Interesting. I think it raises a good point though. She doesn't have her hands clean, certainly, but I don't think that's possible for the job she's in. The US decided a while back that we weren't going to deal with "bad people" anymore (which I'm sure we totally stuck to 100% and stuff) but it made gathering human intelligence a problem. It's kind of hard to insert an agent into, say, a terrorist cell, when legally, we're not supposed to be dealing with terrorists. I think this was related to either the CIA in Afghanistan in the 80s or the School of the Americas (not, of course, that I'm suggesting that either of those were good things).
But I do think a fair question is how dirty should the intelligence agencies allow themselves to get?
I like that this Bond is murky and I think the point about human intelligence was a good one.
I had trouble with Bond just dropping off the face of the earth, too. While I certainly understand his anger and resentment, etc, as you said, the NOC list was out there. And this is the same Bond who already quit once.
Is it because of her abandonment of Bardem's character that you think she needs to be punished? I feel like I'd need to know more about the circumstances. He'd apparently already been off the reservation multiple times. Had he been warned about his behavior? If so, to what extent? How far off the reservation had he gone? I agree there would have been a lot of redemptive power in her putting him down herself. I'd also want to know how much leeway she had as the station chief. I'd be surprised if a station chief could unilaterally decide to let one of their people get caught by the other side.
I like that this Bond is murky and I think the point about human intelligence was a good one.
It’s a large part of what makes these later Bond films so good. I should probably rewatch the older films before making this kind of characterization, but from what I remember of them, compared to the kinds of stories that the series has tried to tell lately, this Bond and these tales seem much more grown up.
I had trouble with Bond just dropping off the face of the earth, too. While I certainly understand his anger and resentment, etc, as you said, the NOC list was out there. And this is the same Bond who already quit once.
Heck yeah! It probably should have bothered me more, but I am such a sucker for the Bond/M dynamic, that I’m just settling for some grumbling about it.
Is it because of her abandonment of Bardem's character that you think she needs to be punished? I feel like I'd need to know more about the circumstances. He'd apparently already been off the reservation multiple times. Had he been warned about his behavior? If so, to what extent? How far off the reservation had he gone? I agree there would have been a lot of redemptive power in her putting him down herself.
Punished is the wrong word. But I do think that for the sake of her own…humanity/soul/redemption, she needed to reflect upon the price that had been paid for the decisions she'd made. There’s that joking line about regret being unprofessional, but clearly how she’s lived. She’s like a shark that can’t stop moving . I got the sense she was at peace with her choices and the consequences of her decisions (or could tell herself she was) only because she’d never let herself stop to think very much about them. And I’m sure it’s a defensive mechanism that you have to have to succeed in that line of work, but as a fan of the character, I like to think what more there could have been to her than just the job. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to do that kind of work and have your hands clean, but from a character perspective, that doesn't have to mean that you look past the stains forever.
I'd also want to know how much leeway she had as the station chief. I'd be surprised if a station chief could unilaterally decide to let one of their people get caught by the other side.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if she had an extraordinary amount of leeway in that regard - it would give her superiors the same amount of deniability that Bond often gave her. I think that’s why she “handled” the Silva problem by way of an exchange, enabling her to bury the loss of a single agent with the recovery of six others.
I think you're right about the Craig films being more grown up. I don't think I've seen all the other Bond films but the ones I remember were certainly OTT. Not that there's anything wrong wrong with that. I like movies with lots of explosions as much as the next girl and to be honest I wasn't thrilled about the new direction before I actually saw Casino Royale.
Punished is the wrong word. But I do think that for the sake of her own…humanity/soul/redemption, she needed to reflect upon the price that had been paid for the decisions she'd made. There’s that joking line about regret being unprofessional, but clearly how she’s lived. She’s like a shark that can’t stop moving . I got the sense she was at peace with her choices and the consequences of her decisions (or could tell herself she was) only because she’d never let herself stop to think very much about them. And I’m sure it’s a defensive mechanism that you have to have to succeed in that line of work, but as a fan of the character, I like to think what more there could have been to her than just the job. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to do that kind of work and have your hands clean, but from a character perspective, that doesn't have to mean that you look past the stains forever.
