Skyfall - Guest Review

Mendes, Craig, Bardem, and Deakins

By David S. Muhlfelder

Full disclosure: I have been a James Bond fanatic since age nine when my grandfather, in an effort to defuse a fight between my mother and older brother, took us all to see “From Russia With Love.” To this day, FRWL remains the gold standard for all Bond films in my (And may other original fans’) opinion. It was the second Bond film, and it followed closely on the heels of “Dr. No.”

The series had begun with very little fanfare. “Dr. No” was made for $800,000, a modest sum even in 1962 dollars. In major markets like LA and New York it opened as the second feature on double bills. Exhibitors avoided it like the plague. One was quoted as saying “Nobody wants to see a movie about some limey detective.” I’m amazed that with instincts like that this guy didn’t wind running a studio. It turned out people did want to see it, and the film turned a nice profit. By the time FRWL opened less than a year later, exhibitors were clamoring to book it into their theatres. With the release of “Goldfinger” the following year, Bond mania was in full flower.

Unless you were there, it’s kind of difficult to fathom. It was somewhat akin to Beatlemania in the way that all things James Bond suddenly dominated pop culture c. 1964. “Goldfinger” was the first movie blockbuster. Theatres ran it twenty-four hours a day to accommodate the crowds. It recouped its $3.5 million budget in less than two weeks. This was unheard of at the time. Movies had always made their money back over time through multiple releases. “Goldfinger” was a game changer. “Thunderball,” released in 1965, remained until last month the most financially successful Bond film of all time, adjusting for inflation. “Skyfall” ended that forty-eight year reign as the biggest Bond movie of them all. It has so far earned $1.1 billion at the worldwide box office, and it’s still playing in China. It is the seventh highest grossing film of all time. It deserves to be. 

Until the arrival of Daniel Craig in the role, I was a Connery purist. I’m glad people liked Roger Moore. It kept the franchise going, but for me the movies became like generic action/adventure with a brand name attached. Dalton was too one note. Brosnan was okay. Then came “Casino Royale.” It was something of a reboot, and it was based on Ian Fleming’s first novel, which had not been sold to the producers with his other novels. Craig and “Skyfall” pick up where Casino Royale left off in this rebirth, the disappointing “Quantum Of Solace notwithstanding.

“Skyfall” is the best Bond movie since “Goldfinger.” As much as I love “Thunderball,” it’s the first movie in the series that shows signs of buckling under the weight of its own success. Connery looked older than his thirty-five years, and even though his health was part of the storyline the sequence at the Shrublands health clinic was overlong. One of the brilliant things about “Skyfall” is how it turns the biggest knock on the Bond franchise, whether we even need human intelligence in the age of predator drones, and turns it into the underlying theme of a story that feels at once fresh and familiar. Without giving too much away, the plot centers on a cyber-terrorist with a grudge against MI6. That is a thoroughly twenty-first century conceit. Yet “Skyfall” is an unapologetically old fashioned piece of moviemaking. It’s a travelogue in the best Bond tradition. Cinematographer Roger W. Deakins luxuriates in the locales. From the heat of Istanbul to the chill of London to the humidity of Singapore and Macau to the fog shrouded Scottish Highlands, you don’t just see where you are you feel it. This is a very visceral Bond, with a steady, but not hectic, pace. 

Gone was the kinetic and frenetic Bourne style editing of Quantum. “Skyfall” marks the return of “Casino Royale” editor Stuart Baird. This is the guy who gave us “Superman: The Movie,” “Lethal Weapon” and “Die Hard II” among others. He does an especially good job on the long teaser sequence that features a motorcycle chase across the rooftops of Istanbul’s bazaar, and a fight atop a train. 

Craig’s character goes much deeper than it ever has. In “Casino Royale” we learn that Bond was an orphan. In “Skyfall,” we get to see him deal with that unresolved childhood trauma. This is an emotionally fragile Bond, which is a great character trait for a man who is essentially a government assassin. Connery gave us a ruthless and cruel Bond with a wicked sense of humor. With Craig, you get that too, but you see the toll it takes. It feels like a story Fleming, himself, could have written. Fleming alternately described Bond as morose and saturnine. Craig gives you that, but without the heavy handedness we got from Timothy Dalton. 

There are basically two Bond formulas. The FRWL formula is spy vs. spy, with the consequences contained within the world of espionage. The “Goldfinger” formula is the super villain with the bigger than life scheme that threatens the world. “Skyfall” hews toward the FRWL formula, but with hints of the “Goldfinger” model structurally. Like that film, “Skyfall” starts small as a simple quest for a computer drive, but soon morphs into a much more complex story about loyalty and duty.

One unique twist is that this is M’s story. For the first time, we get to see Bond confront the ambivalence that underpins his relationship with his boss. It’s pure Ian Fleming. Judy Dench is excellent as M. Javier Bardem is a sort of unwanted stepchild as Silva, her once favorite operative. He equals his fine performance in “No Country For Old Men.” And Albert Finney makes a late appearance as Bond’s surrogate father figure. It all leads to the expected explosive climax, but with plenty of emotional weight behind it. And it’s all orchestrated perfectly by director Sam Mendes. 

By the time Bond walks in to M’s new office at the end, the very same office that Sean Connery first walked into fifty years ago in “Dr. No,” the series had come full circle. And I was once again that nine year old boy at the movies with my grandfather. And as for the question of whether or not we need human intelligence, the answer is clearly yes. As long as that human is James Bond.

****/****

Hitchcock

Call me Hitch, Hold the Cock

Hitchcock. Find me a person who doesn't recognize that name. Many probably haven't seen a single film from arguably the most renowned director of all time, but they sure do recognize that name. Known the world over as the "master of suspense," Hitchcock directed over fifty films in a span of nearly as many years. While he never won an Oscar for Best Director, many of his films, from Rebecca to Vertigo (which now tops the critics' Sight and Sound Poll 2012) to The Birds are now considered classic films in the pantheon of history.

Given such an auspicious subject matter, it is a shame that Hitchcock, directed by Sacha Gervasi, is so devoid of the master's characteristic suspense, so decidedly opaque. When I first saw a picture of Anthony Hopkins in make-up as the titular filmmaker, I was filled with glee. One of the best British actors portraying one of the best British directors with some impeccable make-up in a film about the making of his Psycho. It's hard not to be excited about that. Imagine my disappointment about fifteen minutes into Hitchcock, realizing that I was watching a film that could clearly not live up to expectations.

Scarlett Johansson as Janet Leigh

I remember first seeing Psycho. Probably about five years ago now. Of course, by that time, everybody knew the ending. No surprise there. But it also strikes me as a very dated film; a film for which, I think to truly appreciate, you had to be there in 1960. No doubt, I can appreciate it on many levels; innovative editing, bold story-telling, and its status as the spark of the slasher film. Conversely, segments feel silly and dated; the infamous reveal itself was greeted by numerous guffaws throughout my film class. I suspect more wanted to laugh, but held it in because, you know, you can't laugh at a classic film in film class (after all, what kind of person would you be for exercising your own criticism of a movie?).

The story opens shortly after the release of North by Northwest in 1959, to much acclaim after the commercial failure of Vertigo the previous year. Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins), never much taking a break from work, now searches for his next project. And he finds it, in Robert Bloch's horror novel - Psycho. Urged to consider other films, Hitchcock is undeterred; Psycho must be his next film. At his side is his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren), whose influence and involvement in Hitch's films is greater than most people likely realize.

The first act is the most successful. It regards Hitchcock's looming self-doubt in the face of suggestions that it might be time to retire, meshed with his immovable determination and frank honesty. He is not a particularly humble man, but neither is he a secure one. Many of the film's later developments revolve around his suspicion and distrust of Alma, which is perhaps related to his deep-seeded insecurities surrounding women. It is well-known that the director was incredibly controlling of his female actresses. Hitchcock attempts to study his obsession with women (particularly blondes), but the film is so imbued with a sense of self-importance and grandiosity that it fails to see the forest through the trees.

