skyfall

Today I want to talk about a movie. Hey, screenwriters are writers too and if they don't provide some of the most public examples of good and bad writing then you haven't been watching your films close enough!

Tim and I saw Skyfall last Friday. He's been dying to see it since the trailers started coming out but I was rather less excited. Confession: up until last month I had never seen a James Bond movie in my life [MI: Ghost Protocol was also my first experience with MI. I don't think it was supposed to be as funny as I found it but hey, I like a comedy.]. I know, light the torches, send the condolence cards and all that. I guess I had a sheltered childhood :P Anyway, a few weeks ago we watched Casino Royal [the new one] with the wise intention of educating me at least on the basics of the Bond saga before venturing into its newest installment.

That being said, I approached Skyfall with anticipation and came away almost entirely satisfied. It's an action movie that actually has a plot, the actors are brilliant [do you think Judi Dench would be my children's godmother?], the dialogue was witty and engaging.

The first, and least substantial bone for me was when they completely destroyed his house. Honestly, tears were shed. My main complaint is the women. Before you start throwing those lit torches through my living room window, le'mme e'splain [<-side note: exhibit A as to why you do NOT write exactly the way people speak].

There are several characteristics that make James Bond, well, James Bond. He's a legend of sorts and people expect to see those traditional characteristics. Can you imagine how confusing it would be if every actor had completely re-written the character? That's be like the current Spider-man train wreck and heaven knows we don't need more of those [though the newest movie was a vast improvement]. Basically, "womanizer" is probably one of the top 3 characteristics most people think of when they think James Bond. It's become more than an activity he commonly engages it, it's now a behavioral characteristic, like something he can't help or avoid doing because, dude, he's James Bond. Now, our characters need to have distinguishable traits to be identifiable and even relate-able so while you'll never hear me condoning Bond's promiscuous activities, I understand the part they play.

So what's the big deal in Skyfall? Well, today I want to discuss the unfortunate practice performed by writers the world over of including actions, dialogue, and scenes that have little to no relevance to the plot simply because the reader or viewer may have become accustomed to such interchanges in previous installments. Basically, I felt that the womanizing portions of Skyfall, especially those in the very beginning, are completely extraneous and unnecessary. We know Bond likes to have passionate sexual relations with women so I think it could have been safely assumed that he pursued such relationships while "dead." Considering he was obviously unhappy with his "dead" lifestyle, the initial scene was irrelevant [as he has obviously not entered into any exclusive/fulfilling relationship since falling off the map] and distracting.

I'm struggling to really articulate myself here but the basic idea I wanted to get across is that we shouldn't be including anything in our stories that doesn't tie directly in to a story. If you want to take a look at prolific and revered writers, the absence of extraneous information and scenes is something that should stick out to you as a common factor. In Casino Royale, Bond's relationship played an absolutely vital roll to the plot as well as to his future character development, providing an explanation for his future distrust of women and lack of a desire for a real relationship. That, I can appreciate. In Skyfall, though, [I can't vouch for the other films] Bond's sexual encounters seemed more like a crutch, a not-so-subtle nod to what many see as an essential part of the legend if not the actual character.

We shouldn't be using props. In my opinion, Bond would still have been Bond if they hadn't shown him sleeping with attractive women because his character is so much more than that, so much deeper, especially with the introduction of the back story that we find in Skyfall. Because of the exploitation of this sexual aspect of his character I actually lost some respect for the fill and its quality declined some for me. Strong stories are founded on and propelled by strong characters, of which Bond is one. But we have collectively [don't you deny that public opinion influences a franchise this old and extensive] allowed Bond, in some ways, to be reduced to his parts. His sexual behavior, specifically, seems to have become almost a separate entity that surfaces almost separately from the character and story.

I still think Skyfall is a fantastic movie, there is so much to praise in it and I would gladly see it again. I just think it's worth paying attention to the ways in which we let individual characteristics or perceived expectations of our audiences to become paramount over the story and character as a whole. The books and films that truly inspire us are those that have great parts but of which the whole is greater than the sum of them, not the other way around.