Skyfall

Really enjoyed Skyfall.

It's a great James Bond film, perhaps ranking in the top 3, although I'd like to rewatch my favourites, Thunder Ball, You Only Live Twice, For Your Eyes Only, Octopussy, A View to a Kill, The Living Daylights, and Casino Royale, to be able to attach a more current and uniform critical perspective (more substance) to my claim. I should likely watch Skyfall again to justify this claim as well because I remember liking Die Another Day after my first viewing (no doubt due to my childhood love of the franchise) only to be seriously disappointed when I saw it again. Undaunted, Skyfall's not only a great James Bond film either, it's a great action spy movie, as opposed to a great intellectual spy flick like Tinker Tailor Solider Spy, and might also impress those who feel they're being dragged to a/nother silly James Bond extravaganza, although fans of the franchise will likely get more out of it.

Impressive points: Daniel Craig. He's become my favourite Bond and I love the ways in which he suavely handles himself with an unconcerned, explosive, gritty, incisive, everyperson's charm, more like a glacier bear than a bulldog, in my opinion. While the emotional displays made prominent in Casino Royale are limited to one brief lamentation, his character still receives more depth structurally as his personal history becomes integral to the plot.

Nice.

Origins. Skyfall sophisticatedly maintains a competent balance/conversation (overtly and covertly) between the old and the new throughout, set up by Bond's introduction to the new Quartermaster (Ben Whishaw), simultaneously seeming as if it's constantly, sigh, moving forward, while never leaving behind or disregarding its foundations.  Thus, we have an unambiguously principle gay villain, who, being the villain, reflects certain conservative stereotypes, yet, through his first conversation with Bond, it becomes apparent that Bond himself is not adverse or may have had homosexual relations, an openly unprecedented development, which should not be underestimated.

The brutal lines from the previews that made me not want to see the film are actually alright when placed in context, writers Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and John Logan successfully finding a balance between hackneyed clichés and hardboiled wit, which isn't easy to do.

Rather than focusing on international politics, Skyfall situates much of its action in London, no doubt, the film, if, um, James Bond films are seen as a barometer of British socio-political attitudes of sorts, recognizes, ah, a certain, role, that Britain often didn't play so heroically in 20th century history (see Argo), which functions as a bit of cultural introspection that is both welcome, and appreciated.

Which brings me to the film's most notable scene, wherein Skyfall's various dynamics reach a quasiclimax which hopefully doesn't end there.

So, basically, M (Judi Dench) screws up royal by being in charge when a hard drive containing the names of every MI6 field agent (which never should have been created) is stolen.  This leads to an internal review of her leadership which becomes public. Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), an ex-field agent who has taken on a sympathetic yet stubborn bureaucratic role (youth becomes age), diplomatically tones down the irate politician who castigates M during a public inquiry, which ends with M quoting Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Poetry in Bond?

Nice touch!

It doesn't actually end there (don't read if you're not looking for spoilers). It ends with Silva (Javier Bardem), the principal villain, breaking in and trying to kill M whom he blames for accidentally saving his life after he was captured and his hydrocyanide tooth failed to kill him (while ravaging his insides [he vengefully seeks to ravage MI6's insides in turn]).

Silva's prowess in MI6 was comparable to Bond's and M was willing to sacrifice both for the organization's sake.

Bond holds no grudge.

Ergo, as defined by M's rousing speech, which claims that in the age of the internet individuals are becoming a serious threat, thereby covertly supporting attempts to sturdily monitor and police individual interent activities, due to the secretive nature of her operations and the life threatening consequences of details potentially leaked during public inquiries (some governmental documents should remain secret), she's somewhat taken aback by the proceedings, which are applying a similar level of oversight to that which guided her decisions to sacrifice Bond and Silva, which are then interrupted by Silva's rampage.

Obviously the activities of agencies like MI6, due to their necessarily clandestine nature, need to remain generally secret, as long as other countries continue to maintain similar outlets. At the same time, if they operate entirely in secret there's no telling what sort of methods might be utilized, meaning a minimal degree of public scrutiny, though vexatious, within logical parameters, which must take various prickly contexts into consideration, makes sense.

Don't know if that's helpful.

I find the idea of (computer savvy) individuals being some of the greatest threats to the 21st century, however, somewhat misleading, for the following reasons.

It's kind of silly to begin with, scum like Hitler and Stalin being particularly deadly individuals long before the age of the internet, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Yes, computer savvy individuals can cause a lot of damage I'm sure. These exceptions can, I don't know, hack into banks, defence systems, etc. I know someone else has my IP address because I often receive a message on my computer screen that another computer using my IP address is operating on the same network. I don't know what to do about this besides get a new IP address and I don't want to bother because someone will just do it again.

It's annoying.

But if because of these exceptions, legislation is being introduced giving law enforcement agencies the power to monitor everyone's online activity, and the majority of everyone's activity is moving online, it's like law enforcement agencies are being given the power to monitor everyone's activities all the time. What stores they go to, what newspapers they read, and so on. It's kind of totalitarian in my opinion and is at risk of being 'naturalized' for future generations without much mature parliamentary debate in some countries. I mean, shouldn't you have to get a warrant to monitor someone's online activity? Doesn't that make sense?

And, as my computer keeps indicating, someone else has my IP address and is using it online. How would I be able to prove that I'm not that person in a court of law?

Cybercrime is similar to physical crime. If someone wants to rob a bank online, I suppose they hack in. If someone wants to rob a physical bank, I suppose they find a way to go about doing it. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank in the physical world, I suppose you get a warrant and follow them around town. If you're worried about someone robbing a bank online, I think you should have to do the same thing because the principle isn't that different, it's just an alternative environment.

Yes, a Silva may arise, but there will also be a James Bond to stop him or her.

Nevertheless, I did enjoy Skyfall and think it's a great film.

I hope my analysis hasn't been too offhand and that it hasn't engaged in too much puerile speculation.

(My favourite part is Q's scrabble mug.

I'd love to play him.

Would probably end up with multiple u's, c's, and v's at key moments, but, whatevs, I'd keep playing).

Oh, and I've been getting into film noir and hardboiled detective fiction again lately. A Bond film with the edge of a Dashiell Hammet, James M. Cain, Raymond Chandler, or Patricia Highsmith novel worked into what team Skyfall's already proved they have the creative energy to ameliorate would be amazing.

So amazing.