Home › Bond Movies › Skyfall
Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
Severine in Skyfall: SPOILERS!
^ 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
Nope, not bothered at all. It was a bit of an Andrea Anders moment (TMWTGG) really. But this time around executed more thoughtfully. First of all, during her short performance, she really managed to impress me. That moment, in the Macau Casino Where Bond and Severine are talking, starts so joyfully, but ends up in a fearful moment for 'concubine' Severine, because that's what she is.
I could smell her fear, when Bond said that he knew Severine was hiding something. Something that may cost her life. In a way, this is Bond's empathy towards women and it reminded me so much of the scenes between Vesper Lyndt and Bond in 'Casino Royale'.
Moreover, why brutally killing her off and not having more screentime for Severine? Well, we wouldn't have a great memorable scene for Bond antagonist Silva then no? That scene, where Silva puts the small glass of scotch on her 'skull' is priceless and extremely funny. Until the moment she brutally destroys her skull, not only destroying the glass, but also killing her. Cheesy humour and laughter suddenly changed into a 'fuck hell, that guy is absolutely psychotic. Why...o why'-moment and deep silence.
That makes everything come together. This creates the suspense and emotional drama that only Sam Mendes could have added. Look back on the Brosnan-movies and you know what I mean.
I thought it was harsh, very Fleming, and entirely memorable.
I thought Patrice would be a return to the old days of good memorable henchmen but no. He was tough and his fights with Bond were good but he was a generic character really, nothing intresting about him, just an assassin Silva hired.
Severine was great and painfully underused.
Agreed. I mentioned in another thread that because the actress and character were featured so heavily in the lead-up to the film her death really surprised me - and that's great when it happens in something so formulaic like a Bond film.
I can see why you feel that way, but the point of the scenes on the island is that Silva is doing everything that he can think of to un-nerve Bond. Craig parries every thrust, and his "reaction" to Severine's death was part of that (the look of disgust on his face was not just because of the scotch!).
I agree with GG on his thoughts, she is a minor figure designed to create sympathy for the viewer and get heat on Silva. LFH also makes a great point, Silva shooting her sure seemed like a case of gamesmanship, but between her bringing Bond to him and likely feeling a bit cuckolded as well, this may be one of those things that they want us to debate as far as his motivations.
I'll have to go back for that look of disgust on Bond's face, I only saw it once but will be going back at least 1-2 times more to burn it into my brain. We probably could have had Bond walk over to her while they were rounding up Silva, and maybe Mendes wanted us to consider whether he said goodbye or not. SF is a lot deeper than the few detractors around here are giving it credit for. I'm not trying to be unsympathetic, but in the past 6 movies including TND, we've had 3 instances of Bond kissing corpses and I am sort of glad we got away from that heavy emotion in this one. I see it now as this was a woman Bond wanted info and sex from. She offered both, he got both and kept his emotions in check. All part of the character progression I would say.
She was wasted in this film.
Eve Moneypenny was "promoted" to secretary? Good grief!
A lot of people are using "secretary" in a dismissive way. The high-power firms for whom friends work have administrative assistants that can do a lot of the functions of the CEO (apart from decision making) so they are better able to assist them. I see this Moneypenny as being like that, as well as being able to give M guidance on communications based on her field experience (I doubt Tanner, as intelligent as his is, can quite give that experience - that's not a knock against him but another asset of Eve as MP). I also see her as fulfilling a bit of a bodyguard function as well.
This isn't 1962.
Please spare me. Okay? Please. I'm a secretary. And I'm always treated as the low end of the totem pole in my office. So don't lecture me about people using "secretary" in a dismissive way. We all know that the only reason Eve is now Miss Moneypenny the secretary, is because she believed Bond's bullshit that she wasn't cut out to be a field agent. This . . . coming from a man who failed to recover the list of NATO agents and save M's life. She told M that her shot wasn't clean . . . and was ordered to take it anyway. And for that, she's deemed "not cut out to be an agent"? This is sexist bullshit.
Please don't take offence to this because I do mean this as serious advice - I think you should work in a different office if they treat you that way. I know admin assistants who have been promoted to Ops Managers and even Branch Managers because of the experience they've gained working in that role. I think the way you're treated says more about a company than the job title (although if they actually call the position "secretary" that says a lot about them right there).
In fact, some admin assistants at friend's firms and companies can make tremendously high salaries because of their management skills - even approaching $80K. Of course, the more senior the person you're assisting and your skill set determine that.
I agree with you in a way... Naomi Harris hyped up her role to be a strong character, etc., and it turns out that her character just decided to quit due to her own incompetence?? That's just kind of insulting... even Goodnight or Rosie didn't quit, and they were WAY worse than Eve at their job. They could have written that part much better.
I agree. I was disappointed as well. If they wanted to show that Eve really was not cut out for field work, they should have done a better job. As of now, her incompetence is mainly in her head.
Please don't take offense, but are you aware of the fact that many secretaries and office assistants are treated this way? Or that thanks to the economic situation, getting a "better" job is out of the question at the moment?
As of now, her incompetence is mainly in her head
Thanks to Bond. He knew that M had ordered Eve to take the shot, despite her pointing out that it wasn't a clean one. Yet, he insinuated in two scenes that she wasn't cut out to be an agent - when they first saw each other after the Istanbul debacle and near the end. It was really insulting that he expressed this belief after she had saved him in Macao. Even worse, when Bond "agreed" with Eve that she wasn't made out to be a field agent, I heard a man in the audience snickering. That really angered me.
Considering his failures in this case, perhaps Bond should have become M's new secretary.
Also, considering the return to the 'classic' setting at the end of the film, it could have also been a nice touch to have the traditional end scene with her and Bond. But given the way the rest of the plot went, it would not have made sense for her to show up at the end, unless she was worked into the rest of the story. But the third act was really about Bond and M's relationship. So...hmm...this one gets me thinking...not so sure about it.
Question is, doesn't part of the Bond formula even work anymore? Is it too cliche? Does it wrap things up too nicely?
I think Murdoch is spot on in regards to Eve deciding to take a desk job after the emotional baggage she was carrying after nearly killing a fellow agent. This all made perfect sense to me and when she announced her surname at the end of the film I smiled inwardly. I look forward to the playful flirtations she will have with Craig in the next film(s).
As for Severine, I did not have a problem with her small amount of screen time. the time she graced the screen with her presence gave me a real connection to her and her death was reminiscent of the earlier films: gritty realism. Her death serves the purpose of sacrificial lamb, someone the audience felt some connection to, and it gives insight into what a sick SOB Silva is.
I was sad to see Judi Dench killed off but I kinda saw this coming and was expecting it. I know a lot of members here thought Ralph Fiennes would be Blofeld but to see his character, Gareth Mallory be appointed the new M. I liked that.
I liked the new Q. I look forward to his and Bond's future josting.
Ah. Another excuse. When did the movie displayed Eve's anxiety or guilty over shooting another agent? If she was really that upset over it, why assist Bond in Macao (where she saved his ass, by the way)? Why didn't she give up being a field agent earlier?
Did the writers really expected the viewers to fill in the blanks over this matter? Or expect us to be stupid enough not to mind their crappy writing?
It's a movie you're not supposed to take it seriously. Maybe knowing Bond was indeed alive and well generated great relief in her. You might not like the movie, but don't call us stupid because we enjoyed it.
I don't know why you are so mad about this and seem to take it so personally. It's true, not everybody is suited for field work, even though they may be good at it. I think it0s the tought of living like that everyday that puts Eve off, the idea of having to face situations like that everyday.
And by the way, where I work the secretaries are very respected and hold a lot of power.
It's a movie you're not supposed to take it seriously. Maybe knowing Bond was indeed alive and well generated great relief in her. You might not like the movie, but don't call us stupid because we enjoyed it.
Why do people use this excuse for writing that someone else finds questionable? Tell me . . . if you hadn't liked "SKYFALL", would you be using this excuse? Even if I find questionable writing in a movie that I like, I would still acknowledge bad writing when I see it.
But not everyone sees bad writing the same. Story telling is not elemental. It's not the same to everyone, and it shouldn't be the same to everyone.
They're called opinions. You have them, we have them. Now can we move on?