[SPOILERS] Skyfall: Post-Viewing Discussion

Seve wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

The narration detailing Bond's thought process establishes that while those factors are in his mind the primary motivation is retaining secrecy and not drawing attention to himself.

Not an exact match to Skyfall but the closest equivalent scenario in Fleming.

fair call then

Bond is a practical sort. There was no way he could have saved Campbell in OHMSS without also putting himself in the same danger that Campbell faced. And I don't think there was any realistic way to save the poor sap in the Garden of Death, without compromising his mission. Bond I think by this point was also disgusted with the Japanese suicide culture. Earlier he was appalled by the fact that it wasn't uncommon for Japanese families to celebrate an honorable suicide - one guy submitted his skull for crushing on a construction site and it was cause for a big family party;honor restored after the shame of gasp, flunking his exams. Bond even witnesses emergency responders to a bad traffic accident, make the wounded wait while they photographed the scene and drew chalk outlines. Whacked.

Fleming doesn't paint a very flattering picture of Japanese culture and it's seeming ambivalence to the value of human life. By the time Bond got to the Garden of Death, where 500 Japanese had already willingly offed themselves, I don't think he had a whole lot of empathy for this culture of "self-murder." I wouldn't have been surprised if he'd helped toss the guy in the nearest piranha pool, himself.

YOLT I think is Fleming's most provocative read. I think it would make a great stage play or radio drama as the first half is so dialogue driven. We are treated to Dikko, Tiger, Bond and even M in the early going, ranting (Dikko) or passionately expounding on the geo-politics of the day, as it relates to the U.S.A, Britain, Japan, you name it. This book is not for the faint of heart or politically or culturally sensitive.

Seve wrote:

Bond doesn't know what the bodyguards orders are, or even that they work for Silva at that point, so he could have saved the businessman

How could he save the businessman by attacking Patrice? He might not know what the bodyguards' orders were, but he picked them out in the space of about ten seconds when he met with Severine later on. The painting used in the set-up was a stolen Modigliani, and while Bond might not have known much about art, it would not take much for him to suspect a clandestine meeting over a stolen artwork was in progress, which would be unlikely to attract honest people.

Seve wrote:

What you say could have no bearing on Bonds thought process at that time

And you're acting as if Bond attacking - and probably killing - Patrice would somehow save the businessman. Bond has no reason to believe that doing so would save the businessman, protect his cover and give him a lead to follow, so why would he risk exposure and possible death for the sake of someone whom he does not know and has no guarantee that he can save?

You seem intent on proving that SKYFALL is a bad film because Bond chose one course of action based on what information he had available to him at the time. Ironically, you're simply demonstrating one of the film's key themes - namely, that intelligence decisions have to be made in the heat of the moment based at what they know at the time, and that arguing or questioning the reasoning behind those actions is the easy course for the liberally-minded among us who are in no position to accurately judge the circumstances but do so to fulfil their own personal, moral or political convictions.

Furthermore, following his orders is what separates Bond from Silva. If Bond had taken it upon himself to jeopardise the mission for the sake of saving one life (and he could not even be sure if that life was worth saving), then he was no different to Silva.

Seve wrote:

It is night time, the henchmen are in a brightly lit room, Bond and Patrice are in an unlit room in another building some distance away, they could see nothing of what he and Patrice were doing

Severine saw him just fine. So unless the bodyguards are remarkably short-sighted, they would have seen him, too. And if they were short-sighted, it begs the question of why they're under the employ of someone who might need them to shoot people.

That Bond guy. Letting the guy get shot by Patrice. What a mean mean person.

Never mind Patrice, who actually killed the guy. ;)

Seve wrote:

Fairbairn-Sykes wrote:

In YOLT Bond remains hidden and watches a man die in Blofeld's Garden of Death. He could have saved him at the risk of blowing his cover but chose not to.

I'm not sure I agree, did Bond know the garden of death so well that he could move about in it without getting killed himself?
Was Bond aware of all the potential ways to die in the garden of death?
If not then I wouldn't say Bond could have saved him and chose not to because it might blow his cover

Bond wouldn't have had to go traipsing through the entire Garden of Death to attempt a rescue. It was happening maybe 50 feet from Bond's hideout. That said, Bond's weaponry was very limited. There is no guarantee Bond could have taken on Blofeld's thugs and rescued that poor sap. Hence, this is a somewhat iffy example.

