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. 

The Oddities: "Legend" (1985)

   

I'd argue there's two Ridley Scotts. There's the Hollywood workhorse who has delivered crowd-pleasing fare like Thelma & Louise (1991), The Martian (2015) and Gladiator (2000). And then we have the avant-garde Ridley Scott, who made The Counselor (2013) Blade Runner (1982), and the film I'll be talking about here, 1985's dark fantasy, Legend. Legend was not a box-office or critical hit but became a cult classic over time, especially with its director's cut,  which is the only version I've seen and which will be my focus for this. Legend is a flawed but beautiful film, remarkable in its imagery and visual storytelling. It represents a completely approach to today's cinematic fantasy storytelling. It's timeless but also very much of the 1980s.   

Legend originated back when Scott was directing his first film, The Duellists (1977). It was the abandoned project Tristan and Isolde which inspired Scott's interest in directing a mythological story. But Scott knew that like The Duellists the film he envisioned wouldn't attract a huge audience. So instead he decided to direct a more sure-fire box office success, Alien, which made Scott's career. Scott then returned to the idea of making a fantasy film, reading many of the classic fairy tales. 

He decided that the film needed to be a original story, saying "It was far easier to design a story to fit the medium of cinema than bend the medium for an established story" (Cinefantastique Magazine, Vol 15, No. 5). Scott then discovered the books of William Hjortsberg, Upon meeting Hjortsberg Scott  showed him Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast (1946) and their shared love of the film was the foundation for their collaboration. Before filming began on Blade Runner (1982) Scott and Hjortsberg worked out what the story was going to be. When the script was finished the story had gone through 15 revisions.

Befitting its fairy-tale foundation, Legend is very minimalist in its story, characters and setting. We're never told what the setting is. This could a entirely separate world or it could ours in some distant past. The villain is simply called The Lord of Darkness (Tim Curry\) and he wants to place the world in eternal, well, darkness. Darkness sends his goblin minion Blix (Alice Playton) kill the unicorns who protect the light and bring him their horns, ensuring there will never be another dawn.

Our protagonists are Princess Lili (Mia Sara) and her friend named Jack (Tom Cruise) who lives in the forest. When Jack shows Lili the unicorns, her desire to touch them allows a distraction for Blix to shoot one with a dart. When the unicorns flee Blix is able to take one of their horns. This brings a snow storm upon the world, with Lili and Jack ending up on separate journeys to make things right.

While I understand why so much of Legend is rooted in fairy-tale archetypes  I do wish Lili and Jack's relationship hit a little deeper. I think the problem is Sara and Cruise don't have great chemistry, though I love Sara in this film- she feels like an actual fairy-tale princess. While she's most associated with Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986) this was her film debut and her performance reflects she understands what kind of movie this is. This was Cruise after he became famous in Risky Business (1983) but before his onscreen persona was solidified in Top Gun (directed by Scott's brother Tony) and The Color of Money (both released in 1986.) Cruise is a little bit lost here. He's known for his intense charisma but role needed a different kind of charisma. Sara was still only 16 when filming took place and Cruise was 22. I think a teenage actor would've matched better with Sara.   

In regard to casting Tim Curry is the standout for many people. Scott cast him because he believed he could be melodramatic while still threatening. Curry crafts something ominous through his voice and I love how we don't see him through most of the film, only his voice. At the film's beginning when Darkness is talking he feels like an entity rather a physical  being. He's almost god-like, paralleling the unicorn's god-like nature. When we finally see Darkness late in to the face his appearance invokes a devil-like creature with hoofs and horns. I'll add that Rob Bottin and Peter Robb-King's Oscar-nominated make-up still holds up. Curry is unrecognizable but is able to give an genuine performance through the make-up.  

So, we have the angelic unicorns and the devil. It's not subtle but its clear visual paralleling. The unicorns represent innocence. On the commentary Scott says while Lili is innocent, she is also manipulating Jack, which leads to him showing her the unicorns. Scott says she was originally supposed to turn in to a cat creature as a result of her manipulative nature, having even tempted Darkness. She also tempts one the unicorns, which Scott likens to tempting a god. I would say by engaging in these gods' worlds hell is brought upon the world as punishment.

