At "Skyfall:" My Case For the Best Bond Film Ever Made

While I usually use my Blog for spiritual insight and analysis, I cannot escape the experience that I had this weekend seeing the 23rd James Bond film, “Skyfall.”  I had read a couple of sparkling reviews that did not give away any of the plot line details, so I went in relatively fresh.  While the reviews I read praised the film, I am a pretty harsh critic of Bond films, especially the anemic, “Quantum of Solace.”  I went to the theater expecting “Skyfall” to be better than “Quantum,” but I was not ready for what I saw on the screen.  The experience has stayed with me for two whole days now.

Almost universally, “Goldfinger” is considered by most to the best, although some would rank “From Russia With Love” higher.  In many ways, “Goldfinger” has it all and was the movie in which James Bond stopped being just a cult hero and became a super spy.  From the villain and his henchman, to the gadgets, to the suggestive names of the Bond girls, to the silly double entendre, “Goldfinger” set the standard by which all other Bond films would be judged.  Until now.

I would never dream of bashing any Bond film.  I even like the bad ones (“Moonraker,” anyone?), and I am spellbound anytime I see even a moment of them on TBS’ “All Bond, All Day” Marathons.  Yet there is something about this one that has grabbed me and will not let go.  So here I am to try and argue my case for why “Skyfall” should be the new benchmark in Bond films.  I HATE spoilers, so I will do my best to be vague for those who have not seen it yet.

First, consider the Bond.  In “Casino Royale” (2005), we were introduced to a raw, gritty, insolent, emotionally damaged Bond who gave his heart away to the first girl who stood up to him.  Did James Bond really tell a woman that he was in love with her in that movie?  She betrayed him, she died, and now his heart is as guarded as a Swiss bank account.  This is the Bond that we have in again “Skyfall” and not the Jason Bourne wannabe in “Quantum.”  Unlike other incarnations of Bond, such as Sean Connery, Daniel Craig is not the smoothest, debonair looking guy in the room.  He doesn’t float when he walks like some other Bonds have.  Instead, he walks with a little bit of a chip on his shoulder, like he has something to prove to himself and everyone else.  This is a flawed Bond, and one to whom we can relate because we are all flawed, too.  We see Sean Connery and think, “Wow, I could never pull off that suit, those lines, and get that girl.”  But this Bond is wounded and we know it.  We think, “If I had that car, that suit, and looked like that, I might be able to pull that off.”  Craig’s Bond is both complex and simple, a riddle and an answer, hidden and transparent.  Again, much like we all are.  He could be the villain in the next Bond movie as easily as he is the hero in this one. Ultimately, he has to face his past if he is to move on with his future.  Again, much like we all must do.  This Bond is accessible to us and we can relate to him on a deeper level beyond simple admiration.

Second, consider the simplicity of this movie.  Older Bond movies began to rely to heavily on gadgets and gizmos to get Bond out of a situation.  An invisible car?  James Bond surfing on a tsunami wave?  Come on.  In “Skyfall,” his only two devices are his gun and a radio transmitter.  The question the movie implicitly poses is, “Will this be enough?”  This James Bond has to actually think his way out of things.  Two scenes stand out to me in this regard.  One is at the beginning when he runs out of ammo for his gun and tosses it to the side in disgust.  What now?  He has to improvise.  The other is when he is challenged by Silva to a demented form of target practice.  He hesitates to play.  Is he scared?  Does he trust his ability?  Neither, as it happens.  He has done just the right thing at just the right time.  We are impressed not at the bizarre means of his escapes via a kooky wristwatch, but at the ingenuity he possesses.  Of course, we know that Bond will survive as long as there is another movie to be made.  We used to think, however, “Oh, he has an exploding key chain for this.”  Now we are held in suspense and wonder how in the world he thought of that.  Nowhere is this clearer than in the final fight scene of the movie.

Third, consider the villain.  My theory is that any movie involving a hero, be it a superhero movie or a movie like this one, is only ever as good as its villain is.  Why was “Silence of the Lambs” so memorable?  Or “The Dark Knight?”  Or “No Country for Old Men” (also starring Javier Bardem)?  Is it the hero that we remember?  Or is it the villain?  I think the reason for this is that we know deep down that the hero will be victorious, so there is no real surprise in his/her defeat.  What we want to be surprised by is the how dark the villain is and how deep that darkness goes.  (Secretly, if we were to share our secrets, in our own darkness, we sometimes root for the villain to pull the upset.)  Think of the memorable James Bond villains.  Who stands out to you?  Auric Goldfinger.  Blofeld.  Max Zorin.  How many more can you name past that?  What about the guy from “Quantum of Solace?”  How bland was he?  Now, in “Skyfall” we have Silva, who should surely go down in history as the best.  He is twisted, sexually ambiguous, silly, warped, disfigured, and a genius.  One of the things that I hate about watching the evening news is how horribly stupid most criminals are.  They fail to look at a job or escape from every angle and be ready for it.  You have to have a great plan that is as fluid as the situation is.  Silva takes a computer hacker, not the sexiest of criminals but the timeliest, and turns him into someone actually interesting.  I found myself in awe of Bardem’s subtle facial expressions and how much he was able to say without speaking a word.  He would rather die once he has achieved his goal than live to enjoy that fact that he has accomplished it.  This is some serious sickness.  Silva takes the Bond villain to a whole new level.

Finally, consider the mystery that this movie resolves.  My first thought when I heard the title, “Skyfall,” was, “What the heck is ‘Skyfall’?”  Is it the title of an operation, like “Desert Storm?”  Is it a reference to global disaster involving the sky falling?  When asked about it early in the movie, Bond surely doesn’t seem to like it much.  But what IS “Skyfall?!”  By the time you forget that you have been wondering what it is, you find out what it is.  There is an “a-ha” moment when you realize what it is and why Bond was so averse to talking about it.  We learn things about Bond that we have never known about him.  For Bond enthusiasts, this is a magnificent find.  Even for those who are not, it makes Bond seem more human and not the archangel of British Intelligence.  This movie answers questions that those of us who love James Bond have always wondered.  I had to go back and listen to the theme song again after seeing the movie.  It is like peeking at the candy map on the inside of a box of chocolates.  The chocolates were going to be good anyway, but now you know exactly what the taste is going to be.  At the end of the movie, when Bond reports for his next mission, it is a different Bond because of Skyfall.  He is the same, but he is different.

There will be those who will disagree with me.  Beauty and art have a definite subjectivity to them.  Yet I challenge you to ask yourself this question after seeing “Skyfall:” does it not affect you more than just another trip to the movies?  There is something haunting and lingering about it.  It has been a long, long time that a movie has affected like this one has, and that Adele song keeps echoing in my head.  “Let the Skyfall.”

For this reason, and those listed above, I will now think of James Bond #23 as James Bond #1.