"Do you want to know what it is?:" Looking Back At The Matrix Trilogy

 

Spoilers for all 3 films below

In 1999 Star Wars- Episode 1: The Phantom Menace was the year's- and maybe the decade's- most anticipated film. But in late March, just before The Phantom Menace's May premiere, Lily and Lana Wachowski The Matrix premiered, a film without the same level of expectation that The Phantom Menace had but I 'd argue is the Star Wars of its time. Like Star Wars, The Matrix took aspects from different genres and weaved them together to create something singular and new. But if George Lucas took from samurai films, westerns and old movie serials then the Wachowskis took from cyberpunk, martial arts films and film noir. And while The Phantom Menace disappointed many The Matrix entertained and energized audiences, resulting in a sleeper hit that led to two divisive sequels and a just released fourth film

What I love about the first Matrix film is first act's sense of mystery. Instead of providing context for thing Wachowskis instead drop you in to their world, not telling or showing us what the Matrix is or how this mysterious woman named Trinity (Carrie Ann-Moss) can defy physics. Adding to the mystery are the mysterious agents led by Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving), who also break the rules of reality. This all immediately gets the audience asking questions and wanting to continue following the story. Our main character Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves), a computer hacker named Neo by night and office worker by day, is being pursued both by the agents and Trinity. Trinity works with a mysterious terrorist named Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), for whom Neo also been searching. When Neo and Morpheus finally meet he reveals what the Matrix is, a computer program that most of humanity is plugged in to, a prison for your mind. 

Morpheus tells Neo of a man born in the Matrix who freed the first humans and prophesized his return. Morpheus freed Neo from the Matrix because he believes Neo is the reincarnation of this man, the "One" who will destroy the Matrix and free humanity. The concept of the Matrix is horrific but the trade-off is you get to be a hero instead of working a drab office job. Finding your real identity is a crucial component of Neo's character arc. Inside the Matrix he is Thomas Anderson and he can only be Neo by night, in the shadows. Outside of the Matrix you forge your own identity, have your own name. "The Matrix can't tell you who you are," Trinity tells him. But being told you're the One is still being told something about yourself that you haven't forged for yourself tells Morpheus he doesn't like the concept of fate because he wants to be in control of his own destiny. And in the sequels Neo and the audience realize Neo is still part of a system of control even though he's free of the Matrix. But more on that later.

Reeves' inherent sincerity as an actor helps us root for him to be the One and fulfill his destiny. Neo's humility feels genuine because Reeves is such a genuine performer. Neo does start to believe that he's the One until he is taken to a woman named The Oracle (Gloria Foster) by Morpheus. She tells Neo he's  not the One. After Neo and Trinity save Morpheus from the Agents and Neo performs a stunning feat, Morpheus says the Oracle told Neo the exact thing Neo needed to hear. I take this as meaning that once Neo felt unburdened by these expectations he was free to make choices which led naturally to him becoming the One.

And choice is a major theme in this film. Morpheus gives Neo two pills to choose from, a blue pill that will allow him to go back to his ordinary life or a red pill that will show him "how far the rabbit hole goes" as Morpheus puts it, alluding to Alice in Wonderland. My reading on the blue pill/red pill choice is this: you're given a choice but not all the information regarding what that choice means. Morpheus tells Neo "No one can be told what the Matrix is, you have to see it for yourself."  Once you realize the truth it's too late to go back. I would argue you didn't choose to be freed. However, being freed is arguably inseparable from learning the truth; you wouldn't necessarily believe you were part of a computer program without concrete evidence. 

Cypher (Joe Pantiolano), who is part of Morpheus' crew aboard the ship the Nebuchadnezzar, would agree with me. He tells Neo he wished he'd had taken the blue pill instead. Cypher believes he and the rest of the crew were lied to by Morpheus, which is why he betrays  Morpheus to the agents in exchange to be put back in to the Matrix and his memory wiped. Cypher doesn't believe he's free since the real world is a nightmarish hellhole. He also hates taking orders from Morpheus.  He says "ignorance is bliss" when eating a steak within the Matrix and it's easy to understand where he's coming from. And what does it mean to be free? What can the humans do with their other than fight an endless war? Is it even worth being free? I would argue yes. It's worth being free so you can find a purpose outside of a fake reality. To live and die for something is important. 

Cypher wants to be put back in the Matrix but the aforementioned Agent Smith- who like the other agents is a computer program designed to prevent people being freed from the Matrix- wants to be free of it. He is aware not just of being in a computer program but being a program himself. He is as much a slave as the humans are. He despises humanity but this fact shows he is capable of human emotions. Neo and Smith both seek an escape from their existence and both need Morpheus for that. Morpheus has the codes to the last human city Zion's mainframe. Smith wants them so the war can end and he can be set free. 

Smith is seemingly destroyed by Neo at the film's end but he returns in the two sequels, The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions. Smith hating humans showed he was capable of human emotion. In the sequels, as Captain Logan of the Youtube channel Geekvolution points out,  he becomes what he accused of humans being- parasites. Smith assimilates others, creating multiple versions of himself. In Revolutions specifically he takes over everyone in the Matrix, taking what was his prison and making it his domain. Smith is also able to exit the Matrix by assimilating one of the freed humans named Bane while still in the Matrix. But Smith is still trapped-  trapped in a human body that he refers to not being designed to survive due to its fragility. 

I find Smith to be the most interesting character in the trilogy due to how he becomes increasingly human and independent of his programming, paralleling how Neo becomes independent of what his purpose is as the One. But more on that later.

Admittedly I struggled re-watching the sequels. Maybe I wasn't in the right mind-set or just didn't focus enough on them, and maybe going in with a negative attitude, but I found them hard to engage with. Reloaded doubles down on the elements of which the original had the right amount.  For example, the action is too bloated this time around. It's impressive but it's not as lean and essential to the story like in the original. And while the original had plenty of philosophical "mumbo jumbo," it helped propel the story and Neo's character arc forward. In Reloaded there are two many scenes of characters talking about philosophy but don't move the story forward. It's also not clear  what the main thematic arc is supposed to be. And it takes almost an hour for Neo to be given a goal, which is to find the Keymaker who can get him to the Source.

At the film's climax Neo learns from the Architect- the program who created the Matrix- that his purpose is not to destroy the Matrix but begin a new cycle that has occurred 5 times previously; moreover there have been 5 previous Ones like Neo, all anomalies that can't be prevented. Zion will be destroyed by the machines and Neo is to choose humans from the Matrix to repopulate Zion.  He will prophesize his own return and use the code in his body to reload the Matrix.

While the ideas in this scene are intriguing and the Wachowskis were bold in blowing up their own mythology, the Architect's dialogue- while appropriately dense and machine-like- lacks dynamism and Neo should have had a more emotional reaction to learning that he is still not free of the machines' control. In the first film he learned his reality wasn't real. Now he learns he has been deceived again. This should shatter Neo but I don't believe that's felt enough in the film's denouement. 

If there is a thematic arc to Reloaded- and subsequently to Revolutions- I would argue it's one regarding choice and free will. Instead of doing what his predecessors did,  Neo decides save Trinity from being killed by an agent. This breaks the cycle and leaves the future in flux. Revolutions follows that up with a new status quo established at the film's end. The big problem is the Architect told Neo there'd be a complete system shutdown if he saved Trinity and that everyone in the Matrix would die. Instead nothing really happens as a result of Neo's actions. The third film never answers why there wasn't a system failure and it's never brought up in dialogue as far as I remember.

In the third film the philosophy takes somewhat of backseat to the war against the machines. This brings me to the main reason why I like the original film compared to the sequels, which is it had a smaller-scale. The film focuses on Neo's character arc and the climax is about Neo vs. Smith, not humans in mech-suits against thousands of machines. Character is so unimportant in Revolutions that Trinity dies by accident half an hour before the film's end. Morpheus is also wasted and the sequels overall introduce too many characters.

Neo makes a deal with the machines to defeat Smith- who's assimilated everyone in the Matrix- in exchange for peace with the humans. Neo sacrifices himself fighting Smith and a truce is established between humans and machines. In the final scene between the Oracle and the Architect he tells her humans who wish to be free will be. 

I'll admit I don't have much to say about Revolutions. Of the three it's the least interesting and both sequels feel really drawn out. Neo doesn't really have a character arc in the sequels. Instead he's mostly being driven by the plot. I think the sequels should have gone in a different direction with the story and Neo's character. The original ended with the implication Neo could control the Matrix so I think the status quo should've been considerably different at the beginning of Reloaded. Maybe Neo shouldn't have even been the main character. He's essentially become a God in this virtual world so I would argue it makes more sense to see him from a new character's perspective.

Ideally The Matrix should've remained a standalone film but with the latest installment, The Matrix Resurrections, just released, The Matrix has certainly expanded beyond its initial self-contained story. So, what are your thoughts about the Matrix Trilogy and have you seen The Matrix Resurrections yet? Comment and let me know. 

Tonight, Tonight: "West Side Story"

Spoilers for both film versions of West Side Story below.

