"Did i overcomplicate the plot ?" - Skyfall Appreciation & Discussion

13738404243

Comments

  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Interesting thoughts.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Interesting thoughts.

    absolutely. And seemed to have tempered some of the more feverish voices.
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    I'm tempted to keep gushing here because SF is just so blooming good when you consider this overarching story, things makes sense. From actually seeing Bond trying to shoot his own shadows in the song sequence, and of course stopping when 'Silva' points a gun at him. Its literal - its telling you. The wound in the chest is a reference to Bond's pyschological wounds. His pulling down by a massive female hand (mother earth the great healer - you're coming in here to heal and deal with things!), the burning up of the multiple false selves, the going through the eye (window of the soul and all that), and the house being the representation of oneself, or as psychologists see it your mind. And we enter it through his eye!

    And the connections in the characters and themes (pass the tests), 'he's one of us', from the same place as Bond - the shadows. Silva being an exaggerated version of Bond - very blond hair, brutal with women, a 'brilliant' agent just like Bond, all ego, all revenge, uncontrollable, no moral compass etc like an out of control Bond, obviously an orphan like Bond. They both have the same 'mother' - by implication they're kind of brothers. Dragons can have lots of different meanings but courage and wisdom are always high on any list and there's lots in this film.

    The famous forgotten agent list that drives the film at the beginning is a device to get the conflict set up, its actually irrelevent that it continues into the film as a plot development point. And if it did it would put emphasis on the wrong thing. Its not a film making mistake but a deliberate well thought out idea to quietly discard it along the way as the film progresses. It was only a catalyst pure and simple.

    Ach its so good I'm going to stop shortly. But consider also how much of this film has Bond down in the earth or under things. His head barely breaks a horizon point. In SP its the complete reverse. I really like the use of the union jack at the end because thats a symbol to show Bond himself being more united. Its about his unity not the UK, or so it very clearly seems to me anyway.

    Well, I feel Bond has been a brave tiger and done a difficult thing. Hurrah for JB !! And hurrah for the franchise and where its heading.... over and out ....
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    anyone wrote: »
    I'm tempted to keep gushing here because SF is just so blooming good when you consider this overarching story, things makes sense. From actually seeing Bond trying to shoot his own shadows in the song sequence, and of course stopping when 'Silva' points a gun at him. Its literal - its telling you. The wound in the chest is a reference to Bond's pyschological wounds. His pulling down by a massive female hand (mother earth the great healer - you're coming in here to heal and deal with things!), the burning up of the multiple false selves, the going through the eye (window of the soul and all that), and the house being the representation of oneself, or as psychologists see it your mind. And we enter it through his eye!

    And the connections in the characters and themes (pass the tests), 'he's one of us', from the same place as Bond - the shadows. Silva being an exaggerated version of Bond - very blond hair, brutal with women, a 'brilliant' agent just like Bond, all ego, all revenge, uncontrollable, no moral compass etc like an out of control Bond, obviously an orphan like Bond. They both have the same 'mother' - by implication they're kind of brothers. Dragons can have lots of different meanings but courage and wisdom are always high on any list and there's lots in this film.

    The famous forgotten agent list that drives the film at the beginning is a device to get the conflict set up, its actually irrelevent that it continues into the film as a plot development point. And if it did it would put emphasis on the wrong thing. Its not a film making mistake but a deliberate well thought out idea to quietly discard it along the way as the film progresses. It was only a catalyst pure and simple.

    Ach its so good I'm going to stop shortly. But consider also how much of this film has Bond down in the earth or under things. His head barely breaks a horizon point. In SP its the complete reverse. I really like the use of the union jack at the end because thats a symbol to show Bond himself being more united. Its about his unity not the UK, or so it very clearly seems to me anyway.

    Well, I feel Bond has been a brave tiger and done a difficult thing. Hurrah for JB !! And hurrah for the franchise and where its heading.... over and out ....