I agree with all that. In one sense I think you do have to be the shark, stop moving to think about the real consequences to real people and you might become paralyzed and drown. On the other hand, if you never think about it you may as well put a sociopath in charge. Damn. There's something at the front of brain where I could swear there was a movie that talked about this (or maybe it was a book? I think it was a movie) that talked about something like brutal calculus... I wish I could remember what it was because I think I went off on that, too. How it can't just be math.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if she had an extraordinary amount of leeway in that regard - it would give her superiors the same amount of deniability that Bond often gave her. I think that’s why she “handled” the Silva problem by way of an exchange, enabling her to bury the loss of a single agent with the recovery of six others.
That's a good point. Though I still think it would be hugely problematic if she gave them an agent who cracked and gave up a bunch of secrets that endangered everyone. At some point "plausible deniability" becomes how the hell did you have a job? Sort of like some of the stuff that went down during the Bush Administration. Well, yeah, I signed that but it's not like I read it type stuff.
For the record, I love these conversations with you.
For the record, I love these conversations with you.
But apparently Livejournal does not, as they keep not sending me comment notifications ;)
I agree with all that. In one sense I think you do have to be the shark, stop moving to think about the real consequences to real people and you might become paralyzed and drown.
Indeed, and having seen the film three times now, I noticed just how many times there’s a direct rebuff to the idea that people in their position can afford to consider consequences. Beyond the remorse being unprofessional line, there’s M statement to Bond about knowing how the game works and he shouldn’t expect an apology. And then at Skyfall, when M starts to show the slightiest doubt about how she's handled things, James is very quick to absolve her and assure her that she did her job (and by implication, that she had no choice but to handle things as she did, which I don't agree with at all).
On the other hand, if you never think about it you may as well put a sociopath in charge.
Indeed! I suppose this conflict is something that I look forward to seeing Mallory work through now that he’s in charge, to the extent that he gets much of any screen time in the next few movies.
Damn. There's something at the front of brain where I could swear there was a movie that talked about this (or maybe it was a book? I think it was a movie) that talked about something like brutal calculus... I wish I could remember what it was because I think I went off on that, too. How it can't just be math.
Has it come to you, yet?
That's a good point. Though I still think it would be hugely problematic if she gave them an agent who cracked and gave up a bunch of secrets that endangered everyone.
Sure. So I guess you have to figure she made a two-part calculation. 1.) She knew Tiago’s devotion to her (not unlike James’, right, which is why Rodriguez is his dark mirror image) and was confident that he would not break, and 2.) If he did break, what secrets he had knowledge of were compartmentalized enough that sharing that knowledge would not have created a significant threat to the agency or public safety. He was a computer guy, so he knows some codes and protocols, which can be changed.
If she has the unilateral authority as M to make the call not to pull out hundreds of agents whose identities had been compromised, it's just as sensical to me that as Section Chief she really would have such unilateral authority with respect to individual agents under her command ;)
At some point "plausible deniability" becomes how the hell did you have a job? Sort of like some of the stuff that went down during the Bush Administration. Well, yeah, I signed that but it's not like I read it type stuff.
Which many also got away with, so… ;) It seems like so long as you don’t have an affair and get caught, you’re pretty safe.
(and by implication, that she had no choice but to handle things as she did, which I don't agree with at all).
I still haven't seen it a second time! Good for you!
And I agree, there must have been other things she could have done.
I suppose this conflict is something that I look forward to seeing Mallory work through now that he’s in charge, to the extent that he gets much of any screen time in the next few movies.
I hope they keep up that thread.
Has it come to you, yet?
Right this second, actually. It was a video game, Mass Effect 3. There was a whole big thing about how war was brutal calculus and some people were arguing it had to be more than that and ironically, the game did make it into a pure numbers game.
If she has the unilateral authority as M to make the call not to pull out hundreds of agents whose identities had been compromised, it's just as sensical to me that as Section Chief she really would have such unilateral authority with respect to individual agents under her command ;)
There's some sense in that, although there's always someone with the final authority and since she was head of MI-6 I think that's her.
It seems like so long as you don’t have an affair and get caught, you’re pretty safe.
