›

Did Judi Denchs' M metaphorically shoot herself in the foot?

actonsteveactonsteve
edited April 2013 in General Discussion Posts: 1,492
"Make no mistake I have no compunction about sending a man out to his death.." she boasted in Goldeneye.

In Skyfall that came back to bite her hard on the arse. Maybe if she hadn't been so cavalier about an agents life she would be alive now. Maybe if she had put more emphasis on the lives of her agents one wouldn't have survived and come gunning for her.

I liked her M. But she seemed to take pride in making life or death decisions about her agents. She never had much empathy.


MOD EDIT: Title changed for those unfamiliar with the expression.

Comments

  • NorwegianBondNorwegianBond
    edited April 2013 Posts: 132
    No, she didn't shoot herself. It was one of Silva's henchman who gave her a flesh wound which resulted in a great loss of blood. At least that's how I see it..
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    edited April 2013 Posts: 1,492
    NorwegianBond wrote:
    No, she didn't shoot herself. It was one of Silva's henchman who gave her a flesh wound which resulted in a great loss of blood. At least that's how I see it..

    Oh dear, shooting oneself in the foot is a metaphor for self inflicted damage.

    It doesn't have to be physical. Decisions which cause consequences down the line.

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    MOD EDIT: MOVED

    Not, surprisingly, news.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    To be fair, Dench's M during the Brosnan era is an entirely different character in the Craig movies. However, I see your point but in her defence, she did allow herself to be used as bait and as she said to Bond in fee house earlier, she knew the rules of the game.
  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    doubleoego wrote:
    To be fair, Dench's M during the Brosnan era is an entirely different character in the Craig movies. However, I see your point but in her defence, she did allow herself to be used as bait and as she said to Bond in fee house earlier, she knew the rules of the game.

    She seemed to have a macho cavalier attitude to her agents straight from GE. She was proud she had the balls to send a man out to his death. That disregard for human life backfired on her.

  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    Posts: 864
    Your best agent caught by the Chinese? Hand him over and assume he's killed himself.

    Agent Ronson's bleeding to death? Leave him to die.

    Can't get a clear shot at Patrice without hitting Bond? Order the shot anyway.

    Every agent's identity compromised? Let them be executed.

    Bond unfit for active duty? Send him out anyway.

    M really doesn't have a good track record in dealing with her agents in SF, does she?

  • Pierce2DanielPierce2Daniel
    Posts: 4,400
    actonsteve wrote:
    "Make no mistake I have no compunction about sending a man out to his death.." she boasted in Goldeneye.

    In Skyfall that came back to bite her hard on the arse. Maybe if she hadn't been so cavalier about an agents life she would be alive now. Maybe if she had put more emphasis on the lives of her agents one wouldn't have survived and come gunning for her.

    I liked her M. But she seemed to take pride in making life or death decisions about her agents. She never had much empathy.

    You're nailed the crux behind the M character in SF for me. Her death was really her comeuppance for her actions throughout the movie. However, before this becomes a thread about the series's continuity; the GE M and the post CR M are different people living in two different continuities despite being essentially the same character. It's best to not think about it and I now pray this thread doesn't descend into a continuity discussion.

  • actonsteveactonsteve
    Posts: 1,492
    Pierce2Daniel wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    "Make no mistake I have no compunction about sending a man out to his death.." she boasted in Goldeneye.

    In Skyfall that came back to bite her hard on the arse. Maybe if she hadn't been so cavalier about an agents life she would be alive now. Maybe if she had put more emphasis on the lives of her agents one wouldn't have survived and come gunning for her.

    I liked her M. But she seemed to take pride in making life or death decisions about her agents. She never had much empathy.

    You're nailed the crux behind the M character in SF for me. Her death was really her comeuppance for her actions throughout the movie. However, before this becomes a thread about the series's continuity; the GE M and the post CR M are different people living in two different continuities despite being essentially the same character. It's best to not think about it and I now pray this thread doesn't descend into a continuity discussion.

    I would say the GE M and the SF M are exactly the same character. She shows the same cavalier attitude to human life in the "sexist mysognist dinosaur" scene. Shes even like it in the Hong Kong scenes in DAD.

