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
absolutely. And seemed to have tempered some of the more feverish voices.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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:
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."
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
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.
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 !
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!!!
Great editing @Denbigh , I saw this video a while back and really liked it.