Sam Mendes is/was regarded as one of the greatest and most intelligent working directors in theatre and in cinema, definitely collecting more accolades than Lewis Gilbert. Him taking on Bond, together with Oscar winner and also theatre-scribe John Logan, naturally raised expectations. Especially at a time when Bond films became respectable because they weren’t just that “silly trifle with eyebrow-actor Roger Moore of the kitschy 70´s” or that “Brosnan-over-the-topness”.
To put it more bluntly: when Stanley Kubrick does Stephen King one does not expect the film to be just another adaptation. Same goes for Mendes/Logan doing Bond.
But again, to continue with the same example, why is You Only Live Twice, with the director of Alfie, and a script from a well known writer, not held to that standard? Simply, 21st century relative fame. I put it that is inverse snobbery alone that makes Spectre, and to a lesser extent Skyfall, such targets for criticism. It’d be like criticising an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet for all the death in it, just because the director did a rom com before it. What else the director did is irrelevant, when he is now making a film of airport novels, expect it to be an airport novel.
Again, at the time of YOLT Bond did not have a history of degenerating into cheese (their words, not mine). Bond was Bond, and despite former cheesiness it was no change, nothing else than what went before. And Gilbert was a hot director at that time but nowhere near the status of Mendes.
Decades later, the great Mendes/Logan combo descended from their arthouse-heaven to raise Bond at least several steps upward. When they failed with SPECTRE do do so it was only obvious and just that they got some heat for it.
I would support your argument if Mendes had done only “American Beauty” and then moved on to Bond. But with the career he has had (and really, his theatre work is amazing) I certainly expected more from him than SPECTRE falling into all the traps of the previous Bonds. Therefore I am disappointed.
Fair enough, I just dont think a film should be blamed for a pre-concieved notion that is exaggerated. Casino Royale and Batman Begins, for example, have a reputation for being more serious and gritty, but that’s only because their immediate predecessors where Die Another Day and Batman and Robin. I think theres a confusion between relative and absolute, particularly in marketing and film criticism.
I agree, preconceived notions are often unfair and rather unhelpful.
But one can hardly escape expectations. The Nolan Batman films, by the way, were indeed better directed than the Burton or Schumacher films. And nobody would have expected Nolan not to bring more to those films. He did.
And Mendes, IMO, did bring many interesting things to SKYFALL and even SPECTRE. But he also did not raise the game as much as I was hoping for. Hence my personal preference for the “journeymen”-directors. And my belief that Bond films do not need a special kind of auteur - they are just what they are and should be. A director can only be a facilitator for that kind of magic.
I think, in the case of Spectre, Mendes didn’t originally want to come back,m, but was eventually persuaded. While de did great with Skyfall, Spectre definitely left something to be desired. I agree that we, as the film watching public, expect more from an Oscar winning filmmaker like Mendes. But even the greats have their poor films. Nolan’s first 2 Batman films are excellent, but the third is an overly long, bloated, meandering, confusing, albeit well acted, mess. Stanley Kubrick has Eyes Wide Shut, Spielberg made Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (not a film I find terribly bad, but one that enough people do to warrant inclusion here). Great filmmakers can still create duds and, IMO, Mendes did with Spectre.
That’s a little different, in that Nolan was one of several directors WB asked to pitch Batman Begins (Darren Aronofsky was another, his pitch is floating around the internet somewhere and I know Joss Whedon pitched aswell) and they chose what they thought was the best one. Mendes was hired as the leads old mate, and he did bring it to Skyfall, but it wasn’t like he had to have a full plan in the first place and then was allowed full control. Nolan, somehow, had that (his successors clearly didnt). Mendes, as we know from the Sony leaks, definitely did not.
I mean, I get the fear of why studios dont allow that level of control, as whilst Nolan made a magnificent trilogy with the material, you do also get Snyder and Shyamalan whose audience is very niche, which you dont want when you’re investing that much money.
TBH I dont think Nolan would’ve had the freedom he did if Batman and Robin hadn’t done as it had.
But isn’t the fun of a (successful) Bond movie the special sweet spot it hits between intense drama and Moore-Bond lightness–with each component complementing and enhancing the other through the interplay of difference?
Whomever Stanley Kubrick does, we want the result to be Kubrickian.
Whoever does Bond, we want the result to be Bondian. SKYFALL had too much Mendes/Logan–that is one reason it does not work for me. When Mendes unleashed his inner Guy Hamilton for SPECTRE, the results were much better, including Craig’s best performance as Bond.
But isn’t there the danger that the bar will be raised to a point where the movie is no longer a Bond film? For me, this is what happened with the redemption narrative of the first three Craig movies (full disclosure: I am not a fan in the least way of redemption narratives; repent of your sins in church and not at the bijou).
No auteurs–I agree. But more than a journeyman please–a metteur en scene if you can.
I’m not sure the claim of serious or realistic for Craig’s tenure withstands closer scrutiny. CASINO ROYALE features several zingers, from why the CIA not simply kidnaps Le Chiffre to the worst: putting their own source inside the SIS in front of Bond’s car to stop him. The chances that Vesper and/or Bond end up as strawberry jam are astronomically high.
When we are watching a Bond film we are by default willing to swallow a lot. Logic as such turns into a relative quality, bending and stretching to the needs of the plot. In MOONRAKER it’s a mystery why Drax would steal his own shuttle, why M would send a 00-agent to the manufacturer, why Drax would immediately decide to kill the investigator and and and. None of that is a concern since the flow and pace of the film help us jump the gaps. The same way it works in CASINO ROYALE and most other Bond films.
