I was one of the first here to call for the death of Dame Judi's M, largely because of the character's globetrotting overexposure...and I'm quite sure that those who've posted above are correct to assume that Fiennes will likely continue the trend of M venturing into the field, regardless of which actor is called "Double-Oh Seven" If you've got an Oscar-winner in your cast, you're going to give him lines. It's unfortunate, because IMO it does diminish Bond a bit.
I agree that it diminishes Bond when you have actors like Dench and Fiennes on screen so much. Craig couldn't compete with him since he doesn't have enough screen presence, though I wouldn't call him a character actor as Napoleon Plural does. He just doesn't have the lead power that Connery has. Connery would have had no problem competing with Dench or Fiennes.
I don't think it's a matter of screen presence at all, but more of a story/narrative/character thing. But then again, I've always enjoyed and admired Craig's Bond more than many. I simply believe that Bond should be the guy out on a job, with allies like Leiter, Quarrel, Kerim Bey etc...but with less direct supervision, which diminishes Bond's perceived independent competence.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I was one of the first here to call for the death of Dame Judi's M, largely because of the character's globetrotting overexposure...and I'm quite sure that those who've posted above are correct to assume that Fiennes will likely continue the trend of M venturing into the field, regardless of which actor is called "Double-Oh Seven" If you've got an Oscar-winner in your cast, you're going to give him lines. It's unfortunate, because IMO it does diminish Bond a bit.
I agree that it diminishes Bond when you have actors like Dench and Fiennes on screen so much. Craig couldn't compete with him since he doesn't have enough screen presence, though I wouldn't call him a character actor as Napoleon Plural does. He just doesn't have the lead power that Connery has. Connery would have had no problem competing with Dench or Fiennes.
I don't think it's a matter of screen presence at all, but more of a story/narrative/character thing. But then again, I've always enjoyed and admired Craig's Bond more than many. I simply believe that Bond should be the guy out on a job, with allies like Leiter, Quarrel, Kerim Bey etc...but with less direct supervision, which diminishes Bond's perceived independent competence.
I can't argue with that. {[] Bond needs to be in charge of his mission and be able to make his own decisions. Then again, Craig's Bond hasn't had many missions for him to be in charge of.
Every Bond Film since TWINE in 1999 has featured M in the field. This isn't a trend--it's the new normal. It's also something that I think is ridiculous and suspends my ability to buy into the "realism" of what's happening. I suppose SPECTRE's use of M in the field made more sense in light of the way the plot developed, but I still didn't like it.
M's endless babysitting of Bond - which also started in TWINE and therefore predates the Craig era - is tiresome. Can you imagine Bernanrd Lee's M feeling the need to hold Bond's hand trough a mission? If he didn't think Bond was up to the task, he would simply remove him until Bond proved otherwise (see: OHMSS). Hopefully the next Bond will have a more adult-like relationship with M.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,990Quartermasters
Well, 'trend' vs 'new normal' is probably mostly a matter of semantics, but either way it isn't good for Bond, IMO. Yes, M briefed Bond on a submarine in YOLT, but that made sense in the context of the mission...and he came to Egypt in TSWLM and Venice in MR, etc...perhaps overall screen time is the new benchmark. Ultimately, it's less Fleming to me.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Thunderbird 2East of Cardiff, Wales.Posts: 2,777MI6 Agent
Every Bond Film since TWINE in 1999 has featured M in the field. This isn't a trend--it's the new normal. It's also something that I think is ridiculous and suspends my ability to buy into the "realism" of what's happening. I suppose SPECTRE's use of M in the field made more sense in light of the way the plot developed, but I still didn't like it.
M's endless babysitting of Bond - which also started in TWINE and therefore predates the Craig era - is tiresome. Can you imagine Bernard Lee's M feeling the need to hold Bond's hand through a mission? If he didn't think Bond was up to the task, he would simply remove him until Bond proved otherwise (see: OHMSS). Hopefully the next Bond will have a more adult-like relationship with M.
I disagree. - In TWINE, M-Mawd goes out to Baku at Electra's own request. Tanner is not happy about the idea, and Bond says himself its not a good idea for M to be out there after she arrives. He immediately raises his suspicions about Electra - and in short order is proven correct.
In DAD, M-Mawd is reflecting the Moore era, esp on the HMS Unnamed in Hong Kong. - Just as (M-Messry) had offices all over the planet!
To me, TWINE is Dame Judi's best turn overall in the Bond films. M-Mawd is firmly in command of MI6 by now, but is portrayed as human with a life outside the service as well. It works in the context of the overall plot, and gives the villainess more back story too.
Her next best turn is in CR-06, where we see that M (M-Mansf) although in charge, already has credibility problems. - Summoned to the House of Commons for a start! I agree the babysitting aspect is already there. However, - in part because Tanner, EMP and Q2 are not part of the equation yet - and the never seen again Villiers is played mainly for laughs, its less blatant than in the rest of the Craig era.
