After
dispatching a deadly assassin in For Your Eyes Only (1981) James Bond
(Roger Moore) makes a joke.
He
quips that the killer “had no head for
heights.”
In
a funny kind of way, the same observation could be made of this follow-up to Moonraker
(1979).
It
has no head -- or appetite -- for
heights, either.
Instead,
For
Your Eyes Only is a dedicated re-grounding
of the James Bond mythos and one that deliberately dials down the silly humor
of the previous entry. Instead of focusing on space age jokes, this Bond film
obsesses on matters of earthbound import such as revenge.
Virtually
every aspect of this 1981 Bond entry suggests a back-to-basics approach in
terms of the 007 character, his world, and the style of storytelling, even.
For
example, For Your Eyes Only opens with a scene reminding viewers of
Bond’s deepest, most grievous loss, the death of his wife Tracy. After that
painful memory, the film then proceeds through a gadget-less but fast-paced adventure
in which Bond must depend not on technological trickery, but rather his own
instincts and skills if he hopes to survive.
Likewise,
the film’s central car chase involves, approximately, the world’s least
romantic-looking car.
As
these and other facets of the film make abundantly plain, the intent in For
Your Eyes Only was clearly not to make another jokey roller-coaster
ride with flourishes of fantasy and outrageous humor, but a legitimate thriller
instead, one with moments of significant suspense and high intrigue.
The
filmmakers succeeded admirably and more than that, found a useful idea on which
they could hang their tale. The central
leitmotif of For Your Eyes Only, as mentioned above, is revenge.
Is revenge right?
Is it useful?
It is it
inevitable, given human nature, and human loss?
From
the film’s pre-title sequence (featuring an unnamed but recognizable Blofeld…)
and its Greek heroine’s quest to avenge patricide, to the violent rivalry
between Kristatos and Columbo, For Your Eyes Only explores the
concept of revenge fully, if not always deeply.
As
Bond himself notes in the film’s final moments, revenge is “not the answer” to anything.
Beautifully
shot, and remarkably suspenseful in a few notable places, For Your Eyes Only remains
Roger Moore’s best turn as the iconic secret agent.
“The
Chinese have a saying: Before setting out on revenge, dig two graves.”
The
British spy ship St. Georges is struck by a mine at sea, and goes down before
the officers can self-destruct its most vital system, the ATAC (Automatic
Targeting Attack Communicator), which has the capability to transmit orders to
England’s fleet of Polaris submarines.
When
the Soviet Union’s General Gogol (Walter Gotell) learns that he could get his
hands on the valuable device, he contacts an agent in Greece to acquire it for
him.
Meanwhile,
James Bond, Agent 007 (Moore) is also tasked with obtaining the ATAC.
Bond’s
first step in that hunt is to follow a hired gun named Gonzalez (Stefan
Kalipha), the man is responsible for murdering a British operative, Havelock,
and his wife, in the waters near the St. Georges’ last known position.
Also
determined to find -- and kill --
Gonzalez is Havelock’s lovely daughter, Melina (Carole Bouquet).
After
Melina succeeds in her quest, Bond gets her to safety, and must follow his
second lead instead: the man who paid Gonzalez for the Havelock hit: Emile
Leopold Locque (Michael Gothard).
Bond travels to Italy in pursuit of Locque,
and his contact there sets up a meeting with Arius Kristatos (Julian Glover), a
Greek businessman and informant who has worked before for England.
Kristatos informs Bond that Locque is
employed by a criminal boss known as “The Dove,” or Columbo (Topol).
When Bond meets “The Dove” for himself,
however, he learns that Kristatos has framed Columbo, and that Kristatos is a
Soviet agent…the very man attempting to acquire the ATAC.
Racing against the clock, Bond and Melina
retrieve the ATAC from the sunken St
Georges, but Kristatos is aware of their location, and prepares to take
possession of it for himself…
“That’s
Détente. You don’t have it. I don’t have it.”
For
Your Eyes Only
is a back-to-basics Bond film, and a wonderful one at that.
The
film opens with sadness…and franchise history.
We
see Bond visiting the grave of his dead wife, and her tombstone is marked with
the legend “We have all the time in the
world.”
This
scene represents a remarkable bit of continuity with On Her Majesty’s Secret Service
(1969), which is widely considered the biggest failure of the franchise. It was so disliked a film for so long, in
fact, that Tracy wasn’t even mentioned by name in the follow-up Bond film, Diamonds
are Forever (1971).
Bond
was going after Blofeld with a vengeance in that film’s pre-title sequence, but
there was not one word spoken about
Bond’s marriage, his wife, or Tracy Draco.
Yet
For
Your Eyes Only remembers both Bond’s marriage, and the tragedy that
followed the wedding. The first shots of the film are of a graveyard, and of
Bond bringing flowers solemnly to Tracy’s grave.
He
doesn’t say anything -- his thoughts are
private -- but there is heaviness about Moore’s Bond here.
But
the significant point is that this is not Plastic Man.
