One of the horror genre's "most widely read critics" (Rue Morgue # 68), "an accomplished film journalist" (Comic Buyer's Guide #1535), and the award-winning author of Horror Films of the 1980s (2007), The Rock and Roll Film Encyclopedia (2007) and Horror Films of the 1970s (2002), John Kenneth Muir, presents his blog on film, television and nostalgia, named one of the Top 100 Film Studies Blog on the Net.
Watching
the final episodes of Land of the Lost (1974 – 1977)
Season Two, the intrepid viewer will experience the distinct sense that markers are being laid down; sign-posts
that point towards a possible direction for Season Three.
This
was evident especially in “The Musician,” a story about Chaka’s evolution and
mental acceleration.
And
it’s also evident in this week’s story, “Split Personality,” which finds the Land
of the Lost interfacing – albeit
uncomfortably – with an anti-matter version of itself.
When
the two universes “grind” against one another, earthquakes result, and the
anti-matter Holly makes contact with her matter universe doppelganger. The
anti-matter version speaks through “our” Holly and comments, cryptically, about
a fearsome “Black Sleestak.”
Yet
no black Sleestak is seen in this episode…or in any episode of Land
of the Lost, for that matter. So
who, or what, is she talking about?
It’s
another one of those wonderful, ambiguous, almost throwaway lines that suggests
something that could be, if a clever
writer only follows up on it. The inclusion
of a line like that also suggests a much larger universe, and larger mythology
around Altrusia. I’ve always been kind
of bummed that Season Three didn’t pick up on many of these hints and
mysteries.
Reviewing
“Split Personality,” I’m also impressed with the series’ sense of continuity. Here, Will mentions events from “Album,” the
first season story in which the Sleestak created a false image of his mother in
hopes of snaring the family. Such
touches are expected today, of course, but in the mid-1970s such references seemed
almost revolutionary.
“Split
Personality” also continues the series through-line that indicates Holly is
more sensitive or “open” to experiences in the Land of the Lost then her family
members. Here, she is contacted by her other self, and able to communicate with
that self. This season has been an
especially strong one for Holly, Land of the Lost’s revealing her
maturity in the face of some pretty tough, scary situations. Alas, Will seems developmentally-arrested at
his hyper, obnoxious older-brother stage.
When I was growing up, Will was always my favorite character, but this
time around, I can see how much care has been given to develop Holly.
In
terms of set design, “Split Personality” is also ingenious. Rick and Will come upon their anti-matter
counterparts in a strange, glowing cave.
Because the two “worlds” came in contact at odd angles, everything is
askew. A matrix table is seen standing
not on the floor as we expect, but jutting horizontally out of a wall. Land of the Lost is a low budget kid’s
series, but the production designers really worked over time and came up with imaginative
visuals that seemed indicative of a consistent -- if bizarre -- universe.
Next
week, the second season ends with “Blackout.”
Every
teenager believes that the world revolves around him or her, and if you
consider it, there’s some truth in this belief.
After
all, as human beings, we see and understand the world through the prism of our own eyes, and when we die, the world
we have created, seen, and experienced also dies with us. The end of the world is, literally, an individual death.
Given
this fact, the world ends for millions of people every single day. Every moment, every instant, another
apocalypse occurs, and a whole universe dies out, going down in flames of
annihilation.
The
2001 cult film Donnie Darko remembers this basic human truth regarding
teenagers and makes it hauntingly literal.
The
film’s ambivalent hero, Donnie (Jake Gyllenhaall) reckons with the impending
end of the world in twenty-eight days due to the unexpected creation of a
dangerous “Tangent Universe.” It’s a catastrophic ending of the cosmos
itself that only Donnie can prevent because he’s at the center of the paradox
that created that universe in the first place.
He can escape his teenage “tunnel vision” and save the world, or he can
die -- along with everyone else -- a
prisoner of anger and fear.
Donnie
Darko also
concerns the universal loneliness of
adolescence, and Donnie’s fear that, in death, that loneliness will persist
and linger for eternity. He doesn’t want to be alone, and at the same
time he doesn’t fully understand how to connect with others.
