No Country For Old Strawdogs-Skyfall Review

Having seen Skyfall last night I was very impressed. Easily the best directed Bond film that's ever been made, and not just because of the higher calibre cast or because we need one. Though saying that, I remain a big and possibly the only fan of Quantum of Solace. Skyfall however represents a step up in standards and a return to the big boys of cinema.

What Skyfall did was, if Casino Royale hadn't already, was cement Craig as the best Bond. Examining Craig's journey through his three films, we see a development of a smooth sophisticated rookie, Casino Royale, a ruthless and investigative spy in Quantum to a capable driven visceral hero in Skyfall. Only in Skyfall, did I genuinely believe he could save the day. We've seen in the recent Nolan Batman films, where there very clear parallels in Skyfall, that people are much more expecting of reality and humanity over fanfare and farce. The opening half hour reminded me of the eponymous Indiana Jones (effectively the American Bond) claim 'its not the years, its the mileage'. We got the luxury of genuinely not knowing whether Bond was up to the task thanks to the retraining scenes and it is reassuring to see a hero get genuinely battered and bruised and feel some effects from it. Usually Bonds of Bond past tend to move on from kill to kill and quip to quip without remorse or regret.  One fatal flaw of Bond that will be ever present, and I therefore cant blame the franchise, was that Bond obviously hadn't died during the opening mini-film and it was hugely likely that Silva was not going to spend his entire role in his glass cage. There was consequently no surprise when they escaped/survived and I was questioning why bother kill Bond to have him return. Why not have him MIA or go into a guilt spiral for blowing the mission.

 These thoughts led me to examine further why to bother killing Bond and after about forty minutes I had worked it out. There are very strong themes throughout of duality and rebirth coupled with clear designs on homaging classic Bond and classic cinema. This was a film for both film lovers and Bond lovers-which made it very much my cup of tea. Mendes explored rebirth through his consolidation of the franchise, effectively changing the state of play with M and Moneypenny entering the fray and establishing Bond as more weary and aware rather than being Doctor Who-ified each film. Killing Bond and blowing up MI5 effectively tears up any previous script, and gives him license to do whatever he wants to the characters. Having Bond fall thousands of feet into a thematic watery rebirth, he can resurrect Bond to his design. From there on, the rules have changed and we happily get on board. The genuinely funny moment of Bond bursting through the carriage and immediately checking his cuff links was a clear nod to Moore's Bond and the infrequent farce that tended to follow him. But after the 'death' we saw a much more serious Bond and a lot more visceral violence and language.

Mendes added further substance and credibility with his exploration of mirrors and reflection. these tools reinforce ideas of duality and paradox. Bond was constantly looking in his mirrors and seeing himself stare back but in reverse. Bond, in reverse, is effectively Silva. Silva was M's favourite and then he was betrayed and left for dead and went evil. Bond, was also M's favourite and left for dead too, yet remains on the good side, the good side of the mirror. This is also amplified by the shaving scene. Bond looks in the mirror and sees his scars and examines what the job and service has done. He attempts rebirth by shaving his bedraggled beard but is interrupted by Eve. He both affirms the rebirth cycle with his choice of a 'cut throat razor' rather than modern technology and then rejects the mirror in favour of Eve shaving him. Naturally he had some alternative motives but Bond was constantly questioning his role in the service and his morals with his preoccupation with mirrors. Eve doesn't have this dilemma at all as she is very much in love with MI5 and isn't world weary enough to question her role. She appropriately smashes off both her wing mirrors in her car without a moments hesitation.

If Bond was to look hard enough he might see Silva staring back at him. But his love for the service and M keep him straight. Perhaps I am over reaching here, but there could be an argument for Silva being a photo negative of Bond. Bond with his shorter darker hair and pale complexion is an opposite to Silva's long blond and darker complexion. This theme was also explored in The Dark Knight Rises where Bane was perceived to be the Batman in reverse. Both born from the same cave, raised by same father but chose different paths. The only part of Batman that is revealed is his mouth and the only part of Bane that is concealed is his mouth. Effectively they are a ying/yang of eachother. Bond and Silva also chose to fight with opposing technologies, Silva with high tech gadgetry and Bond choosing more traditional primative weapons. They are opposing forces equalling each other to the bitter end. Furthermore, the end of Bond on the roof surveilling London  was very Batman-esque

