#RestoreTheSnyderverse after their name?
1 Like
Pitch meeting is usually hilarious. This was absolutely spot on. Good show.
I had completely missed this.
One thing I did catch while rewatching Dr No, in the original Dr. No is a subsidiary of SPECTRE. But in NTTD, Blofeld is secondary to the Dr No type villain. Another nice reversal.
Or the Dr No like figure is “my enemy” because only the film version was Spectre.
I was thinking today that if we had it to do over, Safin might have been a better villain for Spectre and Blofeld held for NTTD. Keep the Blofeld at the top of the Bond baddie food chain.
4 Likes
I think it really just comes down to the poor handling of Blofeld. I don’t mind Safin being unaffiliated and as dangerous as he is. EON just completely dropped the ball with Blofeld.
3 Likes
This is where planning a few movies at a time might help. I’m amazed NTTD came out as good as it did given how SPECTRE was written, and that EON ping pongs back and forth from film to film.
3 Likes
That’s what I’m anticipating. The next actor will likely be locked in for x amount of films with a better planned arc laid out for the tenure. I can see them dusting off some of the initial ideas for Spectre as well. I always liked the idea of the cypher that when solved spelled BLOFELD. I’d love to see that get used.
1 Like
Why didn’t somebody tell me that Bond dies at the end!?!?
Saw it tonight at my local cinema in Brooklyn where they serve food. Got the cheese plate to be Bondian and a diet Coke (not Bondian, I know, but heck–I did get the cheese plate).
I once posted that MOONRAKER was a star vehicle for Sir Roger, and NO TIME TO DIE strikes me as Craig’s star vehicle. His acting and presence carry the film from sequence to sequence–a reprise of Bond’s greatest hits, until the final scene where you get a Bond no one has portrayed before–Sacrificial Bond.
The entire film is built toward this sacrifice–a cinematic stations of the cross–and relies and plays upon audience knowledge that Bond never dies in his movies–sometimes he barely gets his hair/toupee mussed. Three times in the movie, Bond should be dead: the explosion at Vesper’s grave; on the sinking boat with Felix; and when shot by Safin. But Bond cannot die by anyone’s hand other than his own. My namesakes were competent assassins, but three times they failed to kill Bond, and the movies are littered with examples of people passing up opportunities to simply putt a bullet in James Bond’s head. But we accept these sins of omissions as the part of the fantasy–in fact, they may be the most important aspect.
What stood out for me was that the three “Bond-is-killed” scenes in NTTD are the strongest I have ever watched. That was some explosion at Vesper’s grave, and for a moment I thought: Bond is dead and the rest of the film is a dream. The closest analogue I can think of is how shaken Sir Roger is after his adventure in the centrifuge. Bond’s surviving (especially the first two attempts) made the emphasis of the film clear: it is a character study of the nature of James Bond that uses a villain with a fiendish plan to move the story along.
As for that villain: desultory is the word that popped into my head as the film unspooled (do digital projections unspool? No matter). Rami Malek’s performance has more than a touch a catatonia to it–no suave iciness (DAF Bloefeld) or sophisticated menace (Drax). Safin has a plan for world destruction, but why? All we get is a throwaway line about the first customers approaching. Biological supremacy to the highest bidder? We have seen this (and the film’s other Bondian situations) before, so the filmmakers can employ some shorthand, but at times the shorthand seemed rendered in invisible ink. When Safin finally has his villain’s monologue (often a high point in the movies), all I could think about was how Malek kept his jaw so immobile and what prosthetics the make-up artists used. But again–NTTD is about Sacrificial Bond, so a diminished villain is appropriate.
As for the rest of the acting: along with Craig, I enjoyed Lashana Lynch. Naomie Harris was given little to do, and Ralph Fiennes’ M was all over the map. I could not believe that he had been dumb enough to develop Heracles the way he did, and his first scene with Bond was unbelievable. That paroxysm of overacting disposed of, Fiennes’ M became a dutiful supporting player for the rest off the film. Ben Wishaw and Jeffrey Wright were fine; Christoph Waltz cashed a paycheck. As for Lea Seydoux: I recently saw her in FRANCE by Bruno Dumont and THE FRENCH DISPATCH by Wes Anderson. Her Madeline has a slightly wider expressive range than she displayed in those two films, but moving from A-to-B to A-to-C is not much of an advance.