The
universe itself, or in the film’s lingo, “God’s Channel,” must help Donnie
understand the paradox if it is to continue to exist at all. The Richard Kelly film thus takes an
anti-social kid on a strange journey of self-discovery and, in the end,
transforms him into a superhero of sorts (as witnessed by his alliterative
name…); one who eventually embraces life and connection…right before it all ends,
at least for him.
In
seeing his world end, however, Donnie experiences an epiphany. He comes to finally recognize that “destruction is a form of creation,” to
quote the film. His ending -- his death
-- creates a new beginning for his family, his girlfriend, and the whole of the
human race. He laughs madly immediately
preceding his death, because only at the end does he recognize God’s plan for
him.
Byzantine,
mysterious, and hypnotic, Donnie Darko is a masterpiece in so
many ways. It is unnervingly creepy, especially in the seemingly sinister presence
of Doomsday’s Herald, a giant robot bunny-thing called Frank.
The
film is also unfailingly funny in its observations about human life especially
in the countenancing of the fact that many people, like Jim Cunningham (Patrick
Swayze) thrive not by understanding life in all its glorious complexity, but by
reducing it to easy-to-digest platitudes, like a lifeline with “fear” on one end
of the spectrum and “love” on the other.
All shades of gray apparently fall on distinct points between.
But
I submit that Donnie Darko deserves serious consideration as a great work of
art because the film dwells in that expressive world of the Tangent Universe, a
world where the “manipulated living”
and the “manipulated dead” -- and
even the foundations of reality itself -- conspire to lead Donnie towards his
heroic apotheosis. This universe of
influences and messages is presented in the film through representative symbols
that viewers must translate and interpret.
This task fosters engagement in the story, and sympathy for Donnie.
These
visual representations, from movie marquees to allusions to great literature, conform
to my highest aesthetic criteria in terms of film criticism. Their presence means that the form’s visual
content reflects its narrative content, and augments that content, enhancing
meaning.
Donnie
Darko is
about what it means to grow up and to leave childish things behind, in the
truest sense of that phrase. And primary
among those childish things is the tunnel
vision of ego, the desire to always put one’s self first. Overcoming this tunnel-vision is not easy, as
I noted above, because we all see the world through our own individual
prism.
In
reckoning with this idea, Donnie Darko concerns not just a
time paradox, but the human paradox.
Why are you wearing that stupid bunny suit?
In October of 1988 as the Presidential race between George
Bush and Michael Dukakis nears its end, a troubled Virginia teenager, Donnie
Darko (Gyllenhaal) narrowly escapes a strange death when a jet engine falls
from the sky and destroys his bedroom.
Fortunately, Donnie was sleep-walking at the time of the accident, and
survives unscathed.
The jet engine, however, is a mystery. It seems to have no
origin, and has actually created a time paradox, a new “Tangent Universe” that
if not repaired, will consume the prime universe in twenty-eight days. Only Donnie’s death -- which should have
occurred to begin with -- will set the universe right, a fact he increasingly
becomes aware of, in part through a strange book written by a neighbor, “Grandma
Death,” called The Philosophy of Time Travel.
In the twenty-eight days until the end of the world, Donnie
encounters a self-help guru and charlatan, Jim Cunningham (Swayze), learns from
a pair of kindly teachers (Drew Barrymore, Noah Wyle), and falls in love with a
beautiful girl who has just relocated to Virginia, named Gretchen (Jena
Malone). He is also visited periodically
by a creepy cyborg bunny man, Frank (James Duval), who seems to have knowledge
of the future, and Donnie’s fate.
Working with a psychologist, Donnie must determine who is he,
and what kind of future he wants for the world.
Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
At
one point in Donnie Darko, Donnie and his teacher (Wyle) debate the basics
of fate, free will and God’s plan.
Donnie has rejected religion and God because of his fear that “every living creature on Earth dies alone.” Given this fact, he says the search for God
is nothing less than “absurd.”
However,
Donnie also makes the observation that man may possess free will to a degree within“God’s Channel,” and the movie
implies that God’s channel actually involves this tangent, apparently
accidental universe.
In
other words, Donnie is bestowed a grace period of 28 days to fall in love,
reconcile his “emotional problems” with his family, and overcome his fear of isolation
and death. He was meant by design and
predestination to die when the jet engine crashed in his room. That death still occurs, only later. But Donnie is able to finally, in the end,
face it with a sense of grace and purpose because of this interval and what he
learns during it.. God (or the universe,
perhaps), grants Donnie a chance to settle the outstanding issues of his life
before he leaves the mortal coil.