In my opinion, a Bond film needs a lot of humour instilled otherwise it is spy murdering people for British interests and is unlikely to be taken seriously. Or it becomes farcical as Bond goes from joke to joke amidst casual violence. The Bourne trilogy is indeed fantastic, but takes itself so seriously, that if it didnt, we would question its purpose. Furthermore, Bourne goes against the system rather than on behalf of it so we have more sympathy for him. Skyfall delivers humour well and appropriately. There are few quips, which have lost their weight in post millennial cinema and concentrates on in jokes and tapping into the British pride. After all, these are British films with British sympathies, it is funnier to hear Judi Dench say fuck and mean it than Meryl Streep to say it for effect. The brilliant Goldfinger cameo of the car and ejector seat interplay between Craig and Dench summarised Mendes' objectives perfectly-let's get Bond back to best and cut the crap.

As well as the humour, I particularly liked the homages to the older Bonds, Moonraker with Silva's teeth, Goldfinger with the car, Tomorrow Never Dies with the motorcycle chase and a return to the Casino. There was a real sense of purpose and message about this film and I know that Mendes sat down with Craig and other players in the franchise to discuss what was best and what was worst about the Bond series. Thank god the inherent Bond racism was taken out and the sense of adventure and duty was reinforced. Ralph Fiennes role was pretty obvious as soon as his name of Mulberry was mentioned and that ruined the ending quite a bit for me. But I highly rate him and although Dench was superb, Fiennes will be brilliant too, I am sure of it. I am sure he is looking forward to an extended role as the good guy for a while.

I also picked up on other films having a strong impact. As previously stated, Nolans Batman trilogy was heavily prevalent here. Silva's escape very similar to the Jokers as were the attempts of realism coupled with a fine supporting cast. Silva, in his escape from the tube, resembled his Chigurh role from No Country For Old Men and the siege in the country house must have been a homage to Straw Dogs. To those not familiar, Straw Dogs is a thriller in which the hero, Dustin Hoffman, defends his house with traps and shotguns from invaders, becoming a man at the time and protecting his own sense of worth and masculinity above anything else. Either that or Home Alone..

Overall, really enjoyable film. It waas great to see some directorial flair and a clear concise message. It was quite long and I found it predictable, however all Bond films are predictable to a high extent and we have to remember that. Craig has signed up for another two and I cant wait!

Big Things Have Small Beginnings

'Big things have small beginnings'

2012 has been arguably one of the best years for blockbuster cinema, certainly in my lifetime. Heavyweights such as The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Assemble, The Amazing Spiderman and Prometheus were the clear favourites for grossing the highest amount this year, and of all time.  With Titanic being the exception, all of the top ten are post millennial, six are in the last two years and The Dark Knight Rises and Avengers are still earning. Of course money does not make the film and there by no means am I suggesting that the highest earning film is the best.  Though purists might want to hear that adjusted for inflation, Gone With the Wind is highest earner ever and Jaws, the original summer blockbuster, comes 9^th. It is strange however that Avengers Assemble made a staggering 5.5 times the amount than Prometheus. I am going to examine perhaps where Prometheus fell short in audience captivation and engagement where in my opinion it is by far the best of the summer bunch.

In terms of interpretation, I will look at several areas as to why Prometheus didn’t deliver as highly in a summer where, despite economic decline, money was clearly still being trafficked towards the multiplexes. First of all I do acknowledge the fact that that Prometheus was rated 15 as opposed to the 12a ratings given to The Dark Knight and Avengers Assemble.  I will examine whether a drastic preconception over the film may have hampered results, the controversial role concerning religion and finally an examination of the film itself in terms of accessibility. The reason is that I strongly feel that Prometheus was by far the best, most developed and most entertaining out of all the blockbusters this summer.

First of all, I feel that the preconceptions going into the film were always going to affect the reviews going out. The impressive viral campaigns, a really elevating new trend, were designed to heighten expectation and experience. This experiential marketing campaign dramatically enhanced the mood before The Dark Knight in 2008, and I don’t think it is insensitive to declare that Heath Ledgers untimely sad death would have added further intrigue into an already fanatic frenetic fan base. Prometheus took this to a new level with several videos, TVC’s and, in my opinion, an overly spoilerific trailer. Furthermore, this is Scott’s first foray into the Alien ‘universe’ since his 1979 original. Note that Cameron and David Fincher directed the sequels and the less said about any of the others the better. So coupled with a very strong and elevated viral campaign and the highly anticipated return of Ridley Scott in what is effectively his most natural genre, audiences are in huge expectation over a direct prequel of Alien with added bonus of much more sophisticated special effects and a redemption for Alien vs. Disappointment.