I think what distinguishes Fleming is that he always made sure we knew what was going on with Bond. He lays out the Campbell dilemma in OHMSS quite clearly. We understand why Bond couldn't act to save his colleague. Even when I read YOLT for the first time as a 12 year, way back when,(and at that age I don't claim to have quite got everything that was being discussed in the book, but still I couldn't put it down, as I could sure relate to this Bond character) I understood why Bond couldn't help the poor doomed sap in the Garden of Death, and furthermore I didn't care and still don't (other than in a poor soul, Christian way) but not within the context of the dramatized story.

The whole suicide culture is and was, alien and repugnant, and Fleming steered us in that direction. While Fleming had much respect for the Japanese culture and honorable sorts like Tanaka, the group at the fishing village, the ninja trainers etc, he was also quite taken aback by much of it as well.

As for SF, this isn't Fleming bond. This is almost 50 years removed. Craig/Bond doesn't fuss over the morality of his actions to the same extent that Fleming/Bond did.

Craig/Mendes (and they are driving this bus) let Bond watch Patrice blow the guy in the chair away. Maybe Bond had to stay his hand, maybe he didn't, but the filmmakers are essentially saying, don't worry about it, it doesn't matter. So be it.

There is though I think a parallel with the Garden of Death scene. In both instances, Bond is on mission and observing the enemy at work, as they dispatch a hapless victim. In YOLT though, Fleming takes pains to bring us on board with what's going with Bond. In SF, we are left to suss it out ourselves. Is this lazy filmmaking, ambiguous filmmaking, smart filmmaking? I don't know and I don't care. This is a re-booted Bond-animal. He takes a little getting used to.

Terrence Young and Sean Connery IMO delivered as close as we are ever likely to see of Fleming's Bond on screen. The other '60s directors were pretty close as well, but I think Young and maybe Peter Hunt's direction were probably the closest.

It is also much easier to spell out--so to speak--what's in Bond's mind in print than on film. I suppose Mendes could have inserted a little quote bubble over Bond's head saying, "Gee, I'd really like to help that art collector out. I mean, it really sucks just having to sit here and watch him get capped, but if I intervene, I might spook the villain who's behind all this mess."

But I think the point was that Bond really didn't care about the guy in the chair or was at best indifferent. So be it. I honestly don't care either. I care more about the two security guards who had the misfortune of being on shift in that particular building on that particular night, when psychotic asshole Patrice happened to visit and decided to blow them away.

Security guards on duty in office buildings don't tend to figure they are in any real danger, unlike say regular law enforement that understand they might be in the line of fire and get paid a whole lot more too. A fine distinction maybe, but the brutal killing of the guards, did make me wince.

tiffanywint wrote:

But I think the point was that Bond really didn't care about the guy in the chair or was at best indifferent. So be it. I honestly don't care either. I care more about the two security guards who had the misfortune of being on shift in that particular building on that particular night, when psychotic asshole Patrice happened to visit and decided to blow them away.

Security guards on duty in office buildings don't tend to figure they are in any real danger, unlike say regular law enforement that understand they might be in the line of fire and get paid a whole lot more too. A fine distinction maybe, but the brutal killing of the guards, did make me wince.

Indeed. Patrice was a nasty piece of work. All the more gratifying to see Bond put his scrote into the girders.

Likewise Silva's execution of Severine served to help me work up a healthy loathing for the cyber-swine. His comeuppance was all the sweeter.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Indeed. Patrice was a nasty piece of work. All the more gratifying to see Bond put his scrote into the girders.

Likewise Silva's execution of Severine served to help me work up a healthy loathing for the cyber-swine. His comeuppance was all the sweeter.

Yes SF did to that well - guiding us to work up very healthy disdain for these vile villains. Flemingesque even -- as the Master himself tooks pains to help us really loathe his villains, so that we were practically popping champagne corks, or pouring ourselves another whiskey/soda double, when the bastards finally got their comeuppance. Fleming I think took real delight in describing their demises.

Oddjob's slow squeeze through the airplane window, in a driving storm high above the Atlantic Ocean, was particularly satisfying. Same with No expiring under a pile of steaming bird dung. Fleming even helped out by having Bond imagine the dung working its way into No's lungs.

