Raoul Silva

chrisisall

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

One really cool thing about Silva's death is the irony of it, even beyond the fact that the tech wizard gets killed by the old style spy with an equally old fashioned weapon (the knife). What is also ironic is that Silva is trying to get at M for her betrayal of him, and yet he is the one who ends up getting "stabbed in the back" so to speak at the end.

Nicely put!
With all that I didn't like about SF, this sums up what WAS great about it IMO.

Creasy47

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

One really cool thing about Silva's death is the irony of it, even beyond the fact that the tech wizard gets killed by the old style spy with an equally old fashioned weapon (the knife). What is also ironic is that Silva is trying to get at M for her betrayal of him, and yet he is the one who ends up getting "stabbed in the back" so to speak at the end.

That's what makes his death so grand: all of the irony in it. Right when I saw Kincade set the knife on the table, I knew that's how he would get it. That, or the fact that someone spoiled it for me. Either way, it was obvious to my friend, too, who was oblivious on what was going to happen in the film.

Another bit of irony I enjoy is Tanner describing the new digs, saying that they are still finding old tunnels, and something about "aside from the rats," which I suppose hints at Bond and Silva (the "rats") chasing one another in the tunnels later on in the film.

RC7

Creasy47 wrote:

Right when I saw Kincade set the knife on the table, I knew that's how he would get it.

This is precisely why I didn't like it, actually that's not strictly true, it was more disappointment than dislike. As I've mentioned in another thread, I thought it was a bit film school 101. I thought it was too obvious and just a Mendes double bluff.

@Creasy - yes, the rats reference is neat.

SuperheroSith

He is the greatest Bond villain made. Can we close this thread now?

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

RC7 wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

Right when I saw Kincade set the knife on the table, I knew that's how he would get it.

This is precisely why I didn't like it, actually that's not strictly true, it was more disappointment than dislike. As I've mentioned in another thread, I thought it was a bit film school 101. I thought it was too obvious and just a Mendes double bluff.

@Creasy - yes, the rats reference is neat.

@RC7, I can see why you could think that. It is a lot like in TDKR when

Alfred mentions his wish of seeing Bruce at a cafe and right at that moment you know how the film is going to end. It doesn't really ruin the tension, but it does take away the shock value of the climax and resolution.

Maybe Mendes was thinking it would be better to show that Bond had the knife by giving it a mention onscreen so that we weren't scratching our heads when Bond uses it, asking where he got it from. It is also another motif of "old ways" being the best that is seen numerous times in the film.

RC7

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

RC7 wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

Right when I saw Kincade set the knife on the table, I knew that's how he would get it.

This is precisely why I didn't like it, actually that's not strictly true, it was more disappointment than dislike. As I've mentioned in another thread, I thought it was a bit film school 101. I thought it was too obvious and just a Mendes double bluff.

@Creasy - yes, the rats reference is neat.

@RC7, I can see why you could think that. It is a lot like in TDKR when

Alfred mentions his wish of seeing Bruce at a cafe and right at that moment you know how the film is going to end. It doesn't really ruin the tension, but it does take away the shock value of the climax and resolution.

Maybe Mendes was thinking it would be better to show that Bond had the knife by giving it a mention onscreen so that we weren't scratching our heads when Bond uses it, asking where he got it from. It is also another motif of "old ways" being the best that is seen numerous times in the film.

Yes, that's a good comparison.

Ludovico

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Maybe Mendes was thinking it would be better to show that Bond had the knife by giving it a mention onscreen so that we weren't scratching our heads when Bond uses it, asking where he got it from. It is also another motif of "old ways" being the best that is seen numerous times in the film.

I think so too. In fact had Bond thrown his knife out of nowhere so to speak, it would have looked a bit like a deus ex machina.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Ludovico wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Maybe Mendes was thinking it would be better to show that Bond had the knife by giving it a mention onscreen so that we weren't scratching our heads when Bond uses it, asking where he got it from. It is also another motif of "old ways" being the best that is seen numerous times in the film.

I think so too. In fact had Bond thrown his knife out of nowhere so to speak, it would have looked a bit like a deus ex machina.

At the end of the day I think it was a better choice to mention it than leave it unaddressed as to where Bond got it.