Steven Spielberg's West Side Story is as good and even better a new cinematic version of this classic tale we could've received. It may be blasphemous to say but in many ways it's better than the 1961 film directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins, which won 10 Academy Awards including Best Picture and Best Director for Wise and Robbins. I'd argue Spielberg's version should be up for numerous Oscars as well, including one for Spielberg himself, a director whose skill is sometimes overshadowed by his popularity. His West Side Story is quite amazing and maybe even in the top  ten of his filmography. It's certainly one of his best recent films- supremely emotional and joyously cinematic, full of inventiveness that's refreshing considering how often we've done this story-whether it be Shakespeare or in some other iteration. It's one of the best films of 2021. 

Spielberg's film tells the same broad story as the original 1957 play and 1961 film; there are two rival gangs in 1950s New York, the caucasian Jets and the Puerto Rican Sharks- and in the middle there's a love story between former Jet Tony and Maria, whose brother Bernardo is the Sharks' leader. Essentially Romeo & Juliet but with the added themes of racism and prejudice. Playwright Tony Kushner's screenplay (Kushner also wrote the screenplay for Spielberg's Lincoln, which nagged him an Oscar Nomination) doesn't transpose the setting to modern day but keeps the 50s setting. However Kushner adds a darker, more modern edge to the gang warfare, including one of the Jets' ears getting pierced with a nail during the opening fight. Janusz Kaminski's cinematography also provides a grittier look to this film than Daniel L. Fapp's more expressionistic and colorful approach to the 1961 film, which garnered him an Oscar. 

Spielberg also chooses to begin the film in a construction zone, establishing the rougher take on this material. Critic Mark Kermode has described this opening as looking like a war zone from Spielberg's own Saving Private Ryan, an apt comparison given we're dealing with a gang war. The neighbourhood under iss to become the Lincoln Centre, which highlights the futility of this gang fighting over the territory, a point driven home by Lieutenant Schrank (Corey Stoll).

Kushner also makes the racism directed towards the Sharks even more vicious- "How many times do I have to tell you Bernardo, I don't speak spic," says Jet leader Riff (Mike Faist). I found Faist's interpretation of Riff more intimidating and almost world-weary than Russ Tamblyn's, though that's nothing against Tamblyn's performance. And David Alvarez as Bernardo brings a sexy brutishness to his interpretation of Bernardo that distinguishes him from George Chakiris' more sophisticated and cat-like performance (for which he won Best Supporting Actor) Alvarez's performance also fits the script's choice to make Bernardo a boxer this time around.  

Tony (Ansel Elgort) is also given more of an edge in this version,  having been in jail for almost killing a rival gang member, which makes his fateful action later in the film more of a payoff for the character. Elgort has more of that "New Yawk" quality to him than Richard Beymer did, rawer, more haunted. While Elgort may be the least of the leading performances I overall thought he was good, making Tony a likable protagonist. Tony is a thankless role compared to Riff and Bernardo but I appreciate the attempt to add dimension. I also like the relationship between Tony and Valentina (Rita Moreno), who is a reimaging of the Doc character from the play and film- in this version she's his widow and took in Tony and gave him a job after he got out of prison. Elgort and Moreno have a sweet chemistry and there's a humorous scene where he's asking how to say certain things in Spanish to Maria. Moreno also has a deeply poignant scene when she sings "Somewhere" alone in her store, essentially singing about Doc; their marriage- a Puerto Rican married to a "gringo," parallels the romance between Tony and Maria. 

And speaking of Maria, in her film debut, Rachel Zegler is a vibrant and sweet Maria. She and Elgort also have a nice chemistry though this story's romance, no matter what, always feels like it needs more development. I know a part of that is due to the story taking place over 2 days, though it feels it takes place over a longer period. To Kushner's credit the script pokes fun at Tony falling instantly in love.  Valentina suggests asking Maria out for coffee before telling her he wants to be with her forever. I do love Tony and Maria's first meeting in this version, meeting behind the bleachers at the school after following each other across the room. It's a very intimate first meeting and I like that they're hidden from all eyes.

Moreno played Bernardo's partner Anita in the 1961 film (and won Best Supporting Actress) and Ariana DeBose brings her own electric sexiness to her version of the character. The pain her face and voice exudes in "A Boy Like That" is even more powerful than Moreno's interpretation. Continuing on with Anita's signature songs, the film opens up "America" from the roof of her apartment out in to the streets, making the song really about New York City as a community full of life and love. 

Another recontextualizations I like: "Cool" isn't sung after the brawl  between Riff and Bernardo as in the original film or sung by Riff to the Jets before, as in the original play. Now it's Tony singing to Riff about his newly required gun- "Got a rocket in your pocket." The struggle over the gun becomes a ballet. The struggle is al significant because the gun has an arc over the story- bought by Riff, given to Tony during the brawl and then required by Maria's suitor, Chino (Josh Andres Rivera), after the brawl. This becomes the gun he uses to shoot Tony. "Cool" is probably my favourite sequence in the entire film, it's amazing. Justin Peck's choreography throughout the film honors Robbins' dance as expression of story and character but finds his own specific physicality for the characters. 

I also liked how "Office Krupke" now takes place in the police station after the Jets have been arrested, which is appropriate. It's also preceded by Anybodys (played by non-binary actor Iris Menas),  who wants to be part of the Jets, being misgendered by one of them. Anybodys attacks the Jet and this leads to the rest of the Jets being left alone in a room, which in turn leads in to the song. The song acts as a cool down to the fight and pays off with Officer Krupke (Brian d'Arcy James) coming back. This time he actually receives the "Krup you" final line of the song.  

The film does feel- as with the 1961 film and with the original play- a little long. And I as I said earlier the romance of this story will always be a little underdeveloped given it takes place over 2 days. But aside from that I think West Side Story is a stunning achievement. Spielberg directs the hell out of the musical sequences and even in the non-musical sequences Spielberg has the ability to stun you with his specific camera moves and compositions. There was understandable skepticism regarding doing West Side Story as a film again but Spielberg and Kushner made an arguably better- if maybe not as iconic version- than the 1961 film. Though I don't want to put them in competition with each other. It's great they both exist and will continue to bring new fans to this story. 

P.S. The late Stephen Sondheim's lyrics are still some of the best of the musical genre. West Side Story includes songs that range from poignant to clever, to cool to goofy but all being able to exist within the same story. What's your favourite West Side Story song? Comment and let me know. 

  

Shakespeare on Screen: Richard Loncraine's "Richard III"

Spoilers Below

How do you make Shakespeare cinematic?  As a filmmaker you have to tell the story through the visuals as much through Shakespeare's words.  You have to provide a strong context in which the story of the play is being told, something visually distinct that compliments the story. For this piece I'm going to be looking at Richard Loncraine's  Richard III- starring Ian McKellen and based on a 1990 stage version starring McKellen and directed by Richard Eyre- and highlighting how the filmmakers made the film one of the most cinematic adaptations of Shakespeare's plays.

In discussing how Loncraine's tells the story visually it's best to start at the film's beginning, with the near dialogue-less murder of King Henry VI (Edward Jewesbury) and his son Prince Edward (Christopher Bowen) by Richard of Gloucester (McKellen). We start with a close-up of a ticker tape message, warning of Richard's approach to the Henry's mansion  headquarters. Some time later a tank bursts through the wall and Richard and his men attack while wearing gas masks. The sound design envelops the audience in Richard's breathing, just as how his family will be enveloped by his machinations. The ticker tape and the World War II imagery establishes the film's context, which is an alternate 1930s England. The setting is both modern in relation to the play's1400s setting but still in the past. Just like Shakespeare's audience knew of the real Richard III, contemporary audience understand who Hitler was, whom the film will create parallels with Richard. But more on that later.

I like how Loncraine stages the murder; Richard bursts in to Henry's room, with Henry in the foreground praying and Richard in the background. The camera closes in on Richard as he shoots Henry, leaving his death to the imagination. We also have the dark humour of a praying man being sent to heaven by a devil. Richard then takes off his mask, revealing himself to the audience. This opening scene and reveal provides Richard a striking cinematic entrance. It shows Richard's ruthlessness and makes him scary to the audience right from the outset 

The film continues to  introduce its other characters visually as we see Richard's family, the Yorks, preparing for and then at a party celebrating Richard's brother, Edward's (John Wood) ascention to the throne after Henry's death. After these introductions we hear the first lines of the play. "Now is the winter of discontent" is usually delivered to the audience but here Richard delivers it to Edward and his party guests, praising his newly crowned brother. As the speech continues the camera closes in on Richard's teeth, emphasizing his growing anger. We then we cut to Richard entering the bathroom as he reveals his bitterness to us. Editor Paul Green visually establishes Richard's two-faced nature and the contrast between public celebration and private bitterness. And Richard in a bathroom peeing as he's talking about his brother is  a nice bit of visual humour.

Location and setting are integral to how a film visually tells its story. Let's look at the film's setting, which I touched on earlier Shakespeare's play was already a fictionalized version of the real Richard III's life. Co-screenwriters Loncraine and McKellen do something similar, crafting their own alternate history- a 1930s England which gives way to fascism. This provides a visually distinct context in which to place the story and allows for visual parallels between Hitler, the Nazis, and Richard. In the scene where Richard agrees to become King Richard and his followers are dressed in black military uniforms like those of the SS. It's not subtle but it gets across the film's ideas in a purely visual way. The main idea is that Shakespeare's Richard, like Hitler, manipulated his way to power and that tyrannical rulers have always existed throughout history. Shakespeare could have written about Hitler if he lived during WWII.  

I now want to look at several of the film's locations. First, I want to say production designer Tony Burrough's work doesn't overwhelm the words or story, largely because he took a realistic rather than stylized approach to them. The first example relates to Richard arranging for his brother Clarence (Nigel Hawthorne) to  be taken to the tower, where he will have him killed. During his time in the tower Clarence has a horrible dream of drowning, which he recounts. In the play the scene takes place in Clarence's jail cell but in the film a guard takes him outside where it begins to rain, an clear visual metaphor for Clarence's dream. It also foreshadows him being drowned in his tub by men under Richard's orders.

Another significant location in the film is the morgue where Lady Anne (Kristen Scott Thomas) sees her dead husband, the aforementioned Prince Edward. In the play Anne is speaking over her father in law King Henry's coffin but the film makes a strong visual choice setting the scene in a morgue. It makes Richard's seduction of Anne even more grotesque and shocking. And like Clarence's death, Anne's death is foreshadowed by putting her in a place of death. The setting also symbolizes Richard being a man surrounded by and unfazed by death.

One other location I like is Richard's private theatre. When Richard tells the Duke of  Buckingham (Jim Broadbent) that Edward's widow Queen Elizabeth's (Annette Bening) young sons need to die so he can be secure as King he's watching a film of himself being coronated. We see Richard's arrogance but also that same arrogance being undercut by his fear of the princes.  

The murder of one of the princes and two other murders which occur offstage in the play are portrayed in visually memorable ways in the film. Elizabeth's brother Rivers (Robert Downey, Jr.) is stabbed from underneath a bed, Hastings (Jim Carter) is shown hung from an extremely low angle, with a use of shadows and light that invokes a film noir kind of shot. And we get a flashback one of the princes being suffocated by a red cloth. We can see the the outline of his face through the cloth, making the suffocation even more sickening to watch 

On the subject of what is portrayed onscreen that is left offstage in the play, the film gives a silent role to Elizabeth's daughter Princess Elizabeth (Kate Steavenson-Payne), the future Queen of England and wife of Henry VII, Richmond (Dominic West). Visually, it was important to Loncraine and McKellen to give Elizabeth a presence due to these factors. It also makes her a silent witness to the film's events.  And those events end with Richard's death. Richard received a cinematic entrance and he receives a cinematic exit as well, willfully falling in to a ball of fire during a confrontation with Richmond during the end battle. Richard's fall is accompanied by Al Jolson's "I'm On Top of the World." This all makes Richard's death oddly triumphant. He was on top of the world, he was King and he went out on his own terms. 

So, now I turn it you. What do you think of Loncraine and McKellen's interpretation of Richard III and its use of setting and location?  Comment and let me know.

The Future of the James Bond Franchise: Bond 26 and the Next James Bond Actor

Spoilers for No Time To Die follow

I know, I know. This is becoming a James Bond blog. But I promise this is the last one for a while. With No Time To Die being out for several weeks there's already been talk about the franchise's future, especially in regard to the new film's ending. Before I go further I want to say I'm going to spoil the ending, so if you haven't seen the film yet, turn back now. 

Okay. James Bond is dead. Well, the version played by Daniel Craig is but as they always say, James Bond will return. The Craig films reinvented the idea of the character and the franchise in general, twice actually, with Casino Royale and Skyfall, arguably the two greatest films in the series. Craig went deeper in to the character than previously and we had the most continuity between films, giving this Bond an actual arc throughout the films. We even got to see Bond have a daughter and possibly settle down.  Weirdly, Bond had to die for the franchise to continue. There's no future in a family-man version of Bond. And literally blowing up Bond at the film's end sends a clear message the next film will be a ground-up reimagining of the franchise.

I would argue the most refreshing way to reinvent the franchise is not to reinvent. Make the next Bond film a straightforward Bond adventure, with an established 00, similar to Goldeneye. We don't need to see how he became Bond; the audience knows the character and what he's all about. We can learn about this new version of Bond through his actions and what the new actor brings to the role. 

Which brings us to the question of who will be the next Bond. My pick is Dan Stevens, Cousin Matthew from Downton Abbey and David, Professor Xavier's son, from Legion. I really like Stevens as an actor and I like that he has a sinister kind of quality to him, even playing a villain in The Guest. I think the actor who plays Bond should be someone who can be convincing as a villain, since Bond has a darker quality to him, often verging on being an anti-hero in his actions. 

I do wonder if Craig's supporting cast will be brought back- Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw. I like them and it'd be a shame to lose them. Judi Dench was brought over from Pierce Brosnan's movies for Casino Royale and it ended up being a great choice, with a stellar dynamic between her and Craig's Bond which paid off in Skyfall. And I think there's even more you can do with Fiennes as M, especially with a younger Bond. And I'd like to see Whishaw play off Stevens as well. 

People have suggested making the next Bond a period piece and that's an idea I can get behind, especially since it'll get us away from the whole "Is Bond relevant in the modern world" theme we've explored in the last several movies. The question I have is do you set it in a highly stylized version of the 60s or do you make it feel like the authentic period. Will the technology be modern or will it be similar to the technology of the 60s Bond films. Of course, if you set it in the 60s you can't make it  exactly like they made Bond movies in the 60s. The way Sean Connery often treated women doesn't fly and even as far back as Goldeneye the sexism of the franchise was being called out, with Dench's M calling Bond a "sexist misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war." And even Moneypenny used the term "sexual harassment." 

Who should direct? I saw a suggestion of James Wan, who I love and would bring the kind of technical bravado the franchise has been seeking with people like Sam Mendes and Cary Joji Fukunaga. Though after doing a couple of Aquaman movies he may not want to do another franchise. Kathryn Bigelow would be another good choice- eventually a woman will have to direct one of these. I haven't seen Black Widow but that film's director, Cate Shortland is also a viable choice if you wanted a woman to direct. Christopher Nolan is a lot of people's choice but I feel I already know what a Nolan Bond film would look like, largely because he's paid homage to the franchise quite a bit in his Batman films, Inception and his latest film Tenet. 

Of course, you could just bring back Martin Campbell to perform a hat trick after rejuvenating the franchise twice with Goldeneye and Casino Royale. Unfortunately, 2011's Green Lantern hurt his career but he just recently had a movie released, The Protege, starring Maggie Q, Michael Keaton, and Samuel L. Jackson. And 2017's The Foreigner with Jackie Chan and Brosnan was an okay film. 

The one thing I know is whoever will play Bond next will be someone's first Bond and the actor they'll later call their favourite. Bond 26 could be Goldeneye or Casino Royale for a whole new generation, with new fans being brought in and old fans being satisfied as well. As an older fan I hope to have a great time with the next film and actor. So now, I hand it over to you.  Who do you want to play James Bond and what do you want from Bond 26, including the director. Comment and let me know. 

All the Time in the World: "No Time To Die"

Major Spoilers Below

"We have all the time in the world" James Bond (Daniel Craig) says to Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) as they're driving in Italy near the beginning of No Time To Die, Craig's fifth and final Bond film. The line and the instrumental version of Louis Armstrong's song are poignant homages to On Her Majesty's Secret Service but fans also know these words are a sign of bad things to come. It's fitting that Craig's final film would reference On Her Majesty's Secret Service since his first, Casino Royale, was that film's spiritual heir, with both films showing Bond genuinely falling in love and suffering heartbreak  No Time To Die comes full circle, not just back to Casino Royale, but back to first truly emotional James Bond film.  

Just as Bond's murdered wife Tracy loomed over the previous iterations of Bond, the spectre of Eva Green's Vesper Lynd still haunts Craig's Bond. Bond had supposedly put her behind him at Quantum of Solace's conclusion but her impact on his life was still felt in Skyfall, despite the film never mentioning her. Bond was ready to retire to be with her but when he was presumed dead in Skyfall and had an escape from the service there was no one to keep him away when MI6 was attacked. Spectre brought her back to the forefront and introduced Madeleine as a second chance at happiness. The film ended with Bond retiring with Madeleine, which is where No Time To Die picks up. 

Madeleine persuades Bond to visit Vesper's grave but there an attack by Spectre agents occurs, which leads him to believe Madeleine, like Vesper, has betrayed him. Bond puts Madeleine on a train, which leads in to the title sequence and Billie Eilish's theme song. The transition between the pre-titles and the song reflects the transitioning of Bond and Madeleine's relationship,  making it an uncommonly affecting way to end the pre-credits. And the lyrics- "Was it obvious to every one else that I'd fallen for a lie." "Fool me once, fool me twice." portray Bond's emotional state, talking not just about Madeleine but Vesper as well.

I think it was inevitable that the tragic love story between Bond and Vesper could never be replicated but Spectre still didn't do enough to make the Bond and Madeleine relationship as potent as it could've been, which does hurt this film a bit. However, I think the beginning break-up does have real weight. And emotionally the film gets over the finish line due to Craig's performance and this Bond's whole arc across the five films. The film also adds even more emotional depth to Bond by giving him a daughter named Mathilde. 

Yes, Bond has a daughter, though Madeleine denies he's the father. Family, especially the loss of family, is the central theme in No Time To Die and actually has been a theme running throughout the Craig films. In Casino Royale he was a loner but found someone with whom he could have  a family. When Vesper betrayed him it turned him back in unattached bachelor. In Quantum, Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko), wants revenge for the death of her family. Judi Dench's M was a mother figure to Bond across the first three films and he lost her at Skyfall's climax. In Spectre, Blofeld (Christoph Walz) was Bond's presumed dead foster brother and Madeleine was dealing with the death of her father, Spectre member Mr. White.   

No Time To Die continues the loss of family theme by beginning with a flashback of  Madeleine's mother being killed by assassin Lyutsifer Safin (Rami Malek). Safin is looking for her father because he wants revenge against Spectre for killing his family. Then Madeleine loses the father of her child when Bond pushes her away. And even the main villain plot revolves around family members. The film's Macguffin is  a bio-weapon designed around D.N.A based nanobots, a stolen MI6 project called "Heracles" being overseen by Bond's former boss, M (Ralph Fiennes), which can pass on from one family member to another. Bond is infected by Safin with the nanobots, meaning he'll kill Madeleine and Mathilde if touches them does. Bond stays behind when Safin's base is destroyed by missiles. The loss of family theme payoffs with sacrificing yourself for your family.  

I want to discuss Safin, who is fascinating in certain ways but needed more fleshing out. It feels like the film is doing of couple of different things with him that don't completely mesh. The first is his plot against Spectre using their theft of Heracles against them. The second is the archetypal Bond villain plot of world domination and the third is his emotional connection to Madeleine. He killed her mother but saved her when she was young after she fell under some ice. When he meets her again he tells her saving someone is like taking their life- they belong to you. These three things needed better blending I believe. I do think Malek brings a steady creepiness to the role, a calmness in the midst of a chaos. Malek has said in interviews that Safin views himself as a hero. In the film he tells Bond they both eradicate people to make the world a better place but Bond is redundant because of Heracles' capabilities.

The "Is Bond still relevant" question is still being asked here, as it was in Skyfall and Spectre. Of course, the answer can never be "no" if the series is to continue. And I would argue asking the question is a way to keep the series relevant and displays self-awareness regarding things about the character that do not fly anymore. Phoebe Waller Bridge is one of the film's screenwriters, along with mainstays Robert Wade and Neal Purvis. In an interview she said Bond doesn't have to change,  just the world around him. That, and you have to treat the women characters with respect. No Time To Die shows the changing world and the franchise's updated view of women through the introduction of  two younger agents-  Nomi (Lashana Lynch), who has taken on the "007" moniker, and Bond's C.I.A friend Felix Leiter's (Jeffrey Wright) bubbly but lethal protege Paloma (Ana De Armas), who kicks more ass than Bond in her brief appearance, even gaining a genuine compliment from him. Both these women could take over the movie from Bond. Armas is so good you wish she stuck around longer and that the film was about her and Bond. 

I feel I liked the early parts of this film- especially the stuff with De Armas- the best-which I think are the most fun. The film's director, Cary Joji Fukunaga stages the action with vigour and the right amount of humour when needed.  The film could've been a little tighter but looking back it doesn't feel like it runs over 2 1/2 hours. Editors Tom Cross and Elliot Graham give the film genuine momentum. Visually it doesn't quite rival Skyfall but Fukunaga and cinematographer Linus Sandgren's have made a very handsomely mounted film. Sandgren's cinematography has some great use of colours, like in the Jamaica bar scene between Bond and Felix, the purple sunset after the titles, and a foggy cat-and-mouse sequence later in the film. 

One last thing: We've come a long way since the blunt instrument of Casino Royale, a man alone in the dark ready to kill a man. By the end of No Time To Die, Bond is in the light, ready to sacrifice himself for his family. The family man Bond couldn't be the franchise's future, so he had to die, allowing the next Bond to perhaps be more traditional.  The world gets to change but to paraphrase Led Zeppelin, the Bond remains the same.   

Daniel Craig James Bond Retrospective: "Skyfall" and "Spectre"

 

Spoilers for both films below

After the mixed critical reaction to Quantum of Solace the James Bond producers returned 4 years later with the franchise's most acclaimed entry to date- Skyfall. Arriving in time for the series' 50th anniversary it was an appropriately meta-textual film, commenting on the character's place in the 21st century and questioning whether he has a place. Director Sam Mendes- the first Oscar winning director to helm a Bond film- cited Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight as an influence, another film which questions the hero's place in society.  In an interview Mendes said that with The Dark Knight Nolan was able to make a "huge movie that is thrilling and entertaining and has a lot to say about the world we live in."  Like The Dark Knight, Skyfall asks how we fight a new kind of villain that doesn't play by the old rules. And both films end without a clear-cut victory for the hero or villain. 

Skyfall has grown on me while I've been working on this piece and also listening to Mendes' commentary. It couldn't recapture the experience of seeing Casino Royale but I would argue Skyfall is the best crafted Bond film. Roger Deakins' cinematography really is incredible and Mendes stages both the action and dialogue scenes tremendously. While the film has its story flaws- I think we needed more set-up early in the film for going to Skyfall, Bond's family home, Severine (Berenice Merlohe) feels wasted and is cruelly treated by the film, and Javier Bardem's Raoul Silva goes through a lot just to kill Judi Dench M. But the film is elevated by its craftsmanship, performances and some really good character moments. 

If Craig's first two films were about his Bond becoming the more polished version of the character we know, Skyfall is about what it means to be James Bond, to have committed yourself to being a tool for Her Majesty's government. Eva Green's Vesper Lynd was a chance at a happy and normal life until her betrayal. Quantum ended with Bond leaving that part of himself behind, having received closure for Vesper's betrayal and death. M told him she needed him back, to which he replied he never left. 

This is where Skyfall picks up. several years later, with Bond loyal to M and the service. But the film is largely concerned with Bond having to question that loyalty. In the pre-title sequence he's presumably killed while fighting a mercenary on a top of a train. This is due to M telling MI6 agent Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris)  to shoot the mercenary even though Bond could be hit, which he is.  After years of service she still risked Bond to complete the mission,  not trusting Bond to do it himself.

Bond stays "dead" for several months but he returns when MI6 is attacked. Bond was willing to retire in Casino Royale but now he doesn't have anything else but the service. The problem- as the film states quite frequently- is Bond is old and worn out. So is M, who's  being pressured to retire by Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) due to her losing the list of undercover NATO agents in the pre-title sequence.

The man who has the list is the aforementioned Silva, a former MI6 agent who was given up by M to the Chinese government when he was discovered to be hacking them. This feels like the film is drawing from Goldeneye, where Bond faced off against a former MI6 agent turned bad, with the former agent a dark mirror version of Bond. And like Elektra King in The World is Not Enough Silva has a grudge against M

When Bond and Silva first meet Silva informs Bond he failed the fit for active duty tests but M sent Bond on the mission anyway. Both Bond and Silva are betrayed by M but one will remain loyal while the other seeks revenge. Silva's introductory speech is an analogy for him and Bond: on his grandmother's island, to stop rats from eating the coconuts they were captured and unable to escape began to eat each other  When there were 2 survivors left they were let go but now they only ate rat. "You've changed their nature," he says. M has trapped them together and now they will be forced to metaphorically eat each other.  

 Bond and Silva are also contrasted by Silva being a technological villain whereas Bond is an old-school fists-and-guns hero. The first two films stripped Bond of his gadgets and in this film the new Q (Ben Whishaw) could be Bond's nephew, another reminder that Bond's getting antiquated. The theme of old vs. new comes to a head when Bond takes M to Skyfall,  making the battlefield  a place without technology.  M does end up dying from her wounds, though after Bond kills Silva. The question is did Bond fail?  Bond's old school tactics ended up not preventing his death, so is he irrelevant? The film doesn't give us the easy answer. Instead it ends with Mallory becoming the new M and Bond telling him he's ready to get back to duty. Bond's loyalty isn't just to one woman but to a whole country, even one that thinks it may not need him. And his relevancy is will be further questioned in the next film.   

After Skyfall's financial and critical success it made sense for Mendes to be brought back to direct, the first director to do back-to-back Bond movies since John Glen in the 1980s. Spectre continues Skyfall's thematic arc regarding Bond's relevancy in the modern world. Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott), head of the  merger between MI5 and MI6, wants to disband the "00" section and create the Nine Eyes Committee, an intelligence gathering alliance. He believes there's no use for field agents like Bond. It's later revealed that Denbigh is working with the terrorist organization Spectre and Nine Eyes will be used by Spectre to collect intelligence throughout the world. Spectre is headed by Bond's presumed dead foster brother Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz,) now calling himself Ernst Stavro Blofeld. Spectre was behind Quantum in the first two films and Blofeld- jealous of his father's love for Bond- has been taking his revenge on Bond since Casino Royale. 