If the modern Bond films have a problem, its that in the writing they are trying too hard these days to chase their competitors in being relevant to the audience or the world at large. Following fashion rather than leading the way, because the stakes and competition are higher. DAD was a 007 greatest hits in regurgitating elements from the Connery and Moore years. - Once I realised that, I was able to enjoy it, and enjoy it I do.
CR-06 - my favorite Bond film of the lot, tried a little too hard to be contemporary in 2006, in referencing 9-11, the over use of (now somewhat dated) mobile phone tech, and alongside Batman Begins the first of the new Origins meets reboot stories. Its also ironic it shoadows financial concerns since we had the recession only two years later. The fact it utilises Fleming's origin story of Bond is what makes it so enjoyable, and all the production values hit the nail on the head from the film noir teaser, to "the names Bond, James Bond" at the end.
QoS, SF and SP have all tried to be arty-farty, and esp in the case of the latter two, it leaves a somewhat anticlimactic air when the credits roll. - For all its jarring visuals, QoS was trying to tell a cohesive story. - SF and SP both have narrative that just falls apart when there is half an hour of the film left. Esp in SP, there were moments I was thinking "that's it? That's all? What was the point of that?!"
Scuse the rant. - My point is - M-Malry being active in the field is a symptom of a bigger problem of current Bond. But it is not one that started in TWINE. As far fetched as aspects of that film were - the use of M-Mawd was not one of them.
This is Thunderbird 2, how can I be of assistance?
To me, TWINIE is Dame Judi's best turn overall in the Bond films. M-Mawd is firmly in command of MI6 by now, but is portrayed as human with a life outside the service as well. It works in the context of the overall plot, and gives the villainess more back story too.
I agree. Potentially this is her best outing because Dame Judi is able to act in her best manner - as a human - instead of a grumpy bitch.
I always thought that the increased role of M in Craig's first 3 films was because of the reboot, and Bond being more rookie - requiring such heavy hand-holding. I agree with the above that M's increased presence in TWINE was more because the story actually required it (it was a story about Bond behind mostly one-step behind, M making mistakes and MI6 being played).
I find the Craig films frustrating because they're too inwardly focused on Bond's past and MI6's heavy involvement. They're quite suffocating. Potentially this is why I enjoy QoS so much - it's basic.
"Die Another Day is a 007 Greatest Hits reusing elements from the Connery and Moore eras"? That is the best description of this movie that I have ever heard!
1, GE 2, CR 3, SF 4, TWINE 5, Spectre 6, TMWTGG 7, DAD 8, LALD 9, AVTAK 10, LTK 11, Octopussy 12, Moonraker 13, TLD 14, GF 15, QOS 16, Tomorrow 17, FYEO 18. TSWLM Not seen much: Dr. No, Russia, Thunderball, Twice, Majesty.
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
One of the things i love about the books is Bond's sense of isolation and need to think on his feet to survive. They send him out on a mission and M knows he may be in a country but then its all down to him. I know with modern technology it's harder to be off the radar but I dont think Bond should have the whole 24/Mi support team because it takes away from him. Then again, if you want good actors in the support roles I guess they need to justify the salary.
THAT'S the whole problem with the road the writer's went down in regards to how a spy like Bond does their job. The whole point of having a field agent that seasoned and well trained is that you trust them to do their job and NEVER micromanage them. Bond should not have to "go rogue" on his missions in order to escape microscope scrutiny from M and HQ in order to do his job (last three of Craig's films). The whole point of having an agent like this is being able to infiltrate the enemy to gain access and retrieve intelligence (or commit sabotage). By constantly judging them or keeping them under surveillance, you not only are second guessing them but you also run the risk of exposing them if you're constantly communicating with them. It's why I've hated that approach the writers have used in the films (the tracking implant, blood tracking nano devices, Bond with a damned earbud). Leave that crap for the MI films or the other action films. One of the things that sets Bond apart is that he DIDN'T use to do these things. The other thorn in my side that I always hated was have Q kit Bond out while in the field. Can you imagine ANY intelligence service doing that? Sure, let's send the head of our weapons r/d branch of the whole intelligence service across the globe to kit out an agent in the field in the middle of a mission! I know, I know..it's been a cute point in the films mostly done for comic relief and to expand the actor's role, but..let's put this one to bed, please. We have many, MANY films with these scenes that we can watch over and over..it doesn't need to be done anymore. I'm sorry if reduces the scenes of the actors who sign up for these roles to a minute or two of screen time, but, it's not an M FILM or a Q FILM or a MONEYPENNY film - it's a BOND film. I know they expanded the role because of Dench and because now they have Fiennes, but they should appreciate the fact that they were even chosen to be in the series - it really is an honor at this point in history and to complain over the idea they might only be in the film a few minutes is really a lot of ego - especially since they have other projects they are in or will be in where they are either the star or co-star.
superadoRegent's Park West (CaliforniaPosts: 2,652MI6 Agent
The need for M's expanded role began with Dalton, whose Bond took on a new complexity, though it fed off the literary character's complexity that hadn't been tapped before. Because the character was given the movie treatment by the 1st generation production team (esp. Maibaum and Young) and made more visually appealing albeit shallower, M had been the reprimanding parent figure for a petulant child that Bond was. Dalton revolutionized Bond's irreverence by giving that trait more depth and substance, drawing from Bond's internalizations that was earlier deemed difficult to transfer onto the screen. We see this realized the most in Bond's license getting revoked by M, including the preceding and ensuing drama; central to that was Bond's interaction with M, a level of rebellion never before reached=lots of drama. Ironically, the lukewarm reception for this aspect of Dalton's Bond proved the producers' earlier wisdom correct.
But when Brosnan entered the scene, the issue of depth was left as a standard for him to either adapt and improve upon, or ignore to revert to the lightness of the Bond character before Dalton (which, unfortunately he eventually ended up doing). So again, to explore Bond's inner conflict and the complexities of his character, esp. brought about the new world that his old ways needed to reckon with, M was again used as a foil and what better way to do it than by using a woman M to contrast with a classic male chauvinist pig that Bond was.
Enter Craig, going in the direction of even more inner conflict and coming to terms with unresolved issues of Bond's past. How else can you draw all of that out? Once again, M became that foil. In CR and QoS, their relationship seemed like a parent dealing with a teen on a cross-country joy ride, with mom cancelling his credit cards to stop him in his tracks. SF is a story of a parent who failed her kids (Silva and Bond), loosing the older one while trying to save what's left of the younger one who went to rehab. In SP, you have the step-father who just doesn't understand...but who is eventually enlightened to help out his step-kid who was right all along. )
The "M as foil" framework has gotten old and will eventually be toned down, IMO. However, even after Dench's M died (in the midst of Bond and her literally confronting the ghosts of their respective pasts), a more involved M had been set as standard...until the producers deem it time to wipe the slate clean again and perhaps temporarily put M aside just as Moneypenny and Q were absent to give the new Bond the time to develop.
"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....
I'm in all honesty not a big Fiennes fan, but then again, I don't think you're supposed to be in his role as M.
By the way, did they test any others out for the role in Skyfall? I'd be really curious to know, or if Fiennes was there go to pick from the beginning for the part.
Comments
I don't think it's a matter of screen presence at all, but more of a story/narrative/character thing. But then again, I've always enjoyed and admired Craig's Bond more than many. I simply believe that Bond should be the guy out on a job, with allies like Leiter, Quarrel, Kerim Bey etc...but with less direct supervision, which diminishes Bond's perceived independent competence.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I can't argue with that. {[] Bond needs to be in charge of his mission and be able to make his own decisions. Then again, Craig's Bond hasn't had many missions for him to be in charge of.
M's endless babysitting of Bond - which also started in TWINE and therefore predates the Craig era - is tiresome. Can you imagine Bernanrd Lee's M feeling the need to hold Bond's hand trough a mission? If he didn't think Bond was up to the task, he would simply remove him until Bond proved otherwise (see: OHMSS). Hopefully the next Bond will have a more adult-like relationship with M.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I disagree. - In TWINE, M-Mawd goes out to Baku at Electra's own request. Tanner is not happy about the idea, and Bond says himself its not a good idea for M to be out there after she arrives. He immediately raises his suspicions about Electra - and in short order is proven correct.
In DAD, M-Mawd is reflecting the Moore era, esp on the HMS Unnamed in Hong Kong. - Just as (M-Messry) had offices all over the planet!
To me, TWINE is Dame Judi's best turn overall in the Bond films. M-Mawd is firmly in command of MI6 by now, but is portrayed as human with a life outside the service as well. It works in the context of the overall plot, and gives the villainess more back story too.
Her next best turn is in CR-06, where we see that M (M-Mansf) although in charge, already has credibility problems. - Summoned to the House of Commons for a start! I agree the babysitting aspect is already there. However, - in part because Tanner, EMP and Q2 are not part of the equation yet - and the never seen again Villiers is played mainly for laughs, its less blatant than in the rest of the Craig era.
If the modern Bond films have a problem, its that in the writing they are trying too hard these days to chase their competitors in being relevant to the audience or the world at large. Following fashion rather than leading the way, because the stakes and competition are higher. DAD was a 007 greatest hits in regurgitating elements from the Connery and Moore years. - Once I realised that, I was able to enjoy it, and enjoy it I do.