The
forces of nature (or God) surrounding Donnie -- which desire to continue existing -- thus spend 28 days sending
Donnie the signals and messages he needs to accept and embrace his fate.
Grandma
Death’s time travel book calls this messaging “the “ensurance [sic] trap,” but it isn’t exactly a trap. The manipulated living and the manipulated
dead want to survive, and want Donnie to sacrifice himself so that the universe
continues to exist, but it isn’t a malevolent or diabolical kind of trap.
Instead,
in Donnie’s case, the messages must reverse and heal his paranoid
schizophrenia, his “increased detachment”
from the world, and replace it with a psyche that sees and recognizes the
beauty in human life and connection, and is willing to sacrifice itself for the
species, indeed for all creation, everywhere.
Donnie’s
journey is expressed through a number of symbols throughout the film. These symbols represent messages.
In
one of these, Frank writes and presents a poem to his English class in which he
envisions himself as the savior of children everywhere during an approaching
storm. In one sense, this is an allusion
to Catcher
in the Rye, Salinger’s 1951 novel in which another teen protagonist,
Holden Caulfield, imagined himself a savior of innocence. In a much more literal sense, the poem
represents Donnie’s subconscious understanding of his role in preserving life
on Earth.
The
film also deliberately positions Donnie, intriguingly, as a Christ figure. A theater marquee pictured on-screen at one
point shows a unique double bill: The Evil Dead (1983) and The
Last Temptation of Christ (1988).
Those
films seem very different, indeed, yet they represent the totality of Donnie’s
journey. That odyssey begins with all
kinds of fear. There is fear of the
returning dead -- embodied by the herald,
Frank -- and fear of death. But the journey ascends to an apex in which
Donnie willingly lays down his life for all of mankind, even though it is
sinful life (as clearly embodied by Cunningham, Frank, and others).
Christ’s
temptation by Satan in the Scorsese film involved the Devil showing him the
mortal life and pleasures he would miss by selecting death on the cross. That mortal life included love, lust, and other
earthbound wonders. What remains so interesting
about Donnie Darko is that Donnie, like Christ, actually increases his connection to humanity by
experiencing in a kind of vision all those things he will later miss.
What
I’m saying is that a personal epiphany of vision of love, brotherhood, human connection,
and sex doesn’t force either Christ or Donnie to make the wrong choice. Rather, it emboldens each to see the beauty
in all life, and wish to preserve it
for others. Again, this realization
comes back to the idea that Donnie exists within, not outside, God’s
channel. God gives him twenty-eight days
to see the beauty of life, and therefore the desire to preserve it, even if he
can’t share in its beauty beyond that span.
But
the theater marquee represents a visual book-ending of the journey. Life can be
like The
Evil Dead, where friends and lovers become enemies, and there is only
ugliness and death. Or it can be like The
Last Temptation of Christ, where the beauty of life leads one to make a
sacrifice for others.
Donnie
Darko explicitly
discusses this concept when Barrymore’s English teacher describes the God
Machine, the Deus Ex Machina. This discussion raises our awareness that God
has set this plan for Donnie into motion.
Everything is pre-determined, though as Donnie debates, there is some
room for free-will within that channel of pre-determination.
I
admire films that adopt a standpoint about humanity and our existence, and Donnie
Darko offers a fairly complex, if spiritual reading of it. There is such a thing as free will, states
the filmmaker, but it involves movement only within a tunnel of certain
possibilities. Donnie’s understanding of
this, ironically, comes from Cunningham’s ridiculous self-help life line, which
simplifies the world to two axes, “fear”
and “love.” Donnie responds angrily to the life-line that
“life isn’t that simple,” and yet in
a way…it is. Donnie explicitly moves
from fear to love in the 28 days of the Tangent Universe, but the important
thing is that he does so under the auspices of his own intellect. He learns how
to maneuver, individually, through that “channel.”
Some
might assert that’s the key to leading a good life.
