Skip to main content

Information is all. Is it not?

Spectre
(2015)

(SPOILERS) The appearance of Spectre supremo Hans Oberhauser (who are they trying to kid, right?) in the trailers for Bond 24, announcing himself as the author of all 007’s pain gave some who watched it, myself included, understandable pause. That, and the shards of photo pointed to the Bond series yielding to that ever-unwanted obsession of Hollywood, the accursed backstory. For Bond this is particularly numbskulled, as he’s one of the shallowest characters ever to grace the silver screen – something to be celebrated, rather than rooting around for blusher to bring out his pallid texture. Fortunately, Spectre mostly doesn’t make too much of a meal of this retro-fitted personal history, as unnecessary as it is, and while the picture is typically over-extended, for a good two-thirds of its running time its mystery elements and set-pieces are sustained in a largely satisfying manner.


As such, this a more accomplished piece of work than its over-feted predecessor Skyfall, less dedicated to adversely rooting around in Bond’s emotional baggage or distracted with celebrating his 50th and happier too just get on with it. Ironically for a picture built on the rubble of Bond’s childhood, Spectre is surprisingly content to keep its lead character from self-indulgence, perhaps more so than any Bond outing since Moore. Craig seems more comfortable with this state of affairs too; the forays into humour are much better balanced this time and, since he’s not a natural comedian, what there is is wisely eked out from droll reactions rather than banter.


Both Sam Mendes’ outings are rather frontloaded, but Spectre gains on many earlier escapades, initially at least, by having Bond in pursuit of pieces of a puzzle, pieces that, even though we know they will lead to the titular organisation, engage in terms of how precisely they will be pieced together. 


Looked at plainly, this is another perfunctory string of set pieces as Bond goes from clue/person to clue/person who will propel him to his confrontation with Oberhauser, and in some cases the joins show; Lea Seydoux’s Dr Madeleine Swann is never more than a contrived inclusion to give Bond his hot totty, and Seydoux is able to do little with what she’s given. Her occasional moment (saving Bond from Mr Hinx; is he related to Halle Berry’s Jinx? Perhaps they’re the siblings of Leon Spinks) can’t disguise that she is there to be protected and rescued (most flagrantly at the end); as such, one can only assume making the final set piece all about Bond saving the girl in the most flagrantly retro way is designed to parade the well-worn device as a virtue. Unfortunately, it succeeds only in being narratively disappointing.


Which isn’t to say the London-based finale doesn’t have its merits, but it dovetails the two plot strands (Bond’s and M’s) without the finesse one might hope for. The main feeling one gets is that the quartet of writers have successfully retooled a version of Spectre for the 21st century but then allow it to crumble, rather than stand tall, right at the end for the purposes of easy/classic solutions (the Nine Eyes programme is stopped just in the nick of time) and devices (Oberhauser and his rather silly revenge scheme makes him look far from a criminal mastermind, and personalising his history with Bond further reduces the extent to which he can be perceived as force to be reckoned with). 


Waltz’s performance is fine as these things go, and I like that he’s playing a villain who really enjoys being a villain, but Oberhauserfeld never really comes across as a serious threat, nor does he seem like the type to successfully run a criminal organisation (not that I’m the best judge). So too, his dialogue is too frequently based on what a Bond villain sounds like, rather than having a life of their own (“And I thought you came here to die”).


One can almost see Mendes and co lapsing into a “Who cares, it’s a Bond movie” repose when it comes to the crunch. Blofeld (Oberhauser suits him better) inviting Bond into the old MI6 building at the end assumes 007 will have killed his captors en route, or the graffiti and directions are for nothing (likewise, the hidden room at L’American seems to be there so Bond can discover it, rather than any practical reason it would have been left intact all that time with paying patrons using the premises). The result is a throwback to Bond villains, and villains generally, of yesteryear, with the baddie having not only survived his last encounter but set up an elaborate trap for his enemy along with the old “You have three minutes to save the damsel in distress” routine.


So it’s reasonably throwaway fun, but it isn’t a good fit with the rugged posturing the Craig era has laid down previously, and it’s a step down on the ramping tension and intrigue earlier in the picture. The earlier trailers intimated at Spectre redux as an elaborate, Illuminati-like organisation of shadowy meetings and members. Some of that is made good on; we see its tentacles extending into various governments, as personified by Andrew Scott’s Max Denbigh/”C” (Scott’s suitably irksome, but he’s never more than a brat, and so lacks any real menace when set against M; in some respects this is a similar problem to that of Bond and Blofeld). 


