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. 

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. 

Some musings on "Bond 25"

I'll always have a soft spot for the James Bond franchise. Along with Star Wars, it's one of the big film series I grew up with and watched constantly. And while it's become popular to put the Mission: Impossible franchise above it, I'm honestly more excited for Bond 25- which announced its cast and plot, but no title last Thursday- than I am the next two M:I films. I think this is due to Bond being M.I.A for a while. The last Bond film, Spectre, came out in November 2015. It's the only Bond film I've only seen once and I do want to revisit it to clarify my feelings. I thought it had a good build-up but it made the mistake of making Christoph Waltz's version of Ernst Stavro Blofeld intimately connected to Bond. Instead of just being the head of Spectre, he was Bond's Foster brother and  being responsible for the tragedies which had bad befallen Bond. I had no problem with Spectre being behind the events of Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace but giving Blofeld a vendetta against Bond didn't feel like a natural continuation of those films, especially when Javier Bardem's character, Raoul Silva, from Skyfall was revealed to be part of Spectre as well. And like Star Trek Into Darkness, Spectre relied too much on Blofeld's identity being a twist solely for the audience and not Bond. Just as the name "Khan" wouldn't mean anything to Kirk and Spock, the name Blofeld means nothing to Bond.

If Spectre was Star Trek Into Darkness then maybe Bond 25 will be Star Trek Beyond. a more streamlined and simple film that lets Bond be Bond. Without a trailer and just some basic plot details, it's hard to know. We do know Jeffrey Wright will be back as Bond's C.I.A ally Felix Leiter, who will be getting Bond out of retirement for a mission involving a kidnapped scientist.. It's nice that Felix is returning to the franchise. He was gone completely from Pierce Brosnan's tenure and was absent from Spectre and Skyfall. I'd like to see a Bond/Felix team-up film.Felix helped out Bond frequently in the pre-Craig films but he actor playing Felix always changed and was mostly a supporting character. Wright and Craig already have a pre-established relationship as the characters so putting them together with Felix being more at the forefront would be a good pay-off to Craig's run. 

Lea Seydoux is also set to return as Dr. Madeline Swann from Spectre. Madeline would be the first main Bond woman to return. The late Eunice Gayson played the supporting Bond woman Sylvia Trench in Dr. No and From Russia With Love. Maude Adams played Francisco Scaramanga's (Christopher Lee) lover in The Man With the Golden Gun and then main Bond woman Octopussy nearly a decade later. We know that Bond drove off with her at the end of Spectre but it's not confirmed if they're going to be together in Bond 25. I hope she's not killed off early to leave room for him to shack up with Ana De Armas' character. This Bond has already dealt with the death of Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) and Judi Dench's M. I think it's time for Craig's Bond to have a little bit more fun. 

Rami Malek will be the third Oscar-winning actor in a row to play a Bond villain, and the first to win Best Actor (Bardem and Waltz, along with A View to a Kill's Christopher Walken, all won Best Supporting Actor.) I think Malek has the right look (those eyes) and vibe to make a good Bond villain. Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris and Ben Whishaw are all set to reprise their roles as M, Moneypenny and Q, respectively. Skyfall and Spectre gave Moneypenny a bigger part to play in the plot than previous Bond films and may be the case here. I do love Whishaw's take on the Q character though no one will ever replace Desmond Llewelyn. And I do miss  Dench as M.

Danny Boyle was set to direct but bowed out due to the oft cited creative differences. While I was disappointed Boyle left the project I feel Cary Joji Fukunga is an exciting choice for director. Fukunga  directed the first season of True Detective and the recent mini-series Maniac starring Emma Stone and Jonah Hill, along with the films Jane Eyre and Beasts of No Nation. He's adaptable to different genres. and also a skilled technical director so I think the franchise is in good hands. Cinematographer Linus Sandgren, who won the Oscar for La La Land, will be photographing the film. The Craig Bond films have been  beautiful looking films, and that tradition will no doubt continue.

As the world changes, so must Bond's place in it and the way in which the character is approached. Producer Barbara Broccoli has already stated the #MeToo movement will have an influence on the film. I also wonder if there'll be any parallels to Brexit given its controversy and topicality; plus, the Craig Bond films have addressed political themes before.