Donnie
Darko also
seems absolutely obsessed with the Bush/Dukakis electoral battle of 1988. We see the two candidates debate on
television screens, and there is also mention of Dukakis on the radio. Donnie’s sister, Elizabeth (Maggie
Gyllenhaal) declares that she is voting for Dukakis, over her parents’
objections, at the family dinner table, and the legend “vote Dukakis” appears on the Darko refrigerator in the Tangent
Universe. These moments amount to more
than establishing the film’s time period or setting (October 1988). All the allusions to the presidential election
seem more important than that.
An
election, in essence, is a choice between possible futures, between possible universes.When an election ends, one of those universes
-- a tangent universe? -- collapses while the other universe
continues, unabated.If Donnie
Darko doesn’t comment overtly on the specific candidates and their
attributes, it certainly comments on the nature of choice and free will.
For
every affirmative choice we make, a whole universe is destroyed. When we pick Bush, the Dukakis universe dies.
Again, this goes back to the film’s
paradigm that even in destruction, there is creation.
In
the film, Donnie’s parents ask Elizabeth something along the lines of: “do you really think that Dukakis can keep this
country safe?” It’s a question that
might very well be asked of Donnie at this juncture too. Can a horny, self-obsessed teenage boy save
the world?
The
point is that people will never know
if Dukakis would have been a good president and kept the country safe, just as,
following the fall of the Tangent Universe, nobody knows of Donnie’s sacrifice
for humanity.
Again,
I’m not suggesting a pro-Dukakis slant on the part of the filmmakers, only the
idea that universes are born and die every day, and we never know where the
path not taken might lead. The doorway to
tangent universes closes, and moves outside God’s (narrow?) channel of options.
I
wrote recently, in regards to the Lance Henriksen, Joseph Maddrey, Tom Mandrake
comic-book To Hell You Ride, about the idea of messages and messengers.
They arrive in our reality, it seems, and we either decide to note them and
heed them, or we choose not to. Given
all I’ve described above, Donnie Darko is a film filled with
messages, often conveyed in writing and broadcast notably within the confines
of the frame.
These
messages include “Vote Dukakis,”
which I interpret as a message about saving the universe that people don’t see, and having faith that even
untested, disliked people will do the right thing (like Donnie does the right
thing when given the chance).
The
messages include the theater marquee, advertising “Evil Dead,” and “Last
Temptation of Christ,” a duality which explains Donnie’s journey from
psychological torture and fear to self-sacrifice and redemption.
Another
message is “cellar door,” a legend
which appears on the blackboard in Donnie’s English class, and paves the way
for Donnie to understand how to proceed at a critical juncture.
Jim
Cunningham’s life-line, showing the “fear”/ “love” continuum is another on-screen message, literally spelled-out. The recognition of "Poetry Day," when Donnie reads his story about saving children from the story might be considered another. There's even the signage "His Name is Frank" which validates Donnie's belief in his phantasm of the Bunny.
All
these words -- these messages --
appear on screen in the film, and we are asked to consider them and interpret
their meanings, at the same time Donnie must do the same. The film thus allows us to learn with Donnie
at the same time he learns, and therefore to sympathize with his journey.
At
the end of the film, Donnie must decide if a world that creates weird kiddie entertainment
like Sparkle Motion should continue to exist.
Or if a world that allows men like sexual predator Jim Cunningham to become
successful and admired should be allowed to continue. Or if a world that bans quality books in favor
of self-help pabulum deserves a second chance.
The answer, of course, is that despite all the
confusion and ugliness, this is the same (mad…) world that offers
unconventional beauty, as we see in Cherita’s talent show dance.
It’s
the same world that allows Donnie to connect with the wounded Gretchen.
It’s
the same world that can make a superhero -- or
savior -- out of a confused teenager who likes to masturbate a lot.
In
it all, there is a plan…and beauty too,
Donnie’s
journey – and the film’s view of life, is best expressed in the lyrics to the
song, “Mad World,” which accompany the film’s final, elegiac montage. The lyrics assert: “And I find it kind of funny, I find it kind of sad, that the dream in
which I’m dying are the best I’ve ever had…”
Donnie’s
last twenty eight days -- a waking dream
from which he finally does not awake – represent the best part of his life;
the span in which he stopped being an “anger
prisoner” and instead began to see life in all its multi-faceted
complexity, a complexity that involved both ugliness and beauty.
