Yet, if Spectre has been the point all along, they (i.e. writers John Logan and Neal Purvis and Robert Wade and producers of various delineations, namely Barbara Broccoli, Michael G. Wilson and Gregg Wilson) have gone to espionage-level lengths to obscure the fact. The big reveal here by the film's new evil mastermind (played by Christoph Waltz with all the relish of every other time you have seen Christoph Waltz relish a role) is that he's not new at all. He's been pulling the strings all along and he has photos of all the other new-era Bond villains to prove it. Granted, that's all the proof he has and Broccoli et al have put about as much effort in bedding this plot point into the series as I could have with five minutes, an internet connection and a black and white printer.
So, no matter how seriously Spectre puts itself out there as the culmination of the Casino Royale story arc, it really only succeeds in reinforcing the fact that the DNA of Bond hasn't moved far at all from its not-so-glory days in the late '90s. Perhaps the think tank at Sony have determined the fans want plots of convolutedly linked set pieces, preposterously deadly technology and traps so obvious a five year old could avoid them; and, if so, Spectre will suffice. It will excite. It will pander to those who enjoy the less than admirable sexual politics (something even its star has taken public umbrage with). It will get enough adrenaline pumping throughout the action sequences. It's enough of a Bond film to do the job.
Recently, Joss Whedon outed the Marvel process on The Avengers' creative process saying he pretty much had to work around a series of pre-requisite, non-negotiable confrontations between specific characters. One gets the feeling Mendes has had to work to a similar framework but with an extra level of distance from the writing process. Reined in this tightly means he has needed to work any character into his direction of the cast during the down times in between fights (well, those quiet times that aren't taken up with perfunctory "A to B" exposition) and any drama into his camerawork in collaboration with cinematographer Hoyte Van Hoytema.
On both those scores Spectre can hold its head high. The film looks superb. Swapping out Roger Deakins' high contrast colour palette for Van Hoytema's earthier golds and browns boasts a richness of texture not usually seen in action films, even on this scale. There is real art in some of the images here, in the light, the framing and the overall production design. Plus, together Mendes and Van Hoytema have put together one of the most technically spectacular new-era openings, with a tracking shot that kicks off in Mexico City during the Day of the Dead. It is absolutely exhilarating.
Sadly, it comes to naught since it is followed up with green screen in-helicopter fisticuffs over the Zocalo. I guess that is the biggest tension here, the tussle between the film's technical achievement and its disposable content. The techs win out hands down. Watching Spectre (or any of the recent Bonds) is an exercise in not only suspending disbelief but letting it out to pasture so you can accept that causality is completely and utterly irrelevant. Case in point, I fell asleep just as Craig (predictably) got nasty with Monica Bellucci (pre-requisite plot interaction #3) and woke up to see he'd found his way to the big bad's board meeting (pre-requisite plot interaction #4). I thought I'd completely missed a key plot progression but I'm told I would only have closed my eyes for 20 seconds...
But I won't go on. These are the same gripes I had with Mendes' previous effort, so if you want to read more I'd suggest you go back to my Skyfall review.
Actually, these comments are merely the sequel to that piece.
I planned it that way all along.
*cough*
★★☆
Trailer:
No comments:
Post a Comment