There’s also Spectre’s main goal of ensuring a nine-nations intelligence pact (Nine Eyes) that will vastly increase their operating capability. Likewise, the meeting Bond nonchalantly walks in on sees them blithely discussing their various moneymaking plans in a manner that is much like any board meeting, just with more atmospheric lighting and more neck snapping.


In that sense, then, Spectre serves the function of a traditional Illuminati-type conspiracy, the real power behind the thrones, but this isn’t really any more thought-out than Mendes and his team attempting to get in their comments on the perils of the surveillance society; the actual heads of this organisation appear to be little more than assassins, standard villains, in order to join the dots between prior Craig outings (the Quantum organisation, and the title sequence roll call), rather than the vaster scale and more banal level the meeting is actually angling at; Spectre is a vast shadowy conglomerate.


Frankly, Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon were operating in a rarefied environment being able to carry this kind of thing off with the Bourne films. Bond trying to do it is tugging against its naturally pro-establishment seams, and it can only go so far before it begins to implode like one of Oberhauser’s timed explosions. So M cautions C about unfettered access, drones and the encroaching Orwellian state while the latter makes snide remarks about the encumbrance that is democracy. The problem is, this serves to re-position MI6 – from which Craig’s Bond keeps having to go rogue so as not to make him too much of an establishment figure for essentially leftie filmmakers to stomach; he goes rogue here, of course – as the defender of all that is good and right and the arbiters of a truly free society. The suit doesn’t quite fit.  


Fair play for at least trying to make Bond someone who cares about the proles, though. A definite benefit of the storyline here – far more so than any its recent predecessors, duty-bound to inflate M’s role purely because Judi Dench was playing her – is the parallel business going on Blighty. It’s not something the series has done (much) before, probably because actual bona fide mysteries and puzzles to solve aren’t really high on 007’s list of priorities, which start and end with big set pieces and quick shags. Of course, this falls apart once the true identity of Franz Oberhauser and that of his stooge have been revealed (yes, I suppose Franz isn’t actually Ernst Stavro Blofeld; he’s just some guy who changed his name to Blofeld by deed poll, so Mendes’ et al’s fibs concerning this aspect aren’t as egregious as Abrams’ regarding Cumberbatch not being Khan – no really, they aren’t, they didn’t tell porkies at all).


This means you can only pull the corrupted state card the once before the status quo is resumed (see also The Winter Soldier and Hydra). Next time out, presumably Bond will be engaging in more traditional still romps, with Spectre out in the open stealing satellites and the like… and a scarred villain with a penchant for cats who considerately gives Bond deadly scenarios he has sufficient time to escape from. Like I say, that’s all fun, but it’s a night on impossible task to pull of both successfully; political commentary within the realm of Craig’s dour presence and whacky world domination hijinks.


But the action is mostly top drawer, and Mendes has noticeably come along since Skyfall. It’s also clean and clear for the most part. The opening Day of the Dead sequence is split into three “movements”. While it’s possible to discern where some of the joins are in the impressive “one shot” first stage, the confidence on display is irresistible. If it peaks with the exploding building (Bond landing on a sofa is a particularly winning, non-laboured sight gag), and lapses into unnecessary shakycam subsequently, while the intended high of the helicopter business flourishes evident green screen close-ups, the sequence as a whole is dazzling.


Hoyte van Hoytema takes over from Richard Deakins as cinematographer, and while there’s nothing here as sublime as the Tokyo silhouette fight, with the palette more muted, the images are still often gorgeous, showing off Alpine peaks and African expanses; it’s a ridiculous price tag, but one can at least see where this $400m has gone. Mendes takes his time but the benefit of this is a sense of elegance in the action, such as the composition when a pair of assassins come up behind Lucia (Monica Bellucci), only to be casually dispatched by Bond.


It’s disappointing that Bellucci’s role is so brief, as she makes more of an impact than Seydoux and Craig isn’t old enough to be her father; there’s also more of a frisson in having Bond bed the wife of the man he just murdered, rather than saving the daughter of the man he didn’t just murder. Nevertheless, it’s testament to Bellucci that her character, basically a bint who can’t resist Bond’s bulge, has any presence at all.