SPECTRE’s problem to me is that, under its David Lean-esque scope, it struggles to gather that momentum, that speed needed to jump the holes. Revelations lose their impact, urgency is missing, there is no sense of escalation of the imminent threat.
Compare to this the MOONRAKER chain of events: stolen shuttle - personal attack on Bond - rematch in Venice - loss of allies (one fatal, one missing) in Brazil - discovery of Amazonas base and threat to human life - endgame in space. It’s very straightforward, simplistic even. But also crammed with the most fantastical mind boggling absurdities. Compared to this SPECTRE is an in-depth documentary.
And yet, SPECTRE neglects the inner logic of the characters while not helping them with speed and spectacle. Cut it by an hour and you might just possibly get something zipping along as nicely as MOONRAKER.
Or, second option, go really all-in on the characters: Show how Madeleine really suffered as a kid. Show Lucia as calculating and manipulative. Most of all: let Blofeld really lose his marbles. Keep him on top of that ridiculous Lego ruin and let him watch with joy in his eyes as Bond tries to rescue Madeleine.
Then Big Bang with all three on the building.
Later: Bond wrapped up in bandages in M’s office. M telling him they’ve still no trace of Madeleine’s body or Blofeld’s. But with the Thames and the current…
I like that it gives many scenes the time they need to breath. What are often expositional filler scenes are magnificent vignettes with tone to die for. Because of the Hitchcockian ‘stalker’ narrative; something just beyond the periphery that’s manipulating events, it’s pace and tone are slower by design. It’s about that foreboding - foreshadowing that ultimate discovery. At times it has that sense of lurking doom just over the horizon that Don’t look now has for Sutherland and Christie.
It’s ambitious for a Bond narrative and Mendes really pulls it off imo. So much so that his direction etc miraculously allows me to suspend disbelief regarding the utterly preposterous step brother story. On paper, in hindsight, it is a massive and unnecessary misstep. But while watching the movie i seldom think this, instead getting caught up in the drama all thanks to the whole teams talent and commitment to these ends.
For me the whole house of cards tumbles with the final act in London. Foreboding and tension, mystery and gravitas are suddenly, inexplicably replaced by moustache twirling, damsel to the track tying, cartoon physics, small of ambition tv writing, hands tied directing. It’s as though this whole final act is a pick up done by an entirely different writer, director, photographer and editor. It’s very bizarre indeed.
For me, SP’s mise en scene jumps the holes–David Leanesque is a great way to describe it.
Re momentum: without having planned to do so, last night I watched AVTAK and about 40% of FYEO. This conversation was on my mind, and when I saw AVTAK was just about to start, I switched it on. My main interest was to see how John Glen dealt with an aging Roger Moore–focusing on the editing and framing strategies he used.
Now with Dustin’s comment, I realize the dissatisfaction I felt was because the momentum Dustin describes needs to be mirrored in the physical actions of Bond himself. Bond’s gestures and physical deployment are the glue that keeps the chain of events from falling apart. MOONRAKER works because Moore is still acting with his body (and Lewis Gilbert does a good job of shaping the role to his actor).
Lastly: I would have loved to have seen Dustin’s version of SP.
Beautifully stated. The pace and tone adopted make the mise en scene crucial since a they demand a calibrated mise en scene to keep the viewer’s eye engaged or else the game is lost.
In any event, the fact that we are still discussing SPECTRE - in a thread called News on BOND 25 - has to mean that the film at least did not leave us cold.
Which no Bond film ever did, IMO. Even the lesser ones still have great moments and ideas, not one is just flat and uninteresting.
You’re right. The progression of Moonraker is straightforward but that’s what helps make it so enjoyable. It depicts a relentless Bond who is always hot on his foe’s tail, picking up information along the way and dispatching foes who seek to stop his pursuit of said information.
People can say his investigatory displays are weak, but when you add it all together (cracking a safe, snooping around Veni Glass during day and night, looking through a Rio warehouse, and observing plane movements) I think it’s a hell of a lot more than we usually see espionage wise.
The endgame in space is a very natural conclusion considering what preceded in terms of plot development – and is actually remembered to this day, for better or worse.
This is without a doubt the best summation of my personal problems with SPECTRE. There is never a legitimate sense of momentum or urgency to destroy any genuine or mounting threat. Very well said, Dustin.
Might this be because the mcguffin and the threat are traditionally the same thing, whereas in SP they are separate?
Usually our hero is out to save the world, or his boss from an evil plan or device. That is the headline and the rest is subtext.
In SP the mcguffin - Nine Eyes - is wholly a side show. It’s potential threat barely registers from one scene to the next. The Threat in SP is the knowledge that Blofeld has played Bond all along; The threat, more that any other Bond film before it (even OHMSS) is personal. Even when Nine Eyes is revealed by Blofeld as his ‘weapon’ it’s all overshadowed by the personal psycho-drama revelation.
In SP the personal aspect, usually the subtext, is at the forefront in motivating the plot; like Stewart in Vertigo, Craig is searching for some part of himself, rather than a bad guy, or weapon.
So, the usual pacing depends upon preventing something that’s about to happen, but in SP it’s building to the revelation of something that has already happened. This is at odds with the action-thriller genre and is more in keeping with psycho-drama and horror.
If that’s not your bag then SP is a real let down. But it doesn’t fail because it’s done badly - it’s a damned great piece of Hitchcokian psycho-drama - it’s because it’s not the usual Bond genre. Personally i salute it for such ambition and love it to death. It may be seen as Lean-esque when viewing the pacing from an action perspective, but shift that perspective to Don’t Look Now, or Vertigo and it’s a highly accomplished Bond movie.
A shame they bottled it in the last straight and morphed it into a Brossa bond finale.