On the subject of YOLT and Bond's morality. Bond of course isn't comfortable with killing in cold blood, as Fleming reminds us ad nauseum throughout the books. I do laugh though when Tiger, endeavoring to sell the troubled Bond on the virtue of killing the evil Shatterhand, adds that the wife must go too, not only because she is an accomplice, but also seemingly just as importantly, because she is "too ugly to live" The Bunt bashing is relentless! I'd have to revisit the text, but that bit might have actually clinched the deal.

tiffanywint wrote:

But I think the point was that Bond really didn't care about the guy in the chair or was at best indifferent. So be it.

Honestly, I think that thsi whole discussion of Bond's moral responsibility to protect lives at the risk of endangering his own mission has bene started by people who didn't particularly like the film, but are picking at bones to try and make their criticisms of it equal to their sentiments regarding it.

True. If Fleming depicted a scene where Bond acted in the same manner as he did in Skyfall, nobody would bat an eye. Because it has never been done on print, it's subject to debate on "would Fleming's Bond have done this". However, I have not seen this kind of scrutiny used by the same people that praise Dr. No, which features Bond shooting an unarmed man in cold blood while making a quip. Heck, in the original uncut version before British censors got involved, the scene originally had Bond not shoot Dent just twice but several times until his gun went empty, mirroring Dent emptying his gun on the stuffed bed.

So yeah, I get the sense some are just nitpicking the Shanghai scene because they have a bone to pick, whether it's because they don't like Craig in the role, don't like any Bond film made after the 1962-1989 Cubby era, or whatever.

Python wrote:

True. If Fleming depicted a scene where Bond acted in the same manner as he did in Skyfall, nobody would bat an eye. Because it has never been done on print, it's subject to debate on "would Fleming's Bond have done this". However, I have not seen this kind of scrutiny used by the same people that praise Dr. No, which features Bond shooting an unarmed man in cold blood while making a quip. Heck, in the original uncut version before British censors got involved, the scene originally had Bond not shoot Dent just twice but several times until his gun went empty, mirroring Dent emptying his gun on the stuffed bed.

So yeah, I get the sense some are just nitpicking the Shanghai scene because they have a bone to pick, whether it's because they don't like Craig in the role, don't like any Bond film made after the 1962-1989 Cubby era, or whatever.

So you are simply dismissing, that some Bond fans, who have watched every film, read the entire Fleming ouevre, who are eminently qualified to weigh in on a Bond discussion, might have an honest "dislike."

Meantime, I don't think anyone cares if Fleming "would have done this" because that's a ridiculous discussion. Nobody knows what he would have done. We only know what he did write, and I think the closest parallel is the Garden of Death scene, which is in the same ballpark but not quite the same.

The DN scene I don't think bothers any Bond fans. It's pretty clear why he pumped a couple of slugs into Dent. The guy had just tried to kill him twice in the last matter of minutes, not to mention at least one other time. We know exactly what's going on with Bond's mindset. So liking the DN scene doesn't have to impact one's like or dislike of the SF scene, one wit. And like or dislike is what's at play. It's not like the scene can be declared illiegal or out of bounds or something.

So I get the sense that some are "nitpicking" the Shanghai scene simply because it doesn't sit well. We don't know what's going on with Bond here. We can guess of course but does it matter? Thats' the call of the individual film watcher. Personally I don't like the scene, but I am not terribly bothered by it. I won't hold Craig-Bond to the same standard as the old Bond because Craig-Bond is a re-boot. It's a complete re-boot of the character and his origins. He's not connected to the Bond of the first 20 films. Craig is shaping and defining the character as he goes. We'll see how it plays out.

tiffanywint wrote:

So you are simply dismissing, that some Bond fans, who have watched every film, read the entire Fleming ouevre, who are eminently qualified to weigh in on a Bond discussion, might have an honest "dislike."

The problem, tiff, is that people are being far too quick to claim "Fleming's Bond never would have done this" in order to automatically validate their criticisms, regardless of whether or not leming's Bond would have actually done it.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The problem, tiff, is that people are being far too quick to claim "Fleming's Bond never would have done this" in order to automatically validate their criticisms, regardless of whether or not leming's Bond would have actually done it.

