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
We're just going to forget Craig dressed up in Halloween costume like an awkward teenage trick of treater in Spectre? There's no difference between that scene and Moore as a clown in Octopussy. They are both disguises to allow then to hide in plain sight.
Superbly put. The discourse around this scene has been deliberately skewed so it appears Moore is a clown for the sake of it. A symptom of the general snobbery to the Moore films.
I've said this before. The whole Germany sequence is wonderfully tense. Well acted with high amounts of tension. There's a reason why Octopussy is my 4th best Bond behind TSWLM, OHMSS and FRWL. Sometimes it rises higher. I think it is excellent and this scene is the end of a tense chunk that builds up.
Ehhhh… there’s a world of difference in terms of the context. I have no issue with Moore Bond disguising as a clown. That’s fine. However, Moore Bond took his time to apply make up and costume when there was a nuke set to detonate. We even see that the moment he finally gets to it there’s literally only a few seconds. So the issue I have is that Moore taking the time to do his makeup almost ruins the urgency of the scene. That said, I think Moore does his best to sell the urgency with his acting in spite of the set up.
Another note: as much as I like Moore, he was stretching credibility playing an operative of his age from FYEO onwards (and I love both FYEO and OP). Also, had he played Ffolkes or a similar character (the ageing military veteran) in more than one movie, he could have had a far more active post Bond career.
This was a sequence that could have gone badly wrong on screen, but it plays beautifully and John Glen must get a lot of credit for steering the ship so well through potentially rocky waters (it was only his 2nd go at being Director)
Moore in a clown outfit trying, trying,trying to get to the bomb, desperate and powerless to convince people of the threat: it’s brilliant and like something from a Hitchcock movie. Almost the opposite of what we expect from Bond (capable, in control, powerful). A Hitchcock protagonist is typically powerless and overwhelmed by forces outside their control. That’s what we get here
Craig's best Bond look:
Only my controversial opinion, as it's a thread for such.
Skyfall is my favourite Bond movie. Something about it really clicked for me. It took me a while to work out what it was but watching the Mendes commentary on the Blu-ray made it clear. He mentioned during the Shanghai sequence that when Bond grabs onto the lift, he was directly referencing a shot from the Hitchcock film Vertigo, which is my favourite ever movie.
Suddenly it all fell into place. Skyfall has Vertigo connections all over the place to an uncanny degree.
I’ll list them out below (I did put this online once before, a few years ago on a Phil Nobile Jr. article, I think maybe at BirthMoviesDeath):
- the imagery in the SF title sequence has clear references to the title and dream sequences from Vertigo. The gravestones and the camera going into the eye
- both movies start with a prologue mid mission chase sequence, with the protagonist (Bond and Scottie) chasing someone down. In both cases the protagonist has to watch or let a colleague die, and both prologues end with Bond / Scottie in a situation from which there really isn’t any plausible escape or survival
- Bond and Scottie both in fact do survive but we aren’t shown how they do it. This leaves both characters metaphorically suspended between life and death during their movies.
In Vertigo, it’s a clear visual metaphor (as you’d expect from Hitchcock). The prologue ends with Scottie literally suspended between life and death. In Skyfall, it’s maybe a bit more textual: Bond is ‘enjoying death’ and his hobby is ‘resurrection’
-Bond and Scottie both leave the service (mi6 and the police force respectively). They are both dealing with physical and psychological trauma
- They are both drawn back into spy/detective work to try and protect a woman who is being haunted by something/someone from the past.
-Bond / Scottie both start their investigations through mesmerising wordless sequences where they are tracking someone through a city (Shanghai/San Francisco). In both of these sequences they observe someone sat in front of a painting
-Both movies turn on plots that have villains hatching what some critics consider to be totally implausible schemes to achieve their objectives, having an almost omnipotent ability to predict how people are going on behave at particular moments in time. Some have said these are weaknesses of the films, even plot holes.
-in both movies the villains seemingly achieve their objectives (and in Vertigo Gavin Estler gets away with it as far as we know)
- Both movies have climatic scenes whereby Bond/Scottie have to go back to revisit the scenes of past trauma
- Bond and Scottie both lose the girl at the end in a church
I’m sure all of these can’t be coincidence. Were the writers and Mendes deliberately evoking Vertigo with such obvious parallels apparent?
It just occurred to me actually that Craig is the only Bond not to go up against a female villain or henchwoman in one of his films.
Wasn't there Valenka in Casino Royale?
Well he doesn't sleep with her or try to seduce her. Personally, I don't mind. I'm all for femmes fatales, but too often in films I find them by-the-number and rather dull.
Am I blanking on Timothy's female villain?
“There’s a dichotomy that the Craig era has created among Bond fans. It has succeeded in pleasing popular audiences by playing on gritty realism and subversion of expectations, something that has been en vogue since The Dark Knight and the Bourne movies, but in doing so has created something that is basically antithetical to the 40 years of cinematic Bond that preceded it.