I still haven't seen it a second time! Good for you!
Ha - I'm not sure it's anything to be applauded, but thank you :P
There's some sense in that, although there's always someone with the final authority and since she was head of MI-6 I think that's her.
See I would have thought on something that wide-sprawling (although the film later acts like the list was only of MI-6 agents, Mallory originally says to her that she lost a hard drive containing the names of every undercover NATO agent), it would have gone beyond the British foreign intelligence chief.
But I do think a fair question is how dirty should the intelligence agencies allow themselves to get?
I like that this Bond is murky and I think the point about human intelligence was a good one.
I had trouble with Bond just dropping off the face of the earth, too. While I certainly understand his anger and resentment, etc, as you said, the NOC list was out there. And this is the same Bond who already quit once.
Is it because of her abandonment of Bardem's character that you think she needs to be punished? I feel like I'd need to know more about the circumstances. He'd apparently already been off the reservation multiple times. Had he been warned about his behavior? If so, to what extent? How far off the reservation had he gone? I agree there would have been a lot of redemptive power in her putting him down herself. I'd also want to know how much leeway she had as the station chief. I'd be surprised if a station chief could unilaterally decide to let one of their people get caught by the other side.
Reply
It’s a large part of what makes these later Bond films so good. I should probably rewatch the older films before making this kind of characterization, but from what I remember of them, compared to the kinds of stories that the series has tried to tell lately, this Bond and these tales seem much more grown up.
I had trouble with Bond just dropping off the face of the earth, too. While I certainly understand his anger and resentment, etc, as you said, the NOC list was out there. And this is the same Bond who already quit once.
Heck yeah! It probably should have bothered me more, but I am such a sucker for the Bond/M dynamic, that I’m just settling for some grumbling about it.
Is it because of her abandonment of Bardem's character that you think she needs to be punished? I feel like I'd need to know more about the circumstances. He'd apparently already been off the reservation multiple times. Had he been warned about his behavior? If so, to what extent? How far off the reservation had he gone? I agree there would have been a lot of redemptive power in her putting him down herself.
Punished is the wrong word. But I do think that for the sake of her own…humanity/soul/redemption, she needed to reflect upon the price that had been paid for the decisions she'd made. There’s that joking line about regret being unprofessional, but clearly how she’s lived. She’s like a shark that can’t stop moving . I got the sense she was at peace with her choices and the consequences of her decisions (or could tell herself she was) only because she’d never let herself stop to think very much about them. And I’m sure it’s a defensive mechanism that you have to have to succeed in that line of work, but as a fan of the character, I like to think what more there could have been to her than just the job. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to do that kind of work and have your hands clean, but from a character perspective, that doesn't have to mean that you look past the stains forever.
I'd also want to know how much leeway she had as the station chief. I'd be surprised if a station chief could unilaterally decide to let one of their people get caught by the other side.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if she had an extraordinary amount of leeway in that regard - it would give her superiors the same amount of deniability that Bond often gave her. I think that’s why she “handled” the Silva problem by way of an exchange, enabling her to bury the loss of a single agent with the recovery of six others.
Reply
Punished is the wrong word. But I do think that for the sake of her own…humanity/soul/redemption, she needed to reflect upon the price that had been paid for the decisions she'd made. There’s that joking line about regret being unprofessional, but clearly how she’s lived. She’s like a shark that can’t stop moving . I got the sense she was at peace with her choices and the consequences of her decisions (or could tell herself she was) only because she’d never let herself stop to think very much about them. And I’m sure it’s a defensive mechanism that you have to have to succeed in that line of work, but as a fan of the character, I like to think what more there could have been to her than just the job. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to do that kind of work and have your hands clean, but from a character perspective, that doesn't have to mean that you look past the stains forever.
I agree with all that. In one sense I think you do have to be the shark, stop moving to think about the real consequences to real people and you might become paralyzed and drown. On the other hand, if you never think about it you may as well put a sociopath in charge. Damn. There's something at the front of brain where I could swear there was a movie that talked about this (or maybe it was a book? I think it was a movie) that talked about something like brutal calculus... I wish I could remember what it was because I think I went off on that, too. How it can't just be math.