The cinematography and editing were adequate, and on rare occasions rose to the level of expressiveness, but most often did nothing more than move the story along to its ennobling conclusion. I did have the sense that a good amount of material was left on the cutting room floor (or hard disk or wherever it might reside). NTTD relies a good deal on a viewer being well-versed in the Bondian elements, so the focus can remain on Bond as he travels his stations of the cross–including a Garden of Death that is the mildest of Gethsemanes (it resembled the well-kept, serene Buddhist temple gardens I have always wanted to visit).
The film did not drag, and I was not bored so much as unengaged. The element that pushed me furthest out of the film was the manner in which Mathilde was used. She was the one character who definitely could not die, so Safin carrying her around the garden and playing with her during his monologue was creepy in all the wrong ways–as if Chester the Molester had touched down in Bond land.
At the end of the film, I was moved by the abstract idea of sacrifice and Craig’s commitment to this conception of Bond, rather than by the film itself. NTTD is a Bond film as hagiography.
10 Likes
Safin intended on treating the planet the way he treated his garden, pruning the parts he found unsavoury, then selling the service to others as a “tidier” assassin.
Alas, Malek plays him as a conscientious vacuum cleaner salesman offering a complimentary assortment of attachments with every purchase (payment plans available).
1 Like
I actually loved that Safin´s threat is not the usual big blackmail scheme announced to the world’s super powers with an ultimatum - but a quiet idea of personal deification, just being set in motion.
That makes it so much more scary. If Bond had not followed Madeleine to Mathilde Safin would have proceeded quickly to a point where - as Bond fears - there’s nothing more to save.
And Malek seizes that opportunity by underplaying. He is rather amused at Bond finding his island and trying to interfere. He is relaxed and totally at peace with himself and his plan because in his world view he is actually doing people a favor.
And judging from the state of the world right now, I find the idea that people want someone else to decide for them over life and death, eager to follow, all too realistic.
7 Likes
Found this while re reading You Only Live Twice:
“I have so provided the Japanese government, though for the present they appear to be blind to my magnanimity, with a tidy, out-of-the-way charnel-house which relieves them of a constant flow of messy occurrences involving the trains, the trams, the volcanoes and other unattractively public means of killing yourself,” Blofeld explains to Bond about the Castle of Death.
When Bond counters with a murder he witnessed, Blofeld dismisses this as, “Tidying up, Mr. Bond. Tidying up.”
Didn’t realize “tidier” was a Fleming reference.
11 Likes
Thoughtful Review as always. I agree with you that this is Craig’s star vehicle ala Moonraker, I also think that like Moonraker it’ll be the most watched of Craig’s tenure, especially on a wet bank holiday weekend. In many ways it has what DAF has, a cracking script that reads well and is particularly witty, the visual motifs recall Moonraker and DAF in many ways, the memorable moments are very memorable, CraigBond falling through a ceiling into a bar, knocking back a drink, then hopping over the bar with a gracefulness and that only Connery escaping from the oil shute " I was out walking my rat".
So after viewing four I can actually state some random musings…
Viewing 1 - alone, excited - like a kid again. The colours struck me the first time the editing was very 60s for me and Craig was at his best. He combined all his learnings over the years and created his third great Bond performance. Just like Connery and Moore did. Had a niggling feeling of Catholic Irish guilt in me couldn’t think why until …
Viewing 2 - with my two Boys, they both loved every second of it, the 15 year old ( recently came out ) really enjoyed the female characters and as he put it, the weight of the piece. He loved Bond as Dad because it, he said reminded him of me which actually choked me up a bit , that I’m still his protector and confidant .
My 10 year old said and I quote
" Dad it’s the only way it could’ve ended , you’ll be ok Dad cause James Bond is Dead but James Bond will be back"
This triggered in the dusty cobwebs of my Irish Catholic schooling ( long since ignored ) " Christ is Risen etc."
It was a stations of death , the whole film is about our relationship to death in Bond. You put it best, he should be dead 3 times, so can only die by his own hand.
This was a great point.
Viewing 3 - with my staff, one of whom had never seen a Bond film, she’s now watched Spectre and is looking forward to OHMSS apparently.
I was struck by its inverse relationship with OHMSS and by the nanobots.
The grave sequence, Cuba and the final 9 minutes were standouts for me. I noticed Logan and not in a good way , his performance is a bit one note for me, as was Madeline, Lea Seydoux was better in Spectre and possibly lacks the range to fully flesh out the character.
I thought Fiennes played his part really well and for me it captured the tenet of absolute power corrupting absolutely. He seemed to be playing to those grand themes and I was carried along by that.
Viewing 4 - my partner in life ( never married ) she was engaged in a way that she isn’t normally with Bond movies. She said afterwards it was her favourite of all the ones she’s managed to sit through- high praise indeed.
