also excellent.

Skyfall’s screenplay (by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan) is fresh, the dialogue intelligent and snappy. There’s not a line in it that made me wince. Even Bond’s one-liners are excellent (leaving a Chinese thug to be devoured by a Komodo dragon, he quips, “Ah, the circle of life . . .”). The story is also thoroughly surprising and unpredictable. How many times have you been able to say that about a Bond movie? When A View to a Kill appeared in 1985, one critic commented, memorably, that going to see a Bond movie is like going to the zoo: you’re either pleased to see the same animals again, or you’re not. Gone are those days. Even Thomas Newman’s music score for Skyfall deserves praise: it’s a great improvement over David Arnold’s often shameless attempts to imitate John Barry. (I honestly think it’s the best non-Barry score for a Bond film.)

The plot, as everyone knows by now, concerns a former MI6 agent (Bardem) out for revenge against M, who betrayed him years earlier to the Chinese. The story takes many twists and turns, but the basic simplicity of the villain’s motivations is actually a great virtue of this film. (Some Bond movies have plots so complicated they rival film noir.) It’s not the first time there has been a Bond revenge movie: 1989’s Licence to Kill has Bond going rogue, out for revenge against the villain, and the bad guy in 1995’s GoldenEye is motivated by revenge.

But this film breaks with a lot of Bond plot conventions, and the major one concerns “the Bond girl.” The classic Bond formula actually involves three girls. Two of them usually only appear briefly. One is often killed, and sometimes one is an enemy agent (who also gets killed). The third is often introduced well into the film (e.g., Honey Rider in Dr. No, Pussy Galore in Goldfinger), but she sticks around until the end, and is the “female lead” of the production.

Skyfall follows this formula – up to a point. There’s a black female MI6 agent named Eve (played by Naomie Harris) who’s introduced at the beginning of the film, then disappears for much of the rest of it. Then Bond encounters another female, this one held in thrall to the villain (another nod to The Man with the Golden Gun). She is Séverine (a name lifted from Luis Buñuel’s Belle de Jour), played by Bérénice Lim Marlohe. And she is the film’s “sacrificial lamb,” killed by Silva before Bond’s eyes. As I discussed in my essay “The Importance of James Bond,” this is a familiar plot device in the series. It’s there to allow Bond to show his human side, and to make us hate the villain more. Though here, curiously, Bond reacts coldly to Séverine’s death.

The curious thing, however, is that after Silva blows poor Séverine away with his dueling pistol, no beautiful babe shows up to help Craig carry the rest of the film. There is no “third girl” in Skyfall. This struck me as strange . . . until I realized the obvious: in this film, M is the Bond girl. (A point which has been made by a number of reviewers.)

In large measure, Skyfall is really about the relationship between Bond and M. It’s a relationship which hasn’t been explored much in the films. In Fleming’s novels, it’s made clear that Bond both loves and hates his boss. M is usually cold and stern with Bond – but there are occasional, brief flashes of fatherly affection. M is actually a keen psychologist, and he no doubt realizes that the best way to keep Bond on his toes is precisely through leavening his disapproval with only a small amount of warmth. Bond is, after all, an orphan who lost his father and mother at the age of eleven. Inevitably, he can’t help but see M as a father figure. And M is surely not above exploiting this.

This dynamic between Bond and M was never explored on screen before the Daniel Craig era. And his films faithfully draw upon the problematic Bond-M relationship as depicted in the novels. Except, of course, that Craig’s M is a woman. And if anything, this makes the situation much, much more complicated.

M is a mother figure to Bond, but she bosses him around like dear old dad might have. And though he is drawn to her and desires her approval, the truth is that no adult male ever quite gets used to taking orders from a woman. He loves M, and resents her at the same time – probably much more than he would a male M. To make matters even more complicated, M makes it abundantly clear – especially in Skyfall – that she is willing to throw Bond to the wolves if the situation demands it. Like all orphans, at some level Bond feels abandoned. He longs for the love of the mother who left him (twice in the Craig films he breaks into M’s apartment – wanting to be near her). But the love of his mother-substitute is more than a little doubtful. After all, she is willing to have him killed!