Making Blofeld Bond's foster brother- and having a vendetta against Bond- was a misstep. I have no problem with Blofeld operating in the shadows during Casino Royale and Quantum, since they established the whole shadowy organization thing. (I used to assume they would bring Blofeld back) And Blofeld works better when he is a mysterious figure  in the shadows who we don't see, as in the early Sean Connery films. I find it's much less interesting for Blofeld to have done everything just to torture Bond. It's more compelling and sinister if Blofeld had no personal vendetta against Bond, for him to have just been caught up in Blofeld's impersonal machinations, with Blofeld never giving one thought to Bond and Vesper falling for each other.  And retconning Silva in to having been part of Spectre feels odd because his motivation was so personal.

The best way the film ties the previous Craig films together is the inclusion of Mr. White from the first two films, dying of radiation poisoning inflicted on him from Blofeld because his crisis of conscious made him turn against Blofeld. The scene between White and Bond shows how much these two men have changed since they first met. It's surprising to see White so frail and disheveled. And it's clear these two men no longer have any reason to be enemies. White is much more human here and before he kills himself with Bond's gun he asks him to protect his daughter, Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), from Spectre. 

I do like Seydoux's performance and she and Craig have some good moments together but their relationship isn't developed enough to make the love story aspect of this film completely work, especially compared to the one in Casino Royale. Like Vesper, Madeleine comes in to the film later but her introduction lacks the impact of Vesper's, which changed that whole film's dynamic. The pacing of the film is another issue; it feels really drawn out . Though the over-extended running time makes this feel very much like like a Bond film. except I think it needed a lighter touch. It's not a humourless film but it lacks a certain pop.  

Despite my criticisms I do like quite a bit of the film until until we get to Blofeld's compound. It's pre-title sequence is the best since Casino Royale, starting with a tracking shot that follows Bond through the Day of the Dead festival in to a hotel then out on its ledge. Then there's the fight inside a helicopter, with it turning upside down. Though visually, the Spectre meeting is the film's most visually striking sequence, compliments of Hoyte Van Hoytema's cinematography. 

And Craig gives his most Bondian performance As with Skyfall he's grown so comfortable in the role that he just kind of is Bond.  Watching the films close together it's been cool to see his Bond evolve from the rough around the edges assassin to the more polished secret agent we know and love. We get see what it took for him to get to this place and Vesper is never far from my thoughts when I see Craig's Bond.

I do like the idea of Bond having re-confront Vesper's legacy after supposedly putting it behind him. I believe Madeleine is supposed to be Bond's second chance at happiness after Vesper but I don't think film goes deep enough  in to his thematic territory. The film doesn't commit enough to what it's doing, making it both the most ambitious of the Craig films but also the least interesting conceptually.  And like Skyfall it doesn't really answer the Bond relevancy question. Though I like how Bond sparing Blofeld at the end calls back to what M told Denbigh about a licence to kill also being a licence not to kill. The human factor is lost when killing at a distance via a drone. The decision to kill or not is much more difficult up close. 

I'm glad I re-watched the Craig films leading up to No Time To Die. I've enjoyed seeing Craig's performance evolve and think he's been a stellar Bond. Each performance has been different and I'm interested in how he plays it in his last film. This may be the Bond I care the most about on an emotional level and I've heard No Time To Die is a pretty emotional send-off. It'll be really poignant seeing the guy who's played Bond since I was in high school leave the role and I'll always appreciate what he gave me with Casino Royale. So, until then, what are your thoughts on Craig's tenure as Bond? What's your ranking? Comment and let me know. 

Daniel Craig Bond Retrospective: "Casino Royale" and "Quantum of Solace"

Spoilers for the films below

With the Daniel Craig era of the James Bond franchise coming to a close with No Time to Die I wanted to look back his at tenure, starting with my favourite, Casino Royale. This movie was a big deal for 17 year old Andrew. And it's incredible to think Craig has been playing Bond since I was still in high school. It was 2005 when he was first announced to be playing Bond and now it's 2021. Crazy. I fell in love with the tragic love story between Bond and Vesper Lynd (Eva Green), the reinvention of the gun barrel, set at the end of the series' first black and white sequence, was so cool. And Craig's performance made him my favourite Bond. While I often say Timothy Dalton is my favourite Bond, re-watching Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace back-to-back I think Craig may be my favourite, though it's always hard to choose. And while I can't say I love this film in exactly the same way I used to, I still feel some of that old love. It's a very nostalgic movie for me.

While Pierce Brosnan's final Bond film Die Another Day was a box office hit it was seen as too fantastical with its invisible car, ice palace and other such things. The decision was made to not only recast but to completely reboot the franchise, taking this opportunity to film Bond creator's Ian Fleming first Bond novel, Casino Royale. When Albert R. Broccoli was first making the Bond films, producer Charles K. Feldman had the film rights to the book which he made in to the 1967 spoof version. Broccoli tried to buy the rights from Feldman but to no avail. When Sony bought Columbia 1999 they got the rights and when they able to distribute the Bond movies, Broccoli's EON Productions was finally able to do the story proper. And the film is actually one of the most faithful Bond adaptations, retaining the basic plot of Fleming's novel though adding a lot more action. 

When Craig was chosen there was plenty of controversy but  the reviews for the film and Craig were maybe the best the franchise ever received until Skyfall. And director Martin Campbell, who introduced Pierce Brosnan in Goldeneye, had for the second time rejuvenated the franchise. Casino Royale was coming at a time where I believe audiences were open to more serious takes on characters like Batman and Bond. I feel people now want something a little lighter, that they're tired of the darker tome. But the film, I'd argue, has the right balance between seriousness and humor. There's a real sense of fun in the reinvention of this icon.

Casino Royale is very much a character study of Bond. It's also an origin story that's not an origin at the same time. Instead of starting with Bond getting recruited by MI6 from the navy or showing his schoolboy days the pre-title sequences jumps right in to Bond carrying out the two kills which will earn him his "00" status. Another film would've taken more time getting to Bond's first two kills but Casino Royale retains an element of mystery regarding Bond's past. The next time we see him he's chasing down a bombmaker in the film's first and stand-out set-piece. While he's a more rough-around-the-edges character, a "blunt instrument" as Judi Dench's M calls him, he's pretty much Bond right from the start- quipping, womanizing, gambling. The only  exception is him not giving a damn whether his martini is shaken or stirred. 

Coming back to the pre-title sequence, it efficiently sets up this version of  Bond as we see him talking calmly to MI6 Section Chief (and traitor) Dryden while cutting to Bond earlier brutally killing Dryden's contact, Fisher, in a bathroom. The black and white cinematography switches between a stark and gritty look in the bathroom to a smoother one in the present. This contrasts the hands on killing of Fisher with one silent bullet assassination of Dryden. Though to be fair, Fisher does come back to life and Bond shoots him as well. 

It takes almost an hour for Vesper to shows up, which makes her introduction more impactful. We've spent nearly an hour with Bond, seeing how he operates, free of emotional attachment. And then he meets the woman he doesn't know is going to change his life. He's never met a woman like Vesper and it changes the dynamic of what the film has been so far. Bond has been a loner, now he's working with someone who's going to challenge him and his ego. The dialogue between Bond and Vesper is the best we've ever had between Bond and his leading lady. It's snappy but also shows them probing each other, challenging each other's beliefs 

Their mission involves making sure terrorist financier Le Chiffre (Mads Mikkelsen) doesn't win the high stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond foiled Le Chiffre's plan to bankrupt the airline industry, which lost Le Chiffre the money of his clients. If Le Chiffre loses MI6 can offer him protection in return for information. The gambling isn't the most exciting part of this movie but the script by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis adds enough business around the game to up the tension and give us some nice character moments, including Bond being poisoned and Vesper having to re-start his heart. The scene where Vesper is sitting in the shower after Bond has killed several of Le Chiffre's who has come looking for their money. is one the franchise's most genuinely tender scenes as well. 

Just as how the film is simultaneously an origin story and not, Le Chiffre is a traditional Bond villain but also not. He has the physical disfigurement that's a trademark of several Bond villains, the sinister presence, and for the first hour Bond is a trail which leads to him. But Bond stops Le Chiffre's plan before the film has hit the hour mark. Le Chiffre becomes desperate man attempting to pay back his clients, rather than the villain with a world domination plot. The film's true villains are in the shadows, who we'll learn in the next film are the terrorist organization Quantum, who have kidnapped Vesper's boyfriend to get her to help them. And this makes Bond part of their plot as well, since it's him winning the game which gets them their money.  

Bond and Le Chiffre and just both expendable pawns. When Le Chiffre is torturing Bond, he tells him that even if he kills Bond MI6 will still help him. And Le Chiffre is killed because Quantum can't trust him. And this is before the final act. This further exemplifies how Le Chiffre is not the big bad of the film. And the larger threat looms over the happiness Bond and Vesper find with each other. Like On Her Majesty's Secret Service we see Bond given an opportunity for a different kind of life before it's tragically snatched away. But it's inevitable, if not for Bond than for the audience, who know Bond can't quit. There wouldn't be a franchise if he did. But there is odd sense of triumph to the film's final scene, with Bond standing over Quantum member Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), saying the iconic "Bond. James Bond" It's letting us know Bond's not going to be brought down by tragedy.

