It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
It was good acting from her and Bardem but Bond didn't really have much to do there.
To be fair, Bond barely knew her and she was rather blase about his almost being killed in the casino.
It seemed fairly clear to me that Bond was disgusted with what happened, and turned his face away and made the one-liner so that Silva didn't get any satisfaction from seeing a reaction.
Just because it's subtle doesn't mean that it isn't there. I think that this is an issue with SF for a lot of people - things weren't explained or acted as clearly as they would have liked. I find that a lot of the complaints that some people have were actually explained in the film, just not in a very obvious way. Perhaps it's because I saw it in Imax but Craig being affected by the death of Severine seemed pretty clear to me. I quite liked how it continued the game of "mental chess" that had started in the previous scene with Silva doing everything that he could to make Bond uncomfortable, and Bond refusing to show that it affected him.
Which in itself is probably a bad thing. I put it down to bad plotting by P+W vs good character work by Mendes. The result falls somewhere in the middle. You need both components to be top notch for it all to work seamlessly.
To be honest I don't remember M's speech in detail. What I took away from that scene was her character's phenomenal arrogance. I couldn't work out if it was entirely intentional, but given that she'd utterly c*cked up, I thought the defiance she showed and disrespect towards the politicians was completely out of place. She deserved to be given a right b*ll*cking and she should have sat there and take it like a professional, not start lecturing the committee and chucking poems at them. This was a moment for humility and facing her own falibility.
I'm honestly not sure what we were supposed to take away from those scenes. Are we supposed to be impressed by her 'f*** you' bolshyness, or is it a sign of her losing her grip - the end of an era of unaccountability and institutional incompetence that she has overseen? The film is full of symbolism, so it's entirely possible that Mendes intended M to represent the stupidity, arrogance and incompetence of the intelligence community (think Iraq war and dodgy dossiers).
It could have worked brilliantly if Silva had planned all along to take the courtroom hostage and use it as the moment for his final confrontation with M. This would have MADE SENSE - the evil genius has created this crisis and intended all along for the confrontation to climax infront of the parliamentary committee. Not only would we have had the much-needed face-off between M and the villain, but it would have provided an opportunity to make M seem sympathetic again, instead of coming over as some incompetent and useless old bat. Infact, if Silva's entrance had been preceded by M's admission of her errors and some acceptance for those mistakes made in difficult circumstances, it would have undermined Silva's own moral authority (let's face it, he had every reason to be pissed of with her). A couple of minutes of meaty verbal jousting between Dench and Mendes in the court room would have been the cue for Bond to make an ingenious entrance and rescue of M before heading off to Scotland.
Are we supposed to believe that Silva spent years hatching a plan only so that he could pump M full of lead at a committee meeting? He didn't want to force her to confront what she'd done? To accept her guilt? To express regret, humility, repentence in front of her political masters - to personally enjoy her professional and emotional destruction? No. All he wanted to do was shoot the cr*p out of her.
And then, as if that anti-climax wasn't disappointing enough, all we get at the end is a load more machine guns and explosions and some woeful nonsense about Bond's childhood (what does any of that stuff actually have to do with the rest of story?).
Does anyone know? Thanks.
You don't get anything out of these aspects of the film? And no, I am not calling you an idiot for not seeing what I see, though some of the more arrogant members on here would make that case. The way I see it (keyword, "I") is that M's poem is a symbol of both her and Bond. They are both aging, maybe not as capable as they were in the past (especially M), but they can still move on with an ability to never stop their duties to the UK. Bond returns after MI6 is attacked, and M vows to quit only when the job is done. The film is about trying to find Silva and never stop the hunt before any more lives have to be lost, of those M takes guilt over. In the hearing scene, to be truthful, Clair Dowar (MP) is the one being rude. She is the one who shows no professionalism, no maturity or sense of mind. She has no idea what is demanded of the head of MI6, and couldn't even begin to fathom it all. With Gareth's blessings, M makes the case for why 00s are still needed, and reflects on her own worries the world faces in our current time.
The "shadows", our enemies, can be anyone, not just a country you could pin point on a map. More than ever it is important to have humans in the field, especially those you can trust to do what needs to be done. Now, who am I to say what M did was completely justified to Silva or Bond. She sold Silva over, yes, but only because he wasn't abiding by the rules. He was the one who stuck his neck out and went beyond his reach. That isn't to say M is free of blame though. And the same for Bond. She made the call for Eve to take a shot, and Bond happened to be hit accidentally. That isn't entirely M's fault, as she didn't pull the trigger, but she did give the order, so once again, she isn't free of blame. I think the film has a underlying theme (amongst many other themes) of inevitability and duty. I am sure M knew her past with Silva had the chance to come back and get her, and I have heard the brilliant statement made that the reason she was so watchful over Bond was to stop him from turning into what Silva became. All the speeches she gave Bond in CR warning him about his recklessness could very well be her trying to insure that Bond had a head on his shoulders and knew the limits of his position, the limits that Silva crossed and ultimately paid for. So, in trading over Silva, M insured a safe transfer of British rule out of Hong Kong, and she gave one agent to insure the return of a greater 6. Yes, Silva was tortured once turned over, but M got some essential agents in greater numbers back. That was the call she had to make: 1 reckless agent for 6 that could be more competent and useful.
