M's role steadily increasing

GoldenEye85

Did anyone like Judi Dench as M and where do you rank her in this role?

Growing up with the Brosnan era of James Bond, which includes Dench, I tend to like her role more (I respect Lee's and his replacement though), I haven't seen Spectre so I can't say how I feel about the new M beyond his brief appearance as M at the end of Skyfall.

But here is what I like about Judi as M:

We see her put Bond in his place in GoldenEye "I think you're a sexist, misogynist dinosaur - a relic of the Cold War". Definitely making a bold entrance being the first time in one of the movies and the first Bond in six years, at the time.

In Tomorrow Never Dies, I think this was their attempt at letting M visually see what Bond does, like in the pre-title scene. But in the rest of the movie she seems to fall into place of her predecessors.

The World is Not Enough is the first time any M gets as involved in the plot as she does. Knowing the victim of the attack at MI6 from off screen relations, to being directly involved with the decision with the "Best course of action" for Elektra's kidnapping and being captured.

Die Another Day she kind of slips backward, except being in South Korea during the end of the movie.

There is a big boost for her role once Daniel Craig takes over the Bond role.

What do you think?

Matt S

I'm one of the few who doesn't like Dench as M. In GE and TND she didn't seem all that comfortable in the role, and her personality was inconsistent. By TWINE she's much better and more confident. I really dislike her character in the Craig films because she has no respect for Bond and babysits him. But she's also insecure about it, which allows Bond to take advantage of her. Then by Skyfall she's an incompetent leader and has Bond shot because she puts trust in a rookie agent over Bond. I much prefer Bernard Lee's M's relationship with Bond. They often don't get along, but they always show respect for each other. It's a simpler relationship, but it's more consistent and I think more effective.

sniperUK

Should have stayed in her office and did her job managing MI6,not micro-managing one agent .

Chriscoop

Agreed ^

welshboy78

I didn't mind it it Skyfall as the story was kind of specifically about her, however parts of SPECTRE felt like a Mission Impossible team thing (believe I read Fiennes insisted on a bigger role and stole the part of Bond for the "C" finale)

Matt S

welshboy78 wrote:

I didn't mind it it Skyfall as the story was kind of specifically about her, however parts of SPECTRE felt like a Mission Impossible team thing (believe I read Fiennes insisted on a bigger role and stole the part of Bond for the "C" finale)

I didn't like the team aspect of SP, but I really like Fiennes as M. I don't mind him with the C finale because Bond has no relationship with C in the film. It makes more sense for M to take care of it since it was something M is dealing with for the entire film.

walther p99

sniperUK wrote:

Should have stayed in her office and did her job managing MI6,not micro-managing one agent .

Exactly this and what Matt S said. It became really irritating having M show up wherever Bond was to give him a slap on the wrist. I had no problem with her in SF as Bond was off doing the mission and she stayed in London for most of the film until their stories naturally intersected.

Vandrell

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.

caractacus potts

communications and surveillance technology have improved since Fleming's day, so its realistic management would be more closely involved with what the field agent is doing
and given some of the stories we read in the news about what covert ops have gotten up to, I'd hope management would know what the field agents are doing (this is acknowledged in-story with Bond's actions repeatedly resulting in negative headlines)

in the other real world, i.e. filmmakers with budgets to allocate, Judi Dench was a big star when they hired her, so they've made use of her (to draw in audiences who might otherwise not care about Brosnan or Craig or these sorts of movies) ... if they'd hired another character actor like Bernard Lee, I'm sure the part would have remained smaller

ToTheRight

Matt S wrote:

I'm one of the few who doesn't like Dench as M. In GE and TND she didn't seem all that comfortable in the role, and her personality was inconsistent. By TWINE she's much better and more confident. I really dislike her character in the Craig films because she has no respect for Bond and babysits him. But she's also insecure about it, which allows Bond to take advantage of her. Then by Skyfall she's an incompetent leader and has Bond shot because she puts trust in a rookie agent over Bond. I much prefer Bernard Lee's M's relationship with Bond. They often don't get along, but they always show respect for each other. It's a simpler relationship, but it's more consistent and I think more effective.

The Bernard Lee/Connery relationship to me perfectly embodies the relationship between M and Bond in the Fleming novels. Bond is his best agent, and he's more than willing to stand up for him- as in TB when the Captain disagrees that Derval is dead. M straightens him out in Bond's favor. He's also not above putting Bond in his place as in the Col Smithers scene in GF. Respect. It's simple moments throughout the Connery films like those, and M doesn't have to be in every other scene to establish his character. That type of respect between the 2 characters is what's missing in many of the later films.

Dutchfinger

Apart from the role increasing, it does seem the function has changed for Ralph Fiennes's M too.
All the M's in the past seemed to be head of the British secret service, or MI6 if you will. Since the MI6 building got blown up and has moved to the new location at the end of Skyfall, it's like Ralph's M is "just" the head of the department for Double O's.

I'm not sure if he's still considered "the" head of the entire British secret service like the older M's were?

Matt S

Dutchfinger wrote:

Apart from the role increasing, it does seem the function has changed for Ralph Fiennes's M too.
All the M's in the past seemed to be head of the British secret service, or MI6 if you will. Since the MI6 building got blown up and has moved to the new location at the end of Skyfall, it's like Ralph's M is "just" the head of the department for Double O's.

I'm not sure if he's still considered "the" head of the entire British secret service like the older M's were?

Mallory's position is still the same as Mansfield's. They're simply in a new building. The destruction of the old MI6 building would not have meant a restructuring of MI6.

walther p99

welshboy78 wrote:

I didn't mind it it Skyfall as the story was kind of specifically about her, however parts of SPECTRE felt like a Mission Impossible team thing (believe I read Fiennes insisted on a bigger role and stole the part of Bond for the "C" finale)

Totally agree about SF, for most of the film it was business as usual with Bond out and about while M is in London. M isn't in the field until the final act but this time its essential to the story. Also agree about Spectre, the final act seemed to be less Bond and more of a Mission Impossible film.

Thunderbird 2

Oooh I love this kind of topic!

First off, I see it that Dame Judi played 2 different M's.

In the Brosnan era she was Barbara Mawdsley* (M-Mawd) who was new in the job and people were whispering about her attitude and approach behind her back. - And accidentally in Tanner's case in Goldeneye, (Michael Kitchen) to her face! However she proved her worth and became very successful in that position. This is shown in her growing respect of Bond. - She also holds her own against Falco in DAD admirably.
*For those who don't know (if that's applicable in here!) not canon, taken from one of the books.

In the Craig era, she has been Olivia Mansfield (M-Mansf) - a veteran who has been in the job too long. Not established this way in CR-06, but written as a tragic figure from QoS onwards. - The character was tailored to the story line to become a liability and make mistakes, and ignoring advice from all around her. Skyfall was deliberately written to facilitate the downfall of the character and give Dame Judi some damned good scenes to work with as a last hurrah. Probably a working Thank You from the House of Eon for her great work for almost 20 years of Bond.

The producers have been quite clever here. Dame Judi was in Shakespeare in Love and Mrs Brown between TND and TWINE. Then she did The Chronicles Of Riddick, Mrs Henderson Presents and Notes On A Scandal between DAD and CR-06. It only makes sense (besides establishing a new Bond) that EON "exploded" the M character function based on the international attention the actress gained and sustained in these roles.
Add to that, Sam Mendes is a theatre director as well as a film one. Skyfall and Spectre both have very moody and theatrical moments in them that are more fitting to the stage than film. They all knew there would be a limited window of opportunity, so created a bridge to another high profile actor they can continue to use in that vein as a new M. Hence Ralph Fiennes as the latest M, and just as The Harry Potter machine was coming to a conclusion too. Its no coincidence this latest M (M-Malry) can be as dangerous as Bond himself, deliberately done to expand story opportunities, and create character tension, as per their scene at the start of SP.


Having said all that, as much as I admire the moving the furniture to make narrative room - I too am disappointed that the M character seems to Micro manage Bond. The worst examples are in QoS, where M-Mansf seems to follow Bond about wherever his latest disaster takes place. I wanted to think they were trying to correct this impression in SP, since there they gave M-Mallry his own little crisis to deal with, separate from what Bond is was doing for the most part. - Which then spoilt with the last quarter of the film with "Team MI6" which felt terribly contrived. It doesn't help that it also brings into question the value of the Tanner character, who is supposed to keep a more hands on eye on the 00 section. (To the best of my knowledge.) Compared to the other actors like Naomi Harris or Ben Whishaw, Rory Kinnear has had next to nothing to do.

Whichever direction they choose to go in with the next film, the days of the briefly seen scenes of the short tempered Admiral and his unconventional star operative is well and truly over. Its odd to think that this (unintentionally) could be the long term legacy of Dame Judi's mirror image turns as M-Mawd and M-Mansf!

Barbel

Nice post, TB2. I'd just like to add that the name "Barbara Mawdsley" comes from Raymond Benson's "The Facts Of Death", and that "Olivia Mansfield" is a combination of Dame Judi's middle name, and that of the first head of MI6/SIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansfield_Smith-Cumming#Head_of_the_SIS

Dutchfinger

Matt S wrote:

Mallory's position is still the same as Mansfield's. They're simply in a new building. The destruction of the old MI6 building would not have meant a restructuring of MI6.

Yes however, I did almost get the impression that Mallory was responsible for just the Double-O programme only. C tried to close down the Double- O programme in SP, and claimed Mallory would be without a job because of it. As if MI6 doesn't have other operatives or departments that would still keep Mallory employed. (I do get that the Double-O programme is arguably his most important department, but still...) It is further suggested near the climax when Mallory identifies himself as: "Mallory - Double O section"... It's just a bit confusing and questionable.

Thunderbird 2

Barbel wrote:

Nice post, TB2. I'd just like to add that the name "Barbara Mawdsley" comes from Raymond Benson's "The Facts Of Death", and that "Olivia Mansfield" is a combination of Dame Judi's middle name, and that of the first head of MI6/SIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mansfield_Smith-Cumming#Head_of_the_SIS

Thanks for the compliment, and the added info Barbel! I knew about Dame Judi's middle name, but not Mansfield Smith-Cumming.

Thunderpussy

I think Mansfield Smith tries to be discreet about it.

Thunderbird 2

Rude!! Pussy The next time you wash the glasses in the SABS, don't forget to gargle as well!

heartbroken_mr_drax

As the stories have become more complicated and inward focused on Bond, M's role has increased. There's an element of this in LTK - although part of this was fulfilled by increasing Q's role.

I enjoy Judi Dench, because she's an excellent actor but also because I grew up with her as M during the Brosnan era. I think her performance in TWINE is exceptional because her missteps are played correctly - as opposed to her missteps in SF where she just shouldn't be there and she's as she says "f'd it up".

She's good in the Brosnan films because he is an elder agent, but I don't enjoy her as much in Craig's films. She has to play the role as more of a guardian - and I find it slightly annoying.

I was excited at the end of SF that Finnes' M might be more removed - but was quickly let down by even more full on involvement in SP.

MilleniumForce

I don't really think M does too much in SP, not as much as people say. He's in it a lot, sure, but why wouldn't he be? The plot is about the replacement of field agents. Considering he is the head of the 00 section, it makes sense that he is in as much of the film as he is. The team aspect only really comes into play in the London finale, and even then it's not really much of a team, considering Bind is separated and doing something unrelated to what M and Q are doing to bring down C.

I really liked Dench as M, particularly her role in the first three Brosnan films. She was a nice fit for a character like M - wheras Lee and Brown were more like bosses that Bond could occasionally get along with, Dench played an M that was the complete opposite of Bond. She was strict, and she showed how much power she had and could use, especially in TND.

I don't like how she does seem to micro manage only 007 in DAD, CR and QoS, because she goes out of the office to serve no real purpose. She doesn't need to be out of London. Wheras it makes sense in TWINE and SF, it's not needed in the other films. However, I do feel it is necessary for Fiennes' M to be so integral to he plot in SP.

MarcAngeDraco

Dench's M of the Brosnan era is my second favourite M - no one could replace Bernard Lee's portrayal. He is Fleming's M on screen. But Dench is a damn close second in Brosnan's Bond films. She's as crusty and efficient as Lee's version but with her own spin. However, M in Craig's era is a different story (SF aside, which I believe is of the same quality of the Brosnan era). The writing of her character in CR and QOS is light years away of what it should be, as has been mentioned in this thread. Bond isn't her only agent, the threat Bond is facing isn't the only threat, and Bond doesn't (and shouldn't) need babysitting, though they have written the character as such in CR. The writing of, and Dench's performance as M in SF are outstanding.

But, I will say, I just don't think M requires all that much screen time. Fiennes is going to be great as M, but keep his activity to a minimum. Keep him in meetings/briefings/behind a desk and only in a couple of scenes. Look back on the novels and notice how involved he is in each of Bond's adventures.

heartbroken_mr_drax

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

But, I will say, I just don't think M requires all that much screen time. Fiennes is going to be great as M, but keep his activity to a minimum. Keep him in meetings/briefings/behind a desk and only in a couple of scenes.

Agree.

That's the issue with casting big-names in M's role is that they have to use them. I hope that they've got some restraint and only use him in more of a retirement/consistent work/cameo manner for the next 25 years

welshboy78

I also love Fiennes as M however with regards to the SPECTRE finale...

Would he really be out in the field getting his hands dirty or would he be directing it from the safe house etc sending more agents out.

Regardless I guess even more questionable is what is Moneypenny and Q doing there? Specifically Moneypenny!!

It feels like the whole department only employs one agent and this is on home turf too.

hehadlotsofguts

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

But, I will say, I just don't think M requires all that much screen time. Fiennes is going to be great as M, but keep his activity to a minimum. Keep him in meetings/briefings/behind a desk and only in a couple of scenes. Look back on the novels and notice how involved he is in each of Bond's adventures.

How big is Fiennes as an actor? I find that with big names, producers tend to milk them for as much screentime as they can. I've a feeling we'll see M out in the field a lot, if this is the case.

MarcAngeDraco

Agree with a lot of the above. The entire last act in London needed a rewrite, as Moneypenny, Q and M shouldn't have been involved in the capacity they were used in.

Fiennes is probably on the same level as Dench, and seeing how they used Fiennes in SP, I imagine his role is going to be expanded on in the future.

Barbel

Fiennes is just waiting for his knighthood, which will happen anytime in the next 20 years or so. Not quite national treasure yet, since he doesn't tend to go for the cuddly parts- but that'll come!

caractacus potts

at least its better than the zany thematic field offices from the early Moore era
why would M relocate his desk and files, along with Moneypenny and her outer office, and Q's r&d lab and all his assistants, to the desert in Egypt on the off-chance Bond may have something to report?
there ought to be some fanfic to explain what that was all about


what Fleming stories had big M content? maybe they could use those if they need to give Fiennes more screentime

biggest one I can think of is Moonraker, M invites Bond to Blades for dinner and cards, its about a third of the book ... couldn't imagine either Brosnan or Craig feeling comfortable out for an evening with Dench's M ... even with Fiennes, the awkwardness of a night out with the boss could make for a bit of fun for us in the audience

For Your Eyes Only is really about M's personal relationship to the deceased, and this aspect was moved to the World is Not Enough rather than the FYEO film ... i.e., it has already been used

Thunderball has a lot about M's health/wellness kick ... not really used in the film, but the whole "wellness" industry is more trendy than ever, might be a good twist for the new M to have a weakness for new-age medicine and such, then could be used to open up the larger plot of a film

in OHMSS Bond has Christmas dinner at M's house even though M's not really into that sort of thing, his servants insist

Colonel Sun of course we see more of M's house then he's kidnapped ... basically used for the last half of the World is Not Enough

otherwise, Fleming's M just says outrageously reactionary stuff, makes Bond seem hip and modern in comparison, Dench was actually good at these kind of outbursts

Napoleon Plural

A few reasons for Dench's bigger role:

1) To make Bond look less sexist, less his own man, which can look quite arrogant
2) Neither Brosnan nor Craig turned out to be able to quite carry a film the way Connery or even Moore could. Brozzer is a very good B-movie actor, Craig is a character actor who, like Hugh Grant, may be very good but needs to be part of an ensemble, by himself he can fall a bit flat.
3) Forgotten the third!

But Dench became to Bond like Elizabeth I, played by Flora Robson or Bette Davis, was to the Errol Flynn leading man in films like The Sea Hawk. She tolerates his excesses as he gets results but has to rein him in at times.

I thought Dench was written inconsistently.

Loeffelholz

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.

Matt S

Loeffelholz wrote:

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.