We
sometimes miss just how beautiful life really is. We “run
in circles” instead of paying attention to the things that matter. Donnie Darko is like a teacher
explaining this “lesson.” The film is thus one part English Lit, one
part spooky horror film, one part Quantum Physics, and one part spiritual passion play.
Personally
speaking, all those qualities make Donnie Darko one of my all-time
favorite films.
“I know you wrote abook about Sam Raimi. Given this fact, how do
you feel about an Evil Dead (1983) remake?”
Good
question, David.
I’ve
written quite a bit here about remakes before, but long story short: I have
practiced and worked hard not to respond with knee-jerk cynicism every time a
new one is announced. I greet each film
on an individual basis.
That
established, I suspect an Evil Dead remake is probably a
difficult artistic proposition, and here’s why:
The original film is all about delivery of the story,
not the story itself.
Indeed,
check out Equinox (1970) if you want to see a similar story-line vetted,
but in an entirely different fashion.
What
makes The Evil Dead such a classic, in my opinion, is Sam Raimi’s
gonzo, hyper-kinetic, on-the-verge-of-madness direction. His inspired vetting of the material pounds
the viewer to dust, almost literally. Execution is what matters in the 1983
film, not story, and not character, either.
Ash didn’t emerge as an iconic hero, really, until the second film.
Ironically,
Evil
Dead 2 holds up for roughly the same reason. It’s a virtual remake of Evil
Dead, but Raimi’s brilliant direction -- and
accent on cartoonish (if violently extreme…) over-the-top humor -- renders
it a new and fresh viewing experience.
So
the question becomes: can a new Evil Dead somehow tell the same
story a third time, and find the key
to unlocking the material in a way that feels fresh and also relevant to 2012? This mission is even harder than it seems since Cabin in the Woods (2012) so thoroughly dissected and subverted the tenets of The Evil Dead narrative.
I’m
not saying that it’s an impossible task, only that a truly inspired director is
necessary. Aping Raimi isn’t going to be
enough of a distinction, because we’ve gotten a lot of knock-off Raimi film-style
since Evil Dead (in the oeuvre of Peter Jackson and the Coen Brothers,
to name just a few examples.)
Instead,
the extreme, hyper-kinetic nature of original The Evil Dead needs to be re-conceived and rebuilt for a modern audience. I suspect this re-invention involves pushing the material into even more extreme, uncomfortable territory. At least I hope so. The trailer (embedded below) indicates this might very well be the case.
I
hope director Fede Alvarez and producers Raimi, Tapert and Campbell succeed here, and I’m absolutely rooting
for them to do so. Already one
interesting choice has been made: a reliance on practical rather than digital
effects. This is a good sign, because a primary joy of The Evil Dead is how tactile the film feels. Every character gets doused in blood, goop, ooze, pus, and other varieties of slime, and as silly as it sounds, that sense of being splattered is critical to the movie's (admittedly excessive) creative equation. The movie overcomes you. It pounds you and gets you dirty. No one escapes unscathed.
Let’s
hope that selection to go practical survives the editing process and proves a real boon to the film. It would be great for The Evil Dead to live again. More blood floods for everyone...
During
my freshman year at the University of Richmond in the fall of 1988, there wasn’t
a whole lot to do, socially-speaking. I
was a skinny kid in big glasses who didn’t go out for sports and liked Star
Trek. I had no interest in
fraternities or the school’s religious clubs (though, truth-be-told, I did have
an ever-so-brief flirtation with a Baptist Bible Study group, which helps to account for my knowledge of Scripture…)
Anyway,
I met my beautiful wife, Kathryn, at the beginning of my sophomore year and my
life changed for the (infinitely) better.
But
before that ever happened, I spent an
inordinate (and probably unhealthy) amount of time in the Pier, the campus Student
Building, playing a classic arcade game from Atari, called Gauntlet (1985).
As
you may remember, Gauntlet was unique
in that it was a four player arcade game.
Intrepid gamers could play as the Warrior, the Valkyrie, the Wizard and
the Elf, at least originally. The idea
was to battle enemies such as ghosts and demons while traversing dungeon-like
labyrinths and environs.