    I am a Judi Dench fan so I like her M but there is something ironic about her death.
  • NorwegianBondNorwegianBond
    Posts: 132
    @actionsteve Ah, of course! Sorry about that one.. This is one of those hangover-days...
  • Sir_James_MoloneySir_James_Moloney
    Posts: 388
    actonsteve wrote:
    I would say the GE M and the SF M are exactly the same character. She shows the same cavalier attitude to human life in the "sexist mysognist dinosaur" scene. Shes even like it in the Hong Kong scenes in DAD.

    I am a Judi Dench fan so I like her M but there is something ironic about her death.

    I think the script deals with it really well and uses it to really underline who M is and what she stands for. It's foreshadowed when Mallory gives her the option to leave with dignity and M says she just wants to get the job done. That's what really defines her character... she the ultimate utilitarian who sacrifices whatever or whoever is necessary for the greater good. It just so happens that, at the end of Skyfall, the one she needs to sacrifice is herself. But she sends herself out to her death just as she would send anyone else, "too many people are dying because of me."

    The reason she's "sentimental" about Bond is because she sees that utilitarian nature in him too.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Sir_James_Moloney wrote:
    actonsteve wrote:
    I would say the GE M and the SF M are exactly the same character. She shows the same cavalier attitude to human life in the "sexist mysognist dinosaur" scene. Shes even like it in the Hong Kong scenes in DAD.

    I am a Judi Dench fan so I like her M but there is something ironic about her death.

    I think the script deals with it really well and uses it to really underline who M is and what she stands for. It's foreshadowed when Mallory gives her the option to leave with dignity and M says she just wants to get the job done. That's what really defines her character... she the ultimate utilitarian who sacrifices whatever or whoever is necessary for the greater good. It just so happens that, at the end of Skyfall, the one she needs to sacrifice is herself. But she sends herself out to her death just as she would send anyone else, "too many people are dying because of me."

    The reason she's "sentimental" about Bond is because she sees that utilitarian nature in him too.

    This.
  • SoundofthesinnersSoundofthesinners
    edited April 2013 Posts: 3,236
    The importance of the Goldeneye scene to M's character, as great as it is, is overstated. She and Bond and clearly exaggerating their distaste for each other. M knows that Bond has his misgivings about her and her methods of running MI6, and so she states everything she doesn't like about him to make sure he knows that she's as tough as Sir Miles Messervy and not just an accountant. At the end of the scene, she and Bond even express a certain fondness for one another that is continued throughout Brosnan's tenure. She backs him up during Tomorrow Never Dies and Die Another Day when the time comes, even if she'd been unsure of him earlier.

    In a sense, this is like the old Bond-M relationships, where M would wonder why Bond is acting like an overgrown teenager and then tell Bond to do whatever he thinks is necessary and defend him to other members of the government.

    James Moloney's post is right on the money for just about everything else.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I don't think M shot herself in the foot. She makes the tough decisions nobody else could and continues to do that in this film. It isn't that she isn't sympathetic to her agents, but the moment you either show your disloyalty or stand to compromise the mission you are out. Silva crossed the line and she let him face the consequences, while she got six agents back in the trade who she could trust and a peaceful transition with the Chinese in the process; the better choice. Ronson knew the consequences of the job, just like Bond does. If you are injured you can't expect the mission to stop just to save you. M realized how important it was to get the drive back, and the mission would have failed if Bond stopped to give Ronson help, though he likely would have died no matter what anyway. M sends Bond back into the field because she has a trust in him, and knows she can count on him to do what is necessary and to keep focused on the mission. Yes, he isn't on the top of his game at the start, but it is more important that M has him on her side when his past service speaks mountains of his loyalty to her and MI6. It is nice to have a tough skinned and deadly agent on your hands, but at the end of the day it is more important if you can trust that agent. Bond is the perfect mix of both of these.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote:
    I don't think M shot herself in the foot. She makes the tough decisions nobody else could and continues to do that in this film. It isn't that she isn't sympathetic to her agents, but the moment you either show your disloyalty or stand to compromise the mission you are out. Silva crossed the line and she let him face the consequences, while she got six agents back in the trade who she could trust and a peaceful transition with the Chinese in the process; the better choice. Ronson knew the consequences of the job, just like Bond does. If you are injured you can't expect the mission to stop just to save you. M realized how important it was to get the drive back, and the mission would have failed if Bond stopped to give Ronson help, though he likely would have died no matter what anyway. M sends Bond back into the field because she has a trust in him, and knows she can count on him to do what is necessary and to keep focused on the mission. Yes, he isn't on the top of his game at the start, but it is more important that M has him on her side when his past service speaks mountains of his loyalty to her and MI6. It is nice to have a tough skinned and deadly agent on your hands, but at the end of the day it is more important if you can trust that agent. Bond is the perfect mix of both of these.

    This.
  • GermanladyGermanlady
    Posts: 6,601
    Molony and Brady. This!
  • timmertimmer
    edited April 2013 Posts: 4,622
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Your best agent caught by the Chinese? Hand him over and assume he's killed himself.

    Agent Ronson's bleeding to death? Leave him to die.

    Can't get a clear shot at Patrice without hitting Bond? Order the shot anyway.

    Every agent's identity compromised? Let them be executed.

    Bond unfit for active duty? Send him out anyway.

    M really doesn't have a good track record in dealing with her agents in SF, does she?
    No she doesn't. She was bad news. I can't say I mourned her passing.
    "every agent's identity compromised? Let them be executed" Indeed, she should have had all those agents pulled out as soon as that list escaped Bond's pursuit. They were all dead meat. All those infiltrations needed to be aborted, even if she didn't give a whiff about the agent's lives. Any of those agents could also have talked and revealed god knows what.
    I'm glad by movie's end we had a normal M back in the chair, and in a proper M office.

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    I'm sure if the agents could have been moved they would have been. Getting an agent, especially a sleeper, out of a country is a difficult task that requires time, planning and often needs the assistance of an operative. All this when MI6 is on guerilla mode after the office was bombed. It's not like they can all book a flight to London. That's why getting the list back was so important.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,459
    NorwegianBond wrote:
    No, she didn't shoot herself. It was one of Silva's henchman who gave her a flesh wound which resulted in a great loss of blood. At least that's how I see it..

    This is exactly how I interpreted this thread's title, too.
    And then I started reading and well, I just completely disagree, so I am moving on now to other threads. But you're not alone in thinking of that first, @NorwegianBond. I literally thought, "What? Didn't people realize she bled to death from a wound, probably on her side ...?"

    I love Judi's M, in all of her portrayals, and in no way is her death in Skyfall any sort of comeuppance for her character - in my opinion, of course.
  • timmertimmer
    edited April 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote:
    I'm sure if the agents could have been moved they would have been. Getting an agent, especially a sleeper, out of a country is a difficult task that requires time, planning and often needs the assistance of an operative. All this when MI6 is on guerilla mode after the office was bombed. It's not like they can all book a flight to London. That's why getting the list back was so important.
    It does not appear that she made any effort to save the agents, based on what we are shown in the film, and that's all we have to go on.
    But maybe the task was hopeless and they were all doomed no matter what or it is quite possible that she was working feverishly behind the scenes to save her agents, before the list could be decoded. But based on her generally ruthless utilitarian approach in this film, one does wonder. Mallory though was right I think to scold her and tell her she was finished. And good for Bond to give her an earful to when he showed up at her flat. Nice touch, helping himself to her booze as well. :)
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    I disagree too, 007 failed to do his job and stop the baddie before he could hurt his boss.
  • LudovicoLudovico
    edited April 2013 Posts: 14,831
    timmer wrote:
    Ludovico wrote:
    I'm sure if the agents could have been moved they would have been. Getting an agent, especially a sleeper, out of a country is a difficult task that requires time, planning and often needs the assistance of an operative. All this when MI6 is on guerilla mode after the office was bombed. It's not like they can all book a flight to London. That's why getting the list back was so important.
    It does not appear that she made any effort to save the agents, based on what we are shown in the film, and that's all we have to go on.
    But maybe the task was hopeless and they were all doomed no matter what or it is quite possible that she was working feverishly behind the scenes to save her agents, before the list could be decoded. But based on her generally ruthless utilitarian approach in this film, one does wonder. Mallory though was right I think to scold her and tell her she was finished. And good for Bond to give her an earful to when he showed up at her flat. Nice touch, helping himself to her booze as well. :)

