The Unbreakable Bond

SKYFALL has swept all before it in the past fortnight. Not even The Hulk or Batman himself could withstand Bond’s charm and old-school bravado in the yearly box-office charts. In the words of our own Liam Jack, it kept “the complex, serious tone set by the last two films, but subtly [intertwined] the rest of the franchise’s DNA”. As good as it was – an excellent combination of post-Bourne muscle and the old Connery-style swagger – in terms of the Bond films as a whole, does it represent an unwillingness to let the franchise evolve? What do we even want from James Bond these days?

… having dealt with a suave, callous knob for the majority of the Roger Moore era, Craig’s Bond had a hint of self-loathing.

CASINO ROYALE was a film of its time. Batman had just been successfully stabilised by Chris Nolan. It was time to grab the controls and apply the same stability to a series which had been sent into a self-parodic tailspin by the dreadful DIE ANOTHER DAY. We were delivered a Bond for the 21st century, the post-Bourne era. Jason Bourne with a shot of class and a measure of Connery – hold the existential angst, please. That said, in comparison to the suave, callous knob of the Roger Moore era, Craig’s Bond had a hint of self-loathing. Martin Campbell (who also directed the best Brosnan entry, GOLDENEYE) took us back to basics with a Bond who was more like a long-lost brother of the familiar, shaken-not-stirred character; same nature on the surface, different nurture process in getting from page to screen. SKYFALL though, seemingly pandering to 007’s 50th anniversary on film, jettisons that. The Bond of SKYFALL is not the Bond of CASINO ROYALE or the now oft-maligned QUANTUM OF SOLACE.

The raw impact of seeing Bond emotionally crushed at the end of CASINO ROYALE, and stripped of the pastiche that had been like a millstone around the character’s neck, is powerful. As Craig punches out the line, “The job is done, and the bitch is dead”, you can feel the emotional shutters coming down, and sense the callous detachment that we knew was always under the surface. Bond lays himself bare in QUANTUM OF SOLACE, and then SKYFALL sees him casually regress into an earlier world of lair-bound villains, DB5s, ejector seats and yet more casinos. By the end of the film, it feels as though someone has hit the button marked ‘Return to factory settings’ (the only female field agent decides she really wants to be M’s desk-jockey – really?).

…if anything, SKYFALL is more interesting when considered from M’s standpoint.

SKYFALL has received rhapsodic praise, which begs the question: did we ever really want this modern and emotionally vulnerable Bond? The figure has been hinted at before, with George Lazenby in ON HER MAJESTY’S SECRET SERVICE. The death of Bond’s wife, which left behind a suitably crushed 007, bucked a formula which had become entrenched. However, normal service was soon resumed with the worst of Connery’s outings, DIAMONDS ARE FOREVER. SKYFALL has been so well received because it is a film made for Bond fans who stuck with films like DIAMONDS. The self-knowing winks in SKYFALL are frequent. Bond and the double-0 section is referred to as a relic of the Cold War, something that was also said of the franchise itself and its anachronistic central figure in the aftermath of the USSR’s collapse. Although SKYFALL is a greatly enjoyable film, it says nothing new and does nothing interesting with the Bond character (if anything, SKYFALL is more interesting when considered from M’s standpoint). But then whenever the series has tried to say something new, it has been viewed as limp and overly-serious.

Many comparisons have been made between SKYFALL and THE DARK KNIGHT, but this ignores the fact that Nolan’s film built on BATMAN BEGINS without jettisoning anything from the reimagined character, unlike the trajectory taken by Bond since CASINO ROYALE. A version of THE DARK KNIGHT in the SKYFALL vein would be riddled with gimmicks such as the convertible Batmobile, or shark-repellent Batspray, from the 1960s TV show. SKYFALL’s Bond is not a man of the 21st Century. He drives a DB5. He flirts smarmily with secretaries. He schmoozes round exotic casinos. He shags people in the shower. Bond is back to being presented as a virile superhero, with all the associated tropes thinly veiled.

…continuity is, of course, hard in a franchise that was ‘rebooting’ itself long before the phrase was even invented…

The interesting aspect is where the franchise goes with Bond 24. As good as SKYFALL is, much of that is down to the fact that it is also one of the most technically well-made Bond films ever, thanks to the contributions of Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins. Besides the technical aspect, it is only the Oedipal overtones of the M/Bond/Silva triangle which are new. Smart flip-reverses such as the new dynamic between Q and 007, as pointed out in reviews, rely on the Bond of old. If the character takes the path laid out at the conclusion, it won’t be long before the franchise finds itself down another DIE ANOTHER DAY style cul-de-sac. The blueprint is enjoyable, for now, but totally unsustainable.

Although continuity is, of course, hard in a franchise that was ‘rebooting’ itself long before the phrase was even invented, let alone appropriated by cinema, the Bond franchise is in danger of slipping into nostalgia when, off the back of CASINO ROYALE, it should be forging a new and exciting path. In an age of grimly topical spy thrillers, this is perhaps what the fans want, but if Bond is to live on then he may need yet another reinvention sooner rather than later.

Cover image (c) Harry Hunt

httpvh://youtu.be/EmqF4kzbaS8

4 thoughts on “The Unbreakable Bond”

  1. I think Sam Mendes faced two major challenges when directing Skyfall: making a film that was burdened by the franchise’s 50th anniversary and delivering something more coherent/better than Quantum of Solace (which on rewatching held up a bit better than I remembered but is still something of a mess after Casino Royale). I think he delivered on both fronts to an extremely wide range of fans: people who actually like the one liners and the gadgets, people who see the current incarnation as sub-Bourne action films, and people who think Casino Royale was probably the best Bond film of all time and can we have more of that calibre please?

    Ultimately Skyfall’s retro detour isn’t that far out of step with the current obsession with almost anything ‘vintage’ and is probably reflective of how society’s acknowledging or coping with austerity. Yet there was a small moment during Bond’s first meeting with Silva that was very 21st century and something that had never happened in a previous film. I look forward to seeing which direction the writer(s) take and hope the next director can propel the series forward.

  2. Literally, there is a series of films (as twice referred to in the review), because one followed another chronologically (although some think themselves licensed to skip a couple, to make it the twenty-third), and, unlike, say, with films about Sherlock Holmes, there have not been competing Bond films in production.

    The word ‘seriesi, in that sense, I can understand, but – as I have blogged – I am baffled by this word ‘franchise’, used to describe pretty much the same thing (half-a-dozen times) : if anyone truly held a Bond franchise, they would sell and do what the franchise-holder wanted (the franchisor, who grants the franchise), and would not be authorized, if holding a Costa franchise, to sell Starbucks products.

    If anyone can explain the validity of this usage to me (addicted though the world of film reviewing and criticism is to it), or what is Oedipal in Skyfall, I’d be grateful…
    In the meantime, I can only see Craig as having had to be pretty callous as Bond, much, much more fittingly a callous knob than Moore, throughout both previous films, and so denied many opportunities, as Craig can in spades, to act. Equally, he is clearly in depression, pulled only back by the terrorism, after his injury, and rather blatantly represents the older man who no longer fits in the workplace. (A theme all too casually thrown away when Bond retrieves the gaming chip, and gets given a close shave.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *