M's Irony
Pud2002
Posts: 65MI6 Agent
Anyone else find it ironic that M always lectures Bond about trust, but it was her who mistrusted her own bodyguard that led to white's escape?? Just a thought
On a note about M though, kinda getting bored with seeing her out in the field so much. Yes Judi Dench is a great M, but don't over use her.
On a note about M though, kinda getting bored with seeing her out in the field so much. Yes Judi Dench is a great M, but don't over use her.
Comments
The scene where she meets Bond as MI6 are carrying out a forensic investigation of his London flat, she pretty much screamed out that she trusted him implicitly.
"Eight years he worked for me - Eight years! Five as my personal bodyguard! He passed a security screening AND a polygraph every year! I've even found some of the Christmas presents I bought him!"
There's a huge difference in being let down by someone you trust implicitly, set against someone whom you know is capable, but flies far too close to the edge.
Don't think there's any irony in that....
In my career I'm constantly dealing with people for making the same kind of errors repeatedly, yet when an error's made by a trusted colleague, I'm always a little bit more surprised.
That's the point 'M' was making to Bond about her bodyguard..
Its clear that Mitchell had earned M's trust, and 8 years is almost a decade. The scene in Mitchells flat shows how shaken M is by this turn of events. Esp as MI6 clearly knows nothing of Quantum at this point. Actually by the end of the film they have learned very little!
This is later underlined when the Prime Minister's advisor appears in the spotlight. Tanner's reaction alone when he sees him Bond's snapshots speaks volumes.
Makes me wonder (considering what happens with Greene) how much do the CIA really know?
Ass for "overuse" of M, I strongly disagree. M Not just Judi Dench's version, but Robert Brown and originally Bernard Lee, have been seen issuing orders, popping up abroad, and rebuking 007 when things go wrong, or when he is being a smart arse. I'm glad that in Dame Judi's version we are getting some hints of solid back story and insight into her character. After all, without M, Bond can't be the man he is.
It makes Ms Broccoli and Mr Wilsons comments about reintoducing Q and Moneypenny when the time is right for them, seem more reassuring.
It's a very funny issue because when M and Q have been replaced (actor wise) it has been acknowledged, but not with Moneypenny and obviously Bond. So it seems odd that they have the same M in these films (don't get me wrong I wouldn't advise anyone to replace Dame Judi Dench in a million years but...) and if they bring John Cleese in it'll be the same issue.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
They've got their own moles keeping tabs on them and I loved the scene where the British Foreign Secretry was on the verge of calling M a delusional paranoic when informed of Quantum. I sensed more menace in that than Dominic Greene mugging at the camera.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Agreed- same actress for commercial reasons, different character for artistic ones. Since the name- or rather codename- remains the same, this can cause a little confusion to those poor misguided souls who don't eat, breathe and sleep James Bond. ("Can you put that in English for those of us who don't speak spy?"
thanks for pointing that out{[]
Aw leave me alone I was tired!
The Producers said when CR was made, it is a "reboot." Ie everything established in the previous films up to DAD hasn't happened here. For those who understand Sci Fi terms, this is the Parallel Universe Sub Genere at work.
It makes sense, it cuts out all the angst of any potential past continuity. In M's case, Same actress, same character, different narative format and potential backstory!
Did I make sense there?