Poor, confused Bond. The key difference, in fact, between Craig’s Bond and all the others is that he’s very believably screwed up. The Craig films explore all the psychological dynamics one would expect to find in the life of an orphan who becomes a cold-blooded, government assassin. And they do so very credibly, very plausibly. This extra depth to the Craig films makes all the difference in the world. As I’ve said, Bond is still larger than life, but he is no longer a kind of unapproachable cartoon superman (as Brosnan generally played him). We admire him, and we feel for him also.

Much has been said about the Craig movies making Bond “relevant to today.” Indeed they do, but it has nothing to do with Bond banging black chicks (which he’s been doing since Live and Let Die), or wearing a Bluetooth headset. What has happened is that Bond has been made relevant to today’s younger males – mainly thirty-somethings (according to what I’ve read, the audience for Skyfall is overwhelmingly male and over the age of 25). Few male Bond fans are orphans, of course, but most feel arrested at some earlier stage of development. Arrested, for instance, by overbearing parents and a society that has never challenged them sufficiently. They . . . uh . . . we are all like Edward Norton’s character in Fight Club, who calls himself “a thirty-year-old boy.” Like us, Bond is screwed up. But he holds up to us the possibility of transmuting the shit of our lives into gold.

Skyfall takes the complicated dynamic of Bond’s relation to M and pushes it toward a climax that is truly bizarre and dreamlike – thick with symbolism and psychological catharsis. At the risk of understatement, it is unlike anything you’ve ever seen in a Bond film before. (And if you’ve made the mistake of reading this far before seeing the film then STOP – this is your last warning!)

To make a long story short, Silva almost succeeds in killing M, and Bond realizes that the only way to protect her is take matters completely into his own hands and spirit her off to someplace safe. So, he essentially kidnaps M and tells her that they must go back “into the past.” The first stop on the way is to pick up Bond’s Aston Martin DB5 from Goldfinger. When the car is first seen, the audience in the theatre where I saw the film cheered and applauded (and I have read that audiences have reacted similarly all over the U.S. and Europe). In a delightful touch, Bond threatens to remove a censorious M from the car by firing the passenger ejector seat. Like a passive-aggressive Jewish mother, M grumbles “Go ahead. Eject me. See if I care.”

They head north, all the way to the Scottish Highlands and to Bond’s ancestral home, Skyfall (this is not mentioned in Fleming, nor is the name ever explained in the film). It’s a broken down, disused old manse. One gets the impression that Bond has not seen it since he lost his parents. (Fleming tells us that after his parents died – in a climbing accident, no less – Bond was raised by his aunt Charmian in “the quaintly named hamlet of Pett Bottom near Canterbury in Kent.”) A kindly old caretaker named Kincade appears, a figure from Bond’s childhood, played by Albert Finney. And with the addition of this new character, a strange new dynamic is now established. M, of course, is cast in the role of Bond’s mother, while Kincade now emerges as a father figure. (In one amusing scene, he even tries to teach Bond to shoot! In another amusing touch, he hears “M” as “Em” and addresses her henceforth as Emma.)

They know that Silva will eventually track them down, so Bond is keen to find out if the gun cabinet is still well-stocked. Alas, all the guns have been sold to an American collector (it just had to be an American, didn’t it?). All that remains is the old hunting rifle that had belonged to Bond’s father (inscribed with the initials “AB,” for Andrew Bond). And a knife. “Sometimes the old ways are best,” says Kincade, laying the knife on the table. Bond and Kincade then lay a number of clever booby traps for the villains. A last resort for M, should the going get really rough, is a secret passage leading out of the house, built centuries earlier.

Rifles, knives, secret passages, escapes across (and under) the heath. It’s all very, very “low tech.” In my essay “The Importance of James Bond,” I discussed Bond’s equivocal relationship to technology, and I expressed the concern that Daniel Craig’s Bond was becoming too tech-friendly. I’m happy to say that Skyfall has allayed all my concerns about this. From beginning to end, this film is strongly traditionalist, and deeply skeptical about the “blessings” of technology.