 

But Bond still has to deal with Vesper's betrayal and his need for vengeance in the next film, Quantum of Solace, a film that was one of the victims of the 2007-2008 writer's strike and displays it's lack of a polished story pretty clearly. I guess it wasn't originally supposed to be a direct sequel but became that later on. Stylistically the film does feel different from Casino Royale- largely I think because Campbell didn't return and Marc Forster ended up directing-and it's plot involving a coup in Bolivia and control over its water supply feels like it could've been in a standalone movie. 

Quantum is best viewed it back-to-back with its predecessor,  since it takes place right after Casino Royale ends, a first for the franchise.  Watching it for this retrospective, I didn't like it quite as much as I had before. It's a little thin and underdeveloped, and doesn't get to have to a true built from the ground up story. And it feels rushed compared to the more thought out prequel. The film has its moments: I like the bits of humour, stylistic flourishes and Craig's performance but it can't help but feel like a disappointment as a sequel to what was a breath of fresh for the franchise.

It was a bold choice to shove us right back in to the story of Casino Royale but I wonder if the story should've been placed some time after, allowing more space to build up its story rather than forgoing a traditional first act. Casino Royale took  time with its story but Quantum of Solace, at only 106 minutes with credits- including the pre-title sequence- is the shortest Bond film and as I said, it's kind of rushed. Bond usually has a more leisurely quality as we follow Bond from one exotic location to the next. But the shorter running time does befit what's an essentially a revenge story. If Craig is the 21st Century's Timothy Dalton then this is his Licence to Kill, a harder edged Bond film where Bond is caught between his emotions and his duty. 

I said the previous film was an origin story that wasn't and I'd argue Quantum is a revenge story that's not quite a revenge story. The film's main villain Dominic Greene (Mathau Almaric) is never established as having been involved with Vesper's kidnapped boyfriend who was being used to blackmail her. The whole point is Bond doesn't know where to direct his anger. As M tells him, he's so full of "inconsolable rage" he doesn't care who he hurts. It turns out Vesper's boyfriend was himself was a Quantum member and his kidnapping was staged to get her to help them. Bond confronts the boyfriend at the end, deciding to spare him and allow MI6 to arrest him. So, it's kind of an anti-revenge story in a way. And see Bond learn restrain, becoming more like the Bond we know other films. 

The revenge/character stuff is set against the backdrop of geopolitical plot concerning Quantum helping General Medrano's (Joaquin Cosio) coup against the government in exchange for control over Bolivia's water supply, with the C.I.A turning a blind eye. The film is obviously going for a plot reflecting real world geo-politics but there's not enough connective issue between Bond's inner turmoil and the main villain plot. There needed a clear turning point where begins to care about the bigger picture. One thing I do appreciate about the film's plot is how it incorporates Bond's C.I.A ally Felix Leiter (Jeffrey Wright), giving Felix a little moral dilemma.  Wright as Felix is great casting and wish he was in these films more. 

What's always remarked about the film is its frantic editing. The editing is very messy in this film but I can see how they were maybe going for something impressionistic. The opera shootout id actually quite good, with the editing cutting between the action on stage with the gunfight. It's one of the most "arty" things ever put in a Bond movie. And I admire the build up to the opening car chase. We're shown glimpses Bond's eyes, guns, and the car in shadows. The music builds and then we're suddenly thrust in to the chase Forster is a more "art house" kind of director than journeyman Campbell so it makes sense while we have more of these stylistic displays.

The film is at its best in its quieter character moments than in its action. The scenes between Rene Mathis (Giancarlo Giannini), who Bond thought had betrayed him in the previous film, have a real warmth to them. Mathis' death features both Bond being comforting and cruel in quick succession. He holds Mathis while he's dying but then throws in the garbage. Bond's relationship with Bolivian Secret Service agent Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko) also has a surprising poignancy to it. Their relationship never becomes sexual. Instead, the film focuses on how they're both broken people looking for closure. Camille wants to kill Medrano for him killing her family. Bond doesn't attempt to lecture her about revenge. He even apologizes for screwing up her shot at Medrano earlier in the film. These are nice character details which make Craig's Bond maybe the most nuanced incarnation of the character. 

Casino Royale began with Bond killing two men and Quantum ends with him sparing one. It's a nice bookend for the duology. M tells Bond she needs him back, to which Bond replies he never left. Bond then drops Vesper's necklace in the snow. This ending actually segues nicely in to Skyfall, where Bond has committed himself to M16 for years, a cog in a machine. And he begins to question his relationship with M and what it means. But that's for next time. See you then.

The Essential Films: "On the Town" (1949)

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for people who haven't seen the film.

On the Town is a lovely and very funny movie musical, a encapsulation of that one day where you meet the guy or girl of our dreams. You don't know when you'll see each other again but at least you were together for a moment. Directed by Stanley Donen and star Gene Kelly, On the Town is a precursor to their ultimate triumph, Singin' in the Rain (1952), but it stands up pretty well aside that film. When people say "They don't make 'em like they used to," this is the kind of film they're talking about, a film filled with joy and is absent of cynicism, as well as a snap-shot of performers like Kelly and Frank Sinatra in their prime, forever young.

On the Town began life as a ballet called Fancy-Free (1944)- choreographed by Jerome Robbins, who also choreographed the original production of West Side Story- with music by Leonard Bernstein .Stage designer Oliver Smith and his business partner Paul Feigay convinced Robbins and Bernstein to turn the ballet in to a musical. Leonard Bernstein wrote the music while Betty Comden and Adolph Green wrote the book and lyrics. Comden and Green's long running partnership would involve writing the screenplays for Singin in the Rain and Vincente Minnelli's The Band Wagon (1953), starring Fred Astaire and Cyd Charisse, the latter gaining them an Oscar nomination. They would also write Auntie Mame (1958) starring Rosalind Russell.

On the Town premiered on December 28, 1944, at the Aldephi Theatre, directed by George Abbott, who also directed the original stage productions of Damn Yankees, Pal Joey (starring Kelly) and The Pajama Game (co-directed by Robbins with choreography by Bob Fosse). On the Town ran for 462 performances and is noted for its racially diverse cast, which the film unfortunately does not replicate. 

MGM head Louis B. Mayer didn't like the stage show and producer Arthur Freed had to convince him to buy the film rights. I believe this is why the film version does away with all but four of Bernstein's songs, with new songs by producer Roger Edens, with lyrics by Comden and Green. This led Bernstein to boycott the film. Abbott almost directed the film but Donen and Kelly were eventually assigned directing duties.

On the Town chronicles 24 hours in the life of three sailors, Gabey (Kelly), Chip (Sinatra) and Ozzie (Jules Munshin) get shore leave for a day. While on the subway Gabey sees a picture of "Miss Turnstiles," Ivy Smith (Vera-Ellen). The three fantasize about her in a one of the film's signature set-pieces, which was the sequence which really got be on board with the film- due to its humor and visual storytelling via choreography and cinematography (the film's cinematographer was Harold Rosson, who also did the cinematography for The Wizard of Oz, Singin in the Rain, The Asphalt Jungle and The Bad Seed.). Gabey encounters Ivy when they get off the subway but she leaves before Gabey gets to know her. He gets Chip and Ozzie to go help him search for her. On their quest they meet cab driver Brunhilde "Hildy" Esterhazy (Betty Garrett) and anthropologist Claire Huddesen (Ann Miller), who take a interest in Chip and Ozzie, respectively. To cover more ground Gabey goes off alone while Chip and Ozzie become closer to Hildy and Claire. Gabey eventually finds Ivy but doesn't realize she's not actually that big of a celebrity 

And yeah, that's basically the plot. It's simple but it works perfectly for what this film is, what Quentin Tarantino would maybe call a "hangout movie." Most of the film is spending time with fun characters. There's not even much conflict-  Ivy not being exactly who Gabey thinks she is doesn't really matter all that much Essentially, three guys and three girls fall in love, party a little, then have to say goodbye. But isn't that everything?   

The film is also a great time-capsule of New York in the 1940s. On the Town was the first movie musical to be shot on location. The on-location shooting provides a cinematic quality to the story which is important when jumping from stage to screen. The location shooting also allows the film to be fantastical and realistic simultaneously. The emotions are heightened but being in an actual environment helps keep it grounded. And there's something romantic about New York which makes it the perfect setting for the story. 

Let's talk about the actors. Kelly, as both a actor and dancer, combined masculinity with tenderness and vulnerability. He was graceful but a little bit rugged. Sinatra is boyish but kind of rough-around-the-edges. Munshin is the most comedic of the three, reminding  me a bit of Donald O'Connor in Singin in the Rain. However, I find the women were the most interesting of the six main characters. I particularly loved Hildy, whose "I want to have sex with you" energy towards Chip feels progressive for the time and is just plain funny. And Hildy and Chip's duet, "You're Awful," is maybe my favourite song of the film. It has so much intimacy and wry charm it's hard not to smile.  I also like how Donen and editor Ralph E. Winters (who won Oscars for Ben-Hur and King Solomon's Mines) allow it to play out in only a few shots. For me, seeing actors play out a scene in longer takes it always more pleasurable than constantly cutting.