The underlying theme of duty feeds into this. M's job is never easy, and these are some of the tough calls she has to make. Swapping spies, ordering hits and trying to insure every second that she is making the right decisions for her country. Making those decisions will leave some graves laid in the ground, but that could also mean that through that she managed to obtain balance in the world of espionage that she has served under with the agents who made it out unscathed. All these responsibilities weight heavily on her and feed into the sense of inevitability that something from the past will come and get her. I truly believe that M knew it was her time to go. After the mess in Istanbul, the dead MI6 agents and Silva's attacks I think she couldn't see another avenue for her but death. In order to get Silva out of London where innocent people were being killed, M had to be the bait. M, the thing Silva wanted most of all, the very woman who he lived only to get back at. Sadly, we lost her, and the inevitability of death posed by her job and past actions finally came back to bite her. And it wasn't even Silva that killed her, but a random henchman. A mere "shadow", a man she didn't know and hadn't obtained a file on took her out, and that is the irony here. As she stated in the hearing, our enemies can be anyone. Anyone can kill us if they have the chance, whether it is our greatest enemies or a random thug.
Now, what about winning and losing? How does that fit into this film, you ask? Is the finale a loss for Bond? Let's see: Bond saved lives by getting Silva out of London where innocent people were dying. He got Silva into his environment out of Silva's technological advantage and faced him on an even playing field. Through booby traps and his own strategy, Bond was able to stop Silva and his men, succeeding in the mission, but at a cost. He lost the only maternal figure he had known past his mother's death. A woman who taught him the ropes and molded him into the agent he is at the present. So, did Bond really win then? I know what you are thinking. M was what Silva wanted, M died, so Bond loses, yes? But it isn't that easy. Silva didn't just want to kill her, he wanted to die with her, and he was angry as a thousand hells when he found out that one of his men took from him that satisfaction of giving her pain. His whole existence was predicated on dying with her, and through her death he found some kind of peace. That once she was dead (and him dead too, of course, by one bullet), that his purpose in life was fulfilled and he could die happily knowing that. But Bond stops him, ruining his goal. So, in a way it is Silva that is the loser, if anyone. But again, it isn't that simple.
If anything, the ending climax of Skyfall can teach us one important thing: Maybe there really are no winners or losers. Maybe the "winner" is just less damaged than the other guy. What is there really to win? On one side we have a pathetic man so wrapped up in his own grudges that he will kill anyone and destroy anything to get back at one old woman who he feels needs to face her sins. All he gets at the end of the day is an exhausting hunt spanning days and across continents, all ending in his death by something as old fashioned (and luddite) as a knife (irony). On the other side we have an agent so dedicated to his boss that he comes out of retirement after being shot from her orders, and yet he risks his hide to save her no matter the cost, all ending in her death after a brave fight to the end. Neither Silva or Bond won anything here, only achieving a loss. Bond was simply better off than Silva in the end, and his so called "victory" in stopping Silva is Pyrrhic. Yes, he saved lives by getting Silva out of the UK. Yes he held off his men and managed to kill them and Silva. But he also lost the most important woman in his life who gave herself to her service till the very end. Because M wanted nothing more than to let the death stop. She only wanted her and Bond to go to Scotland, only so that nobody else would have to die for her. And as she is passing in Bond's arms I think she is comforted with the fact that now there will be no more graves laid out because of her actions as head of MI6. And furthermore, she left her legacy, her merits of professionalism and determination against all odds in the agent she held dearest to her: Bond. It is through him that her honor will live on, and she can get the rest that her long serving body has deserved. This is just a chunk of what Skyfall compels me to see.
It's not English that's for certain. Turkish, no doubt.
It was one word wasn't it? I guess it was move in Turkish.
Agreed, and I completely understand. It would be boring if we all got the same things out of a film. Thanks for giving my post a read, and I apologize for any past animosity, mate. At the end of the day, we all love Bond, and that is the important thing. :)>-
Well we have one member that just loves Adele ;)
Seriously though, you're right. Lots of us argue on here day in day out but at the end of the day we're all fans.
And is Bond´s embarrassing hairdo in the casino scene one of the new tricks the old dog shows?
I´m not trying to nitpick, I just want to understand.
My second question is does anybody know why the barrel sequence is now at the end of Bond movies? I would prefer them at the begging.
If Bond had just jumped he wouldn't have made the train. Jumping off the bike propelled him forward, kinda road runner style, so he could catch the last carriage.
@Mallory answered your second question eloquently, and for your second:
Apparently Mendes tried to fit the gunbarrel at the beginning, but the gunbarrel didn't transfer well into a view of the opening shot, which he put at the end. I don't think that is true at all. They could have done the gunbarrel, had Bond shoot, and then move the gunbarrel right until we see the opening shot of Bond enter the door as the Bond theme strikes. Too bad, but it doesn't bug me as much as other fans on here.
At first I was furious at the idea of the GB at the end again but the DUN NA! teaser and Bond shadow walking into frame was the perfect alternative. And I liked the GB design too.
Silva's hearing would have been ringing due to Skyfall lodge blowing up about 20ft away from him, so it's possible he couldn't really hear that much. As for seeing it, he was pretty fixated on getting to M.
Exactly. Bond did it to light the way so he could see the hole he had previously made in the ice when he fought with Silva's henchman.
Pinewood studios actually ;)
Why do we think he came back?
I think there was two ways of looking at it: 1.)He saw that mi6 was coming under attack and came back to protect M who was clearly being targeted. 2.) He came back out of a sense of duty for England.
But it's not like he was the only agent who could have been send on the mission, M has other double 0 agents. Was M the reason he returned?
i agree with everything you said, i have said on here before that i like the fact that you have to piece some of it together and like you said most of the things are explained but in a subtle way.
I think he returned for M because there were the reports on the news and he see where the explosion happened and he would've known that was M's office.
It is both 1 and 2. And we all know that Bond is MI6's number one man. Who else would you send BUT Bond? Even at 40% he beats all the other agents at 70% and above.