With massive expectation comes a likely result of disappointment. Though this is not always the case, Avengers Assemble had all the ingredients and swagger to fail as did The Dark Knight Rises. However, the differences were that Avengers did not take itself seriously at all and flourished on the campness and spectacle as Pirates of Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl taught. The Dark Knight managed to launch its viral campaign with enough snap and credibility to carry it through to a very comfortable landing, despite the horrific and sickening events of the premiere shooting. What Prometheus had at its disadvantage were fewer steady fans behind it, only compared to Marvel and DC, and that it took itself very seriously.

This is probably where the film falls hardest; austerity. My opinions are that is perfectly ok for a film to take itself seriously and to have fun with the audiences. A lot of people and critics complained that The Curse of the Black Pearl was weak and foolish, failing to see that it was homage to all swashbucklers and carefree fans. Furthermore, Inception took itself very seriously and demanded a lot from its audiences which was duly given. I feel as long as the film is enjoyable, then any amount of sobriety is fine, arguably irrelevant. Only when it undermines a films integrity is it worth discussing, see Tree of Life and Die Another Day.

However I feel the ambiguity of Prometheus’s premise is where audiences got most upset. This concerns its mythological and religious structure that in my opinion further stimulates the films longevity and enjoyment.  It is a good thing that a film has the power to galvanize audiences and offer several different strains of interpretation. 

If we begin with the opening scene and how crucial this is to immediately shaping opinions as to whether this is a religious examination, mythological allegory or a sci-fi plain and simple. The scene shows, what we later learn is an Engineer on a precipice, seen to be drinking from something that makes him fall off the waterfall and his body disintegrate into what appears to be DNA strands.

A religious interoperation is that the Engineer has sacrificed himself to start life; a form of Creationism. No big bang but one higher species deliberately designing life as we know it. The Engineer is effectively terraforming planet earth and forming life in their own image. Mythological interpretation would be that the titan Prometheus creates mankind out of clay and taught them science and logic. Judging by the film’s title this seems a reasonable assertion at this stage. On a Sci-Fi level, what some hyper critical fans and misguided critics forget is the ‘Fi’ part. It is fiction, there to be enjoyed at a superficial level and not to be taken as fact.

If we consider the rest of the film as a religious examination there are several other points and events that can reinforce this. If we put the ‘Engineers’ as gods tools or even as collective for a creator then we can examine their actions as a reaction of mankind’s rejection of their religion. We see the awoken Engineer enraged with the humans and after a swift attack immediately sets off to earth to destroy it. If we consider that Prometheus was set in 2089, and Shaw’s carbon dating from the ship indicates over 2000 years ago we could imply that that the Engineers are furious with something that happened on earth 30-40 years AD.  Logically we could presume that the Engineers are enraged with their emissary, son of creator, being killed or forced into self sacrifice. Alternatively, the Engineer is enraged with being awoken and alarmed at the progress humans have made and seeks to wipe out the Earth in its stead. First impressions seem over reactionary but Deuteronomy suggests that there is a track record of such genocide and fury. Not to mention the story of Noah.

"Ye shall utterly destroy all the places, wherein the nations which ye shall possess served their gods, upon the high mountains, and upon the hills, and under every green tree: And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place." (Deuteronomy 12:2-3)

Other religious symbols and parallels could be that the attack was stopped by the most human-centric character there is, Janek the captain. Portraying a worldly, sage and down to earth man, he typifies the instincts of man to follow rather than question. Yet it is his self sacrifice that brings down the ship and note his crucifiction pose as he achieves it. Shaw’s character represents the conflict between religion and science. Christianity is represented in her necklace, yet she has given her life towards science. Her conception of the zeno despite being sterile echoes Mary’s pregnancy.

In my opinion, I think there are deliberate ambiguous references to Christianity and religion as the film does revolve around searching for answers and mankind’s need for symbolism.  The early drawings in the film’s opening reflect mankind’s search for meaning. These were inspired by stars, weather and, to a degree, paganism. This evolved into religious beliefs and faith in a higher being. This modernises into a belief in science and nature and the film reflects this transition.  Paganism is reflected in the deification in the cave of the zenomorphs or ‘facehuggers’, which evolves into a belief that the Engineers are the creators, and climaxes in the trust in science and further exploration for more answers. Shaw doesn’t stop after finding one answer, she searches for more.  The film could be interpreted as a mirroring of humanity’s search for answers and improved methods of uncovering them. Mankind will always insatiably be questioning and probing for validation and Prometheus could be seen as reflecting that.