The extended road chase following Bond’s exit from the Rome meeting has its moments, mostly of the humorous variety, from Craig’s exasperation with the variable gadgets his auto has been equipped with (I hope we meet 009 at some point, particularly after hearing his “atmosphere”) to the unhurried pensioner who requires a bit of cajoling. The waste of a perfectly good car is disappointing, but at least it has a decent showcase, unlike the swift entrance and exit of the latest Brosnan Bond BMW in The World is Not Enough


Craig appears to have been watching Brosnan pics for tips on how to move. Either that or he viewed the playback of how his haemorrhoid-pants running looked last time out (there’s still a bit of that in Mexico, balanced by his treading daintily over rooftops), since he he’s got down pat the cool, daper Bond moments, here exemplified by his post-car ejection, parachuting to land in a nearby street and disengaging himself from the chute without so much a s a pause.


The chase starting at the Alpine clinic is also good fun, embracing the broader, dafter side of a Bond set piece (think more Lewis Gilbert era Moore, but without double-taking pigeons) as Bond is unbowed by his plane gradually losing more and more pieces (there’s also a nice bit with Q having his own problems, and as with the M/C plot Mendes seems naturally attuned and engaged by juggling such dual scenarios; more could have been made of this, and it’s slightly disappointing that Q isn’t given his own brainy means of evading his aggressors, rather than just legging it).


Then there's the train fight with Mr Hinx, which  is superbly staged, earning its place alongside those in From Russia with Love and The Spy Who Loved Me (obviously, it has to be longer than both put together, it’s that kind of movie). Dave Bautista, aside from being physically imposing and having a memorable entrance, sadly doesn’t etch himself out a classic status in the henchman pantheon. Hinx doesn’t get to be quirky or funny, he’s just gets to be built like a brick shit house.


And since the set pieces are consciously engaging in call-backs to earlier Bonds, the torture scene is pretty good as they go, suitably painful (it’s nice – or nasty – that the device actually connects with our hero, rather than a Goldfinger-esque nick-of-time evasion). For all that, one of the best scenes is non-action, as Bond visits the dying Mr White (radiation poisoning), both the wintry location work and the (not altogether justified) expectation it creates for Bond’s adversary.


The iconic elements and characters fare variably. I’m not slavishly devoted to the Aston Martin, so Bond raring off in it at the end left me non-plussed (is it bad to say I preferred the new model; they ought to bring back the Lotus, which would certainly have been handy during the Rome chase). It’s also one of the few Craig moments that falls flat, since he doesn’t really do cheerful. Fiennes is quite handy, and I didn’t mind M’s significant presence, mainly because it was germane but also because having a new M made it feel fresh (they had to get Dench back for a cameo, of course). 


Naomie Harris is probably too good for he role, as nu-Moneypenny’s only function is that she isn’t besotted with James; it might be a step up of a sort, I guess, but an inversion isn’t really a character and the void created by her lack of flirting hasn’t been filled by anything memorable. Felix Leiter is only name-checked, which is a shame as Jeffrey Wright is probably the best Leiter, while Bill Tanner (his seventh Bond appearance, and third from Rory Kinnear) is at least notable for not giving Bond the benefit of the doubt and going by the book.


Craig’s probably at his best since Casino Royale here, as these things go. As noted he’s not preoccupied with putting Bond through the wringer (“I don’t stop to think about it” he refreshingly responds to Swann fishing for a deep analysis of his lifestyle choices), or engaging in forced jolly banter with M, so he comes across more prototypically. His interactions with the regulars show solid chemistry, but there’s nothing with Seydoux, and we don’t really feel his connection to Oberhauser.


I’ve mentioned my misgivings about his reincarnated Blofeld, and Waltz doesn’t quite feel like the right sort of adversary for a Craig Bond. He might have been a piece of lazy casting when all is said and done. It’s nice not to have Craig’s Bond brooding over revenge (although its referenced) or his sell-by-date; his biggest problem is the rather irrelevant (since it’s introduced to be ignored, and doesn’t have a crucial role in the plot) nano-blood. More perplexing are the endless changes of suit he has in that one little case. Crucially, that Craig can pull off an agreeable exchange with a rat shows how much more comfortable he is here than in Skyfall.


Thomas Newman’s scores for Mendes have been effective, and probably benefit from not adhering so rigidly to the Bond formula as David Arnold, but at times they also seem a little churlish in not embracing the thematic legacy and lushness of the series when given a prime opportunity. There’s also nothing in this one as striking as his accompaniment to the Tokyo sequence in Skyfall. As for the titles: nice octopus, but apart from that it’s just a little bit CGI-bland. Rather like the theme song in that respect.