Ludovico

Yes, especially at such a crucial moment.

Sluggsy_Slumber

Getafix wrote:

Creasy47 wrote:

dragonsky wrote:

Great actor,great villain,great backstory,great character overall

Anti-climactic death.

He can easily be put in top5 Bond villains of all time.

It's an amazing death when you see the irony in it. I had the same thinking as you until someone explained it to me.

Silva, this highly technological, take-over-the-world-with-a-push-of-a-button villain has crafted this deluxe, complicated plan via hacking, computers, and disguises. Technology meets days of old when he gets taken down with...a knife. You see him as an unstoppable man who hides behind his powerful computers, yet at the end of the day, he can't beat one of the oldest weapons around.

Yeah... but by the end of the film Silva turns out to be pretty old school as well though, doesn't he? Helicopters, machine guns, grenades. It's not exactly hi-tech. I get what you're saying, but I don't think this changes the fact that your initial feeling was that it was all a bit of an anti-climax - a feeling that I and I think quite a lot of other viewers shared. They could have still had Bond take him out with a knife but done it in a way that was genuinely dramatic. Instead, one second Bond is battling a henchman 20 feet below the surface of a frozen loch and the next time we see him he's knifing Silva in the back.

Given the fact that Silva had already been royally stabbed in the back (matephorically) by M, it actually seems the ultimate injustice that this is how he is killed. Like @SpectreNumberOne says, Silva is the genuine victim in SF. M's sense of victim-hood and Bond's navel-gazing self-pity fade into insignificance compared to the injustice that Silva has suffered - betrayed, sold out and abandoned by a very sinister MI6.

Sold out because he broke MI6 rules and jeopardized the peaceful transfer of Hong Kong from British to Chinese rule. Silva overstepped his bounds and he paid the price. He was no victim, no matter how much he thought himself to be one.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Exactly, @Sluggsy_Slumber. Silva got what was coming to him, and he brought it all on himself.

Tuulia

I agree, Sluggsy and Brady. In pretty much any job one can't just do whatever the hell one pleases, and certainly not in a job where there can be serious consequences... like when one works at a Secret Service, obviously. While what had happened to Silva explained him having become a broken man, and a deeply bitter and angry individual, none of it justified his murderous response - even though he himself felt that it did. I felt sorry for him and what had become of him, he clearly was completely broken inside and deeply unhappy. Still, he brought it all on himself - the imprisonment and torture (he didn't end up there as an innocent victim) as well as his death.

thelordflasheart

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Ludovico wrote:

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:

Maybe Mendes was thinking it would be better to show that Bond had the knife by giving it a mention onscreen so that we weren't scratching our heads when Bond uses it, asking where he got it from. It is also another motif of "old ways" being the best that is seen numerous times in the film.

I think so too. In fact had Bond thrown his knife out of nowhere so to speak, it would have looked a bit like a deus ex machina.

At the end of the day I think it was a better choice to mention it than leave it unaddressed as to where Bond got it.

Agreed completely. It's a fine line; how do you show that Bond has a knife without telegraphing Silva's death? I don't know if you can; I like how the edge was taken off by the inclusion of Kincaid's line. They did the thing they had to do (show the provenance of the knife) but also showed the *reason* for it - that it tied into the overall theme of the film. Great choice in the writing IMHO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

Perilagu_Khan

Tuulia wrote:

I agree, Sluggsy and Brady. In pretty much any job one can't just do whatever the hell one pleases, and certainly not in a job where there can be serious consequences... like when one works at a Secret Service, obviously. While what had happened to Silva explained him having become a broken man, and a deeply bitter and angry individual, none of it justified his murderous response - even though he himself felt that it did. I felt sorry for him and what had become of him, he clearly was completely broken inside and deeply unhappy. Still, he brought it all on himself - the imprisonment and torture (he didn't end up there as an innocent victim) as well as his death.

And I would add that M received six imprisoned British agents in return for giving up Silva. The filmmakers leave little doubt who was in the right and who was wrong here.