I
looked Gauntlet up on Wikipedia out
of curiosity and it is apparently part of a genre called “hack and slash,” a
phrase that pretty well describes the game’s content as remember it.
Among
other things, Gauntlet is also apparently
famous because it had a kind of computerized narrator who would voice warnings
(“Your life is running out”) and
reminders (such as “shots do not hurt
other players…yet.”) I can’t say as
I remember much specifically about game play, only that we would play the bloody
thing for hours, and lose a hell of a lot of quarters in the process. It’s a good memory from a year that, in some
respects, I’d rather forget.
In
terms of characters, I always played as the Valkyrie -- the female warrior in
the foursome -- in honor of my enduring love of the same-named character from Battle
Beyond the Stars (1980).
I
can’t remember why we did so, but on one memorable night in 1988, my pals and I
drove downtown instead of to the student building to play Gauntlet at a bustling
city arcade in Richmond, one very close to the now-defunct Byrd Theater, if
memory serves.
I
should have been studying for an upcoming computer science exam, but instead, I
think we were out at the arcade from midnight to 2:00 am, and I blew
twenty-five dollars on the infernal machine.
Ah,
to be eighteen and dumb as shit again…
Anyway,
I harbor a dream that one of these days, I’m going to thoroughly clean out my
garage and convert it into an arcade entertainment center/rec room for me and
Joel. We already have a pool table and a
foosball table (which Joel and I play a lot…), but I’m thinking I really need a
restored Gauntlet arcade console to go with those stations.
That…and
an air hockey table, but that’s the subject of a different post. I'll just close this one by saying I recently visited the University of Richmond campus for the first time in probably a decade, and was deeply disappointed, though not surprised, to see that Gauntlet was long gone.
In
terms of sci-fi movies and collectible toys, 1979 was a banner year.
Movies
such as Star Trek: The Motion Picture, Alien, Buck Rogers in the 25th
Century, The Black Hole and Moonraker premiered that year, and
every title on that list also saw memorable toys produced by Mego Corp.
I
collected toys from all those sci-fi franchises, but never had the full line of
Moonraker action-figures, alas.
Still,
I vividly recall seeing these 12.5” -tall action figures on the shelves at Toys
R Us and wishing for them.
Recommended
for children three and over was this action-figure of Roger Moore as James Bond,
described here as “The World’s Greatest
Secret Agent…Legendary Commander 007.” On
the box is emblazoned the legend: “Action-packed
Spy Adventures in the Fabulous Realm of Space.”
The
most amusing facet of the action-figure, however, is that Bond wears a (loose) bow
tie over his space suit.
Other
figures in the “fully articulated, fully poseable” line included Holly
Goodhead, the menacing Jaws and Drax. I remember seeing all of the figures in
stores many times, save for Drax, and to this day, Jaws fetches a pretty penny
on E-Bay.
What
makes this particular Bond toy special and memorable to me is that Moonraker
represents the first occasion since the 1960s, I believe, that James Bond
action-figures were mass produced and widely available. This is the first time, in other words, Bond
was in toy stores in his 1970s Roger Moore persona.
I
also had a Moonraker model kit in 1979, which, of course, was merely a space shuttle
model with special decals.
It’s
unofficial, of course, but if you scrape just beneath the surface of Skyfall
(2012) -- the new James Bond
thriller -- the designation “M” clearly stands for “Mother” or “Mom.”
Unconventionally,
this twenty-third Bond film is a modern action movie concerning a mature woman
(played by Judi Dench) who has -- perhaps
not fully realizing it -- become the only parent to two grown and needy (or
maladjusted…) sons.
One
son, a man called Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), has rebelled against his mother
for her sins, choosing to reject all of her lessons because he feels unloved
and abandoned.
The
other son, James Bond (Daniel Craig), realizes that this powerful mother figure
is responsible for giving his life some sense of purpose, and thus goes to
extreme, life-and-death measures to protect her from his enraged “brother.”
Also
-- and please make no mistake about this
fact – the new Bond Girl of Skyfall is clearly M, not Naomie
Harris’s Eve, Severine (Berenice Marlohe), or anyone else, for that matter.
For
the first time in Bond history then, the primary Bond/female relationship does
not concern sex or romance, but the maternal,
mother-son relationship.
On
these relatively startling grounds alone, Skyfall distinguishes itself from
the twenty-two previous cinematic installments in the James Bond series.
Delightfully,
however, Skyfall also thoroughly re-invents Bond’s place in the world,
lamenting the 21st century reliance on computers and unmanned drones
over “human intelligence” in the dangerous game of espionage. The film thereby forges the (the Luddite?)
argument that sometimes the old ways -- like
a knife in the back -- still get the job done best.
Skyfall alsocelebrates fifty years of James Bond movie traditions and history. Therefore, one can readily gaze at this prominently-featured
Luddite argument as a rationalization, as
a self-justification, in some sense, for the continuation of the long-running
franchise in the second decade of the 21st century.
Even
today, in the age or push-button soldiers, we need 007.
This
argument about the primacy of human values in the Remote Control Age is so exhilaratingly
presented that Skyfall often feels like a grand revelation. Everything “old” is new again, and this Bond
film brilliantly sends Agent 007 into a brave new world, even while
re-establishing all the old characters (like Q and Moneypenny) and old genre gimmicks
we’ve come to expect (like the Aston Martin’s ejector seat).
It’s
quite a deft balancing act, and Skyfall is at once cheeky and
legitimately sentimental in tone. It
would be easy to term so exciting and revelatory a Bond film the best series installment
in years, but Casino Royale -- just six
years in the past -- must still earn high marks for resetting the series,
grounding Bond, and introducing Craig. Without those accomplishments, the highs of Skyfall
might not have been conceivable.
Instead,
the arrival of Skyfall forces long-time Bond fans to concretely reckon with the
once-impossible-seeming notion that the Sean Connery Era has, at long-last,
been surpassed
Bond
is back and -- no hyperbole -- he’s better
than ever.
“Mommy
was very bad.”
Skyfall opens in Turkey, as James Bond, 007 (Craig) and an operative
named Eve (Harris) attempt to recover a stolen hard-drive that contains the files
of every undercover NATO operative working in terrorist organizations.
Eve is ordered by M (Dench) to take a difficult shot against
the possessor of the drive, the evil Patrice (Ola Rapace). But Eve hits Bond
instead, thereby losing the drive and an agent.
Some months later, Bond -- who is believed dead -- resurfaces when the MI6 building in London
is bombed. M escapes the attack, but
feels political pressure from Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) to explain the
loss of the hard-drive, and now a terrorist attack on British soil.
Although he is not yet physically or psychologically ready to
return to duty, M nonetheless sends Bond out to track Patrice. The trail leads Bond to Raoul Silva (Bardem)
a vengeful former MI6 agent eager to make M “think
on her sins.”
With Silva launching one terrorist attack after another -- all aimed at killing M -- Bond decides
to take his superior off the grid, and back to his family’s long-abandoned
country estate in Scotland, called Skyfall.
“Less of a random killing machine, more of a personal
statement.”
As I wrote above in my introduction, Skyfall primarily concerns
a family dynamic. In this unusual
family, M is the mother, Raoul is one son, and Bond -- believed dead but actually out carousing on the beach -- is the Prodigal Son.
Bond finally returns to save his mother’s life after Raoul enters
the picture. Apparently, Raoul has
interpreted M’s dedication to duty as a personal statement against him, a
mirror of Bond’s situation. Silva,
however, conveniently overlooks the fact that he was the one who first
transgressed on a mission to Hong Kong some years earlier.
Given this family dynamic, Skyfall alsoconcerns
-- in a strange way -- the value of
forgiveness. Bond is able to remember
that M’s stewardship provided him a home and a purpose, and he forgives her for
ordering Eve to take a shot that nearly results in his death.
M is similarly able to forgive Bond’s trespasses and welcome
back the Prodigal Son, the boy who went out into the world with the inheritance
of responsibility and purpose and squandered that inheritance on booze, sex,
and scorpions.
By contrast, Raoul Silva -- who evidently still loves M (or
Mom…) -- can’t see his path to forgiveness, and remains consumed by overwhelming
hatred because of Mom’s abandonment.