So, what are your thoughts on Bond 25? What do you think the title will be and in which direction do you think it'll take the franchise. Comment below and let me know.

Thoughts on the Bond 24 Announcement

It was an exciting day for James Bond fans as the title, cast, and synopsis for the 24^th Bond film was announced. The title will be Spectre, which I found the most exciting piece of info gained from the announcements. Calling the new film Spectre is the Bond movie equivalent of the next Captain America film being labelled Civil War. Even without seeing a trailer, fans know to be excited.

For those not acquainted with the Bond mythos, SPECTRE (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion) was the shadowy terrorist organization that was a consistent presence in the early Sean Connery Bond films (and On Her Majesty’s Secret Service with one-timer George Lazenby).  But the Bond films were not able to use SPECTRE and its bald leader Ernst Stavro Blofeld (the inspiration for Dr. Evil in the Austin Powers movies) for several decades. This was due to producer/director Kevin McClory (who died in 2006) and his estate owning the film rights to the organization and character of Blofeld. In the late 1950s McClory worked with Fleming on a screenplay for a James Bond film. This was several years before the first James Bond film- Dr. No- in 1962. When that project fell through Fleming turned the screenplay in to the novel Thunderball. McClory was not credited. This is what led to the legal troubles. In November of last year MGM and McClory’s estate came to an agreement and now the Bond films are free to use SPECTRE and Blofeld.

Here is the official synopsis for the film:  A cryptic message from Bond’s past sends him on a trail to uncover a sinister organisation. While M battles political forces to keep the secret service alive, Bond peels back the layers of deceit to reveal the terrible truth behind SPECTRE.

The big question I have is what does this mean for Quantum, the organization that was behind the scenes in Casino Royale (the first Daniel Craig Bond film) and was the focus of its sequel, Quantum of Solace? I’ve theorized for several years that Quantum was this continuity’s version of SPECTRE. But if Spectre refers to the literal organization from the original films does that mean Quantum is just an offshoot of SPECTRE? I think there’s a good chance that’s the direction the film (and series) is headed. I know Quantum of Solace is not one of the most beloved Bond films but I don’t think the film can be ignored, particularly when its events are so closely linked with that of Casino Royale, a film most fans want to keep canon. And if Quantum is just one arm of SPECTRE, then it makes the loose ends regarding Quantum at the end of Quantum of Solace work a little bit better. Quantum isn't the big picture like we thought. There’s something- and someone- even bigger behind them.   

Another question on people’s minds- is Christoph Waltz playing Blofeld? The Oscar winning actor was rumoured to be playing a villainous role in the film and this it was confirmed today. The character he will be playing is named Oberhauser. It’s been pointed out that Oberhauser was the name of a character from the literary James Bond. Hans Oberhauser was Bond’s ski instructor and surrogate father after the death of his parents. Waltz is reportedly playing Franz Oberhauser, Hans' son, which would give the battle between Bond and Waltz’s character a more personal edge. Though many believe Oberhauser will just be a cover name for Waltz’s character- and he’ll eventually be revealed as Blofeld.

We’ve been through this song and dance several times with Hollywood blockbusters, most notoriously with Star Trek Into Darkness. Benedict Cumberbatch was said to be playing a villain named “John Harrison.” This character was in fact Khan Noonien Singh, arguably the most iconic Star Trek villain. Marion Cotillard was supposedly playing “Miranda Tate” in Christopher Nolan’s final Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises. Miranda was Talia Al Ghul, the daughter of Ra's Al Ghul, in disguise.  This sort of misdirection usually backfires because audiences- and fans- are so speculative.  Also the internet makes it easier to discover spoilers.

Some are speculating that Waltz is just a red herring and fellow new cast member Andrew Scott (James Moriarty from BBC’s Sherlock), whose character is an MI6 agent named Denbigh, may be playing Blofeld. Though with all this speculation, maybe Blofeld won’t be in the movie at all. Maybe he’ll just be a spectre, a presence that will be teased for the next film, like the Joker in Batman Begins. What I love about the film’s ending is we only seeing the Joker's calling card, which is more exciting then actually seeing him.  

