At the moment the next 007 film is stepping into high gear with a title (SPECTRE) and casting announcements. Fan favorite Christoph Waltz has been cast, presumably (or at least possibly) as villain and Dr. Evil progenitor Ernst Stavro Blofeld, along with Dave Bautista, recently seen in Guardians Of The Galaxy, and Italian beauty Monica Bellucci, recently seen in my Google Image searches. Things are starting to come together quickly and positively, and like any fan I’m excited to see what comes next.
With the next Bond film in the works, I’d like to talk a bit about Skyfall’s cardinal sin, how things should have happened, and how to correct it going forward. Spoiler Alert: Please note this article contains frank analysis of the film and assumes the reader has seen it.
Now, I can already hear the passionate howls of anger and derision. Skyfall is an amazing movie! It reinvigorated the franchise after the disappointment of Quantum Of Solace! Roger Deakins’ cinematography is exquisite! The action is flat-out amazing, the stakes have never been higher, there’s a comeback angle after James gets shot and falls off the grid, and the villain is an absolute force to be reckoned with.
All of these claims are legitimate and true. Skyfall is a great movie. So why fix what ain’t broke?
Let’s clarify right now that I have nothing but respect for the screenwriters and their work. The problem with Skyfall being so great — and it is great — is that it’s about two steps from phenomenal, mind-blowing, stratospheric perfection, and that’s immensely frustrating.
If you’ll humor me, let’s step back talk about the franchise for a moment.
There are a few ways we can understand this storied body of films which have starred six different actors in 23 mainline films since 1962. These films and their different interpretations of their titular character have varied greatly in style and tone over the years. With the first Daniel Craig entry Casino Royale in 2006, the franchise took the unusual route of not only a darker and more serious approach, but staying true to the novel in one very critical aspect: it’s an origin story of sorts. But it takes place some 44 years after James Bond first lit up the silver screen.
One interpretation is that the franchise is simply doing a “soft reboot” every decade or so, usually when a new actor shows up in the role, or perhaps that the franchise simply experienced a hard reboot with the Daniel Craig era. While these understandings make some sense, they’re hardly satisfying.
A more hardlined approach would be that the films take place in strict one-character continuity despite the anachronistic problems of a modern Bond somehow segueing into the 1960’s. This is ridiculous unless you start bringing in some kind of crazy time-traveling, science fiction aspect.
What has always appealed to me instead is the idea that “James Bond” is simply part of the 007 codename, issued right alongside the Walther PPK. After all, what kind of spy actually uses his real name? This would explain the wide variance of personalities as well as his ability to remain ageless over the course of decades (well, except in Roger Moore’s case), as well as why side characters like M and Q, and to a lesser extent Blofeld and Felix Leiter, appear throughout the films with a continuity that doesn’t reset with every changing of the 007 guard. Judi Dench’s M, for example, was in the Pierce Brosnan films preceding the Daniel Craig “origin” films. We know for an absolute fact that the Brosnan films take place before the Craig films because she’s DEAD. She wouldn’t be alive for the Brosnan films the other way around.
So there’s one specific scene for me that sends the last Bond film flying off the rails. When we visit Skyfall, Craigy-Bond’s boyhood home, we see something which made many fans, including myself, cringe with absolute horror.
With this revelation, director Sam Mendes and his screenwriters are drawing a very specific line in the sand, saying, “This is the real James Bond. It’s his actual name. See? Here’s proof!”
Besides effectively killing off a great fan theory that has persisted for years, this serves absolutely no positive purpose. It dilutes the franchise, forcing it to default to either a confusing and nonsensical state, or one where earlier films are nullified and cheapened. Why would they do this? Why intentionally diminish your own legend?
As proof of the utter flagrance of this callous choice, allow me to explain how the opposite would not only enhance the film, but make it mind-meltingly amazing in a way that blows the film we got right out of the water. I’m going to take the general framework of the film as is (and credit where it’s due; the rogue agent idea is a superb framework), and simply fix it.
The story involves James Bond coming to blows with a former MI6 operative, essentially Bond’s predecessor as M’s top op. He had a falling out with his superiors, particularly with M whom he holds personally responsible for his misfortunes. He is in many ways the ultimate foe: he has incredible prowess comparable to Bond’s, intimate knowledge of MI6’s methods and secrets, and a deep-seated, personal motivation to destroy his old employers.
Bond is taken captive at the villain’s island fortress, and in a well-executed reveal he becomes aware of his foe approaching him from a long distance, down the length of the large room, and eventually we see the face of Javier Bardem come into focus.
Aside from recognizing the actor, is this supposed to mean something to us? Nothing against Bardem of course, he’s a phenomenal actor who does a superb job in the role. But he means absolutely nothing to us in story terms. His character, Raoul Silva, has zero significance or legend beyond what the film outright tells us he has.
The Rewrite
Here’s what should’ve happened instead.
Bond is taken captive at the villain’s island fortress, and in a perfectly executed reveal he becomes aware of his foe approaching him from a long distance, down the length of the large room, and eventually we see his face revealed.
That’s right. He’s Pierce Brosnan; James F***ing Bond. Because OF COURSE he is!
In theaters across the world, the stunned gasps and hushed silences of shocked audiences turn to murmurs. Holy shit! Wait, what? Can they do that? They can do that? They just did that. OH MY GOD THIS IS THE BEST BOND FILM EVERRRRR.
Brosnan’s last 007 appearance, Die Another Day, began on the extremely bizarre and somber note of his being taken captive by North Korea. The usually upbeat opening credits depict him being beaten, tortured, and poisoned. After a long and punishing imprisonment, he is released back to MI6 in a prisoner exchange, mentally and physically destroyed. Not in gratitude of his value or heroism, but because it’s feared he may spill secrets to the enemy.
Broz escapes MI6 custody and goes off on one final (and cartoonishly CGI-filled) adventure to recapture the North Korean terrorist whose freedom was exchanged for his own, but only after having an awkward conversation with M that puts them severely at odds.
While he does meet up with M again later, they never quite patch things up. No matter how you slice it, that’s a weird way to go out.
Here’s the real story. People don’t just snap back from that kind of long-term anguish and degradation, and neither did Broz. Despite his training and discipline, months of starvation and torture took their toll on him, and even though he temporarily got back in the saddle for one last ride, his PTSD eventually caught up with him in the form of increasingly paranoid and rage-fueled delusions as well as a personal vendetta against Judi Dench’s M, not only for allowing him to be imprisoned for so long, but for her mistreatment of him afterward and then unceremoniously dumping him for her new favorite.
“Of course not! Silly boy, why do you think I asked you to call me that?”
I understand Brosnan’s character had an incredibly upbeat and positive energy and a lot of fans might feel betrayed by his turning, but that’s what makes it so gosh-darn compelling. We’re not only fixing the huge missed opportunity of Skyfall, but actually taking the most reviled film of the Brosnan era and making it retroactively better, and far more relevant.
Unfortunately, that’s not the approach they took. Not only did they fail to actually make the best use of their “the bad guy is a former agent” plot device and a staggering amount of setup that was already in place and ready to exploit, but instead they pissed on the very idea of a sensible Bond continuity with all that damnable tombstone nonsense.
The damage is done. The ship has obviously sailed on the whole Brosnan thing and more importantly, the timeline is now hopelessly screwed up and James Bond is really, literally Bond. Is this thing beyond repair?
No, I believe this can still be fixed. Here’s how I’d do it.
Craigy-Bond’s last name really is Bond, because he’s the son of the original 007, Andrew James Bond — or as we know him, Sean Connery. The name “James Bond” became codified with the agents who succeeded him. This explains the suggestion in Skyfall that Craigy-Bond’s father may have been absent from his life, and why James hates to think back on his childhood and homestead. Connery-Bond was too busy saving the world and chasing tail to properly raise his son or love his wife, resultantly making the boy bitter and jaded and anxious to leave home forever. He takes up his father’s work almost ironically, as if stuck in his shadow or perhaps to prove he can do anything Dad can do better.
Too dark? Then he was born after Dad married and settled down. Daniel Craig was born in 1968, so he could comfortably play a character born during or after Connery’s 007 run, which ended in 1971.
Either way, this would be easy enough to incorporate. A framed picture of Sean Connery pulled from the rubble of Skyfall, or simply hanging at MI6 in their Hall of Fame.
Too on the nose? Too many shades of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? Then flip the script altogether. Craigy-Bond is the nephew of the original James Bond. That’s right, the actual James Bond Jr., all grown up. Just kidding. This is an absolutely terrible idea. But it’s no worse than what’s been done to the series’ continuity already.
A/V Out.