This family dynamic plays out in Skyfall even in terms of
setting and locations. Bond -- a boy forever in search of the parents he
tragically lost in childhood -- brings M back to his family estate, Skyfall to
play house, after a fashion. There, 007
also re-connects with an old friend and mentor Kincade (Albert Finney), a
surrogate father figure.
The three characters -- working
and living together at Skyfall -- are,
briefly, a family, replete with a home and a hearth. Bond thus recreates the family home he never
had in his youth. Raoul arrives and
destroys that home, refusing to forgive Mom and rejoin the family.
In exploring this dynamic, Skyfall is perhaps the
most human and personal of all the Bond films.
It explores not only the elements of Bond’s tragic and lonely past, but
excavates the nature of his (violent) life in terms of how he sees his
connections to others. For Bond, M and
Kincade are the only family he can count on when the chips are down, though
there is the suggestion that Mallory may become a father figure as well.
Outside this dramatic through-line, Skyfall establishes a roiling
tension and competition between 21st century espionage and Bondian-style
espionage, which came of age during the Cold War of the 1960s.
This tension is expressed best in the quips back and forth
between the mid-life Bond and his young, new Q (or Quartermaster), played by
Billie Whishaw. Q tells Bond that “age is no guarantee of efficiency,” and
Bond’s response is that “youth is no
guarantee of innovation.”
In other words, a person with experience and expertise still
has something to offer in the world of espionage.
Q also comments explicitly on a painting in an art gallery
where he first meets 007. The painting
depicts a warship’s decommissioning.
“It always makes
me feel a bit melancholy,” Q opines. “Grand old
war ship…being ignominiously haunted away to scrap... The inevitability of
time, don't you think? What do you see?”
What Bond sees, of course, is that he is that old warship, and the one succumbing to the inevitability
of time.
He isn’t as young as he once
was, and he faces the possibility that he will soon be obsolete, outmoded in
the Remote Control Age. But the events
of Skyfall
prove otherwise. There is still
room in the world for Bond’s brand of “human” intelligence.
Even M gets into the act of discussing the present and the
past by quoting Alfred Tennyson’s Ulysses
at a critical dramatic juncture:
“Tho' much is taken,
much abides; and tho'
We are not now that
strength which in old days
Moved heaven and
earth; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of
heroic hearts,
Made weak by time
and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek,
to find, and not to yield.”
This is Bond’s gift to the world, and perhaps England’s as
well. Bond and England no longer dictate
the movement of Heaven and Earth, but their wills remain strong, and when
threatened, they will not yield. They
are, as they have been….heroic hearts.
The emotionally-delivered Tennyson quotation above thus
permits Skyfall to proudly re-assert Bond’s importance in the cinema,
and even Bond’s place in the world. Jason Bournes and Ethan Hunts of the world
be damned, there’s still a place for Bond, James Bond in the 21st
Century.
The battle between Silva and Bond is not merely one of brothers,
but of belief-systems, the film cleverly reminds us. Silva is the high-tech terrorist hiding
behind anonymous servers and diabolical hacks. Meanwhile, Bond is the old-world
dinosaur who still enjoys his Aston Martin’s ejector seat, and takes M off the
grid, to a brick-and-mortar home he hasn’t seen in years.
It’s digital vs. analog…and
analog carries the day.
The amazing thing is that in our convenient and robust Web
2.0 Age, we root in Skyfall for analog to win.
We long for the romance and sheer individuality of a character
like James Bond. He calls not upon
gadgets, tools, or software to win the day, but some deep internal reservoir of
individual will and discipline. We may
be constantly perfecting our tools and gadgets, but Bond has perfected his human
mechanism, and in reminding us of that, Skyfall has perfected the Bond
formula.
It’s appropriate that the last act of Skyfall involves an
all-out siege which is more Peckinpah and Straw Dogs (1971) than Ian Fleming,
because the analog world does feel, at times, under siege, doesn’t it? The Old Guard seems to be crumbling, a brick
at a time, and some people view this shift as the End of History, and not as
the beginning of Something New, perhaps Something Great.
In an age of irrational exuberance about gadgets, apps, and computerized
military capabilities, James Bond and Skyfall remind us that a reliance on
humanity -- on our experience and wisdom
-- can be the most potent weapon of all.
Here’s to another fifty years of James Bond and his heroic
heart.