Most of the new cast members were rumours waiting to be confirmed. Waltz and Scott I already mentioned. Professional wrestler Dave Bautista playing a henchman named Mr. Hinx. Bautista was a standout in this year’s Guardians of the Galaxy. He has natural charisma so I hope this role doesn't waste him. Lea Seydoux, who played a femme fatale role in the last Mission Impossible, will be playing the new Bond woman Madeline Swan. Seydoux is one of those actresses who epitomizes the glamour and exoticness of the Bond woman. I think she’ll be great. I believe Monica Bellucci will be playing the secondary Bond woman, named Lucia Sciarra. Bellucci just turned 50 in September, making her the oldest actress to play a Bond woman, which I think is awesome.

Craig returns for his fourth appearance as the iconic secret agent. Ralph Fiennes will be playing Bond's superior, M. This will be the first Bond film in 10 years not to feature Judi Dench as M. M. Dench’s M died at the end of the previous film, Skyfall, being replaced by Fiennes’ Gareth Mallory. Ben Whishaw as Q, Naomie Harris as Eve Moneypenny, and Rory Kinnear as Bill Tanner also reprise their roles.

Skyfall director Sam Mendes returns to the director’s chair. Skyfall- while not my absolute favourite Bond film- is probably the best directed film in the franchise so I have no problem with Mendes directing another Bond film. Legendary cinematographer Roger Deakins, who shot Skyfall and provided gorgeous imagery for the film, won’t be returning. Hoyte van Hoytema will be the cinematographer for Spectre.  Hoytema has shot Spike Jonze’s Her, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, David O. Russell’s The Fighter, Let the Right One In and Christopher Nolan’s latest, Interstellar. Judging by his previous work, I’m confident his work on this film will be stellar.

Thomas Newman wrote the score for Skyfall and he’ll return to score this film. There’s no confirmation on who will sing the theme song, though rumours say it’s going to be Sam Smith. John Logan and long time Bond screenwriters Neal Purvis and Robert Wade wrote the screenplay. Logan also wrote Skyfall with Purvis and Wade.    

Spectre will begin shooting next week and will be released on November 6, 2015. As always, James Bond has returned.

PS. The teaser poster for the film is an homage to the classic Spectre logo:

This Barbaric Slaughterhouse That Was Once Known as Humanity: "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

I’ve only seen Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel once at the time of writing this piece but I feel the film may be Anderson’s greatest accomplishment yet as a filmmaker. To be fair, I haven’t seen The Darjeeling Limited (2007) yet and I do need to revisit The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), which I saw at an age when I was too young to completely appreciate the style of Anderson’s filmmaking. Nevertheless The Grand Budapest Hotel is a triumph- a film that-like all of Anderson’s work- crafts a fully realized world of artificiality while still creating a sense of poignancy that deepens the whole experience  

The film is told through layers of narrative- Inception done Anderson style. A female student in the present comes to a cemetery to see a monument dedicated to a writer. She begins reading the authors’ memoir and we’re sent back to 1985 where the author (Tom Wilkinson) begins talking about the story he’s about to tell. Then we’re in 1968 where we meet the younger version of the author (Jude Law), who talks about his trip to the Grand Budapest Hotel.  The hotel is no longer the glamorous and luxurious place it used to be and the author meets Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), the owner of the hotel. During dinner the Moustafa tells the author about his early years as the lobby boy to the Hotel’s concierge Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes). We’re whisked back to 1932 where Zero (Tony Revolori) and Gustave become embroiled in a complex plot involving a dead widow/one of Gustave’s lovers, Madame D. (Tilda Swinton), her prized portrait that Gustave steals, Gustave being framed for murder, a prison break, and Madame D.’s son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) who also wants the painting. Willem Dafoe also shows up as an assassin.  

For me personally I became a little lost in regards to the plot. Maybe I’m just too dense or maybe the Anderson’s goal is to create a somewhat vague plot. There is one hilarious moment when Gustave, after breaking out of prison violently asks Serge X (Mathieu Amaliric) - the D. Family butler- “What the f—k is going on.” It’s a somewhat meta-moment that highlights the ridiculousness of the plot and how the characters we’re dealing with aren’t exactly any clearer on the proceedings than the audience.  