How does Spectre compare in a glut of a year for spyfare? Well, they’ve all been pretty good, and all have had their flaws. For sheer breathless, dynamo thrills, Rogue Nation is the clear winner, and both Man From U.N.C.L.E. and Kingsman have provided (very different) stylistic and humorous takes on the genre. Spectre is bigger and more lavish than any of those, and in consequence struggles slightly for its own personality. The political commentary is a token gesture rather than anything deep felt, and the reintroduction of the series biggest adversary is successful only up to a point. But it does successfully navigate the tricky territory of making Craig’s movies part of a continuous whole (something that wasn’t called for, but now they’ve done it’s fairly painless) while integrating humour and archetypal Bond tropes with more success than in the last outing.


They may have boxed themselves into a corner in terms of where they can go from here, though, as it already feels as if Spectre and Blofeld could be a millstone keeping Bond from exploring new ideas and scenarios, and formally counteractive to Craig’s more down-to-earth persona. But then, this is such a (legitimately in some respects, although slack plotting is never an excuse) risk-averse series, it’s amazing we’ve got to a point where too many traditional influences might be deemed a bad thing.  Eon would probably be wise to do only one more Craig and Blofeld outing (and perhaps recast Waltz; after all, his face has never been the same twice in the series) and then leave Spectre out in the cold for another decade.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Mondo bizarro. No offence man, but you’re in way over your head.

The X-Files 8.7: Via Negativa I wasn’t as down on the last couple of seasons of The X-Files as most seemed to be. For me, the mythology arc walked off a cliff somewhere around the first movie, with only the occasional glimmer of something worthwhile after that. So the fact that the show was tripping over itself with super soldiers and Mulder’s abduction/his and Scully’s baby (although we all now know it wasn’t, sheesh ), anything to stretch itself beyond breaking point in the vain hope viewers would carry on dangling, didn’t really make much odds. Of course, it finally snapped with the wretched main arc when the show returned, although the writing was truly on the wall with Season 9 finale The Truth . For the most part, though, I found 8 and 9 more watchable than, say 5 or 7. They came up with their fair share of engaging standalones, one of which I remembered to be Via Negativa .

You know what I sometimes wish? I sometimes wish I were ordinary like you. Ordinary and dead like all the others.

Séance on a Wet Afternoon (1964) (SPOILERS) Bryan Forbes’ adaptation of Mark McShane’s 1961’s novel has been much acclaimed. It boasts a distinctive storyline and effective performances from its leads, accompanied by effective black-and-white cinematography from Gerry Turpin and a suitably atmospheric score from John Barry. I’m not sure Forbes makes the most of the material, however, as he underlines Séance on a Wet Afternoon ’s inherently theatrical qualities at the expense of its filmic potential.

A ship is the finest nursery in the world.

A High Wind in Jamaica (1965) (SPOILERS) An odd one, this, as if Disney were remaking The Swiss Family Robinson for adults. One might perhaps have imagined the Mouse House producing it during their “Dark Disney” phase. But even then, toned down. After all, kids kidnapped by pirates sounds like an evergreen premise for boy’s own adventuring (more girl’s own here). The reality of Alexander Mackendrick’s film is decidedly antithetical to that; there’s a lingering feeling, despite A High Wind in Jamaica ’s pirates largely observing their distance, that things could turn rather nasty (and indeed, if Richard Hughes’ 1929 novel  had been followed to the letter, they would have more explicitly). 

You have done well to keep so much hair, when so many’s after it.

Jeremiah Johnson (1972) (SPOILERS) Hitherto, I was most familiar with Jeremiah Johnson in the form of a popular animated gif of beardy Robert Redford smiling and nodding in slow zoom close up (a moment that is every bit as cheesy in the film as it is in the gif). For whatever reason, I hadn’t mustered the enthusiasm to check out the 1970s’ The Revenant until now (well, beard-wise, at any rate). It’s easy to distinguish the different personalities at work in the movie. The John Milius one – the (mythic) man against the mythic landscape; the likeably accentuated, semi-poetic dialogue – versus the more naturalistic approach favoured by director Sydney Pollack and star Redford. The fusion of the two makes for a very watchable, if undeniably languorous picture. It was evidently an influence on Dances with Wolves in some respects, although that Best Picture Oscar winner is at greater pains to summon a more sensitive portrayal of Native Americans (and thus, perversely, at times a more patr

You’re a disgrace, sir... Weren’t you at Harrow?