CR-06 - my favorite Bond film of the lot, tried a little too hard to be contemporary in 2006, in referencing 9-11, the over use of (now somewhat dated) mobile phone tech, and alongside Batman Begins the first of the new Origins meets reboot stories. Its also ironic it shoadows financial concerns since we had the recession only two years later. The fact it utilises Fleming's origin story of Bond is what makes it so enjoyable, and all the production values hit the nail on the head from the film noir teaser, to "the names Bond, James Bond" at the end.
QoS, SF and SP have all tried to be arty-farty, and esp in the case of the latter two, it leaves a somewhat anticlimactic air when the credits roll. - For all its jarring visuals, QoS was trying to tell a cohesive story. - SF and SP both have narrative that just falls apart when there is half an hour of the film left. Esp in SP, there were moments I was thinking "that's it? That's all? What was the point of that?!"
Scuse the rant. - My point is - M-Malry being active in the field is a symptom of a bigger problem of current Bond. But it is not one that started in TWINE. As far fetched as aspects of that film were - the use of M-Mawd was not one of them.
I agree. Potentially this is her best outing because Dame Judi is able to act in her best manner - as a human - instead of a grumpy bitch.
I always thought that the increased role of M in Craig's first 3 films was because of the reboot, and Bond being more rookie - requiring such heavy hand-holding. I agree with the above that M's increased presence in TWINE was more because the story actually required it (it was a story about Bond behind mostly one-step behind, M making mistakes and MI6 being played).
I find the Craig films frustrating because they're too inwardly focused on Bond's past and MI6's heavy involvement. They're quite suffocating. Potentially this is why I enjoy QoS so much - it's basic.
"Better make that two."
1: Brosnan 2: Craig 3: Moore 4: Dalton 5: Connery and 6: Lazenby
THAT'S the whole problem with the road the writer's went down in regards to how a spy like Bond does their job. The whole point of having a field agent that seasoned and well trained is that you trust them to do their job and NEVER micromanage them. Bond should not have to "go rogue" on his missions in order to escape microscope scrutiny from M and HQ in order to do his job (last three of Craig's films). The whole point of having an agent like this is being able to infiltrate the enemy to gain access and retrieve intelligence (or commit sabotage). By constantly judging them or keeping them under surveillance, you not only are second guessing them but you also run the risk of exposing them if you're constantly communicating with them. It's why I've hated that approach the writers have used in the films (the tracking implant, blood tracking nano devices, Bond with a damned earbud). Leave that crap for the MI films or the other action films. One of the things that sets Bond apart is that he DIDN'T use to do these things. The other thorn in my side that I always hated was have Q kit Bond out while in the field. Can you imagine ANY intelligence service doing that? Sure, let's send the head of our weapons r/d branch of the whole intelligence service across the globe to kit out an agent in the field in the middle of a mission! I know, I know..it's been a cute point in the films mostly done for comic relief and to expand the actor's role, but..let's put this one to bed, please. We have many, MANY films with these scenes that we can watch over and over..it doesn't need to be done anymore. I'm sorry if reduces the scenes of the actors who sign up for these roles to a minute or two of screen time, but, it's not an M FILM or a Q FILM or a MONEYPENNY film - it's a BOND film. I know they expanded the role because of Dench and because now they have Fiennes, but they should appreciate the fact that they were even chosen to be in the series - it really is an honor at this point in history and to complain over the idea they might only be in the film a few minutes is really a lot of ego - especially since they have other projects they are in or will be in where they are either the star or co-star.
But when Brosnan entered the scene, the issue of depth was left as a standard for him to either adapt and improve upon, or ignore to revert to the lightness of the Bond character before Dalton (which, unfortunately he eventually ended up doing). So again, to explore Bond's inner conflict and the complexities of his character, esp. brought about the new world that his old ways needed to reckon with, M was again used as a foil and what better way to do it than by using a woman M to contrast with a classic male chauvinist pig that Bond was.
Enter Craig, going in the direction of even more inner conflict and coming to terms with unresolved issues of Bond's past. How else can you draw all of that out? Once again, M became that foil. In CR and QoS, their relationship seemed like a parent dealing with a teen on a cross-country joy ride, with mom cancelling his credit cards to stop him in his tracks. SF is a story of a parent who failed her kids (Silva and Bond), loosing the older one while trying to save what's left of the younger one who went to rehab. In SP, you have the step-father who just doesn't understand...but who is eventually enlightened to help out his step-kid who was right all along.
The "M as foil" framework has gotten old and will eventually be toned down, IMO. However, even after Dench's M died (in the midst of Bond and her literally confronting the ghosts of their respective pasts), a more involved M had been set as standard...until the producers deem it time to wipe the slate clean again and perhaps temporarily put M aside just as Moneypenny and Q were absent to give the new Bond the time to develop.
By the way, did they test any others out for the role in Skyfall? I'd be really curious to know, or if Fiennes was there go to pick from the beginning for the part.