From 1962-2002, we saw a Bond that was an unflappable winner. Aside from a few exceptions like OHMSS, he always saved the day, got the girl, and seemed to enjoy his job. It was fun escapism with imaginative gadgets and over-the-top villains. You knew how it was going to end; you knew Bond would win, you were just along for the ride. There was something comforting in that.
The Craig era brought grit, emotion, and realism to the Bond franchise. We saw a Bond that was more human in a world that was more grounded. It followed the current popular trope of having a tortured, troubled main character. Craig’s Bond never got a happy ending, except for Spectre, which was
Now we’re left with two divided groups of fans; people who loved the style of 62-02 that no longer see any semblance of the character they loved in Craig’s Bond, and people who became fans largely because of Craig’s era, who are fans of something completely unlike the 20 Bond movies that came before it.”
The original question for anyone interested:
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesBond/comments/r4vvw5/a_question_for_hardcore_and_casual_bond_fans/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Very interesting, thanks ...
... and not something I'd considered myself (especially the psychological connections between Scotty & Craig-Bond) despite having seen Vertigo countless times. Mendes did list it among his ten best or favourite films for the canonical Sight & Sound poll in 2012, so you might be on to something.
https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/sightandsoundpoll2012/voter/1157
And that’s why I like him.
Personally, I straddle both camps. Love the original era, but went through a lot of points where I felt it needed serious shaking up and too much of a formula. Love the Craig era and the chances it took but saw flaws there too and now I look forward to what's next.
I wouldn't disagree. I maintain it isn't so much his acting in YOLT as he's just not given a whole lot to do but operate gadgetry, fight and run. But even in the interactions with Tanaka in his office, train and later home, he doesn't seem particularly his witty self or come across with as much presence as we're used to.
I'm always mystified by those who claim he's unengaged or just picking up a paycheck in DAF. He's much wittier than in YOLT and having a better time than he was in YOLT. The check of course didn't hurt and the fact they were playing entirely on his terms probably also helped.
NSNA had more of his input, so there was that, although he was much more involved in the production side.
Actually, I think that is pretty much accepted. At least I think it's true, and I know others have agreed with me over the years.
I can only guess they come away with that because they think his apparent weight gain* must mean he only did it for the paycheck. Every account has asserted that not only was Connery engaged during production but commended for his professionalism.
*= and if no one was aware, Connery only signed onto DAF weeks before shooting began. He could only physically prepare with a short amount of time.
Agreed. DAF has some of the wittiest dialogue in the series and which, for his part, Connery delivers with great aplomb. In YOLT, as much as I love the film, he's entirely overshadowed (imho) by the spectacle and everything that's happing around him. I wonder, too, if much of Connery's dialogue was recorded in post as it sounds a little off-kilter at times, at least to my ears.
Agreed, Connery is noticeably more relaxed and seems to be enjoying himself in DAF. I’ve read several reviews over the years that note how bored he looks in it and it’s always baffled me. I’m not a fan of the film, but in terms of his performance, I think it was a nice way for him to bow out of the official series.
Interesting post, @BMW_with_missiles. I was talking elsewhere with someone about this the other day. I find the Craig films take the fantasy of the Bond films and "intensify" it to such a point where the entertainment value to be derived from these recent entries is of a substantially different (but not entirely different) nature than before. Bond could always get hurt in the first 20 films, but now there is more palpable danger and tension. Bond would regularly hook up with women with no worries, but now tragedy and betrayal might be around the corner. Even the villains are scarier and more unsettling in their madness.
But general audiences aside, there are fans who like both the first 20 films and the Craig films. QoS and SF are my two least favorite Bond films, and I'll always prefer a bit more the "traditional", more escapist style of the older films (being a big fan of the Brosnan era, I can understand the disappointment with the Craig films that some have experienced), but I still very much enjoyed CR, SP and NTTD. I really appreciate the grit and the deeper insight into Bond, provided these co-exist with enough humor and playful touches, which I felt those three films had in good quantities.
Speaking of all this, it's worth mentioning that style and tone aren't a binary, discrete thing. They exist in a continuum. I find the older films and the newer films have the same elements. It is the "mix" of these elements that changes, so to speak. There is less emphasis on this and more emphasis on that. The mix even changes among the first 20 films, of course, but to a lesser degree.
So I'd call that a made-up notion of division. Modern Bond films attract a campaign against them during their release. I'm comfortable taking the long view on the things.
Here's my take on it: Connery in YOLT does not act worse than in DAF but he acts less, he acts bored. In DAF, he's playing a parody of Bond and is in a better mood because he's picking up a bigger paycheck.
My controversial opinion: the invisible car in DAD and the other sci-fi stuff shocked me far more than anything that came after, including NTTD.
I don’t care about Bond and Madeleine’s relationship, and none of the other major character bits / arcs resonate with me in the slightest. One after another, they all feel terribly contrived and designed to shock, and in no way feels like a natural conclusion to the DC era IMO.