Ludovico

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

I agree, Sluggsy and Brady. In pretty much any job one can't just do whatever the hell one pleases, and certainly not in a job where there can be serious consequences... like when one works at a Secret Service, obviously. While what had happened to Silva explained him having become a broken man, and a deeply bitter and angry individual, none of it justified his murderous response - even though he himself felt that it did. I felt sorry for him and what had become of him, he clearly was completely broken inside and deeply unhappy. Still, he brought it all on himself - the imprisonment and torture (he didn't end up there as an innocent victim) as well as his death.

And I would add that M received six imprisoned British agents in return for giving up Silva. The filmmakers leave little doubt who was in the right and who was wrong here.

Hey, good to see you back! I was Everyman in the old forums.

0BradyM0Bondfanatic7

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

I agree, Sluggsy and Brady. In pretty much any job one can't just do whatever the hell one pleases, and certainly not in a job where there can be serious consequences... like when one works at a Secret Service, obviously. While what had happened to Silva explained him having become a broken man, and a deeply bitter and angry individual, none of it justified his murderous response - even though he himself felt that it did. I felt sorry for him and what had become of him, he clearly was completely broken inside and deeply unhappy. Still, he brought it all on himself - the imprisonment and torture (he didn't end up there as an innocent victim) as well as his death.

And I would add that M received six imprisoned British agents in return for giving up Silva. The filmmakers leave little doubt who was in the right and who was wrong here.

Exactly. M did what was best for the service and England, and got six loyal agents for one bad seed that had turned rogue in a sense.

MrBond

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Tuulia wrote:

I agree, Sluggsy and Brady. In pretty much any job one can't just do whatever the hell one pleases, and certainly not in a job where there can be serious consequences... like when one works at a Secret Service, obviously. While what had happened to Silva explained him having become a broken man, and a deeply bitter and angry individual, none of it justified his murderous response - even though he himself felt that it did. I felt sorry for him and what had become of him, he clearly was completely broken inside and deeply unhappy. Still, he brought it all on himself - the imprisonment and torture (he didn't end up there as an innocent victim) as well as his death.

And I would add that M received six imprisoned British agents in return for giving up Silva. The filmmakers leave little doubt who was in the right and who was wrong here.

Welcome back (can i say so?) @Perilagu! Long time no see.

Perilagu_Khan

Thanks for the warm welcome, gents. I believe I'll mix myself a martini.

Mmmmm. Perfect.

:-*

Samuel001

Hello stranger. :)

NicNac

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Thanks for the warm welcome, gents. I believe I'll mix myself a martini.

Mmmmm. Perfect.

:-*

Great to hear from you Khanners. :-) For the newer people around here PK was one of our top blokes at the old 'Keeping The British End Up' forum.

Perilagu_Khan

I feel like Blofeld popping up in the PTS of FYEO.

SirHenryLeeChaChing

Great to have you back Perilagu, always good to reunite with KTBEU members! I know you'll have lots of great insights to come.

Sir Henry

Ludovico

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

I feel like Blofeld popping up in the PTS of FYEO.

As long as you don't say similar lines. Oh, maybe it is a sign that Blofeld will return in the series.

Greg_Of_Canada

He's definitely the best Bond villain in the Craig movies but not in the overall series. He is in the top list though.

Pierce2Daniel

Is 'Raoul' cannon? I thought he was just Silva.

Sir_James_Moloney

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

Is 'Raoul' cannon? I thought he was just Silva.

I suppose it's a bit like "Red" Grant, who's only ever referred to as "Donald Grant" onscreen.

It's strange that we refer to him as "Silva" at all. I think I'm right in thinking that his name is only mentioned twice in the whole film, once as "Mr Silva" and once as "Tiago Rodriguez". I wonder why we don't call him by his real name?

Perilagu_Khan

Sir_James_Moloney wrote:

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

Is 'Raoul' cannon? I thought he was just Silva.

I suppose it's a bit like "Red" Grant, who's only ever referred to as "Donald Grant" onscreen.

It's strange that we refer to him as "Silva" at all. I think I'm right in thinking that his name is only mentioned twice in the whole film, once as "Mr Silva" and once as "Tiago Rodriguez". I wonder why we don't call him by his real name?

What is his name in the official roster of cast and characters? Is the character's name mentioned in the credits?