As a date movie it is quite good.
I was struck this time by the music and by the three gun barrells ( died, risen, come again )
All in all Its my favourite Craig performance and my favourite Bond film for quite some time.
8 Likes
First, thanks for the responses. When I got home last night (the theatre is three blocks away from my apartment), I had to let it all pour out, though it meant getting to bed after 3:00 a.m., and being sleepy at my desk today. I think writers and other community members who have a passion will know the feeling that if it is not created now, something might be missed later.
For me, Malek underplaying opposite Craig’s underplaying leaves a dramatic void. The stakes remain abstract, and never become real, despite the fact that the stakes are real enough for Bond to sacrifice himself.
That is another moment where I was thrown out of the movie. It was a fine example of Bondian grace and humor, but it felt wrong in a movie “about our relationship to death in Bond” (as you eloquently put it). In a film focusing on childhood trauma and how it affects adult lives, and which takes the most somber step of all in having Bond sacrifice himself, the lighter Bond moments struck me as anomalous–included because they are expected, but not because they fit with the film’s subject.
He evaporated so quickly from my mind, I neglected to include a comment about him in my early post.
Agreed. In SPECTRE, her limited range as an actress meshed well with Madeline’s limited range of emotional affect. Madeline always withholding suited Seydoux never expressing.
I found the forest scene effective. The battle up the staircase seemed photographed as if it were a first-person shooter game (and I admit my limited knowledge of such games).
As for my inner Irish Catholic schoolboy (I was headed toward the priesthood at one time): the film seems structured like a medieval mystery play, designed to impart the lesson that not saying things to those we are close to and withholding our emotions from them is not the best way to live one’s life. While I appreciate the truth of this lesson, I have always been willing and able to express my emotions, so the film probably resonates less for me. In contrast SPECTRE, which for me is about Robot Bond casting off his conditioning and making his own choices resonates for me–a gay man of a certain age, who often notes that he was raised to be heterosexual, rejected that training in order to be his own person, and led his life as he saw fit. Bond driving off at the end of SPECTRE satisfies on a deep level for me–the triumph of autonomy over conditioning.
9 Likes
I had a very different view, that I will post on second viewing, but this is a brilliant read.
Great points and insights as always, Mr.KiddWint.
A few things I would like to add:
-
I am fascInated by Rami Malek since I saw the first Mr.Robot episode. I adored his work as Freddie Mercury (Queen was my introduction to rock/pop music as a teenager, and quite funnily, back then I was totally unaware about the homosexual connotation of the band‘s name, its singer and the camp style of their music). But I think Malek has a very distinct way to speak and act which does not allow him to be as forceful or as variable as Bardem for example. Like a singer who knows his more limited range Malek stays within that and modulates it with subtle perfection. The abstraction of his threat, I believe, is intended. One gets the major intent spelled out but many questions remain, and those worked in Safin‘s favour, IMO. And… well, he is the only villain who gets Bond to bow down afraid, even if it is more for Mathilde.
-
Logan is also one-note for me, and from the first scene I hated him. But that might be a personal thing. And it also works for the film.
-
Sedoux I liked in both films but, of course, the role is not that layered, so I don’t know whether she as an actress could have done more. She is hyped by the press, definitely, and I saw her in lauded films and still thought that she is good but has not yet shown that big a range.
-
as for the mix of seriousness and flippant action, I don’t see a fault in that, since life always offers darkness and light.
6 Likes
I think that’s the intent with Logan. He isn’t meant to be likeable from the very first moment.
5 Likes
I thought of that moment and contrasted it to one in my most/your least favorite Bond–DAF.
As Bond bowed down, I thought: “Okay James what are you up to.” For me, he was not kneeling because he would do anything to save Mathilde. He was kneeling to camouflage some action he was about to take (yes, to save Mathilde, but the emphasis was on the stealth, not the emotion).
In DAF, Bond moves about Blofeld’s lair with the two Blofelds and one cat, trying to figure out his next step. Then Bam! Cat kicked; piton gun out (providentially reloaded courtesy of DAF Plot Caesura #92), impostor Blofeld killed. In both cases, a viewer knows something is going to happen, but NTTD telegraphs it more (and to me there is a good deal of telegraphing in the film–as well as some italicized cutting away just before something revealing is about to be said, thereby, negating the elision through emphasis).
Agreed. It is just that in NTTD, the mix is off for me.
5 Likes
Oh, no - on the whole DAF has climbed back up a lot after my last viewing!
It might only be my least favorite of the 70‘s, due to my personal introduction to Bond via Sir Roger.
1 Like