Indeed, the event that catalyzes the whole story is the theft of a hard drive that stores the identities of all British agents who have infiltrated terrorist organizations. Smart move, putting all that on somebody’s hard drive. Naturally, Silva gets ahold of it. And then he hacks into MI6’s network and brings it down. Oh, and then he blows up MI6’s high-tech HQ! M and company are forced to relocate to a bunker used by Churchill during World War Two. All of this is importantly symbolic: the gee-whiz computer technology overused in Quantum of Solace is gone. Now all that can save the day is Bond’s cleverness and guts.

But the “experts,” armed with electrocardiograms, word association tests, and other paraphernalia pronounce Bond unfit for duty. Bugger the experts! Bond proves them all wrong, accomplishing what techne pronounced impossible. And he does it with precious little from the new Q, now a young computer geek. Q equips him with exactly two gadgets: a gun that only he can fire and a little radio. “Not exactly Christmas, is it?” quips Bond. But the both the little radio (actually, a homer not unlike the one he used way back in Goldfinger) and the gun (a similar gun appears in Licence to Kill) save his life.

At one point we see M is testifying before a subcommittee of the House of Commons, being grilled by “experts” who think that putting actual agents in the field is rather old fashioned in this high tech world. Patiently, M – no stranger to high tech, but souring on it – explains to them why the old ways really are best. Then, in a scene that made me tear up, she quotes Tennyson’s poem “Ulysses,” as her men risk their lives in the streets to stop Silva:

One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

And where does it all wind up? Again, with a journey back in time. All tech is gone. Bond is reduced to loading a hunting rifle, setting booby traps, and strapping a knife to his body. And the tough, ball-busting M is reduced as well – reduced to being a woman who must be rescued by a man. But Bond himself is not personally reduced. He has returned to this strange, primal scene, and has been reunited with his “mother” and “father.” But now he must do what he was unable to do when he was a child, but which he can do as a man: he must save them from death. In doing so, he exorcizes these ghosts from his past.

I won’t discuss all the details of what follows. But I must correct one omission in what I’ve said above. The one piece of “tech” Bond makes use of is the Aston Martin. I was pleased that, unlike some of the other films in which the car has reappeared, some sensible use was actually made of it here. Bond hides in the car, then fires its front machine guns at Silva’s men as they approach the house. But this use of tech delighted me – and it has important symbolic significance. Today’s younger audiences tend to look down their noses at anything predating the era of the internet (I’ve even heard young audiences laugh out loud at rotary phones). Here the one piece of tech Bond utilizes – with deadly effect – is that old-fashioned, pre-electronic Aston Martin from that hopelessly old-fashioned film that grandpa loves.

In the end, Bond winds up killing Silva with the lowest-tech gadget imaginable: the knife seen earlier, plunged deep into Silva’s back. Much to my shock, M then dies in Bond’s arms, of wounds suffered during the attack on the house. And, yes, I shed a tear at this as well. But, in my defense, so does Bond! This is only the second time in the history of the series that Bond has cried. The first time, of course, was in 1969’s On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, when Blofeld murdered Bond’s bride, Tracey. That was a moving scene as well, but Craig is a much better actor than George Lazenby, and this time we actually see the tears, which seem quite real (in OHMSS we don’t actually see the tears, we just hear Bond sob). I thought of OHMSS as I watched this scene, as Bond cradles his “mother” here much as he does Tracey. That there is something Oedipal to this is more than obvious. The film’s entire Scotland sequence plays like a long, Freudian dream.

But this is not all. The final scene of the film is extraordinary. Eve, the black MI6 agent seen earlier, returns and reveals herself to be Eve Moneypenny (who never had a first name in the books or any earlier film). At the beginning of the film she accidentally shoots and almost kills Bond. (Memo to the screenwriters: there’s a reason that there aren’t any black female sharpshooters in real life.) Now she has decided to take a new job: as M’s receptionist. Sometimes the old ways are best . . .

And what of M himself? The new M is Mallory, a character seen earlier, played by Ralph Fiennes. But the most extraordinary thing of all is that his office is a recreation of the one seen in the old Bernard Lee days, complete with the padded leather door. Gone are the female M’s high-tech digs from the past six films. And M has gone back to being a man! Yes, it bears repeating, sometimes the old ways really are best. And this film returns us to them. It is an unabashed celebration of tradition, and a clear reaction against the “modernizing” of Bond that has taken place since GoldenEye. It is, in fact, a reaction against much of modernity itself. And – if I do say so – as a confirmation of the thesis I advanced in “The Importance of James Bond” it is everything I could have wished for. “James Bond is back!” the ads always proclaim. Indeed he is.

I’m such a big Bond fan I once had a nightmare that I had gone to see “the new Bond film” and found it to be an unimaginably lame and pathetic failure (sort of how Indiana Jones fans must have felt when they went to see Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). But Skyfall feels like I went to sleep and dreamed of that Bond film than which no greater can be conceived. One that not only delivers in terms of action, thrills, and all the traditional Bondian elements – but which also contains philosophical and psychological depth of a kind I never expected to find in this series.

I cannot praise Skyfall enough. Do yourself a favor and see it today. Even if you don’t think you like Bond films, see it anyway. This one will convert you.

 

If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

19 Comments

  1. Jack Laurent
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:12 am | Permalink

    I don’t pay too much attention to modern films, but I end up seeing most of them anyway and, just on a personal note I detest Daniel Craig as James Bond. I liked Peirce Brosnan and thought the films were “explosive” when I watched them as a kid; there was a kind of style to it which a lot of the better Bond actors managed to capture, despite the repetitiveness of the storylines and the same kind of villain portrayed (things I only notice now looking back with an eye very critical to the content the audience is subjected to in cinema).

    Anyway with Daniel Craig it seemed that Bond intentionally lost his personality and charm (all the better for the audience to project themselves onto a blank canvas), and became a goon with a submachinegun.

    Take a look at the story in Skyfall, and the character Bardem plays (Javier Bardem was the only reason I looked forward to seeing it) is fundamentally, morally and factually speaking, is in the right. He’s striking a blow against an inept organization which left him to be tortured to death, his suicide pill mutilated him and despite all of it he still has a strong maternal love for Judi Dench character; much in the same way Bond sees her as a matriarchal figure and sheds a tear when she dies. So Bardem strikes at the organization, takes revenge on June Whitfield, out maneuvers Bond time and time again, and then for being such a noble and moral adversary, his death comes in the form of a knife in the back.

    “but Bardem is the bad guy, look how he was shooting shot glasses off that hookers head!”

    Yeah, that one scene to portray the character as “bad” doesn’t take away any of the “good” from the ethos and quite righteous actions and eventual mean fate from the story of Bardems character… and I wonder what impression the audience gets from that?

    If you can’t out perform a man, just stab him in the back?

    If a man takes some personal revenge upon a government entity, then he’s automatically evil?

    These are the messages I consider with films, and Skyfall is certainly no exception to the general trend.

  2. Hallstatt
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    “When the car is first seen, the audience in the theatre where I saw the film cheered and applauded (and I have read that audiences have reacted similarly all over the U.S. and Europe).”

    Excuse me for being pedantic, but I’d like to correct that statement. At least in Germanic Europe (and I would guess balto-slavic parts as well) you don’t cheer, jeer, or applaud (nor talk) in a theater. That would be a very anti-social behaviour, the stuff of Africans and half-castes. You wouldn’t do that at a play, so why at the movies? Laughing is okey though, if you don’t over do it.

    In fact I doubt the Americas of yesterday cheered or applauded in the middle of a movie like some late-Roman rabble. I’d even wager that the amount of cheering and jeering in the modern American theater is inversely proportional to the number of Anglo-Saxons and other Northern Europeans in the room.

    Other then that, your article was excellent as always. I like how you usually stay away from daily politics and even how you avoid being overtly political in your cultural commentary: not that daily politics isn’t needed, but a true counter-culture need to cover ever base, even agent movie fandom. And of course you are a talented writer. So keep up the good work!

    • Jef Costello
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

      A German friend of mine once explained to me the difference between Germans and Americans as follows. “You assume,” he said, “that things are permitted unless expressly forbidden. Whereas we Germans assume that things are forbidden unless expressly permitted.” I am not surprised that German audiences are so silent. But as for the Anglo-Saxons, I have heard reliable reports that they are cheering Bond’s Aston Martin in the U.K. And a British friend once told me proudly of how the audience for THE SPY WHO LOVED ME (in 1977) cheered when Bond’s Union Jack parachute opened at the beginning of the film. Bond is fighting for the freedom to cheer in cinemas!

      • phil white
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 5:30 pm | Permalink

        @ Jef Costello:
        When I saw Sky Fall last week then read your article I vaguely remembered hearing some sort of reaction when the Aston Marin appeared. My cynicism made me think it might have been on the sound track and similar to the “canned laughter” familiar to TV sitcoms.
        So I went back last night and there was the same reaction. It wasn’t open cheering but there was a very audible, not to say loud, murmuring that was definitely the audience. It happened again when M retorted from the passenger seat “Go ahead, eject me. See if I care.”
        I rather imagine they could be cheering in Britain since they know they are losing their country.
        The audience is probably near the point of actually fighting back.

  3. M.W.
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 9:19 am | Permalink

    I very much enjoyed Jef’s previous post about James Bond, which was endlessly fascinating, especially the segment likening Bond to a latter-day knight.

    However, it’s worth offering a different opinion on the latest Bond film. I read the following appraisal on a screenwriting forum, and it comes from a Bond purist. Very mild spoilers follow, nothing that would impact a viewing of the work.

    - – - -

    5/10 for me. This was a mess.

    First of all if they wanted to address Bond’s age they should have done it with Craig’s fourth or fifth film, not his third. Making Bond “old” feels like we missed one or two films in between QOS and SF.

    Secondly, why are they still establishing Bond’s character three movies into this timeline? Everything we needed we got by the end of QOS. This should have been Craig’s “classic Bond”, but instead it was more “character-building,” and not even good character building at that. Introducing a new M was okay (it should have happened with CR but I’ll let that slide), but I really don’t think Q or Moneypenny were all that missed.

    Third, and this seems to be a common complaint, they shamelessly pilfered off The Dark Knight. I won’t go into the examples, as you already know them. QOS already took too much from the Bourne series; Bond really needs to stop taking hints from other franchises and just be its own thing.

    Fourth, they need to get this Freudian crap out of the screenplays. “Childhood trauma?” Give me a break. M being a mother figure for Bond was something that was always out-of-place. The gay innuendo between Bond and Silva? And the point was what, exactly?

    As for the rest:

    -barely any witty or memorable dialogue
    -perfunctory and unimaginative action sequences; how many more chase sequences through third world countries do we need to see?
    -predictable and uninteresting plot; and by the way, what happened to the list of agents?
    -poorly-conceived Bond villain; we’re actually supposed to believe a giggling nutcase like Silva was once an MI6 agent like Bond? Ludicrous.
    -pointless jabs at previous films in the series; hey, if you want to poke fun at Goldeneye at least make sure your film is as good as Goldeneye

    Not even sure why I’m giving it a five. I thought the “great visuals” that everyone is raving about were heavy-handed.

    I’ll give it a 5 for Severine (her unnecessarily cruel death, which was followed by an innappropriately lighthearted moment, was bizarre) and for the sequence where Bond is drinking it up…somewhere or other. That was actually somewhat interesting.

    As for the rest…blech.

  4. EssEm
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    On a neocon site, there was weeping and gnashing of teeth about Bardem’s sexual teasing of Bond and 007′s reply, “What makes you think this is my first time?” His masculinity, it was feared, has been compromised.

    I had a few scattershot thoughts in reply. First, if 007 had indeed ever rolled in the hay with another guy, he would have doubtlessly been the top. So no harm done. Traditional societies only question the virility of bottoms. Plus, as Voltaire said: Once, a philosopher; twice, a sodomite. I doubt it would have been habitual.

    Plus, Craig’s craggy and angular face, his boxer’s build, his voice, stare, and how he moves…well, he is the first believably lethal Alpha Male Bond since Connery. The interim fellas could play well in the cocktail lounge, but with Craig there’s a raw physicality they all lacked. That is to be praised.

    But these folks seem to have missed an even greater challenge (threat?) to James’ status: in the Craig series, M is a woman. Bond works for a woman. That she is Judy Dench may obscure the fact, but the sea change in relationship between Connery and his M and Craig and his is more important than a little homo flirting.

    And of course Moneypenny is now Black. The actress who plays her recently ruminated in an interview that a gay Bond would be cool with her, that Idris Elba should be the first Black Bond and that at some point 007 should be a woman…

    Despite Bond’s expressed and unapologetic belief in “England”, that entity is now changed beyond recognition, and with all his personal traditional masculine virtues, he is not untouched.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

      The whole “first time” exchange is basically just “trash talk.” Silva has Bond tied to a chair and is pawing him provocatively, on the assumption that this sort of thing would bother him. Bond stops it with a single line, which denies Silva’s assumption. The idea that anything said in such a situation by either party can be taken at face value is pretty naive.

      • phil white
        Posted November 21, 2012 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

        @ Greg:

        That was my take on the scene. Silva is making advances or provocations to a hog tied Bond.
        Bonds come back seemed more like a psychological ploy to throw Silva off his game, which it did.
        I could be wrong about the script writers purpose. In the cheapest interpretation it might be a bone thrown to the homosexual audience to make them Bond (no pun intended) fans. Or it could be another bow to the Hollywood distribution system in the line of political correctness, like the near seducion scene between Money Penny with the razor. The scene immediately cuts to exploding fire works which has sexual symbolism, again probably a bow to Hollywood Jewish PC.
        I’m not sure of my interpretation but there is no other homo referrece in the film.

    • denikin
      Posted November 13, 2012 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

      John Logan, one of the screenwriters, is gay.

    • karsten
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 5:17 pm | Permalink

      Why does that not surprise me?

  5. guiscard
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 5:16 pm | Permalink

    I really enjoyed the previous article on the Bond mythology, perhaps too much as I started to reference any deviations/inversions found in Skyfall. Like others, detecting this ‘leaven of the Pharisees’ tends to override the ability to just enjoy the spectacle anymore.

    1.Where previously, Bond fought for ‘Queen and Country’, an abstract, idealized notion ‘the right to be eccentric’, here we are told explicitly what the new Nation is… and with no hint of cynicism or irony. Nope, it was a ‘Sacred Sermon’, poem and all. Something about ‘protecting you from the shadows’ (Bin Laden in your Bedroom).

    2. From ‘M as Odin’ to an Anglo-Saxon superman with Mummy Issues? Huh, us Latins have finally realized the potential toxicity of this relationship thanks mostly to the Anglosphere (and Tony Soprano). Clever enough here, Javier amps it up so extreme that we are to accept the Bond/M relationship as the new normal. Besides the ‘cougar’ implications, we must now ‘worship’ the State.

    Shame because the film was shaping up nicely until those elements appeared.

  6. Sandy
    Posted November 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm | Permalink

    Nice review Jef. I might even go and watch the movie now although I prefer the old ones as they were sheer escapism from post war, drab, old Blighty.

    Today’s http://aangirfan.blogspot.ca/ has a picture of the original M (sorry, I couldn’t paste and copy it) together with this write-up:

    Maxwell Knight, the model for James Bond’s boss M, served as Director of Intelligence of the British Fascists from 1924 to 1927. Maxwell-Knight became Deputy Chief of Staff of the British Fascists before being recruited by MI5 in 1931.

  7. Lew
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 1:13 am | Permalink

    The audience had that reaction to the car where I saw it. Initially, I didn’t care for Daniel Craig as Bond, but he has grown on me.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 15, 2012 at 3:20 am | Permalink

      Yes, they cheered in San Francisco too. And there way audible groaning when the black woman announced that her name was Eve Moneypenny. Yes, in SF.

  8. Deviance
    Posted November 15, 2012 at 10:43 am | Permalink

    Saw it today. It’s a real action film, with lots of car crashes, explosions, gadgets, sceneries and submachine guns blazing; this kind of things tended to be absent from movies in the last few years, and I am glad they’re back, since there’s nothing more irritating than Hollywood trying to do what it can’t do, deep thinking.

    Picture of a postmodern and futuristic multicult Britain that I personally find quite unattractive and dull, if not repulsive… I always ask myself: what do the MI6 agents work for, exactly? (The bunch does not seem very religious). For what ideal? And I always come to the same conclusion: living to see the other day, having sex and eating out. I can’t find anything else. The whole atmosphere strikes me as strange and artificial, like a bad SF novel.

    Plot is OK, some twists are interesting and bold, such as in the very beginning. A good point is that it doesn’t try to be unnecessarily complex. You understand everything without making efforts. I hate going out of a movie theater with 90-IQ morons around me discussing about hidden messages and so on. The hacking and “encryption signal” parts will probably make neuromancers and hackers among us scratch their head by their customary unrealism, and it’s not helped by the knowledge government agencies across the world are actually terribly lagging behind recent developments.

    Verdict: recommendation. It manages somehow to keep your focus. If you want to stay aware of modern cultural productions and cinematographic technology, Skyfall is probably the landmark of the year 2012.

  9. Posted November 17, 2012 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    It sounds like an excellent film, but the question it raises is where can they go from here? The key to Bond was a kind of vacuum at the center, with a lot going on around it. Craig’s more psychologically in-depth Bond has now overdeveloped this central vacuum. We can’t have more unravelling of his inner drives and demons – they have now all been unravelled. And we can’t have Bond movies set in the heather forever. The purpose of Bond is to take the glitzy and unreal and make it partly believable. An Oedipal and cathartic Bond transported into what is essentially a John Buchan scenario has limited legs on it. This was the thesis of my piece on Bond: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/zeitgeist/selling-tickets-to-a-funeral/

  10. denikin
    Posted November 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

    I thought Skyfall was mediocre. Too trapped in the past, which is something that Casino Royale wasn’t.

  11. Joseph Bishop
    Posted November 19, 2012 at 1:59 am | Permalink

    I agree it was a great film. We don’t have that many white hetero male hero-figures on the screen anymore. In Craig’s CASINO he outruns and out-everything’s a superfit black villain, and also personally kills a far eastern villain and even with a glint of joy in his eyes as he eases the knife into him.

    The new Bond is a white guy good at everything and ultimately successful at everything. Still loyal to his tribe – Britain – too, AND a great lover. Bold, courageous, totally self-confident, tough and fit – the kind of white man all white men should be and should want to be and try to be.

    Moneypenny did not have to be black and that disappointed me. It reminded me of Bond (Moore) getting it on with the freak black female in A VIEW TO A KILL. But seeing M taken out and being replaced by another white male was somehow satisfying. I think she was too feminist or whatever for my tastes… Your line about M being ‘reduced to’ a woman having to be saved by a man, well actually he didn’t manage to save her at all, did he? Perhaps deep down he didn’t want to, mother-figure or not.

  12. Sentry
    Posted November 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

    I enjoy very much Jef Costello, and he and Mr Hamilton are on my “must read” list. I must say that I have NOT seen the film. I have heard Adele’s theme for the song and it is truly a REAL Bond song. Perhaps the BEST.

    It is this Craig fellow that irritates me. He is a campaigner against our owning firearms, all of this UN Treaty stuff and the UN’s “Programme of Action” which effectively means Whites will be unable to defend themselves from the future predations of the Democrat voting blocs and that includes the Bolsheviks in control in D.C.
    Craig also thought OBAMA would be a good BOND, but not McCain.
    See:
    http://www.vdare.com/posts/the-names-obama-barack-obama
    “The Name’s Obama…Barack Obama”—The Community Organizer As James Bond

  • Video of the Day:

  • Kindle Subscription
  • Our Titles

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    The Lightning and the Sun

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Forever and Ever

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    An eagle with a shield soaring upwards

    A Life in the Political Wilderness

    The Fourth Political Theory

    The Passing of the Great Race

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    The Prison Notes

    It Cannot Be Stormed

    Revolution from Above

    The Proclamation of London

    Beyond Human Rights

    The WASP Question

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Jewish Strategy

    The Metaphysics of War

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    The French Revolution in San Domingo

    The Revolt Against Civilization

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Archeofuturism

    Tyr

    Siege

    On Being a Pagan

    The Lost Philosopher

    The Dispossessed Majority

    Might is Right

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance