Change Your Image
bwilson-308
Reviews
On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)
The best James Bond
Forget all the discussion about why George Lazenby had only one outing as James Bond and appreciate this for what it is: a perfect adventure film to delight in when wanting something to relate to either in deepest winter around Christmas time or else when the weather is sunny and things are so different.
This film transcends so much of the other Bond material: it has wit and humour without the cartoonishness of other films, a James Bond who is capable of tenderness unlike the brutal thug that is Daniel Craig's characterisation, a genuine central romance and tragedy which pulls at the heart strings of those who care, stunning scenery, unforgettable music and some of the most exciting action scenes in film.
There are, of course, weaknesses - James Bond's exploits with the girls detracts, in my view, from the central romance and causes the action to lag. But that only contrasts with Diana Rigg's Tracey who is so refreshingly different from other James Bond girls - a genuine characterisation of a strong-willed young woman who loves James Bond intensely. It is also lovely to hear this classically trained English actress speak poetry to Telly Savalas's Blofeld.
This is not cartoon mayhem. It is, of course, fantastic adventure, but it also brings characters and events that we care for and can relate to. The gadgetry is set to the side and we can concentrate more on the central action involving people in one of the most involving action films ever. My subjective feeling is that it is the very best in the series, its serious edge enhancing rather than diminishing it.
Casino Royale (2006)
Unsympathetic characterisation mars this for me
I have seen all the James Bond films - and this is to be numbered among those that I am in no rush to see again, rather than among those I love.
The reason is that the James Bond of this film is a sadistic thug - and nothing more. There has always been something appealing about the previous characterisation of James Bond, but this James Bond is a killing machine without any redeeming characteristic.
It has been said that Daniel Craig marks a return to the harder-edged cruelty of Sean Connery. I disagree. What made the Sean Connery characterisation appealing to me was that it was also larger-than-life and witty - as well as being cruel. And that undeniable cruelty must also be seen in context - Domino in 'Thunderball', for example, sees James Bond as someone who treats her as a gentleman would, in contrast to the way Largo treats her. The cruelty of the Sean Connery James Bond can therefore relax into tenderness when that James Bond perceives there to be no threat to himself.
Other James Bond outings have had their own appeal. But it is a mistake to make too many comparisons between Craig's James Bond and the Bourne films. The Bourne films contain both excitement and a character one can sympathise with - a killer who is repentant enough to seek forgiveness from the daughter whose parent he had had to kill.
Perhaps I shall be able to find something I like in this James Bond characterisation. The film may be faithful to the original book and character of 'Casino Royale' in many respects, but I beg to differ from both critical and popular opinion on this one at the minute. Ian Fleming's James Bond is not a particularly likable character, but previous characterisations combined his immorality and amorality with qualities one could relate to and an appealing superhumanness. Perhaps the series creators should also reflect that durable screen tough guys like Humphery Bogart had things that this James Bond characterisation lacks - wit, warmth and humour.
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
A very great film, excellent as both a character study and in historical insights
There have been some intelligent comments made on this - and the most I can do is to show why this is my favourite film. Not having been born when it was made, I have only once had the privilege of seeing it on the big screen - when the restored version went on limited release around the country.
As a boy, I undoubtedly appreciated it on the level I appreciated other films about adventure and war. As I have watched it again, I have appreciated and marvelled at the film-making techniques and tricks others have drawn attention to - for example, the lighting of a match in an office leading into action in the desert heat.
However, it is now as a character and historical study I most appreciate it. Reviewers have sometimes complained that the film really helps us understand nothing about Lawrence's motivations and that the desert atmosphere and action are what is paramount. However, that is precisely the point - the T.E. Lawrence of the film does not understand himself. After his early victories and his working of the 'miracle' he was told was needed he sees himself as a prophet, someone for whom 'nothing is written', someone like Moses who is 'beloved of God'. His insecurity about his identity is, however, reflected in his conversation with Ali about being born out of wedlock. And towards the end of the film, after his torture and also after his discussions with Allenby, he has changed from someone for whom mercy is 'a passion' into someone guilty of a massacre of Turks and then contemptuous of the responsibility to care medically for Turkish prisoners. He has assumed some of the barbarism the British, French and Americans have accused the Arabs of - and yet there have been his statements about how his white skin have meant Arab robes could not hide the fact he was not a true Arab! He is indeed a man who does not understand himself - who cannot settle comfortably into the role of either prophetic uniter and deliverer of the Arabs or else the ordinary soldier he sometimes aspires to be.