Ellen has to be both the ideal woman but also down-to-earth which she pulls off very well. Miller is a dynamo in the "Prehistoric Man" number, her tap-dancing forceful but smooth. I also liked Alice Pearce (the only actor from the Broadway production to reprise her role) as Hildy's roommate Lucy Schmeeler, Lucy has a cold the others set her up with Gabey when Ivy has to leave for a burlesque show. The movie is a little mean to Lucy during this part, with Gabey not wanting some other sailors to mistake her for Ellen. However, I think it pays off well when when Gabey takes Lucy home, giving her a kiss on the cheek. He also tells her there is a guy for her. It made me feel better the whole set-up in general and adds to Gabey's likability. Pearce is probably best known for her role on the tv show Bewitched as the nosy neighbor Gladys Kravitz.

The film is book-ended by three new sailors getting shore leave, singing the exact same song- "New York, New York" that Gabey, Chip and Ozzie sang at the film's opening. This is reminding us this isn't the first or last time someone will fall in love in New York or have an adventure. Gabey tells Ivy he believes they'll see each other again. And I hope they do. On the Town has become one of my favourite movie musicals, a film with which I'm very glad I caught up. So, what are your thoughts on On the Town. Where does it rank among your favourite musicals. Comment and let me know.    

  

The Essential Films: "Creature From the Black Lagoon" (1954)

A Series of Writings on Films that I feel are essential for film lovers, coupled with films that are personal to me. Spoilers for people who haven't seen the film.

If you were to guess what movie director Ingmar Bergman reportedly watched every year on his birthday the answer may not be Creature From The Black Lagoon but it shows the far-reach and lasting impact of this film, an impact its makers probably could've never expected. But why does Creature endure? I would argue it's due to its odd elegance and beauty as well as the subtle tragic pathos of its titular character, who despite being a "monster" is actually a sympathetic figure. He's in love with a woman with whom can never be and is trying to protect his home from interlopers. He winds up being more alluring and interesting than the human characters.  

Before I get to the film's plot I want to talk about the film's fascinating and strange origin. Actor and future producer William Alland-who was part of Welles' Mercury Theater and played the reporter in Citizen Kane- was at a dinner party with Welles, actress Dolores del Rio and cinematographer Gabriel Figueroa during Citizen Kane's production. Figueroa told stories of  part-fish, part-human creatures that lived in the Amazon. These stories inspired Alland to write down notes that a decade later would be developed in to the script for Creature.

Jack Arnold, who directed It Came From Outer Space, was hired on to direct. Before he became a feature film director Arnold was an actor on Broadway. When WWII began he was placed in the Signal Corps where he took a course on cinematography. He then became a cameraman, working on military documentaries as an assistant to famed documentary filmmaker Robert Flaherty (Nanook of the North). After the war he formed a production company with his air squadron friend Lee Goodman named Promotional Films, which made fund-raising films for non-profit organizations. He would eventually direct an Oscar-nominated documentary entitled With These Hands, about working conditions in the early 20th Century.  

The underwater sequences were directed by James C. Havens and photographed by Scotty Welbourne. Ricou Browning played "Gill-man" in the underwater scenes while Ben Chapman played him in the land scenes. Browning started out as a diver in underwater shows but after being in Creature and its two sequels he would go on to have a career in the film business as a producer, director and second unit director. He was the second unit director on the James Bond film Thunderball, which is funny because when I was watching the film I couldn't help but think of Thunderball's underwater scenes.   

The design for "Gill-man" came from Milicent Patrick, born Mildred Elizabeth Fulvia di Rossi, and who some claim to have been an Italian baroness. Her father C.C. Rossi helped design William Randolph Hearst's castle estate (another Citizen Kane connection.) She worked as animator for Walt Disney before becoming a model. When she became an actress she met Bud Westmore, head of Universal Studios' make-up department, showing him her sketches.

She created Gill-man's design but was let go from Universal due to Westmore's jealousy over her creating the design. Westmore got the credit for Gill-Man until research reclaimed Patrick's contribution to the film. Patrick is the most fascinating figure associated with this film, with a recent book about her life and career by Mallory O'Meara entitled The Lady From The Black Lagoon being published in 2019.

I've talked quite a bit about the behind the scenes players  so now it's time to discuss the actual  story. The film begins with the discovery of a a skeletal hand which links man and sea animal. Dr. Carl Maia (Antonio Moreno) seeks out friend and former student Dr. David Reed (Richard Carlson) to help with an expedition. David, Carl, Dr. Mark Williams (Richard Denning), Dr. Edwin Thompson (Whit Bissel), and David's colleague and lover Kay Lawrence (Julie Adams), go back to the amazon to find the rest of the skeleton. This leads to them encountering the Gill-man, who takes a liking to Kay, ala King Kong. 

The characters are archetypes- you have the good scientist who doesn't want to kill the creature (David), the scientist who acts like a big game hunter (Mark), the bookish scientist (Edwin), the older doctor (Carl), the girl (Kay), and the foreign riverboat captain, Lucas (Nestor Paiva). But the simplicity of the characters just makes Gill-man all the more interesting. Chapman and Browning both give Gill-Man a personality despite never speaking, a certain "character" if you will. Chapman was directed by Arnold to not lift his feet when walking on the boat. Arnold conceived that since Gill-Man glided underwater he would glide on surface. It's easy to forget its two actors playing the part because it feels like a consistent character.

Coming back to King Kong, If that film's plot is repurposed for Creature, then Creature's DNA can be found in everything that came after, including Jaws and Alien. The sequence where Kay is swimming in the lagoon, mirrored by Gil-man underwater, can't help but bring to mind Stevem Spielberg's classic. When we see Kay from the creature's perspective it's hard not imagine Spielberg having seen the film when he was a boy. In the opening where we see Chrissie (Susan Backline) from the shark's perspective underwater it feels like a clear homage. Welbourne's cinematography gives this scene a dream/nightmare-like quality. The underwater sequences all have a lyrical and visceral quality. And since this film was released in 3-D, audiences in 1954 were immersed in the watery world along with the characters. 

Adams describes Kay and Gill-Man swimming together- unbeknownst to Kay- as a "love dance," which I think is a great description. There's always  an odd romanticism in this kind of film, with the creature in love with a human. On the DVD documentary historian and science fiction illustrator Vincent Di Fate suggests that thinking too much about the logic of sexual intercourse between Gill-man and Kay would ruin the story. He say what matters is the subtext of this scene connecting with an audience.  

The lagoon becomes the thin dividing line between humanity and Gill-man, where humanity is the intruder on his terrain. In the documentary film historian Paul M. Jensen sees an environmental message in the film. When Kay dumps a cigarette in the water it pans down to Gill-man. While Gill-man is actually looking at Kay rather than the cigarette Jensen says the camera movement links the cigarette to Gill-man. This makes it seem like Gill-man is watching his home being polluted. This for makes his actions understandable, and I would argue sympathetic. As Chapman puts it in the documentary, if you came home and people were partying in your house, how would you react? 

Continuing on with the film's themes regarding the underwater world, there's a particular emphasis put on the underwater world's mystery and danger. In one scene David tells Mark:

We've just begun to learn about the water and its secrets, just as we've only touched on outer space. We don't entirely rule out the possibility that there might be some form of life on another planet, and why some entirely different form of life in a world we already know is inhabited by millions of living creatures?

I like the comparison to space, how it and the water are both mysterious worlds still in many ways unknown to man, though we know for certain the water is inhabited. Even if Gill-man is scary he's also an incredible discovery. The film's opening narration is dedicated to how life started underwater, placing the Gill-man as a mythic figure who's been around for ages and is a missing link between man and amphibian. The point of the story is how man will react violently to such a creature. They would want to destroy it instead of trying to make peaceful contact or leaving it alone. Gill-man, after kidnapping Kay is shot down at the end, though the ending was made to be ambiguous so as to leave room for a sequel, which I as made reference to earlier did happen- twice. 

On the DVD commentary, Tom Weaver quotes from an interview Arnold gave where he said he always set out to explore man's inhumanity towards man and those who are different- as well and how humanity hadn't evolved beyond focusing on what was superficial- in his science-fiction films. However he wanted to do so in a way audiences would accept. Arnold said he didn't think audiences would sit for a polemic. He also knew the House Unamerican Activities Committee or other societies would come after him. Arnold wanted to entertain but also hoped audiences would pick up on the deeper themes. Arnold strikes me as a thoughtful filmmaker even if certain critics didn't see anything deeper in Creature. I feel he was able to make an entertaining film without falling in to camp. I think its because it takes its premise seriously without being too serious.  

A discussion of Creature wouldn't be complete mentioning its score and the iconic "Bah Bah Baaahh" theme for Gill-man (created by Herman Stein), which is played every time he appears,. The score is an composite of different composers' contributions, including Henry Mancini (Breakfast at Tiffany's, The Pink Panther), as well as tracks from other Universal Studios' films. 

So, that's Creature From The Black Lagoon. Where does it rank for you amongst the Universal horror films? And why do you think it has endured over the years. Comment and let me know.

 

Thoughts on the Announced "Exorcist" Trilogy

The Exorcist ranks amongst the most seminal horror films, right up there with The Shining, Night of the Living Dead and Psycho. It's spawned a couple of sequels, two very different prequels (from Renny Harlin and Paul Schrader) and a two-season TV show. But it's William Friedkin's original that endures, a film whose power to terrify comes from grounding the horror in a believable reality. The film made people feel like it could happen in their homes or down the street.  It received 10 Oscar nominations and won for William Peter Blatty's screenplay (adapted from his own novel) and Best Sound. And like many classics it's once again getting a continuation. 

Blumhouse is producing a new Exorcist trilogy, similar to the new Halloween films. The trilogy will follow the original film, with Ellen Burstyn set to reprise her Oscar nominated role as Chris MacNeil, the mother of the possessed Regan (Linda Blair). And David Gordon Green, who directed 2018's Halloween sequel and the upcoming Halloween Kills, is set to direct. While producer Jason Blum has alluded to this sequel ignoring the previous sequels Green has said those films are "acceptable mythology."

I wish they hadn't announced a trilogy before the first film is even released. It already makes me feel cynical towards the whole endeavor. I believe it's important to just make a good movie first before thinking about sequels. You run the risk of making the first film more set-up than story. And while I liked aspects of Green's Halloween it felt like it needed some streamlining. There were several subplots which could have been nixed. And having the same director as the Halloween sequels already makes it feel like Blumhouse is counting on replicating the success of the last Halloween film. I don't want Green to repeat himself, doing the "trauma affecting three generations of a family" story. 

There's also the problem being too reverential towards the original. I get it, The Exorcist is an amazing film but it's difficult to recapture the film's impact. It's better just to go in your own direction, similar to the already made sequels. I haven't seen John Boorman's Exorcist II: The Heretic. I know it's infamously bad but it feels it at least did something different. I have seen Exorcist III, directed by Blatty himself, and that is really good, containing maybe the best jump scare of all time. The Exorcist has influenced exorcism movies ever since it's release so the challenge Green is faced with is how to make it fresh.

I know I'm sounding really down on the idea of these movies and I don't want to be. I believe in being open-minded towards upcoming movies. I am interested in what the story is going to be and seeing Burstyn again- and possibly Blair- is alone an exciting prospect. I hope the movies can surprise us as to what story they're telling. 

So, what are your thoughts on The Exorcist sequel(s).  Comment and let me know.

Francois Truffaut's "Fahrenheit 451"

Spoilers follow for the film and book

Francois Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451 (1966) was a surprise to me. For years I thought it was supposed to be an successful adaptation of Ray Bradbury's classic 1953 novel- about a future society where books are banned and "firemen" burn them. When I saw it in the library I think I forgot it was even directed by Truffaut. But I wanted to see it  because I knew it'd at least be interesting. What I found was actually a strong film in many ways. And the DVD making of documentary made me appreciate it more. This is an underrated gem from the 60s and a singular adaptation by Truffaut, bringing an European flavour to an American classic.

What makes the film European isn't merely having a French director but having an non-American cast, with a German actor in the lead role and Britons as his co-stars. Themes of fascism were always there in the novel but the film takes this further by visualizing the firemen in Nazi-esque all-black uniforms and its main character Guy Montag (Oskar Werner) having blonde hair. And as others have pointed out Montag even gives his boss Captain Beatty (Cyril Cusack) a salute similar to the Nazis. So yeah, this isn't a subtle metaphor.  

The European flavour also extends to the film's overall atmosphere. It feels less like a Hollywood movie and more art-house. Having Julie Christie play both Montag's vapid wife Linda and his next door neighbor Clarisse, a school-teacher who awakens Montag's curiosity in reading, also feels more avant-garde than Hollywood. It was actually producer Lewis M. Allen's idea (he was the husband of screenwriter Jay Presson Allen). Truffaut didn't want Linda and Clarisse to have a villain/hero thing going on but to be two sides of the same coin. 

Christie playing duel roles brings to mind Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo. That film sees Kim Novak playing duel roles as well though technically it's one character playing a part. But the key similarity is the woman being the instigator of the protagonist's journey. And in both films the two women represent a choice. In Vertigo Scottie could choose the normal and nice life with Judy. Instead he wants the romanticized figure of Madeline. In Fahrenheit 451 Montag is given the choice between the monotonous but safe life with Linda or the more intellectually fulfilling but dangerous path with Clarisse. She is one of the "book people," radicals who memorize books to preserve them. 

In the DVD  documentary film historian Annette Insdorf calls this chapter of Truffaut's career his "Hitchcock period," where he delved extensively in to Hitchcock's work. His films around this time- The Soft Skin (1964), The Bride Wore Black (1968) and Mississippi Mermaid (1969) have gotten comparisons to Hitchcock's work. The documentary discuses how Truffaut used the "Vertigo Effect" in one scene, which is also called a dolly zoom. This is when the camera operator zooms in while dollying forwards or backwards.. There's also a dissolve which homages The Wrong Man (1956).  Another Vertigo-esque sequence is Montag's dream after a woman burns down her because she won't leave her books. Montag later has a dream where he sees Clarisse in the woman's outfit. This brings to mind Scottie's dream where he sees Carlotta in the scene with him and Madeline's husband, Gavin Elster. 

Truffaut also brought on frequent Hitchcock collaborator- composer Bernard Herrmann- to score this film.  Herrmann asked Truffaut why he didn't hire one of his composer friends. Truffaut told Herrmann they would give him the music of the 20th Century but he would give him music of the 21st. I'm not always the best when describing musical scores but I would call Herrmann's score variable. He goes from the dreamy "Prelude" to the aggressive "Fire Station" which underscores the opening sequence of the firemen going out on duty. The xylophones combined with violins give the opening a quirky but dangerous quality. And in "The Bedroom" he invokes the romantic whirlpool of his Vertigo score, which is my favourite film score of all time.

I want to come back to the sequence where the house burns down. Montag and Beatty find a hidden library in the attic and it's in this sequence where we see Beatty takes a sadistic pleasure in the burning of books. By this point Montag has already begun to read.

The way Beatty is foregrounded in this shot and the lighting on his face makes him look incredibly sinister and wolfish. He's positively orgasmic at the thought of burning books. And Montag looks to be questioning his captain's sanity. When Beatty holds up Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf the irony couldn't be clearer: Nazis had books burned and now Hitler's book is to be burned by another group of fascists.  Despite how evil that book is it's an important historical document that shouldn't ever be forgotten. For these fascists to continue their existence they have to make sure society never questions their actions. The society of Fahrenheit 451 is very insular and content with their wall screens but emotionally they're repressed. In the scene where Montag reads David Copperfield to Linda and her friends one of them breaks down crying. She tells Linda she hasn't felt these emotions in years. Without literature- or art in general people- peoples' humanity begins to deteriorate. 

Werner based his performance on the idea of being robotic; he felt science fiction films demanded this kind of performance. But Truffaut wanted Werner to act like a a monkey discovering books for the first time, even going as far to sniff them.  While Truffaut and Werner got along well when they made Jules and Jim Werner's ego got inflated after starring in Stanley Kramer's Ship of Fools, for which he received a Best Actor nomination. By the time he made Fahrenheit 451 I guess he thought himself above Truffaut. Regardless of Werner's ego I think his approach to the character makes sense. Montag should be a more reserved guy, someone who doesn't have felt much passion. When he begins to read he awakens his soul. 

I want to talk a little bit more about Truffaut and what brought him to this project. Truffaut wasn't a science fiction fan and Insdorf, when she first saw the film, didn't know what to expect given Truffaut's previous films were all character dramas. Upon watching the film she realized it wasn't science fiction because Truffaut was more interested in the themes dealing with literature. I'd argue Truffaut stripped down a lot of the book's sci-fi and focused on the speculative aspect of the story. The production design isn't very futuristic but more vague and disparate in its elements. On the documentary it's discussed how the film combines the new and the old. Linda buys Montag a straight razor to replace his electric one, there are old phones and wall-screens. And as I said earlier the world of the film feels very insular. There's nothing grand about this future. If anything it all feels banal.

By the film's end Montag becomes one of the book people. Like the firemen they burn books but only after they've been memorized. They're protected in a person's mind and they refer to themselves by the book in their head. While they are defined by a book rather than personality traits they're more individuals than the rest of society. This is because they have something important about them which is the art they're preserving. The snow in the final scene where we see the book people walking around memorizing the books was happenstance. It makes the final image of these people incredibly poignant. 

Fahrenheit 451 wasn't a box office or critical success. But I think it holds up pretty well nearly 60 years later and can be better appreciated for being a distinctive film in Truffaut's filmography. So, what's your favourite Truffaut film? And where does Fahrenheit 451 rank for you in his output. Comment and let me know.