Legend is best approached as a mood piece, similar to Blade Runner. Both have a dream-like, almost hypnotic quality to them, with an authentic strangeness permeating through the story. This is a film I'd argue you could watch this film on mute and still mostly understand the story. On an aesthetic level the world Legend genuinely feels like fairy tale/fantasy world. The film was all shot on soundstages, which Scott believed could end up looking fake. He hired production designer Assheton Gorton- whom he wanted to work on Alien and Blade Runner- because Gorton understood how to navigate these problems. Scott said, "We both knew that whatever we did would never look absolutely real, but would very quickly gain its own reality and dispense with any feeling of theatricality" (Cinefantastique).  

When it comes to theatricality there are certain scenes I feel have a Shakespearean quality. The opening scene, for example, with Darkness and Blix, feels reminiscent of the dynamic between a Shakespearean villain and his minion: 

Darkness: Ah, Blix come closer.

Blix: You summoned me, lordship.

Darkness: Are you not the most loathsome of my goblins?

Blix: Truly master

Darkness: And is your heart black, and full of hat

Blix: Black as midnight, black as pitch, blacker than the fouler witch."

And the first scene between Jack and the fairy creatures, led by Honeythorn Gump (David Bennent),  brings to mind something out of A Midsummer Night's Dream:

Jack: I must be dreaming.

Gump: If life is but a dream, better dread you the waking. That's Oona, she likes you.

Jack: (to Oona) Go away!

Gump: Does your blood run so cold Jack?  You'll be a corpse before your time.

Jack: How do you know my name?

Gump: How does a migrating swallow know the way south in winter. Or a falling salmon finds the very source of its birth from the cold black depths of the mysterious sea? I know everything Jack."

Scott mentions that Gump was inspired by Mickey Rooney's performance as Puck from Max Reinhardt's film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream (1935). Reinhardt's film is also akin to Legend in its striking art direction and un-Hollywood like atmosphere. Bennent is a Swiss actor and Scott really loved his accent. However, one of the executives at Universal felt Bennent sounded like a "Nazi." Bennent's voice was dubbed by Blix's actor, Alice Playton.    

Let's get  back to the film's theatrical aspects just briefly. I 'll say he dance waltz-Lili's dance with the black dress that then possesses her- is the film's most theatrical sequence. It's also It's my favourite part of the whole film. I find it truly mesmerizing and am stunned when I watch it. On the commentary Scott says it's like a ballet/opera, and it truly is. But it also feels cinematic. He wonders if the film could be put on stage and I'd say there are aspects which would work on stage, including the waltz. I also agree with Scott that the film takes on its own reality. The theatricality is an organic extension of the film's cinematic reality.  

I now want to talk about how Legend became to exist in different versions. Before Legend was released theatrically Scott cut down the film from 150 minutes to 94 due to poor test screenings with younger audiences who didn't take the film seriously. The American version was edited down even further at Universal Studio President Sid Sheinberg's request because he felt the European version wasn't appealing to younger audiences. Moreover, Jerry Goldsmith's score, which was retained for the European version, was replaced with the German new age band Tangerine Dream's synth score, another way in which to appeal to younger viewers (How the 1985 Fantasy Film 'Legend' Ended Up With 2 Soundtracks - Atlas Obscura)

The eventual DVD release of the film's director's cut (113 minutes) started with unofficial Legend historian Sean Murphy and his Legend FAQ site.  You can find plenty of information on the journey to finally getting the director's cut released here: History Of the LEGEND DVD by Sean Murphy (figmentfly.com)

I want to close this piece by saying I've come to appreciate this film more by writing about it. Despite the story and characters feeling too thin I feel there's real beauty to this film in its imagery and music. So, where does Legend rank amongst Ridley Scott's filmography for you? Which is your preferred version? Comment and let me know.