Tuulia

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Sir_James_Moloney wrote:

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

Is 'Raoul' cannon? I thought he was just Silva.

I suppose it's a bit like "Red" Grant, who's only ever referred to as "Donald Grant" onscreen.

It's strange that we refer to him as "Silva" at all. I think I'm right in thinking that his name is only mentioned twice in the whole film, once as "Mr Silva" and once as "Tiago Rodriguez". I wonder why we don't call him by his real name?

What is his name in the official roster of cast and characters? Is the character's name mentioned in the credits?

I don't think it's strange at all to refer to the character called Silva as Silva. ;) That is his new identity, the one we see in the movie. We don't actually see him as Tiago Rodriguez at all, even if that's his real name - that's his past, and Silva is who he is now. He has reconstructed himself - the looks, the name and all, and his personality has surely changed as well, so all in all he is a very different man as Silva than he was a long time ago when he was known by his real name. He isn't known as Tiago Rodriguez in Skyfall, so it would make no sense IMO to refer to him by that name when discussing the character in the movie.

The credits at the end of Skyfall have him as Silva, and the credits also mention "Silva's henchmen" etc. Also in the Bond On Set - Filming Skyfall book the character is called simply Silva. In the movie both Bond and M address the character as Mr. Silva when taking to him, and Bond, Q, Tanner and Mallory call him Silva when they talk about him, so why would we refer to him by his "real" (=previous) name? Also, the people who made the movie (director, actors etc.) all refer to the character as Silva.

The name "Silva" actually gets mentioned several times during Skyfall, the name "Tiago Rodriguez" only once. Still, that one time is, of course, important, especially considering what the name is (I mean the Tiago = James bit), and I think that just further underlines the fact that this is not really the same man anymore.

As for "Raoul"... somebody knows about that, surely? :)

Pierce2Daniel

Tuulia wrote:

Perilagu_Khan wrote:

Sir_James_Moloney wrote:

Pierce2Daniel wrote:

Is 'Raoul' cannon? I thought he was just Silva.

I suppose it's a bit like "Red" Grant, who's only ever referred to as "Donald Grant" onscreen.

It's strange that we refer to him as "Silva" at all. I think I'm right in thinking that his name is only mentioned twice in the whole film, once as "Mr Silva" and once as "Tiago Rodriguez". I wonder why we don't call him by his real name?

What is his name in the official roster of cast and characters? Is the character's name mentioned in the credits?

I don't think it's strange at all to refer to the character called Silva as Silva. ;) That is his new identity, the one we see in the movie. We don't actually see him as Tiago Rodriguez at all, even if that's his real name - that's his past, and Silva is who he is now. He has reconstructed himself - the looks, the name and all, and his personality has surely changed as well, so all in all he is a very different man as Silva than he was a long time ago when he was known by his real name. He isn't known as Tiago Rodriguez in Skyfall, so it would make no sense IMO to refer to him by that name when discussing the character in the movie.

The credits at the end of Skyfall have him as Silva, and the credits also mention "Silva's henchmen" etc. Also in the Bond On Set - Filming Skyfall book the character is called simply Silva. In the movie both Bond and M address the character as Mr. Silva when taking to him, and Bond, Q, Tanner and Mallory call him Silva when they talk about him, so why would we refer to him by his "real" (=previous) name? Also, the people who made the movie (director, actors etc.) all refer to the character as Silva.

The name "Silva" actually gets mentioned several times during Skyfall, the name "Tiago Rodriguez" only once. Still, that one time is, of course, important, especially considering what the name is (I mean the Tiago = James bit), and I think that just further underlines the fact that this is not really the same man anymore.

As for "Raoul"... somebody knows about that, surely? :)

Perfectly put. Tiago died in that prison in China and there Silva was born. Silva has reconstructed himself on the outside (his gaudy dress and flamboyant hair giving an impression of who he is), but in actual fact he's rotten inside and his appearance is a façade.

As for the Raoul question:

Go to 1.48

I still don't think Raoul is canon.

Ludovico

Reading about it, it struck me how similar Silva is to the novel's Dr No. Left for dead, identity created, change of name, live on an island as a reclusive man, etc.