    Let me ask you: you're approaching this from a Jungian point of view-- something I myself wouldn't disagree with.
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    Not necessarily, but I think the filmaking team definitely took bits of that approach to put things into the film to show off the deeper story. I'm not well up on Jung, I'd do badly on a quiz of his work. But I would say my approach is through seeing these aspects of the film from the general huge approach that they're taking - that is to say: western esotericism as a whole and bits of hermeticism. Particularly from the point of view of the inner journey a person goes on. I know Jung was heavily influenced by these things. The script writers, Mendes, the whole inner team have definitely secreted esoteric personal inner spiritual change as the reason behind this film. The western tradition of the individual on a personal journey - inner knowing and change and personal initiation as at the heart of this film for sure. Bond is a classic modern character who represents that western almost 'cult' of the individual.

    And SF almost pales when you get into SP! They really thought that one out, its thick with symbolism of all kinds and double/triple meanings. The last act is more tricky to see at first but its crazy rich with this stuff too.

    The main thing is that I have no wish to see what I want to see - thats an important thing to stress. No other popular films I can think of off the top of my head have done what they've done with these two films. But I'm not a film buff either. I can share more insights gained from the film if you wish. I am keen to say though I don't consider this film fan theory, its way too deliberate and well placed for that. Also SF and SP work in the right chronological order of spiritual change. SP's deep story could not come before SF had been achieved. Both films mutually support each other. And that makes sense!

    Sorry - almost went off track, what you think, and more importantly you know more about Jung? - you said you wouldn't disagree with that point of view, what makes sense to you?

  • peterpeter Toronto
    edited October 2018 Posts: 9,509
    @anyone Jung wrote about archetypal events (birth, death separation from parents...), and archetypal figures (child (Bond), wise old man (Mallory), wise old woman (M), the trickster (Silva) and the hero (007-- not Bond per se, but 007))...

    Taking all of these, mixing them with Jospeh Campbell's The Hero Cycle (The Call to adventure, the journey/obstacles, the death and the re-birth), which is something Hollywood loves to use, and I think it's clear that SF deliberately was developed on a mixture of these premises. And the imagery found in the credits hauntingly reminded me of Jung's interpretations of dreams (where we confront these archetypal events and figures).
  • @anyone @peter The academics of psychology are far too complicated for a Bond fan like me, however the rebirth concept in these two films is fascinating. Bond has a symbolic death and in rebirth is brought back to his home of origin. To defeat his advisory, an agent is sent by his step brother (the audience finds this out later in the second film) to stop him, Bond is forced to use a weapon of the “old ways,… which are best”. Something taught to him by his father’s gamekeeper when he was a child, and he now uses as he transcends the stages of his symbolic rebirth. He also suffers the death of his mentor “M”, who trusted him and gave him “00” status. In the second film, he confronts Marco Sciarra, during the Day of the Dead celebration, where both Bond and Sciarra are masked as “Death”. Sciarra was the last link to the “Organization” that “M” has before her own demise, but she instructs Bond to also attend the funeral. His adversary, the step brother, is there also but neither acknowledges the other. Still Bond is able to find the clues that lead him to Bloefeld. The Pale King, Mr White, his daughter, Dr. Swann, and of course the Ring, which ties them all together. This is all movie magic, and great fun. Movies after all have a limited framework in which to piece it all together and tell a story. We meet Mr. White, the Pale King in Casino Royal, “M” alludes to a mysterious organization in QOS, and in Sky Fall the threads all begin to come together, with the absolute death of “M”. Bond is the protagonist of the plot and as in FRWL, all of the planning by Specter is geared solely toward trapping and eliminating Bond. Bloefeld, being Bonds doppelganger is a bit theatrical, but provides a smooth flow to script and story line, after all does it really matter who Bloefrld is or where he came from. Bond’s refusal to shoot Bloefeld is appropriate here because to do so at Bloefeld’s urging would only close the trap on Bond, demonstrating that he is no different than his enemy, and therefore spell his own demise. HMMMM! It’s all very interesting and has that “Der Ring des Nibelungen” by Wagner feel to it, if you like opera. Bond on the other hand, of course can’t die, since that would be the end of Bond movies, and no real Bond fan wants that. It all works very nicely, unless you try to turn Bond into your best friend next door, or even worse try to live like him. He is after all a fictional character, though one who we all like to see as “hero”.
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    peter wrote: »
    @anyone Jung wrote about archetypal events (birth, death separation from parents...), and archetypal figures (child (Bond), wise old man (Mallory), wise old woman (M), the trickster (Silva) and the hero (007-- not Bond per se, but 007))...

    Taking all of these, mixing them with Jospeh Campbell's The Hero Cycle (The Call to adventure, the journey/obstacles, the death and the re-birth), which is something Hollywood loves to use, and I think it's clear that SF deliberately was developed on a mixture of these premises. And the imagery found in the credits hauntingly reminded me of Jung's interpretations of dreams (where we confront these archetypal events and figures).

    I tried to do a quick-don't-panic-crash-course-on-Jung after your input. I realised I wasn't as up on it as I thought. However, I see more tie-in with your archetypal events, I reckon Campbell's stuff has been plumbed plenty times by film makers especially after star wars. I can see the archetypal figures working out in the way you describe, Silva as trickster for sure. I've had a real bug about where to place Mallory, and its surprising that in both films there's a lion motif kicking around when we see him for the first times in both, Bond then gets that motif when he walks off with Dr Swann at the end of SP. I'm not sure precisely what Mallory's all about symbolically speaking. If there's any other ideas out there?

    And I totally agree the song sequence really pulls out subconscious stuff that we meet in dreams. Some of it is so incredibly specific though - and refers to an even deeper level than the psychological . You see the bit where the dragon burns up his psyche completely and pushes through from the psychological level to the spiritual (thats what the very quick weird malformed anguished mental pain stuff is about), that transition can come about and be deliberately forced through what you could call psycho-spiritual shock and in this case its Bond's Near Death Experience (from the shot on the bridge) as witnessed in the whole song sequence. When we switch to the surging forward black and white moving images we are of course seeing things from Bond's spiritual sight perspective. Looking through his inner eye. There's a cheeky reference to it on the way ('...what you see I see') to make the point. If you're still not sure about this then watch when he comes out of that inner sight back to more normal sight we see his lower body from his perspective, the film boffins are making sure we knew where we were - inside Bond spiritually!!!!!
    During inner sight these are the kind of images and forward movement and colouring and intensity you see - when you are in this state. Mendes and all have clearly consulted someone to capture this inner visual state. Wow? No?

    Wow! Yes I'd say. I know of no other 2 films that have thought to do this kind of thing so consistently using trick after trick right under our very noses. Its called 'hiding in plain sight' and both films are stuffed full of it. The big question is why do it if it can go unnoticed.

    So Bond sees women, images grouped in 4s a reference to the unity of the 4 elements and the cross itself, the heart as a cross (Rosicrucians used the red rose and black cross) and the heart as a sign of courage, and then straight into an image of his childhood house. He's going to need the courage and heart and the four elements to go into himself and face his traumatic past to understand what has happened to him and who he now is and face that Silva self.

    So DID I OVERCOMPLICATE THE PLOT???? Blimey I forgot the thread had this title here. I hope not and I hope so.




  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2018 Posts: 4,582
    I have been noting the Jungian influences in SF for a few years. One thing of note is the paych eval: the word asociation is pure Jung.
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    So Legionnaire, peter, and TripAces all had a rebirth or Jung type observation about the film? Did anyone else? Did it feel obvious? Or sound like nonsense?

  • edited October 2018 Posts: 684
    anyone wrote: »
    So Legionnaire, peter, and TripAces all had a rebirth or Jung type observation about the film? Did anyone else? Did it feel obvious? Or sound like nonsense?
    I guess I've kind of wondered what a Jungian analysis of SF would look like, @anyone, without ever actually having pursued it. But that's a film that's always been happy to encourage analysis of every kind. Never thought about Jung in relation to SP, which I was happy to place alongside the rest of the series in considering, let's say, composed of mythic pieces. I think that can sums up much of the series pretty well: made out of bits of myth, maybe even more consciously than something like STAR WARS (even if SW in the end serves more traditionally as a myth), on which Campbell's intentional influence seems to have been grossly overestimated. (See Michael Kaminski's Secret History of Star Wars.)

    Someone can correct me, but as a young man I believe Fleming wrote Jung a fan letter. So I don't think such issues as you've discussed would've been beyond Fleming's notice. Jung could be therefore (regardless of what Mendes and co. have done with Bond) baked into the foundations of Bond and thus to a certain extent inescapable. At any rate there have always been mythic overtones in Bond and to go from myth to Jung is no great distance, especially for someone like Mendes who graduated with a first in English from Cambridge.

    That's all a way of saying I definitely don't think it's nonsense, @anyone. I've loved reading everything you've posted so far, and would be delighted to hear whatever other thoughts you had on this or that. Great stuff!
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    edited October 2018 Posts: 4,582
    Strog wrote: »
    anyone wrote: »
    So Legionnaire, peter, and TripAces all had a rebirth or Jung type observation about the film? Did anyone else? Did it feel obvious? Or sound like nonsense?
    I guess I've kind of wondered what a Jungian analysis of SF would look like, @anyone, without ever actually having pursued it. But that's a film that's always been happy to encourage analysis of every kind. Never thought about Jung in relation to SP, which I was happy to place alongside the rest of the series in considering, let's say, composed of mythic pieces. I think that can sums up much of the series pretty well: made out of bits of myth, maybe even more consciously than something like STAR WARS (even if SW in the end serves more traditionally as a myth), on which Campbell's intentional influence seems to have been grossly overestimated. (See Michael Kaminski's excellent Secret History of Star Wars.)

    Someone can correct me, but as a young man I believe Fleming wrote Jung a fan letter. So I don't think such issues as you've discussed would've been beyond Fleming's notice. Jung could be therefore (regardless of what Mendes and co. have done with Bond) baked into the foundations of Bond and thus to a certain extent inescapable. At any rate there have always been mythic overtones in Bond and to go from myth to Jung is no great distance, especially for someone like Mendes who graduated with a first in English from Cambridge.

    That's all a way of saying I definitely don't think it's nonsense, @anyone. I've loved reading everything you've posted so far, and would be delighted to hear whatever other thoughts you had on this or that. Great stuff!

    I have applied Jungian / archetypal theory to the entire Craig era. I don't think it started with Mendes. (And the idea of the archetypal hero/warrior didn't begin with Craig, either.) But what has struck me, since the PTS in CR, is the use of mirrors. I have gone back through all Bond films, and in the Craig era, mirrors have a much greater function, for all three directors. It's unavoidable. In that very PTS, for instance, Bond's face is in reflection during his first kill. I believe it is the only time in which we see Bond's face, in mirror image, during a kill.

    43645391.jpg

    Why mirrors? They represent reflection of the soul: duality of the ego and the persona. Craig's Bond is in constant conflict between who he is and what he does. The theme plays out across all four films, but it is especially the case in SF and SP. In fact, one of SP's main themes is that of duality: the living and dead self. Hence the PTS and the skeleton mask. Hence, the continual references to living and dying ("So here we are, Mr. Bond, two dead men enjoying the evening." ... "It's called life, James.") There is also Madeleine's drunken comment about Bond: "There are two of you. Two Jameses."

    I have gone further to suggest that Daniel Craig himself is living in a bit of duality. All Bond actors have had to deal with this: they are constantly referred to as Bond or 007. This was something that Lazenby railed against. But Craig is a peculiar case, for a few reasons: 1. He is the only Bond actor to portray himself portraying Bond: the Int'l Women's Month PSA; the 2012 Olympics; and SNL and Red Nose Day skecthes. 2. Despite saying the contrary, Craig regularly takes home his Bond costumes and wears them. he really liked the Church brown suede desert boots from QoS. He also wore the light brown blazer from SP:

    unmas1_4.jpg

    What this suggests is that Craig lives in a more blurred world between actor and character than perhaps any Bond actor before. And Jung even noted this about artists and their work: "The artist’s life cannot be otherwise than full of conflicts, for two forces are at war within him on the one hand the common human longing for happiness, satisfaction and security in life, and on the other a ruthless passion for creation which may go so far as to override every personal desire."
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    Strog wrote: »
    anyone wrote: »
    So Legionnaire, peter, and TripAces all had a rebirth or Jung type observation about the film? Did anyone else? Did it feel obvious? Or sound like nonsense?
    I guess I've kind of wondered what a Jungian analysis of SF would look like, @anyone, without ever actually having pursued it. But that's a film that's always been happy to encourage analysis of every kind. Never thought about Jung in relation to SP, which I was happy to place alongside the rest of the series in considering, let's say, composed of mythic pieces. I think that can sums up much of the series pretty well: made out of bits of myth, maybe even more consciously than something like STAR WARS (even if SW in the end serves more traditionally as a myth), on which Campbell's intentional influence seems to have been grossly overestimated. (See Michael Kaminski's Secret History of Star Wars.)

    Someone can correct me, but as a young man I believe Fleming wrote Jung a fan letter. So I don't think such issues as you've discussed would've been beyond Fleming's notice. Jung could be therefore (regardless of what Mendes and co. have done with Bond) baked into the foundations of Bond and thus to a certain extent inescapable. At any rate there have always been mythic overtones in Bond and to go from myth to Jung is no great distance, especially for someone like Mendes who graduated with a first in English from Cambridge.

    That's all a way of saying I definitely don't think it's nonsense, @anyone. I've loved reading everything you've posted so far, and would be delighted to hear whatever other thoughts you had on this or that. Great stuff!

    First up thanks very much for finding my input interesting, to be honest I'd been keen to share it for a while but thought I might get too many raised eyebrows or voices! I will check out that Secret history of Star Wars, thanks for the pointer. I did have a small feeling that perhaps Campbell might have been overestimated in relation to SW.

    I think Fleming translated a lecture Jung gave on Paracelsus, and he had to write to him for the permission to do so. At the time Fleming was receiving psychological counselling from an Adlerian clinic, Alfred Adler - don't really know anything about him. The work is piling up! I only recently came across (don't have it yet) Philip Gardiner and a book called The Bond Code. Its possible he stretches things but I think its honestly deliberate to tease out connections not made in other Fleming biographies. Gardiner's take is that there's lots of hidden stuff 'baked into the foundations' (great line btw) and I think there clearly has to be. Have you ever heard of Operation James Bond? Thats a an eyeball peeler and a brain squeezer if ever there was and its very existence could overturn every 'orthodox' Fleming story about how Bond was created!

    Is there a Jungian expert out there who could do a fab analysis on SF, that could be a great exercise. I know as a kid I felt some kind of mythic thing going on with Bond. But don't you find Bond films are appealing because there is a 'feel' you don't get anywhere else and its almost impossible to put into words? There's something else always going on. There's a real allure? Its a big pull in SF. Is there an inference somewhere along the line that Bond's parents were narcissists? When he says he never liked this (or is it 'the old') place referring to Skyfall it could also be taken to mean his childhood, and his parents lack of nurturing love? Or was it meant to have been perfect up to the climbing accident, I don't know I'm not as well steeped in Bond as others will be but I'm trying to catch up. Is this obvious and I don't know it?

    I will crack on with other thoughts, but first a drink and catch up. I didn't know a forum like this could be quite so excellent a place to inhabit! Cheers
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    TripAces
    
    thats something else. Can you share your full analysis - are you the secret Jungian film analyser SFs been looking for? I've been registering them mirrors increasingly and SP gets choked with them. But I never spotted that about the first kill in CR, more the obvious one with the whisky in the bathroom. You're right it has to be a first for sure for a Bond kill.

    And the permanent conflict between who he is and what he does. Its interesting the more these kind of themes play up the more mature the audience is being treated. Regarding duality I know this chap Philip Gardiner put forward the idea that he reckoned that James Bond was so named because his initials were JB. The twin pillars Jachin and Boaz, or really Boaz and Jachin. And could be why Jason Bourne's name was so comfortably 'copied'. But its always the pillars Boaz and Jachin as you look at them. If you stood in between them to look back at where you first stood then it would be J on your left and B on your right. So do the initials JB hit the mark more than (ahem) BJ? I never really quite hit the mark with the 'two James's' comment, I was chasing a few other ideas, that must be in there as you say.

    This thing of actor/character being in its own kind of dual universe! Yup! As well as which one is Bond which one 007. I've certainly had the very strong idea that JB is the ultimate clothing for the split self but in Bond's case only his. And the 'debate' about each actor being a reincarnation of the Bond 'personality' not correct. I'm sure I heard somewhere that Brocoli et al said to DC pick your own style and suit and inhabit that for SF, which he did and seems to have settled in it. Its wheels within wheels.
  • Posts: 19,339
    In memory of the great Albert Finney,this belongs on this thread :

    ef3528e401b8dff886f357013ceb6881719cfd15a2cd7a250348c7a9761b5773.jpg
  • Posts: 7,653
    In almost every thread I noticed. ;)
  • Posts: 19,339
    SaintMark wrote: »
    In almost every thread I noticed. ;)

    Just 3, he he he ;)
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,582
    And I am sure he is being remembered all the way in Idaho, or some such place. RIP, Mr. Finney.
  • Posts: 7,653
    barryt007 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    In almost every thread I noticed. ;)

    Just 3, he he he ;)

    Not meant as a complaint whatsoever. keep up the good work.
  • Posts: 19,339
    SaintMark wrote: »
    barryt007 wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    In almost every thread I noticed. ;)

    Just 3, he he he ;)

    Not meant as a complaint whatsoever. keep up the good work.

    That's very nice of you to say,thanks matey !
  • Posts: 12,526
    RIP Albert Finney. Astonishingly talented actor. Brilliant as Kincade in SF.
  • anyoneanyone Scotland
    Posts: 24
    A bit late to this one, but my sentiments too. A superlative actor who was consistently on the TV when I was a kid, underrated in some ways. I never bothered to find out that much about him, which feels disrepectful now. I could never act, just don't have it in me. A rare gift....I always wondered who came up with the line "welcome to Scotland", made me giggle, thats something I never imagined Albert Finney would ever say just off the A9 in a film.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    This was an old video I've kept on private for a couple months. Never got round to finishing it and ended up losing the file but here's what was rendered and finished.


  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Denbigh wrote: »
    This was an old video I've kept on private for a couple months. Never got round to finishing it and ended up losing the file but here's what was rendered and finished.


    Not and MI fan but a nice piece of editing there my friend and makes me want to watch Skyfall again soon.

    Reminds me why I like the film so much.
  • peterpeter Toronto
    Posts: 9,509
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Denbigh wrote: »
    This was an old video I've kept on private for a couple months. Never got round to finishing it and ended up losing the file but here's what was rendered and finished.


    Not and MI fan but a nice piece of editing there my friend and makes me want to watch Skyfall again soon.

    Reminds me why I like the film so much.

    Same here!! The best thing about M:I is the music, so, like Shardlake, love your editing and also reminds me why I have such a blast with SF!!!
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Ah thank you @Shardlake and @peter :)
  • ResurrectionResurrection Kolkata, India
    Posts: 2,541
    Denbigh wrote: »
    This was an old video I've kept on private for a couple months. Never got round to finishing it and ended up losing the file but here's what was rendered and finished.


    Great editing @Denbigh , I saw this video a while back and really liked it.
  • Posts: 4,603
    Love the video, thanks for the link. Just reminds me of how much I love this film.
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Ah thanks guys :D
  • DenbighDenbigh UK
    Posts: 5,970
    Hey, would people mind checking out or even sharing my Skyfall video. Would love to see the video get more views :)

Sign In or Register to comment.