I've been so absent from my first love - film criticism - that I'm really rather embarrassed. I'm still a movie lover, first and foremost, and not getting to write about it hurts my soul.
And so, perhap, it makes sense to make a fresh start with an old favorite: James Bond, and Skyfall, the latest entry in the saga.
Skyfall marks Daniel Craig's third foray into the Bond mythology, a journey that's
been fascinating, and slow, often for reasons beyond creative control (since Quantum of Solace, MGM went bankrupt). The film arrive in time to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Bond films (Dr. No, 1962), and carries the usual weight of these exercise, all the expectations intact, a built-in audience waiting to be delighted... and disappointed.
The big surprise of Skyfall is how solidly the machinery works, how cleanly it wraps up a set of loose ends and puts the story back on familiar ground and known territory. Strikingly well plotted, making the most of its strengths, Skyfall makes the strongest case yet that Craig's Bond is one of the best, a grand reimagination of the genre that's respectful of the past but not bound to it. At the same time, Skyfall is, at worst, a pretentious mess: a low budget act of desperation, hampered by some egregious hammy acting and sloppy scene chewing from talents who really should know better. The balancing act between the best and worst of its impulses, to me, is what makes Skyfall better than most, but a bit a big budget disappointment.
First, the good: Craig's Bond is what makes the film work, and work well, for much of the story. Accidentally "killed off" in the lively opening (a fine,if somewhat derivative chase through Istanbul, ending in a familiar feeling battle atop a moving train), Bond returns home to England when MI6 is attacked, and a list of undecover spies is exposed. Traipsing off to Shanghai, Bond discovers the madman (natch) behind these diabolical schemes, bringing him to justice... only to have the mad genius use just such an outcome in his favor to wreak more havoc. The action culminates in a fierce battle at Bond's childhood home (the titular Skyfall), where a few final twists play out.
Craig's strengths remain readily apparent: his impressive physicality, his solid acting chops, his ability to give a conventional, well defined role a sense of freshness and innovation. Where Connery (and Brosnan) inhabited the part as movie stars - more an act of being than pretending - or Moore played everything as simply dashing and debonair, Craig finds a role to inhabit, an actual part to play. It's marvelous to see what an actor could do with the part, and Craig never makes it simple, or easy.
Well, except for the part where he makes Bond seem... well, easy: as usual, Craig doffs his top at the drop of a hat (or a sheet), making Bond his own Bond girl (who needs Ursula Andress when Craig's there to bound out of the surf topless?). It's a remarkable, respectful Bond world where Craig is, time and again, more naked onscreen than his female costars, at the same time making the obvious point that he's the show, the reason people paid to get in (and really, isn't that being an honest hooker, at least?).
Indeed the film's creepiest, yet slyly sexiest moments are the interplay between Bond and the mad genius Silva, overplayed by Javier Bardem. In their initial confrontation, Bardem gets especially physical, tracing Bond's chest and parting his thighs (no, seriously - it's amazing, in its way), and making suggestive comments about his "first time." It's heartening, I suppose, that Craig has a comeback ("who says it's my first time?"), but there's a subtext here that's old and especially homophobic, a notion that gay is sick and weird, the province of mad geniuses and creepy freaks. Bardem is a mystery to me - I frankly don't get his appeal and I've yet to be truly impressed by him onscreen as an actor - but the problematic role of Silva is ultimately not about him. The bigger problem is the "mad freak genius" aspect of Bond villains, especialy when they don't seem especially menacing, scary or dangerous. Still Bardem's "jamon con queso" performance - all ham and cheseiness - doesn't help. Understated muttering is still scene chewing if you do too much of it.
The rest of the (small cast of) supporting players is fine - obviously Judi Dench's M, but also Ben Whishaw's fine turn as Q, and Albert Finney and Ralph Fiennes, as well as underused Naomie Harris - but there's a sense of using a machine gun to kill a squirrel in the acting talent assembled. Actiually, the machine guns in this film also seem like overkill, too. There's acting aplenty in the supporting cast, often too much to too little effect. Whishaw's too tic-y, Finney is wasted, Fiennes is adequate, but not especially memorable. Only Dench, with and without Craig, seems to have mastered the right balance of hammy and serious needed to make a vast commercial enterprise like this work, proof, as if one needed it, of how seasoned and smart Dench is as a performer. It is, dare I even say it, practically worth another Oscar nomination.
Of the other details, there's not much to be said - Adele's theme song is both one of the best Bond themes ever, and surely one of her best performances as well. The gowns are sumptuous - especialy in the Macau casino squence. The Bond toys, are minimalist but classy (only Craig could make Bond's shaving routine into the sexiest thing imaginable), though Bond's shrunken suiitings are getting to look kind of excessively tight on Craig's yes, impressive, physique. The title sequence is, yet again, top notch.
Visually the film is a feast, and Sam Mendes deserves considerable credit for how good this thing looks, and how solidly he handles elements, like the action sequences, that one might think were beyond him. Mendes is good for not losing sight of his actors in the midst of the derring-do, at his best in moments where the action doesn't just snap and crackle, but actually shows us character development as well. Why, oh why, then can't Mendes seem to get more of a handle on Bardem's messy, psychotic, morass of a performance? Charitably, I'm willing to accept tht Mendes made a bad thing better than it ight have been otherwide; but if there's a next time, Mendes will need to do better on the villain front.
And of course, there will be a next time, a more familiar time with a more conventional MI6, with a reimagined Moneypenney and other details more in line with familiar expectations (how's that for avoiding a siginificant spoiler?). Craig owes us, and Bond, more time, and more films, to see what he makes of his Bond. And, three films in, it seems fair to admit that he's done a pretty decent job of it, so far.
Recent Comments