In terms of history, I find the film interesting in reflecting the divisions between different Arab peoples. Although no expert on Middle East affairs, I wonder if that is a lesson Westerners have failed to learn about the Arab world. And I am also intrigued by the light it casts on colonial interests during World War One - on how, for example, Lawrence was also at the mercy of the politicians. And again, I suspect those are factors whose bearing remains to this day.
The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)
A film which deals with the issue of foreigners adrift among poverty and corruption
This is a film I really love. There are many strands in it - love story; evocation of a particular moment in history; the shadow puppets theme of how, Arjuna-like, good and evil can come together in one (Sukarno had started with good aims but had become a corrupt dictator); the shadow puppets theme of Billy benignly pulling the strings in people's lives; the question of how ethical it is for journalists just to report and not become involved in issues, etc.
One strand I can relate to is the theme of "what should we do then?" in the direct face of developing world corruption and poverty. It is not a simplistic question but a very real issue for someone from the developed world who has landed into such squalor. They may very well take Guy Hamilton's approach - it is just too much for one alien to do anything about. And so the thing to do is to concentrate on one's own survival and remain detached from the human misery, in his case making his job(journalism) his main motivation. But the film constantly makes the point that the misery one detaches oneself from involves real human beings - the Indonesian Kumar is just as intelligent and real a human being as the wealthy expatriates. It draws our attention to the benign Billy who cares for human beings: the privileged Guy Hamilton and Jill Bryant as well as the woman whose water supply is foul and the mass of Indonesians who have no food. It shows him living out the answer to his question by acting to deal with what misery he can.
There is just so much to commend this film - good acting, wonderful use of music, a real sense of identification with and interest in characters, appeal to the senses. And it also deals with issues and history. But most importantly for me it tackles compassionately what is a very real and not easy issue for the westerner in the midst of Asian, African or Latin American squalor, "What then must we do?" And the answers it gives are not patronising, but respectful of all human worth.
3:10 to Yuma (1957)
A film about honour as well as a psychological drama
This really is an excellent film. The standard of the acting, the psychological interplay between the van Heflin and Ford characters, the tension (similar to that in High Noon) and the photography have all been commented on. All those aspects are first rate.
It is, however, also a film about honour - and interesting from this point of view also. Van Heflin's struggling farmer begins the film by justifying his having to surrender his cattle to the Ben Wade gang if he is not to be shot. Throughout the film his stature develops. His wife later talks of the pride his sons feel in him as the 'man who captured Ben Wade'. Towards the end of the film money is not the reason for his wanting to bring Wade in. When the town drunk has been killed, van Heflin's farmer realises that morality, justice and honour demand that the job be finished (despite others' protestations) and Wade be made to face trial.
I do not agree that the ending is really a weak point. When I first watched the film I misheard Ford's Ben Wade character to say 'I've broken out human before' instead of 'I've broken out of Yuma before'. I genuinely think that some sort of strange bond has developed between the captive Ben Wade and that, in a split second decision of human compassion, Wade recognises the worth of his struggling farmer guard whose life has been that of loving struggle to support his wife and family. He therefore acts to save him. It could then be argued that the theme of honour and redemption has extended to include Ben Wade's outlaw.
Mrs Brown (1997)
A film which carries extra appeal because of personal resonance.
Undoubtedly this film appeals to so very many because of the fine acting, the tenderness of a story about how a man comforts a great human being in her grief, the wit, and the careful re-creation of a period of history. For me personally, however, there was another appealing element - the highlighting of the differences between English and Scottish culture. This seems so often to be brought out very wittily by Sher's Disraeli - in his references to his suffering because of the weather and Scottish food, to this land of Calvin and Knox, and in his barbed comments to English churchmen that Her Majesty is actually becoming interested in Low Church Presbyterianism. It is because I can identify with such traits of character and belief from an Ulster Scot ancestry and because I often see others' failure to understand or appreciate those traits that the film has a degree of personal resonance.