Actually I wouldn’t be surprised if she had an extraordinary amount of leeway in that regard - it would give her superiors the same amount of deniability that Bond often gave her. I think that’s why she “handled” the Silva problem by way of an exchange, enabling her to bury the loss of a single agent with the recovery of six others.
That's a good point. Though I still think it would be hugely problematic if she gave them an agent who cracked and gave up a bunch of secrets that endangered everyone. At some point "plausible deniability" becomes how the hell did you have a job? Sort of like some of the stuff that went down during the Bush Administration. Well, yeah, I signed that but it's not like I read it type stuff.
For the record, I love these conversations with you.
Reply
But apparently Livejournal does not, as they keep not sending me comment notifications ;)
I agree with all that. In one sense I think you do have to be the shark, stop moving to think about the real consequences to real people and you might become paralyzed and drown.
Indeed, and having seen the film three times now, I noticed just how many times there’s a direct rebuff to the idea that people in their position can afford to consider consequences. Beyond the remorse being unprofessional line, there’s M statement to Bond about knowing how the game works and he shouldn’t expect an apology. And then at Skyfall, when M starts to show the slightiest doubt about how she's handled things, James is very quick to absolve her and assure her that she did her job (and by implication, that she had no choice but to handle things as she did, which I don't agree with at all).
On the other hand, if you never think about it you may as well put a sociopath in charge.
Indeed! I suppose this conflict is something that I look forward to seeing Mallory work through now that he’s in charge, to the extent that he gets much of any screen time in the next few movies.
Damn. There's something at the front of brain where I could swear there was a movie that talked about this (or maybe it was a book? I think it was a movie) that talked about something like brutal calculus... I wish I could remember what it was because I think I went off on that, too. How it can't just be math.
Has it come to you, yet?
That's a good point. Though I still think it would be hugely problematic if she gave them an agent who cracked and gave up a bunch of secrets that endangered everyone.
Sure. So I guess you have to figure she made a two-part calculation. 1.) She knew Tiago’s devotion to her (not unlike James’, right, which is why Rodriguez is his dark mirror image) and was confident that he would not break, and 2.) If he did break, what secrets he had knowledge of were compartmentalized enough that sharing that knowledge would not have created a significant threat to the agency or public safety. He was a computer guy, so he knows some codes and protocols, which can be changed.
If she has the unilateral authority as M to make the call not to pull out hundreds of agents whose identities had been compromised, it's just as sensical to me that as Section Chief she really would have such unilateral authority with respect to individual agents under her command ;)
At some point "plausible deniability" becomes how the hell did you have a job? Sort of like some of the stuff that went down during the Bush Administration. Well, yeah, I signed that but it's not like I read it type stuff.
Which many also got away with, so… ;) It seems like so long as you don’t have an affair and get caught, you’re pretty safe.
Reply
I still haven't seen it a second time! Good for you!
And I agree, there must have been other things she could have done.
I suppose this conflict is something that I look forward to seeing Mallory work through now that he’s in charge, to the extent that he gets much of any screen time in the next few movies.
I hope they keep up that thread.
Has it come to you, yet?
Right this second, actually. It was a video game, Mass Effect 3. There was a whole big thing about how war was brutal calculus and some people were arguing it had to be more than that and ironically, the game did make it into a pure numbers game.
If she has the unilateral authority as M to make the call not to pull out hundreds of agents whose identities had been compromised, it's just as sensical to me that as Section Chief she really would have such unilateral authority with respect to individual agents under her command ;)
There's some sense in that, although there's always someone with the final authority and since she was head of MI-6 I think that's her.
It seems like so long as you don’t have an affair and get caught, you’re pretty safe.
Sad, but true.
Reply
Ha - I'm not sure it's anything to be applauded, but thank you :P
There's some sense in that, although there's always someone with the final authority and since she was head of MI-6 I think that's her.
See I would have thought on something that wide-sprawling (although the film later acts like the list was only of MI-6 agents, Mallory originally says to her that she lost a hard drive containing the names of every undercover NATO agent), it would have gone beyond the British foreign intelligence chief.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment