› ›

Is SKYFALL literally the darkest 007 film?

2

Comments

  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    Agreed, BSE. And relatedly, the DC films have brought new gravitas to cinematic Bond. That gravitas was lain on a bit too heavily in QOS, but otherwise, I feel like the added depth in the DC films has been a good thing.
  • fjdinardofjdinardo
    Posts: 1,989
    LTK still holds that title
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    I wonder if filming in the dark of night allows the film makers to have more control over the lighting, and that's part of the choice. I will say I did notice a few times when it seemed like it was filmed traditionally (35mm) there were a few grainy looking moments, but they weren't as noticeable when the scene was darker...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    I think plot wise, it's LTK by a mile imho.
    "What did he promise you? His heart? Give her his heart!"

    Sanchez was brilliant!
    ---
    Psychology wise, it's probably SF.

    The darkness is Silva. I actually felt sorry for the poor sod the last time I saw it (when he was asking M to call him by his 'real name' and recounting how he kept his mouth shut while being tortured,...... and when he couldn't kill her at the end but wanted 'mommy' to finish the both of them). Deeply demented and disturbed, but also very compelling with some sympathetic elements. He was betrayed and sought revenge.

    The darkness is also M. What a 'B' as Bond correctly notes. I didn't sympathize actually... she screwed Bond and she screwed Silva

    The darkness is Bond. Putting up with the garbage that he has to for Queen and Country. Her Majesty's loyal terrier (hence the bulldog). He was betrayed and keeps coming back for more (unlike his nefarious alter ego). What a glutton for punishment he is.
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    I think people are confused as to what the OP intended. They are saying the film is LITERALLY dark (in lighting), not dark in tone...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I think people are confused as to what the OP intended. They are saying the film is LITERALLY dark (in lighting), not dark in tone...

    Sorry. You're right @lalalal2004. My mistake. I had actually already responded to this thread on page 1 a few wks back but only saw the posts above me today and assumed this was a tonal, and not a lighting discussion this time.

  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    edited November 2015 Posts: 306
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I think people are confused as to what the OP intended. They are saying the film is LITERALLY dark (in lighting), not dark in tone...

    Yes, that is correct. I have tried to make that understood. LOL! :))

    This discussion is 100% about lighting, not at all about tone. :)
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    bondjames wrote: »
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    I think people are confused as to what the OP intended. They are saying the film is LITERALLY dark (in lighting), not dark in tone...

    Sorry. You're right @lalalal2004. My mistake. I had actually already responded to this thread on page 1 a few wks back but only saw the posts above me today and assumed this was a tonal, and not a lighting discussion this time.

    I'll give you a pass...this time!

    ;)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    bondjames wrote: »
    When I recently watched SF in my Bondathon (after QoS) I noticed how many of the scenes were filmed in the dark. It hadn't been so apparent to me before (apart from the obvious China skyscraper fight and the finale). The dark scenes were also a little dreary (unlike QoS's comparably limited but incredibly crisp night time scenes in Bolivia).

    Yes, I think it was a conscious creative decision and I believe it was brilliantly executed in this film, and set the right mood. This is probably why Deakins went completely digital (as opposed on partial 35mm as Hotema is doing on SP).

    I think Robert Elswitt also partially used digital for MI-RN's night scenes (another incredibly well shot film imho).

    Good point about the 'light and dark' theme. I too noticed that the ride to Silva's island seemed overexposed. At the time I thought it was an amateurish error, but having read the OP's post, I also believe it could in fact have been intentional.

    No matter what one thinks of SF, it was an incredibly well filmed entry. Deakins should have received the Oscar for that film.

    I personally felt both QoS and SP were visually much more striking. Nothing against Deakins but never got why people have been so obsessed with the SF visuals.
  • BondJasonBond006BondJasonBond006 on fb and ajb
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,020
    Getafix wrote: »

    I personally felt both QoS and SP were visually much more striking. Nothing against Deakins but never got why people have been so obsessed with the SF visuals.

    Probably because it's about the only thing of Skyfall that can be called great. You have to hang on to the few good things in such a mediocre movie ;)
  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    BondJasonBond006 wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »

    I personally felt both QoS and SP were visually much more striking. Nothing against Deakins but never got why people have been so obsessed with the SF visuals.

    Probably because it's about the only thing of Skyfall that can be called great. You have to hang on to the few good things in such a mediocre movie ;)

    So I keep on hearing. May be it is the gloominess that doesn't work for.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    Deakins intentionally went gloomy in SF. That was definitely the plan and that is why he used a digital camera imho (so that it would be highly defined, even if gloomy, particularly for the night scenes). Nearly ever scene in SF is overcast.

    Given this was the effect he was going for, it is incredibly well done, and superbly realized.

    I'll take that any day over the piss yellow which is unnaturally all over the screen in SP.

    My preference overall though would be for the crisp, rich colours which permeate both CR & QoS in particular. That to me is real Bond.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.

    I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.
  • RogueAgentRogueAgent
    Posts: 12,526
    Its up there but i still believe that LTK is still number 1.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,483
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.

    I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.

    I suppose it's only natural that SPECTRE should be "spectral."

    Your observation, which could refer both to the film's tenebrousness and its tone, is an interesting one, but I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're driving at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that many sequences are almost devoid of extras, and those that are present, are like wraiths passing through the world inhabited by Bond and his interlocutors. And it is this ghostly quality that lends SP much of its tonal darkness. Correct?

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.

    I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.

    I suppose it's only natural that SPECTRE should be "spectral."

    Your observation, which could refer both to the film's tenebrousness and its tone, is an interesting one, but I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're driving at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that many sequences are almost devoid of extras, and those that are present, are like wraiths passing through the world inhabited by Bond and his interlocutors. And it is this ghostly quality that lends SP much of its tonal darkness. Correct?

    Pretty much, yes.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    Good. On my next viewing I will keep this in mind.
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    This has me thinking about the lighting in all of Craig's films (granted, I'm working from memory).

    CR has a lot of bright glitz and glamour, befitting the large majority of it taking place in a Casino.
    QoS is very bright, particularly in the desert scenes, which is of course fitting
    SF has the cloudy gloominess
    SP has the darkness we're talking about

    Very interesting to consider the evolution, I think... The films do have their distinct looks.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited November 2015 Posts: 23,883
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    This has me thinking about the lighting in all of Craig's films (granted, I'm working from memory).

    CR has a lot of bright glitz and glamour, befitting the large majority of it taking place in a Casino.
    QoS is very bright, particularly in the desert scenes, which is of course fitting
    SF has the cloudy gloominess
    SP has the darkness we're talking about

    Very interesting to consider the evolution, I think... The films do have their distinct looks.

    I agree on all above comments except that SP has any darkness. SP, strictly from a lighting perspective, is yellow throughout except in the alpine scenes, where it is a distinct grey.

    In all cases, the colour is artificial, unnatural, and a little annoying to be honest.

    I think this film would have benefited tremendously from the rich vivacity of colour which characterizes the best Bond films (TWSLM/OHMSS/CR/FRWL/DN/TB etc. etc.) but obviously they took this sort of obvious jaundiced angle for a reason.

    One day, I'll figure out why. At present it eludes me.
  • Perilagu_KhanPerilagu_Khan
    Posts: 2,483
    lalala2004 wrote: »
    This has me thinking about the lighting in all of Craig's films (granted, I'm working from memory).

    CR has a lot of bright glitz and glamour, befitting the large majority of it taking place in a Casino.
    QoS is very bright, particularly in the desert scenes, which is of course fitting
    SF has the cloudy gloominess
    SP has the darkness we're talking about

    Very interesting to consider the evolution, I think... The films do have their distinct looks.

    Nice to see you again, LaLa. It's been a long time.

  • GetafixGetafix
    Posts: 11,425
    Sadly I still find myself harking back to the Daltonator
  • DRush76DRush76
    Posts: 533
    No, it wasn't the darkest film. I thought it was one of the worst, but not the darkest.
  • OHMSS69OHMSS69
    Posts: 2,341
    I never thought about it as LTK has always held that spot. But now that you mention it, I must say that you are on the right path.

    SF is very dark, any revenge minded films (Bond's in LTK and Silva's in SF) tend to have a certain bit of dark and gritty violence. Craig has always been a gritty SOB but I think SF does bring out a lot of dark nastiness that EON is capable of delivering.
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    @perilagu_khan glad to see you're still here!
  • Thunderball007Thunderball007 United States
    Posts: 306
    I'm not talking about tonal darkness. I'm talking about literal dark from the lighting effects. :(
  • lalala2004lalala2004
    Posts: 162
    Thunderball007 wrote: »
    I'm not talking about tonal darkness. I'm talking about literal dark from the lighting effects. :(

    <img src=http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1r46gpFvu1qb6vvvo1_250.gif>;

    I've tried to help @thunderball007 . People just don't listen. :-?
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 15,234
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.

    I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.

    I suppose it's only natural that SPECTRE should be "spectral."

    Your observation, which could refer both to the film's tenebrousness and its tone, is an interesting one, but I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're driving at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that many sequences are almost devoid of extras, and those that are present, are like wraiths passing through the world inhabited by Bond and his interlocutors. And it is this ghostly quality that lends SP much of its tonal darkness. Correct?

    Pretty much, yes.

    In terms of nastiness and cruelty, SP is also the darkest: don't they mention poisoning children and bringing pandemics to Africa? And trying to kill White with cancer, I doubt any potential death has ever been so vile and so chilling in the whole franchise. Someone assassinates you with cancer. Think about it. When White blows his own brain, I actually feel both sorry and relief for him.
  • Tuck91Tuck91
    Posts: 1,680
    The bit where Bond tells Oberhauser you light cities on fire & watch peope burn put me off a bit.
  • timmertimmer
    edited November 2015 Posts: 4,622
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    RC7 wrote: »
    Perilagu_Khan wrote: »
    After a single viewing of SP I'm tempted to say that this film is the darkest--in both senses--Bond film of all time.

    I'd probably have to agree with you. It has a spectral quality to it, which isn't coincidence. It's taken flak from some quarters for the populating of scenes, but I think this too is a very conscious directorial decision. Rome, London, Morocco, all very sparse. Most background artists are ghost-like, rarely interacting with the key players; the only time we see throngs of people they are 'dead'. Save a few instances, most of the characters that feature for any length of time are those that flirt with death, or regularly stare it in the face.

    I suppose it's only natural that SPECTRE should be "spectral."

    Your observation, which could refer both to the film's tenebrousness and its tone, is an interesting one, but I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're driving at. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that many sequences are almost devoid of extras, and those that are present, are like wraiths passing through the world inhabited by Bond and his interlocutors. And it is this ghostly quality that lends SP much of its tonal darkness. Correct?

    Pretty much, yes.
    Very good discourse, you two. You have nicely articulated what I was sensing.
    There does seem to be conscious effort to keep the background persons to a minimum or almost as a spectral presence.
    A couple of scenes come to mind. The dining car scene. Only brief glimpses of other diners and they disappear entirely once the fight starts as does the waiter.
    When Bond and Swann visit L'Americaine, the receptionist is purposefully kept at distance or in shadow. No face.
    The film has a dream like quality to some extent. And yes when we do get loads of active extras, they are dressed as dead people.

    I've expounded at length elsewhere about the paucity of small-part Bond girls. There are none,nada zilch.
    This has to be by design, as every other Bond film has them, even SF in the Macau casino.
    In SP all we get is Swann, Lucia and Estrella. There is not even a passing glimpse of a 4th.
    ie no other girl on screen anywhere for eye candy effect.

    Bond and Swann's arrival in Tangiers is populated by extras, as they walk up the road, but still the camera seems very much removed from the shot. There is nothing really going on in the foreground. Its just a setting establishing shot. Maybe a mood setter too.

    Good catch though. You know that Mendes and his collaborators are doing stuff like this by design and for thematic effect.
Sign In or Register to comment.