Perhaps the largest detriment, the most obvious hindrance to an emotional connection between Hitchcock and the audience, is the performance of Hopkins. Sir Anthony Hopkins - the Brit who's played a psychopathic cannibal, an American president, John Quincy Adams, to name a mere few of his better performances. With his embodiment of Hitchcock, Hopkins delivers one of the most monotone, invariable, occasionally grating performances in recent memory. Yes, the real Alfred Hitchcock was a man of few mannerisms, wearing a seemingly perpetual frown, but anybody who's seen interviews of the man will recognize a peculiar lack of humanity in Hopkins' manifestation. Contrariwise, Mirren's incarnation of Alma Reville is profoundly affecting. As a devoted, loving woman, she is, while hiding it with uncanny ability, deeply wounded. You can sense that she understands Hitchcock's love for her may never match his love for film. Mirren boils the character down to a quintessence of love, admiration, dedication, neglect, and longing. She is unveiled as both the film and the man's greatest assest.

At the times of its release, Psycho may well have been the most transgressive motion picture to see the inside of the theatre. The film accurately and keenly depicts that. It is, however, unfortunate that a film so clearly committed to exploring the dark side of the director is emphatically tame. Even more distressing, when you consider it, is that Hitchcock's own film, Vertigo, is more telling of his nature than a film deliberately devised to probe such trenches. This is not a expressly bad film. It just isn't a very good one. Especially when you consider what the subject deserves.

2.5/4

Celeste and Jesse Forever

Forever is Composed of Nows

For those who don't know, Lee Toland Krieger whose second feature (much more accessible than his first) was The Vicious Kind, starring Adam Scott and Britney Snow, featuring an incredible performance from Scott, and an all around great story. For his follow-up, Krieger has taken another key member of the Parks & Recreation cast in Rashida Jones (who co-wrote the screenplay). With these two films, Krieger has proven himself a director capable of pulling exacting and realistic performances from his actors, while both entertaining and telling a relatable, humanistic story.

Celeste (Rashida Jones) and Jesse (Andy Samberg) are best friends. They've been best friends since high school at least. They're also married, though separated. In the case of this film, "separated" has its own meaning. Separated in the sense that they have intentions for divorce. In every other way, though, they seem attached at the hip. This seems not only bizarre to their friends, but downright uncomfortable in a dinner scene. Celeste and Jesse brush it off.

Celeste is a hard-working, career-driven woman in Los Angeles. Jesse is almost the complete opposite, aside from also living in Los Angeles (in fact, he lives in the guest house behind Celeste). Jesse is an artist, or so he claims, but he doesn't seem to do much to further his art. Celeste doesn't seem to have much of a problem with this, though she does remind him from time to time about finding a job. Why did they split up in the first place? It doesn't seem like it was because of Jesse's lack of a job or drive. Did they simply decide they were better off as friends and not as husband and wife? Perhaps. The film refuses to provide us with an answer, which would be fine, though it also fails to regard the difficulty of maintaining friendship - particularly such a close friendship - after a relationship. Maybe Celeste and Jesse are two people who are innately able to push their past relationship aside, and remain best friends. I don't honestly know.

The film's greatest achievement is with its second and third act developments, which give both Jones and Samberg ample room to prove their acting ability. Jones, who I guess has starred in other films, but I haven't seen them. I've seen her in plenty of supporting roles, and of course on the hilarious television show Parks & Recreation, where unfortunately she is, half the time, relegated to the status of reaction shot receptacle. With this film, she turns in the best performance I've ever seen from her; she is delicate and fragile, yet strong and hard-working. She seems complacent with her own situation, until Samberg changes his, which ironically is what she (thought she) wanted. I've never much liked Andy Samberg as an actor. He doesn't have the appeal of inherently charming actors, nor have I seen much in the way of true ability from him. But here, he's given a character with depth, a character who is human and relatable. He plays the part very well, though Jones steals the show.

The story treads familiar ground. The idea itself is fresh; the story, at times, paint by numbers. But, not unlike many other films, the acting keeps this afloat, along with a second half that elevates the material somewhat. Truly, it is Celeste's torrent of emotion that is most intriguing. At first independent and self-satisfied, her feelings and beliefs for what she wants from life are put to a great test. It is how she handles this test that provides the greatest dramatic fodder of the film.

In the end, this is a superbly acted, well-directed, fairly well-written film. It is entertaining because we like to see real people with real problems. It is less than perfect because what we expect is often delivered. Nevertheless, despite such an issue, this is a film I recommend; not only to see Jones step out of her type-cast and give a more vulnerable, raw performance, but also because we can empathize. Forever is a long time, they say. If you're happy, though, it won't seem so long.

***/****