Well if that's the case, then we have to buck up, because we don't know what Fleming's Bond would have done. It's a crazy discussion.

We can argue that's there's no precedent, but that discussion is somewhat subjective. As FB pointed out, the Garden of Death scene does provide some precedent, not a definitive one, but it does aid the discussion, and that's all it is, is a discussion. I don't think the scene can be invalidated, especially not, considering that this is a re-boot Bond. Craig does have latitude to make him a little "colder" a little more disaffected by such events.

Again, I don't care anymore and never really did, its just something to kick around. Eventually the scene just takes over anyway and you can't imagine it being done any other way. The scene just settles in. Bond has his reasons and we just roll with it. At least that's where I am at now. If others want to sue Eon for "breach of Fleming", that's good too though.;)

Was tossing Mathis in a dumpster a "breach of Fleming"? Who knows? I think it comes down to whether we like the scene or not, but on matters of "breach of Fleming," (probably the most sensitive topic in the Bondverse, but restricted to those who have actually read Fleming), I can respect the opinion of anyone that's actually taken the time to read the books, but again I think the discussion is often quite subjective.

This is the sort of fodder a University debating club might kick around. A good debater would be able to argue either side, even if he actually only supported one of the views. The side that would win is the side that presented their case the best.

Think Bond is trying to make what happened to Mathis look like a robbery-homicide, hence the emptying of his wallet and the putting of his body into the dumpster. Which maybe mitigates the seeming callousness on Bond's part a bit.

tiffanywint wrote:

Perilagu Khan wrote:

Indeed. Patrice was a nasty piece of work. All the more gratifying to see Bond put his scrote into the girders.

Likewise Silva's execution of Severine served to help me work up a healthy loathing for the cyber-swine. His comeuppance was all the sweeter.

Yes SF did to that well - guiding us to work up very healthy disdain for these vile villains. Flemingesque even -- as the Master himself tooks pains to help us really loathe his villains, so that we were practically popping champagne corks, or pouring ourselves another whiskey/soda double, when the bastards finally got their comeuppance. Fleming I think took real delight in describing their demises.

Oddjob's slow squeeze through the airplane window, in a driving storm high above the Atlantic Ocean, was particularly satisfying. Same with No expiring under a pile of steaming bird dung. Fleming even helped out by having Bond imagine the dung working its way into No's lungs.

On the subject of YOLT and Bond's morality. Bond of course isn't comfortable with killing in cold blood, as Fleming reminds us ad nauseum throughout the books. I do laugh though when Tiger, endeavoring to sell the troubled Bond on the virtue of killing the evil Shatterhand, adds that the wife must go too, not only because she is an accomplice, but also seemingly just as importantly, because she is "too ugly to live" The Bunt bashing is relentless! I'd have to revisit the text, but that bit might have actually clinched the deal.

Makes me wonder if Bunt isn't based on a real person. Fleming's mother-in-law, mayhap?

tiffanywint wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

The problem, tiff, is that people are being far too quick to claim "Fleming's Bond never would have done this" in order to automatically validate their criticisms, regardless of whether or not leming's Bond would have actually done it.

Well if that's the case, then we have to buck up, because we don't know what Fleming's Bond would have done. It's a crazy discussion.

We can argue that's there's no precedent, but that discussion is somewhat subjective. As FB pointed out, the Garden of Death scene does provide some precedent, not a definitive one, but it does aid the discussion, and that's all it is, is a discussion. I don't think the scene can be invalidated, especially not, considering that this is a re-boot Bond. Craig does have latitude to make him a little "colder" a little more disaffected by such events.

Again, I don't care anymore and never really did, its just something to kick around. Eventually the scene just takes over anyway and you can't imagine it being done any other way. The scene just settles in. Bond has his reasons and we just roll with it. At least that's where I am at now. If others want to sue Eon for "breach of Fleming", that's good too though.;)

Was tossing Mathis in a dumpster a "breach of Fleming"? Who knows? I think it comes down to whether we like the scene or not, but on matters of "breach of Fleming," (probably the most sensitive topic in the Bondverse, but restricted to those who have actually read Fleming), I can respect the opinion of anyone that's actually taken the time to read the books, but again I think the discussion is often quite subjective.

This is the sort of fodder a University debating club might kick around. A good debater would be able to argue either side, even if he actually only supported one of the views. The side that would win is the side that presented their case the best.

Now that scene--among many others in QOS--I'll not defend. Fleming would have loathed it. I did, too.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Think Bond is trying to make what happened to Mathis look like a robbery-homicide, hence the emptying of his wallet and the putting of his body into the dumpster. Which maybe mitigates the seeming callousness on Bond's part a bit.

Even so, the "gain" hardly justifies the colossal disrespect Bond visits on a dear friend. Even Camille is appalled.

Yeah, and why would Bond choose to put the dead body in a dumpster in order to feign a robber-homicide? Would robbers care to dispose of a person's dead body they have just killed and robbed? The body would probably be found anyway, and these killers don't care for complicating the work of the coroners - and then they would have to burn the bodies. They just leave them there and run away.
Also, what advantage would Bond have of feigning a homicide-robber? To help QUANTUM elude police investigations?
More importantly, Bond does not take Mathis's money in order to feign a homicide-robber, but rather because he himself does not have any money (his cards are blocked).
It is bad enough that Bond is forced to leave his friend dead on the ground. He should have covered his face, not thrown him into a dumpster... :roll:

I think the divergence between how the majority here view the Mathis thing in QoS and the art dealer in SF points up their general view of each film. Most like SF & don't like QoS, and they seem to give the movie they like the benefit of the doubt.

I have no problem with the Mathis thing at all (and wouldn't have the issue even if it were Kerim Bey -- I guess I'm just part Klingon when it comes to not caring what happens to a body after it is dead), and have less problems with QoS as a Bond movie than most of you.

By way of comparison, I hate SF, and the art dealer thing just points up one of many things that felt wrong to me (though to be honest, I'd rank it very low in terms of my problems with the movie.)

Mmm ... I like QOS AND Skyfall. Oh well.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

Think Bond is trying to make what happened to Mathis look like a robbery-homicide, hence the emptying of his wallet and the putting of his body into the dumpster. Which maybe mitigates the seeming callousness on Bond's part a bit.

"Just because one is dead, doesn't mean one still can't be helpful..."

It's the obvious intention; it's just never explained. It's pretty obvious that the police knew Mathis was in the boot of the car, and that they were expecting him to be dead. The plan was to arrest Bond for murder. Bond realised that he'd been set up, because the police followed him from the party. He tried to stage Mathis' death as a separate crime scene from the two dead police officers to try and slow down his pursuers. If senior police officials moved too quickly in responding to the deaths of the two officers, it would show a suspicious amount of fore-knowledge, which would undermine Medrano's coup because Greene built him up as being a legitimate ruler. Bond was no doubt hoping that by separating Mathis from the two dead officers and staging his body to look like a robbery that went awry, he could further slow the pursuit down because the first reponders would treat Mathis and the dead police as two seaparate crimes with no evidence to connect them. Eventually, someone higher up would tie it all together, but Bond was trying to build a lead on his pursusers by delaying that for as long as possible.

It's not a particularly complex plan, but it's certainly something the film should have detailed. It even created the perfect opportunity for itself - when Camille asks Bond "Is this how you treat your friends?" and Bond replies "He wouldn't mind.", he could at least explain that Mathis wouldn't mind because staging his death as a separate crime would slow down the pursuit.

Just watching the film on Blu-Ray and decided to turn on the subtitles in the scene where Silva is first re-introduced to M. His last line of dialogue to M is: 'Look what you did to me. Are you proud of your handiwork, Mother?'

Now, I'm wondering: is the use of "Mother" being meant in a quasi-professional sense to denote a hierarchy (like Ripley calling the Nostromo's on board artifical intelligence system "Mother"....or "Father" in Alien Resurrection), or was there a hint or an intimation in the script that M was actually Silva's biological mother and that plot point was simply scrapped in the editing room? I haven't listened to the dvd commentary yet.

I always felt like the movie was foreshadowing or hinting at a much deeper past relationship between M and Silva, or Bond and M, that was never fully materialized on screen. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it. It felt like, at first viewing, that Mendes and Co. intended to "go there", but then changed their minds and let it drop.

Any thoughts?