    We don't see the missiles codes being changed in FYEO while MI6 is looking for the Attack. But my point is moving sleeper agents is a difficult, risky, hazardous business. It can lead to the sleepers death and the operative in charge of bringing him back. Moving them might actually reveal them. It was safer and wiser to go after the list and stop Silva. Just it was a better bet to go after the list when Rolson was already dying, to get the list back, which would have saved more agents.
  • TuuliaTuulia
    Posts: 2,081
    timmer wrote:
    ---
    I'm glad by movie's end we had a normal M back in the chair, and in a proper M office.

    What do you mean by "normal M"?
    And what was the previous one then?

  • LudovicoLudovico
    Posts: 14,831
    doubleonothing wrote:
    Your best agent caught by the Chinese? Hand him over and assume he's killed himself.

    Well, he wasn't her best agent, was he? He hacked the Chinese without authorization, which could have created at best a major diplomatic incident, in a very sensitive time, during the Hing Kong Handover, which could have seriously hurt, even destroyed, the relationship between UK and China. M handed over the Chinese an agent that has proved unworthy of trust and that was maybe already showing evidence of his mental instability and megalomania. In exchange, she received six prisoners (if the Chinese gave back six prisoners in exchange of one, I guess Silva was not merely spamming their inbox with porn). I call this dealing with her agents pretty well and doing her job with professionalism.
  • M_BaljeM_Balje Amsterdam, Netherlands
    edited April 2013 Posts: 4,442
    If we vergot a moment her death whas already confirmd in QOS, she sign her death from the moment she ignore Tanner his warning. A great scene of the movie, exept that the feeling is take over from TDK.
  • timmertimmer
    edited April 2013 Posts: 4,622
    Ludovico wrote:
    We don't see the missiles codes being changed in FYEO while MI6 is looking for the Attack. But my point is moving sleeper agents is a difficult, risky, hazardous business. It can lead to the sleepers death and the operative in charge of bringing him back. Moving them might actually reveal them. It was safer and wiser to go after the list and stop Silva. Just it was a better bet to go after the list when Rolson was already dying, to get the list back, which would have saved more agents.
    Yes of course going after Silva and trying to recover the list was vital.
    Truth is we don't know have any idea what efforts she was making to save the agents. Who knows. I would think though that once that list was gone, ie after her reckless "take the bloody shot" command allowed Patrice and the list to get away, then you have to assume that the agents are now all compromised and its time to get them out. We have no idea what efforts she made though. She seemed like an M that was out of control. ie not a normal M.
    Her attitude towards Ronson was brutal. At least Bond knew what to do. Bond did tell her off good though when he turned up at her apartment. I don't believe the filmmakers were asking us to empathize with her in this film, at least not in the early going. We viewers tend to see things through Bond's eyes and Bond didn't seem very impressed with her, and this is a seasoned veteran Bond now.
    I think Mallory summed it up best. He was actually quite civil with her when he could have given her a real dressing down. He told her that the list shouldn't even exist, which might explain why she was so crazed about getting it back, screaming at Bond about Ronson, as if Bond didn't know what to do, and screaming at Eve to take the bloody shot. She knew that she had effed up and was desperate to correct her mistake., but I don't want to quibble about how much she cared about those agents, or what efforts she made. We really don't know, but I do think @doubleOnothing's post above, outlining her utilitarian tendencies in this film is revealing. She did at least mellow as the film went on. I am happy to see her gone though. This much Bond and M drama that we've seen over the last three films does tend to wear. I am looking forward to the new Mi6 regime with Mallory in charge and a fresh new MP. Good to have Q back. And hopefully Tanner will stick around too. He was somewhat underused in the original continuity.

Sign In or Register to comment.