On the premise that US audiences are generally much more sensitive over religious material, we could look at the dwindling figures and appeal of Prometheus as regulative.  Though I argue that these observations can be freely made with one viewing, I certainly had to watch, research and contemplate.

If we consider the mythological interpretation we can examine the story of Prometheus further. After creating man, he angered Zeus by fraternizing with and educating humans to where their sacrifices to Zeus were falsified and manipulated. Zeus took away fire from the humans whom Prometheus then stole back, Zeus punished men again with the gift of Pandora, the world’s first woman, and he ties Prometheus to a rock to have eagles eat out his liver every day for the rest of days. His immortality enables this torture to be infinite. Pandora came with her renowned box, containing evil, pain and suffering if opened.

Bearing that in mind, we can make comparisons with Pandora’s Box being the black liquid. Once it was curiously opened, through the same motivations as the myth, evil and panic spread throughout. In the myth it embodied a number of atrocities and in the film it affects different hosts in different ways.  It is surely no coincidence that Holloway is set on fire before he can contaminate the ship. Fire being the definitive technological advancement. The ‘abortion machine’ rips open Shaw’s body to eject the alien foetus and sews her back up again to live again resembles the torture Zeus bestows on Prometheus. Zeus was angry that mankind became curious and intellectual, perceiving themselves as akin to gods so he sent Pandora. We could parallel this to the Engineer, enraged with finding David speak his own language and ask questions and decide to take mankind down a peg or several. If we track the film to the myth we can see Prometheus represent the mobilization of men searching for answers and being so well evolved that they are thirsty for more validation.  Prometheus as a titan taught humans how to prosper, read and be well educated. Prometheus as a ship represents a tangible output of this too.  The Engineers represent Zeus who is vengeful of their integrity and invasion of their sanctity and empowerment. Pandora’s Box is represented by the black liquid that unleashes all manner of hell.

I feel that both religious and mythological interpretations hold up against each other as structure for the film but in my opinion it is deliberately designed to be a marriage of both intertwining with imagery, themes and innuendo. This film wasn’t rushed out the gates and the level of detail afforded to every scene, be it script or visual.  Furthermore Damon Lindelof of Lost was on the writing panel and Lost was certainly full of literary, religious and mythical references.

If we ignore any deeper level of the film to examine the lack of box office success, we can look at Prometheus through a simple Sci-Fi examination. I am not completely at home with sci-fi and wouldn’t dare encroach on such a popular and hyper sensitive genre. But Prometheus conducts itself with immense vivid and beautiful art and carries with it a real sense of occasion. The landscapes and foregrounds are immaculately detailed irrespective of any religious/mythical agendas. What I and the majority of the public can agree on is the fantastic performance of Michael Fassbender. His role of David is haunting and surely homage to 2001’s Hal in his emotionless but primal conduct.  His duality is complex in agenda but simple in execution. Some question his motivation for poisoning Holloway but if we consider this as a distant prequel to Alien(s) we see that Ian Holm’s ‘synthetic’ Ash turns against Ripley. What’s more in Aliens, Ripley’s dismay and prejudice at discovering another ‘synthetic’ Bishop is alleviated by the assertion that it is ‘impossible for [me] to harm,  or by omission of action, allow to be harmed, a human being’. We can consider that David predates Bishop by at least a century as Bishop is at least 57 years older than Ash. Therefore it is within David’s remit that he chooses to harm people or work on his own agenda. The chilling part is not that he does harm people, but that he actively chooses to and whilst under the guise of his role.

In my opinion, there are some key flaws that let the film down. I feel that Ridley had too much going on in his head and his ambitions were so great that this failed to fully translate into the actual cinematic experience.  Whereas Scott intended the film to be deeper than just a prequel to the Alien universe, confusing and involved sub plots translate the film into a less structured, overly complex philosophical discussion. Jurassic Park testifies that both action, fear, wonder and philosophy are interchangeable. However, I don’t feel that the disappointment from the lack of correlation between Alien(s) and Prometheus should be a caveat for enjoyment and that it is a good thing to be aspirational in cinema. If we’ve learnt anything from Aliens is that every adaptation just got worse and worse and if fans were expecting an updated Alien hunt film, then I suggest they rewatch all of the Alien quadrilogy and as themselves the same question afterwards. Justin Chang of Variety suggested that Ridley lazily deferred key plot points under the presumption that sequel will be made. Personally I am looking forward to it.