This
is not Luke Skywalker, either.
This
is a man that has known love and tragedy in his life. Bond is a person like any
other person, and one not immune to the dangers or vicissitudes of life. That’s a key aspect of the literary Bond
character, and one that needed to be projected immediately in For
Your Eyes Only if there was to be a course correction from the
outlandish (though undeniably entertaining…) Moonraker.
After
the opening scene’s acknowledgment of Bond’s humanity and history, For
Your Eyes Only goes to great lengths to keep the secret agent away from
his trademark gadgetry. In fact, the gadgets in the film are deployed not as
aids to Bond…but literally as jokes.
The
first such joke involves Bond’s Lotus Esprit.
He parks the stylish car, locks the door, and activates a “burglar protection system.”
When
bad guys attempt to break the unoccupied car’s windows, the Lotus explodes into
a million pieces.
Some
burglar protection system! I think it’s called a “self-destruct device,” actually.
But
the up-shot of the car’s destruction is that Bond cannot rely on his fancy ride
to get him out of trouble.
He
will not have the benefit here of ejector seats, missile-launchers, or any
other high-tech trickery. He’s going to
have to go it alone, with only his wits and instincts as co-pilots…
…in
a Citroen 2CV, the pokiest, most light-weight
car you can imagine.
Yet -- in what could be the motto for For
Your Eyes Only -- Bond (and the filmmakers) turn this poky,
light-weight, bright yellow car into a strength instead of a weakness. In the exciting car chase that involves the
Citroen, Bond finds that it is more maneuverable than his opponents’ big, heavy
vehicles, and uses that quality to steal a win.
This car chase sequence remains amazing, not only
because it follows a joke about Bond’s gadgetry, but because it re-establishes viscerally Bond’s unparalleled skill as
a driver. He’s got nothing else to fall back on here, and so he drives
back-wards, downhill, and even weaves and dodges his way to success.
As one would expect of a Bond film, the stunts in
this sequence are spectacular, but it’s a nice de-glamorization of the Bond
universe to see 007 driving not a very expensive sports car, but a clunker
instead.
The only other gadget in the film is Q’s
Identigraph, a device which allows Bond to identify Locque, using the data
files of Interpol, etc.
At one point, Q (Desmond Llewlyn) turns Locque’s
nose into what Bond calls “a banana,”
and again, the idea transmitted is simply that technology is fallible, and
therefore not always useful. The skill of the user is the thing that matters,
not the device itself.
The film’s McGuffin, the ATAC (heir to the Lektor
of From
Russia with Love [1963]) transmits the same notion. The officers aboard
the St. Georges are not able to destroy the device, and so all of England -- and the West itself -- is imperiled by
the existence of a small, unassuming typewriter-like device.
If the gadgets are mightily de-romanticized in For
Your Eyes Only, so are the schemes of the Bond villain, Kristatos in
this case.
As you may recall, Drax (Michael Lonsdale) in Moonraker
sought to wipe out the human race from his space station in Earth
orbit, and then re-seed the Earth with his hand-picked super-people.
By contrast, Kristatos merely attempts to to
steal the ATAC and make some money off the theft.
Kristatos is also a sadist -- as his act of keel-hauling proves
dramatically -- but he’s a more realistic, more nuanced figure than either
Stromberg or Drax were.
In fact, Kristatos is kind of petty, even,
sending Bond to kill his rival, Columbo so he doesn’t have to expend the energy
himself.
In terms of action, For Your Eyes Only is
exhilarating, in part because director Glen often adopts the first-person point-of-view in the chase
sequences, particularly in the ski-chase and inside the bob-sled track.
This P.O.V. angle literally lands us in the
action, and though the feelings of speed and acceleration are incredible, so is
the feeling of reality. This is not something “faked” like the outer
space adventure of Moonraker, for example.
Moore’s Bond also seems more world-weary and less
fresh-faced in this entry. I know that many fans believe that Moore was too
old, at this juncture, to play the role effectively, but I like Moore’s Bond
with a little age on his face, in For Your Eyes Only and Octopussy
(1983), specifically.
He’s still an attractive, able-bodied man, but
with age comes wisdom, and also the appearance of a more knowing, perhaps more
fatigued demeanor. I think Moore’s appearance works well in conjunction with
the character’s story in For Your Eyes Only. Bond stopped
being “dashing” and “fresh-faced” a long time ago. He’s seen much mileage since those days.
As I wrote above, For Your Eyes Only
revolves largely around revenge.
The opening scene sees Bond execute his final,
fatal revenge upon Blofeld, the man who killed his wife. Bond offs this dastardly
opponent with appropriate glee, given what Blofeld cost him.
But then, after exorcising his own vengeance,
Bond counsels Melina not to further pursue her own. She has already killed the
man directly responsible for her parents’ death, and Bond doesn’t want to see
her make violence and revenge a way of life.
This advice is intriguing. Bond wants to spare Melina his own journey, either
because he has recognized this impulse for revenge in himself, or because he
has beaten that impulse within himself.