Our Man in Marrakesh aka Bang! Bang! You’re Dead (1966) (SPOILERS) I hadn’t seen this one in more than three decades, and I had in mind that it was a decent spy spoof, well populated with a selection of stalwart British character actors in supporting roles. Well, I had the last bit right. I wasn’t aware this came from the stable of producer Harry Alan Towers, less still of his pedigree, or lack thereof, as a sort of British Roger Corman (he tried his hand at Star Wars with The Shape of Things to Come and Conan the Barbarian with Gor , for example). More legitimately, if you wish to call it that, he was responsible for the Christopher Lee Fu Manchu flicks. Our Man in Marrakesh – riffing overtly on Graham Greene’s Our Man in Havana in title – seems to have in mind the then popular spy genre and its burgeoning spoofs, but it’s unsure which it is; too lightweight to work as a thriller and too light on laughs to elicit a chuckle.

Duffy. That old tangerine hipster.

Duffy (1968) (SPOILERS) It’s appropriate that James Coburn’s title character is repeatedly referred to as an old hipster in Robert Parrish’s movie, as that seemed to be precisely the niche Coburn was carving out for himself in the mid to late 60s, no sooner had Our Man Flint made him a star. He could be found partaking in jaundiced commentary on sexual liberation in Candy, falling headlong into counter culture in The President’s Analyst , and leading it in Duffy . He might have been two decades older than its primary adherents, but he was, to repeat an oft-used phrase here, very groovy. If only Duffy were too.

My Doggett would have called that crazy.

The X-Files 9.4: 4-D I get the impression no one much liked Agent Monica Reyes (Annabeth Gish), but I felt, for all the sub-Counsellor Troi, empath twiddling that dogged her characterisation, she was a mostly positive addition to the series’ last two years (of its main run). Undoubtedly, pairing her with Doggett, in anticipation of Gillian Anderson exiting just as David Duchovny had – you rewatch these seasons and you wonder where her head was at in hanging on – made for aggressively facile gender-swapped conflict positions on any given assignment. And generally, I’d have been more interested in seeing how two individuals sympathetic to the cause – her and Mulder – might have got on. Nevertheless, in an episode like 4-D you get her character, and Doggett’s, at probably their best mutual showing.

I tell you, it saw me! The hanged man’s asphyx saw me!

The Asphyx (1972) (SPOILERS) There was such a welter of British horror from the mid 60s to mid 70s, even leaving aside the Hammers and Amicuses, that it’s easy to lose track of them in the shuffle. This one, the sole directorial effort of Peter Newbrook (a cameraman for David Lean, then a cinematographer), has a strong premise and a decent cast, but it stumbles somewhat when it comes to taking that premise any place interesting. On the plus side, it largely eschews the grue. On the minus, directing clearly wasn’t Newbrook’s forte, and even aided by industry stalwart cinematographer Freddie Young (also a go-to for Lean), The Aspyhx is stylistically rather flat.

The best thing in the world for the inside of a man or a woman is the outside of a horse.

Marnie (1964) (SPOILERS) Hitch in a creative ditch. If you’ve read my Vertigo review, you’ll know I admired rather than really liked the picture many fete as his greatest work. Marnie is, in many ways, a redux, in the way De Palma kept repeating himself in the early 80s only significantly less delirious and… well, compelling. While Marnie succeeds in commanding the attention fitfully, it’s usually for the wrong reasons. And Hitch, digging his heels in as he strives to fashion a star against public disinterest – he failed to persuade Grace Kelly out of retirement for Marnie Rutland – comes entirely adrift with his leads.

Just wait. They’ll start listing side effects like the credits at the end of a movie.

Contagion  (2011) (SPOILERS) The plandemic saw Contagion ’s stock soar, which isn’t something that happens too often to a Steven Soderbergh movie. His ostensibly liberal outlook has hitherto found him on the side of the little people (class action suits) and interrogating the drugs trade while scrupulously avoiding institutional connivance (unless it’s Mexican institutional connivance). More recently, The Laundromat ’s Panama Papers puff piece fell fall flat on its face in attempting broad, knowing satire (in some respects, this is curious, as The Informant! is one of Soderbergh’s better-judged films, perhaps because it makes no bones about its maker’s indifference towards its characters). There’s no dilution involved with Contagion , however. It amounts to a bare-faced propaganda piece, serving to emphasise that the indie-minded director is Hollywood establishment through and through. This is a picture that can comfortably sit alongside any given Tinseltown handwringing over the Wa