Ultimately I don’t think the plot really matters. What does matter is the escalation of absurdity and violence, constantly keeping the audience on its toe to what surprise or shock is right around the corner. The film is essentially a farce but Anderson’s craftsmanship makes it so the film transcending merely being a farce. The pure joy of the film is so seductive and infectious that I could have watched the film for another hour.  Anderson is one of the select filmmakers that have truly created their own cinematic world- Anderson’s filmography is essentially a sandbox in which he can play in. I know many don’t like and resist Anderson’s style- and also don’t like him using similar aesthetics in each film. But while all of Anderson’s films-with the exception of his debut feature Bottle Rocket (1996) – have a recognizable visual style and tone, Anderson- to me at least- never seems to tell the same story twice. As I said Anderson’s world is a sandbox and while his films have familiar surroundings he always tells a unique and charming story each time out.

Anderson is one of the most meticulous filmmakers working right now. His shot compositions often are perfectly symmetrical- Anderson often seems like a warmer Stanley Kubrick.  Almost every shot in this film is one you want to live in. Anderson’s films are perfect for the DVD generation- there’s so much detail that you can’t catch everything on first viewing. And many shots you want to- and pardon the cliché- hang up as painting. A fascinating visual element of this film is how it shifts between different aspect ratios- 1:37:1 for the 30s scenes, 2:35:1 for the 60s scenes and 1:85:1 for the present day scenes. The aspect ratio for the 30s works very well with Anderson’s compositions which already have a boxed in quality. The change in aspect ratio reflects how films were framed throughout history. They also reflect the story’s different layers and make the time frames feel like individual worlds.    

The film’s multiple layers present us with Anderson’s commentary on how story telling is all about layers or to put it this way- storytelling is about passing down stories over time. The young student- for all we know- has never met the author or the elderly Zero- and definitely not Gustave-but through the authors’ work she gets a glimpse in to the past- or at least a version of the past. Maybe that’s the whole point. We only see the past through Zero’s memories, which may be why these events seem to exist in such a heightened reality.

The Grand Budapest Hotel, for me, is a very nostalgic film- told through the eyes of a man (Zero) who was there when a hotel was majestic and another man (the author) when it was past its glory days but still held on to by Zero. But it’s also one that acknowledges how- in respect to Gustave- the old world in which some feel they have lived may have already been long gone before they even entered the world.  Like Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris (2011), The Grand Budapest Hotel suggests that the idea of a “golden age” is just that- an idea rather than something that actually exists or existed. Gustave may have been the last representation of something glorious and is now gone forever.

Zero’s nostalgic connection to the hotel has less to do with its ties to a long lost world than with its association with Agatha (Saorise Ronan), the girl who works at Mendl’s, a pastry shop beloved by Gustave. Agatha became the love of Zero’s life and while I won’t reveal what exactly happened to Agatha, Zero’s explanation of why he’s kept the hotel all this time is incredibly poignant and sweet in its simplicity- and brings to mind the happiness that we all wish to share with someone in our lives, in only for a short time. Ronan’s lovely and beautiful presence makes us believe in Zero’s love for Agatha, and we can see ourselves falling in love with her too.

Ronan is one part of a large ensemble cast that fills out this universe and gives it texture.Many of these actors are Anderon regulars- along with many several new faces, like Fiennes. Fiennes is the standout here, giving a dryly funny performance, presenting us with a man both debonair and somewhat clueless.

My only complaint about the film is- similar to Anderson’s previous film Moonrise Kingdom, my favourite film of 2012- there’s a bit of animal cruelty that felt a little too dark. That and some of the violence felt a little too jarring in this universe.

On a closing note, I can see The Grand Budapest Hotel becoming a beloved classic as the years go by. Like Anderson’s other films there’s timeless quality to the film. It’s bittersweet and ultimately tragic but still manages to be one of the most joyous experiences I’ve had at the movies in quite some time.