The movie doesn’t specify which happens to be the case, but it’s enough
that Bond notes the Chinese proverb about seeking revenge, and digging two graves.
Melina, however, doesn’t want to hear Bond’s
words. She compares herself explicitly to Electra, the daughter of King
Agamemnon and Queen Clytemnestra. When her father was killed by Aegisthus,
Elektra plotted revenge with her brother, Orestes, and that revenge consisted
of murder.
Revenge also comes into the picture with
Kristatos and Columbo: rivals who hate one another, and will do anything to
destroy one another. Every slight, every attack, is countered so that their
conflict continues endlessly. This is the very example Bond fears for Melina: a
cycle in which she can’t let go of her hatred, or the need for violence. A
cycle which kills innocents, like the Countess, Lisl.
Bond’s understanding, finally, about revenge
seems to involve the answer he gives Gogol, after destroying the ATAC: “Détente.”
At some point, enemies -- like the East and West
in the Cold War -- must put aside slights, hurts and rivalries, and attempt to
move forward. If that doesn’t happen,
the two-sides will be locked forever -- like Kristatos and Columbo -- in an
undying rivalry of violence and bloodshed.
Screening For Your Eyes Only again this week,
I was struck by how tense and suspenseful the film remains. I noted this suspense in three key scenes: at
the ski tower, were Bond is bullied and pushed into a jump, underwater, in his
battle with an enemy in a heavy diving suit, and finally during the ascent to
Kristatos’ St. Cyrils mountaintop headquarters.
That final sequence, with Bond scaling a
mountain, is nerve-wracking, in particular.
There’s no music accompanying his climb, just the noise of the wind
howling all around him. Similarly, when
a bad guy attempts to knock James from his high perch, we hear the jangling sounds
of the villain banging the butt of his gun into the metal hooks which keep Bond
tethered.
There’s also the sound, here, of ropes stretching and straining as they struggle
to hold Bond’s weight.
Bill Conti’s musical score does not kick in until
Bond dispatches the henchman, and gives the order for Melina and Columbo to
proceed. When the score commences, it’s
a variation of the famous 007 theme, and you’ll sigh in relief at the comfort
(and triumph…) that the familiar tune provides after such sustained,
carefully-generated anxiety.
In For Your Eyes Only, the push-button
Bond of Moonraker is gone, and we get in his stead a man who feels
pain, who remembers his history, and who uses his instincts -- not his toys -- to stay alive.
The result of all these efforts to re-ground
Bond is a great entry in the canon, and the best Roger Moore 007 film of all.
John, I agree entirely with your assessement of this film - the only thing I would add is the the theme song also was a return to success following the Moonraker theme (try asking anyone to hum that without preparation and see how far you get).
ReplyDeleteHi James: I am glad you mentioned the theme song. For Your Eyes Only was a huge hit, and rightly so. It's one of the top five Bond tunes, in my opinion...
DeleteSo love the vast majority of Moore's Bond films. And this is a favorite.
ReplyDeleteIn all fairness, Bond's act of "revenge"against Blofeld can just as easily seen as an act of self-defense. After all, Blofeld had just tried his damnest to have 007 killed. That he ultimately failed to do so owed more to Bond's own intelligence and not any mercy on Blofeld's part. Had Bond spared his life, he had no reason to believe Blofeld would not try again to kill him. Thus his final dispatching of Blofeld seemed less like revenge for Tracy than an understandable response to the recent attempt on Bond's own life. Of course, your view may vary.
ReplyDeleteSpot on review as usual. Dug everything about this film; the tone, the locations, Moore's performance, Carole Boquet, the action sequences (John Glen's second unit experience really pays off here), Bill Conti's score, and the great title song performed by Sheena Easton. I remember liking this movie almost as much as "Raiders" and "Superman II". Ahhhh the summer of '81.
ReplyDeleteThe revenge theme is a continuing motif in Bond films, especially when the loyal accomplice or innocent bystander is killed and 007 has to deal out justice. In Goldfinger, Jill Masterson's sister is after the villain, in Licence to Kill, Bond's whole reason for acting is revenge. Quantum of Solace is another film with Revenge at it's heart and of course that is what the "R" stands for in S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Moore earns his avenging angel wings in the sequence where he kicks Locque's car down the cliff as it hangs on the precipice. The electronic score was the main weakness in this movie but the story and characters are excellent and clearly the film franchise needed a "re-boot" after the silliness that the entertaining but empty Moonraker had provided.
ReplyDeleteI'm always amused by references to the literary Bond, as I think Fleming was perpetrating a subtle satire in the Bond books. Bond is tough and gutsy, no doubt, but it seems his (literary) missions are always completed by forces beyond his control. Take, as an example, Casino Royale. Bond is chosen for the mission because he's the only double-O who's suitable to gamble outrageously for high stakes (the others are far too careful). But his mission is accomplished by a character we only see for one scene while Bond is tied to a chair!
ReplyDelete