It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Always thought Silva was like Graves: a composite of what Bond could have been. I think what swings me is both DAD and SF are good enough until they go to an Asian hotel. They're both ludicrous nonsense from there.
Trevelyan also isn't the best match as he and Bond are mates, but Renard/Elektra/M's weird entanglement is redolent of Silva/M/Bond, yes, however while TWINE's is not developed properly, SF's probably shouldn't be.
SF is better than both. I'll give it that.
Graves is an ideologically driven villain prone to swings of anger and has a deep seated hatred of the West. Even him manipulating his own appearance is done to 'mock' that image of Britishness (and even Bond himself). He's a sort of version of Fleming's Hugo Drax. Very much 'the enemy within'.
Silva on the other hand is almost a mirror image of Bond. He was once a loyal agent, and like Bond in this film he sustains injuries due to M's orders and is presumed dead, effectively going off grid. Unlike Bond who immediately returns to duty after realising MI6 has been attacked, Silva becomes obsessed with revenge. He's not 100% like Travelyan (Travelyan always harboured a personal hatred of the British and acted on it as a personal vendetta - even as a 00 - although there's an element that he and Bond share similarities, even if there are quite distinct differences that are outright mentioned in the film - ie. the deaths of both character's parents). Travelyan is kind of an 'enemy within' character too and actually has a lot of his own similarities to Fleming's Drax in this way.
I'd say more of Travelyan is there in Silva, but as I said some of the more interesting overlaps are with Renard. Much more of a rogue anarchist who's become hell bent on destruction, even if it'll ultimately get himself killed.
Sure, at least to some extent. Different characters, but with overlaps. I like how both films initially show them as powerful, menacing individuals, but by the end of both films we see how sad and arguably pathetic they are as people (although Silva I think comes off as much more dangerous throughout). Silva for me is almost a cross between Fleming's Scaramanga and his Blofeld in YOLT, although he's a surprisingly unique Bond villain.
That is a good point. Both suggest the characters are all powerful, ubiquitous terrors but, in the case of TWINE, it's misdirection: Elektra is the master manipulative villain and Renard her unwitting pawn. SF has no such escape. Silva really is just pathetic and his prowess both exaggerated and wasted.
Thank Bardem for his performance. He really is excellent and with such little to work with in terms of character. Carlyle plays a Russky version of the same intense psychopath he got typecast as, but still shows up to work.
Silva is more like Graves: wordy, pompous and given a passable backstory. What Bond could (yet) have been. Not a criticism, either, I rather liked Graves.
Hmm, I'm still not quite seeing the similarities between Silva and Graves beyond the fact that you're not a SF fan, haha. But to each their own.
It's been talked about here on this thread previously, but it's Silva's obsession with taking down M on his own terms which ultimately proves to be his downfall. You see it when he over-relishes the moment to kill M and Mallory jumps in. We begin to see it even a bit before that as Bond slowly recovers and is able to keep up with Silva during the chase (ie. Silva's stumbles and falls awkwardly down the escalator while Bond is able to more smoothly jump off of it). Throughout the last third of the film there's this sense that he's losing it too, becoming more manic. He still comes across as incredibly dangerous and a genuine threat to Bond in the final stand off, but the fact that Bond is able to lure him on his own turf and get the better of him is incredibly telling. He's a villain undone in large part by his own goals. There's a wonderful, ironic tragedy to the character.
I like the idea of Renard. He's essentially a man with a terminal illness. He's fallen for Elektra, but ultimately he's a man hell bent on destruction anyway, and he's got nothing to lose with his actions. He's effectively impotent, unable to satisfy Elektra, and Elektra in turn is clearly manipulating him for her own benefit. Some scenes between him and Elektra are a wee bit melodramatic at times for me, but it's generally interesting. It's perhaps even a bit over-layered with the love dynamic between him and Elektra being added (I have noticed some people getting ever so slightly confused as to what actually happened between him and Elektra when she was captured and to what extent she was always manipulating him. It is ever so slightly ambiguous to be fair, but not necessarily unclear).
Where I think Renard fails is probably in the film's creative choices. Carlyle is a good character actor, but comes off as a psychopathic weirdo at the best of times in this film. I think by not having a Javiar Bardem type (ie. relatively good looking and charismatic) the idea of Renard being cut down in his prime and manipulated by Elektra is lost. It takes away a bit of the tragedy of the character and even that misdirection you talked about, interesting as it is. The final fight between him and Bond gives us little sense this is a man with extraordinary strength due to the bullet in his brain, and it makes him less threatening (Brosnan really towers over poor Carlyle. It's not even a fight on the level of the Stamper one in TND, which actually is a fight where the villain is undone by his lack of pain. Bizarrely it's more fitting for TWINE).
Yes, Carlyle being duped just doesn't seem
as probable. You'd expect 'the world's greatest terrorist' to have a wee bit more wherewithal. Sure, love is a powerful drug but maybe they missed a trick not granting him his own private motivation.
Raymond Benson's novelisation attempted this and it made him sympathetic. So, two sides to every argument.
The later fight is a bit disappointing, but TWINE's action set-pieces do suffer. SF was quite right not to allow a Bond Silva fist fight and to at least attempt keeping the conflict cerebral.
Fightin' talk!
Agreed.
MR is TSWLM in space.
Still, TSWLM is a top Bond film for me. It actually took a few viewings to come round to it.
Absolutely. I make jo bones about it. MR is preposterous nonsense. It just never tries to be anything but.
MR is very simple. Big evil megalomaniac tries to commit mass murder in the name of eugenics (remind you of anyone?) and it's up to the Brits and Yanks to stop 'em (remind you of anything?) The plot is uncovered to reveal this diabolical nonsense.
SF's contrivances are well documented and need no further embellishment.
Nothing beats TSWLM in terms of pure fun.
For a film dependent upon sfx, MR has some terrible blue screen work. The cable car sequence and the Amazon boat chase are almost ruined by it. Luckily, Jaws saves the day.
I do wonder who the agency Drax is on the phone to is. Perhaps Quantum?
And part of why MR is better is because it actually is a farce with no pretense. It’s like a cinematic version of the British pantomime.
Science Fact!
It does seem like they were projecting their rear.