Bond, James Bond
We saw Skyfall tonight, and it's pretty difficult to discuss its merits and problems without giving too much away. It's rather late for full analyses anyway.
The episode seems to recall From Russia With Love and other early Bond installments in that it is virutally free of the gadgets and gimmickry that Bond episodes are especially noted for. In fact, it is the villains this time who have the cool toys, and really, they aren't particularly that impressive. Javier Bardem's character harnesses the power of the Internet, for crying out loud. Spooky. One can only dream of the possibilities once the Internet can be accessed by ordinary folks like you and me.
The lack of gadgets isn't particularly a problem for me, though. Every spy thriller now outdoes Bond where that is concerned, so it's probably smart of them not to try too hard in outdoing the others. What I do find problematic, though, is that in recalling these older series, this installment relies almost too heavily on nostalgia.
The central theme of Skyfall is aging and obselecense. Hasn't the double-o division outlasted its usefulness now that the Cold War is over? Well, of course, the answer is a resounding "no" because we all want to see more James Bond movies being made. But the way in which the "no" is framed is rather troubling for me.
No one really goes out to watch a James Bond film because they're amazed with how progressive and revolutionary the series is. It's laden with misogyny and Western exceptionalism and all that other good stuff. However, what had impressed me about the latest installments, beginning I think with Pierce Brosnan, was that the producers were at least trying to rectify the colonial Imperial past, wherein the East and West were vying against each other, playing chess on a Third World chessboard. Bond could no longer seduce women by forcing himself upon them, either. The newer Bonds were a little more broken, a little more vulnerable, and I liked that. Granted, it was never James Bond as written and directed by Noam Chomsky. But the newer series at least did leave room for self-doubt. Bond could not positively say that he was fighting for the greater good. Only that he had averted some form of armageddon, and that he had returned us to a level of relative status quo.
The newer Bond instead seems to retreat into that golden past where one doesn't have to dwell on such uncertainties. There are terrorists out there, they are unequivocally the "bad guys," and it is up to Western good guys to hunt them down. MI6 may be old-fashioned, but it's still an old-fashioned world. Therefore, there are legitimate reasons for ripping through Turkish bazaars; we are looking out for their interests because we know better.
This new series is progressive in one sense--it has a gay character. However, wouldn't you know? The gay guy is also the villain. Granted, Javier Bardem is quite good and very fun to watch in this role, but we've done that before back in Diamonds are Forever. And, of course, we've seen gay people play bad guys before throughout much of cinema history because gays are inherently evil anyway.
The more recent James Bond series have had a certain degree of balance. Though still overwhelmingly misogynistic, the more recent films were not given over entirely to the Old Men's Club. By the end of Skyfall, however this no longer remains the case, and I can't really go into it more than that without giving away key plot details.
Am I happy that I saw this? Yes, of course. Will I probably watch the next installment? Undoubtedly. I've always liked the James Bond series, even while being aware of its flaws. I don't really know why this is. George Lazenby's Bond I think was highly underrated, and I also really enjoyed From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. I don't know why I can think to myself, "Oh, this is wrong," but still enjoy the series. However, again, I was happy when, starting with Pierce Brosnan, the series' producers started to think a little more progressively and to entertain a little more self-questioning. And now, I feel like this series has led to a regression of sorts.
And that's my take on it. I wonder what others will be saying about it.
The episode seems to recall From Russia With Love and other early Bond installments in that it is virutally free of the gadgets and gimmickry that Bond episodes are especially noted for. In fact, it is the villains this time who have the cool toys, and really, they aren't particularly that impressive. Javier Bardem's character harnesses the power of the Internet, for crying out loud. Spooky. One can only dream of the possibilities once the Internet can be accessed by ordinary folks like you and me.
The lack of gadgets isn't particularly a problem for me, though. Every spy thriller now outdoes Bond where that is concerned, so it's probably smart of them not to try too hard in outdoing the others. What I do find problematic, though, is that in recalling these older series, this installment relies almost too heavily on nostalgia.
The central theme of Skyfall is aging and obselecense. Hasn't the double-o division outlasted its usefulness now that the Cold War is over? Well, of course, the answer is a resounding "no" because we all want to see more James Bond movies being made. But the way in which the "no" is framed is rather troubling for me.
No one really goes out to watch a James Bond film because they're amazed with how progressive and revolutionary the series is. It's laden with misogyny and Western exceptionalism and all that other good stuff. However, what had impressed me about the latest installments, beginning I think with Pierce Brosnan, was that the producers were at least trying to rectify the colonial Imperial past, wherein the East and West were vying against each other, playing chess on a Third World chessboard. Bond could no longer seduce women by forcing himself upon them, either. The newer Bonds were a little more broken, a little more vulnerable, and I liked that. Granted, it was never James Bond as written and directed by Noam Chomsky. But the newer series at least did leave room for self-doubt. Bond could not positively say that he was fighting for the greater good. Only that he had averted some form of armageddon, and that he had returned us to a level of relative status quo.
The newer Bond instead seems to retreat into that golden past where one doesn't have to dwell on such uncertainties. There are terrorists out there, they are unequivocally the "bad guys," and it is up to Western good guys to hunt them down. MI6 may be old-fashioned, but it's still an old-fashioned world. Therefore, there are legitimate reasons for ripping through Turkish bazaars; we are looking out for their interests because we know better.
This new series is progressive in one sense--it has a gay character. However, wouldn't you know? The gay guy is also the villain. Granted, Javier Bardem is quite good and very fun to watch in this role, but we've done that before back in Diamonds are Forever. And, of course, we've seen gay people play bad guys before throughout much of cinema history because gays are inherently evil anyway.
The more recent James Bond series have had a certain degree of balance. Though still overwhelmingly misogynistic, the more recent films were not given over entirely to the Old Men's Club. By the end of Skyfall, however this no longer remains the case, and I can't really go into it more than that without giving away key plot details.
Am I happy that I saw this? Yes, of course. Will I probably watch the next installment? Undoubtedly. I've always liked the James Bond series, even while being aware of its flaws. I don't really know why this is. George Lazenby's Bond I think was highly underrated, and I also really enjoyed From Russia With Love and Goldfinger. I don't know why I can think to myself, "Oh, this is wrong," but still enjoy the series. However, again, I was happy when, starting with Pierce Brosnan, the series' producers started to think a little more progressively and to entertain a little more self-questioning. And now, I feel like this series has led to a regression of sorts.
And that's my take on it. I wonder what others will be saying about it.