The Spectre of “Skyfall”

I’m going to break with tradition by (a) Actually posting something (sorry for the absence) and (b) Being current, which I know is supposed to be the purpose of a blog, but I tend to do things a little differently. Which brings me onto Spectre and the teaser trailer that dropped yesterday…

You’ll know my opinion on Skyfall by now. Whilst there is much to commend it as a film, it remains, to me at least, too removed from what a Bond Film is, or should be. It’s too introspective. It’s too Dark Knight. There are great moments and it looks fantastic, but I struggle to reconcile what I’m watching (I’ve seen it three times now) with my view of what it could, or should be. I’ll acknowledge quite happily that my vision of Bond has led the franchise to some pretty horrible places over the years. Die Another Day is almost entirely without merit, due mainly to Pierce Brosnan phoning in his performance and some truly embarrassing effects work. Yet the pre-title sequence is, unashamedly, classic Bond. Skyfall is a quantum (of solace?) leap forward from that, and if it had immediately followed Die Another Day as the reboot it so clearly is, I would probably herald it as a brilliant reimagining of Bond for the Modern World. But that would be to ignore the superb Casino Royale and its companion piece/direct sequel Quantum of Solace. These had already reinvented Bond quite brilliantly (“Shaken or stirred?” “Do I look like I give a damn?”) so to do so again was both unnecessary and, in my opinion, self-defeating.

So I guess it’s no surprise that I greeted the news that Sam Mendes was back at the helm for what would be Bond 24 with some trepidation (I’ll say something about the guy I wanted to helm it, Matthew Vaughn, who’s gone on to direct his own ultraviolent, post-modernist Bond film – Kingsman: The Secret Service, elsewhere at a later date). On one hand the continuity would at least mean that there was no danger of another re-imagining (evolution, not revolution), but on the other hand was there a risk that this would take the franchise further away from the Bond I knew. Then the title dropped. Spectre. A link to the past. There was a glimmer of hope. Would this be the Special Executive for Counterintelligence Terrorism Revenge and Extortion I had grown up with? A target for Bond and a catalyst that would provide impetus to drive the films that would follow forward. A sinister organisation, along the lines of SPECTRE had slowly been emerging in Craig’s pre-Skyfall films and that had been exciting, until the groundwork had been undone so completely in Skyfall. The brilliant (double) Oscar®-winning Christoph Waltz was added to the cast. My excitement began to build (ignoring the fact that (a) the brilliant Oscar®-winning Javier Bardem had not delivered previously and (b) only Quentin Tarantino can squeeze the best, and then some, out of Waltz). Then the first image from the set – the now infamous “Milk Tray Man” shot which I loved. This looked like the Bond I knew (there have been so many truly great Bond moments in the snow) and there was something reassuringly old-school about it all. Perhaps the dark glasses hiding his eyes so I didn’t have to deal with his bloody tortured soul helped. And then the teaser trailer emerged…

…and we’re back to square one (almost…). Oh, I know, it’s only a teaser trailer – it’s not supposed to reveal too much. There’s an Aston Martin (yay!) and a rather indistinct line of dialogue about a ‘kite dancing in a hurricane’ (which sounds suspiciously, and confusingly, like ‘a c*nt dancing in a hurricane’… but I’m not going to retitle this post even if the shock value alone would earn me ridiculous numbers of hits) and it’s all a bit dark (I actually really like the work of the cinematographer, Hoyte Van Hoytema rather a lot, particularly what he did with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Let the Right One In) or, dare I say, dull. And whilst no-one expects someone to be stroking a white cat, or sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads, or hollowed-out volcanoes, the gathering of the sinister organisation looks to be a cross between Sandford’s Neighbourhood Watch Alliance (“for the Greater Good”) and the Illuminati from Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (bet you forgot Daniel Craig was in that too…). The one saving grace is – is that Mr White (no, not that one)? From the shadowy organisation, Quantum, in the first two Craig films? Have they had a corporate rebranding? I think it might be (*crosses fingers*)…

And with that I’ve (just about) managed to avoid hitting the blog hat-trick with (c) being negative about something without having all the facts. It almost was a red-letter day, people. And like all those “other” internet commentators, any negativity I do have might be misplaced,  no matter how much I protest to the contrary. And believe me, nothing would make me happier (well, almost nothing…) Time will tell (on 23 October 2015, provided Daniel Craig’s knee holds up)…     

Sum of the Parts

“I’m playing all the right notes. Just not necessarily in the right order” – Eric Morecambe

Film-making isn’t an easy business. It requires the bringing together of a vast number of moving parts as anyone who has sat through the end credits of any movie will attest. There isn’t one receipe for success and sometimes the best films are the ones where there’s been some experimentation by the chef – a dash of something unusual. You would think, however, that, as they say in all those cookery programmes, getting the best ingredients is the key. And you’d be wrong. Yes, they can help, but there remains the danger that it’s going to burnt, underdone, too sweet or too salty if the chef gets any element wrong. And then if the cooked ingredients are just slopped on the plate….let’s just say that the finished product might not be particularly appealing for the diner.

I watched Skyfall again a couple of days ago. You’ll remember that I had reservations about it at the time and it was interesting to look at it again a year removed from my last viewing. At the time, I talked about mixing of a cocktail (along with the reference to cooking food above, you might be under the impression that I’m obsessed with food and drink and you’d be right!). Getting the right ingredients together in the correct measure. On paper, Skyfall should be a stunning film and to many people it is. And that’s fine. But I look at all the elements – the ingredients – of Skyfall and I wonder why it’s not a better film to me. A cast including Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Judi Dench, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes and Ben Whishaw. Directed by Sam Mendes – certainly the most respected director ever to sit in the chair for a Bond film. Photography by the wonderful Roger Deakins. Oscar Winning theme tune belted out by Adele. All wrapped up in the world of the coolest secret agent in the world. This should be at least 2 Michelin Stars. But it’s not.

I think with the case of Skyfall, it’s one ingredient that throws everything out of whack, and that’s the writing. Neil Purvis and Robert Wade have written for a number of Bond films, with varying success. The World is Not Enough is good, Die Another Day is shocking (they also wrote Johnny English!). When they got re-hired to write Casino Royale, to relaunch the franchise, someone had the brilliant idea of not letting them do it alone and brought in Oscar winning Paul Haggis. And a dash of Paul Haggis goes a long way. It made all the difference, to the story, and the characters. Haggis stuck around for Quantum of Solace (which makes perfect sense – QoS is effectively the second part of a two-parter), but he was gone for Skyfall. Purvis and Wade were still there, but John Logan, an award winning playwright who’d worked with Sam Mendes before, and had written for films such as Gladiator, The Last Samurai, and The Aviator (all very good films) was brought on board to replace Haggis. And that substitution of ingredients is, to me, the reason I remain unsatisfied by the film. It ignores the previous two films and effectively tries to reboot the franchise again. The character of Bond who was being nicely developed by Craig lurches away from the Bond of Ian Fleming back into the dangerous territory of someone who gives far too much of a shit about everything and to me that grates and poor old Oscar-winning Javier Bardem, as the bad guy, is saddled with a role that doesn’t come close to showing what he’s capable of  There’s also the missing element of a decent Bond girl (Naomie Harris doesn’t count for reasons that should be apparent to anyone who has seen the film). I still think Roger Deakins deserved the Oscar for his cinematography (it’s impossible to convey how challenging the Shanghai scene must have been to shoot – all neon, glass, reflection and shadow), but a good sauce (or jus!) alone is not enough to elevate the dish.

Skyfall isn’t alone in failing to make the most of its ingredients. Mission: Impossible, to me at least, should have been the best film ever made (yes, I am prone to exaggeration!). Directed by Brian de Palma (Scarface, The Untouchables, Carlito’s Way), screenplay by Robert Towne (Chinatown), written by Steven Zaillian (Schindler’s List), starring Tom Cruise, Jean Reno (hot from Leon) and Ving Rhames (hot from Pulp Fiction), Kristin Scott-Thomas (just hot – in a classy way), Jon Voight, Vanessa Redgrave, Emmanuelle Beart and Emilio Esteves(!), music by Danny Elfman, cinematography by Stephen H. Burum (most notably the very cool black and white of Rumble Fish), and based on the coolest TV show ever made. How could it go wrong? Killing off a number of cast members in the first 10 minutes, questioning the allegiance of a principal character from the TV series. Pretty much dispensing with the idea of a team that all has a particular set of skills and a part to play and focussing too much on the ‘star’. Yes, there are some good bits (the raid on the CIA is very well staged), but the overall effect was unsatisfying. It seems no matter the talent films can disappoint. Perhaps more so because of that talent.

Which brings me to The Counsellor. Ridley Scott directs Cormac McCarthy’s (Pullitzer Prize winning author of No Country for Old Men and The Road amongst others) first original screenplay for a cast including Greatest Actor of His Generation™ Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz in an adult tale of greed, betrayal and murder. How can this be anything other than a triumph? The resulting mess is without a shadow of a doubt the most unsatisfying film I saw in 2013 (Only God Forgives was probably second and that has appeared both on many critics’ best and worst list for the year. If I knew what the hell it was actually about, maybe I would have appreciated it more). The best way to describe the resulting film is being only able to hear one side of a conversation. You have no idea how any of the characters got to where they are now, what their motivations are, or exactly where the hell this is all going, but by the end of it all, you really don’t care because none of the characters is remotely engaging. No Country for Old Men is bleak with no obvious ‘hero’, but the characters are so engaging (particularly Javier Bardem as Anton Chigur for which he won an Oscar) that doesn’t matter. The Counselor has none of that.

The principal issues I think are two-fold. Firstly the screenplay. Secondly the casting. Clearly Cormac McCarthy can write. I will not dispute that. But he is also clearly a novelist and not a writer of screenplays. The story and dialogue and interaction of characters is so arch and inpenetrable that you cannot engage with the process. What probably seemed remarkably clever on paper turns into an intellectual exercise you don’t feel part of. This clearly has an effect on the actors. Whilst I believe that No Country is the exception rather than the rule for Bardem, his character seems so oblivious to the world around him, yet prone to speak in cryptic wise words as though he has the wisdom of the world, his performance seems incongruos from the start. How he actually managed to deliver the incredibly unsavoury ‘catfish’ speech I will never know (if you’re intrigued or haven’t heard about this, just Google ‘The Counsellor catfish’, but I warned you…). Fassbender seems similarly hamstrung, delivering an unsure performance from start to finish (don’t argue that’s what was required). There’s been a few blips from Fassbender in between his triumphs in Hunger (on Film4 tommorow night) and most notably Shame so I’m hoping he doesn’t go the same way as the previous Greatest Actor of His Generation™ Edward Norton (Fight Club, American History X and his calling card Primal Fear) and start making shit. The fact that Norton appears to have his mojo back thanks to Wes Anderson gives me hope that no decline is permanent (and hopefully 12 Years a Slave will confirm Fassbender’s standing). In the acting stakes only Brad Pitt emerges with anything close to credit. Penelope Cruz delivers the most insipid performance of her career. How can an actress who is actually very talented deliver such good performances in her native language then turn into a complete amateur when working in English. Acting isn’t just about lines, but you have to question whether this is a key reason for the disparity. As for Cameron Diaz, at least she seems fairly commited to her role, but she seems the least likely person to play that role and credibility (what there was of it) suffers heavily. To top it all off, Cormac McCarthy seems minorly obsessed with finding original and horrible ways to kill people. I’m all for a little brutality on screen, but the method in this film (along with the compressed air cylinder in No Country) really are very disturbing.

So what have we learnt? Cormac McCarthy can write books, but he should let someone else (preferably the Coen Brothers) turn them into a coherent film. He may actually, deep down, underneath the literary genius be quite a sick son of a bitch. Penelope Cruz should not be cast in anything else until she has personally apologised to me. Brad Pitt is a far better actor than he’s given credit for. Michael Fassbender might not be (though I hope he is). And finally, and most depressingly, we should never expect great films from Ridley Scott ever again. The man who brought us the stunning visions of Alien and Blade Runner (which remains one of the most visually extraordinary films ever – at times a Metropolis for its generation) and the criminally underrated Black Rain has, it would seem, lost it. Having said that, it’s not as bad as Hannibal (and look at the talent involved with that one), but no-one could teach that dog to hunt (as they say in the backwoods).

It’s incredibly rare for me to be this negative about a film. I can usually find something redeeming in pretty much anything. I think I feel this way more because of the expectations (and that’s the same with Skyfall and Mission:Impossible). It’s not Dickens though and not everything works out OK in the end. I just hope American Hustle – David O. Russell directs Amy Adams, Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Jeremy Renner in a 70s set world of cons and scams and the mob doesn’t do the same. On paper it should be brilliant. But if I’ve learnt anything, it’s that’s no guarantee. I’ll know tomorrow night…