Why is James Bond so depressed in Skyfall?

Matt S

He's just so burnt-out in the film. But why should he be? Craig looks like an old man, but he's not really that old. Why pretend he's dead? Did getting shot mess Bond up that much? Did the agent's death at the beginning tip him over the edge? Did M's betrayal of trusting a rookie agent to take the shot jade Bond? Is Bond still upset over Vesper's death/betrayal? I thought he got closure to that in QOS. Bond's really just depressed through the whole film, and none of these reasons I can think of make sense to me. I also can't understand why the filmmakers wanted Bond to be depressed. Bond goes from being a rookie in his first two films to being burnt-out and over-the-hill in his third. That makes no sense. Is it such a crime to show a character in his prime?

MarcAngeDraco

I think it's important to view SF as a standalone mission, and not as a direct sequel to the CR/QOS storyline. Much has happened between QOS and SF.

I think it's a combination of a three points you mentioned: Bond isn't as young as he once was, the moral dilemma in saving Ronson vs M's orders to pursue Patrice, and then hearing M tell Eve to shoot at Patrice, even if it means killing Bond. If I was in Bond's shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed off that my superior - who I've worked with for so long - thinks of me as expendable. Not to mention that Bond copped a lot in his pursuit, including being shot at by Patrice.

Of course, not keeping active, the heavy drinking, the medication - all would take a physical and psychological toll on Bond. Then when he does take all the tests, he realises he's not the man he once was, which seems like a product of his self-indulgence - it's a vicious figure 8 cycle, and proves his inner demons is something that he has to overcome.

I do think it's more a psychological burden than a physical one. And I think M passing Bond on his tests was a vote of confidence, which Bond recognised when Silva tells him he had failed - and despite Silva's efforts in spinning it to make it appear M was sending Bond out to die.

It's a much more complete and emotionally satisfying journey to see Bond on than in CR/QOS.

Oakvale

^
I would by and large agree with that. I'd also say that Bond is in his prime in Spectre, and would likely be in the next film if Craig returns.

walther p99

I think its one of the few films if not the only one that shows the extent of the mental and physical toll that comes with Bond's job. He's weary, broken and jaded much like the literary character. His vices and faults are on full display and he's not propped up as some white knight. Its not a crime to show him in his prime, theres 23 other films that have him in prime. Its nice to shake it up to keep things fresh, I loved that SF showed Bond building himself back up to his prime. I was never as invested in Bond or his journey then in SF. Spectre showed Bond in his prime and was completely boring because among other things, he just didn't have a very interesting journey. Thematically and theatrically SF had an amazing journey for Bond that was shocking and mostly original and showed the character humanized like we've never seen before.

walther p99

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

I think it's important to view SF as a standalone mission, and not as a direct sequel to the CR/QOS storyline. Much has happened between QOS and SF.

I think it's a combination of a three points you mentioned: Bond isn't as young as he once was, the moral dilemma in saving Ronson vs M's orders to pursue Patrice, and then hearing M tell Eve to shoot at Patrice, even if it means killing Bond. If I was in Bond's shoes, I'd be pretty damn pissed off that my superior - who I've worked with for so long - thinks of me as expendable. Not to mention that Bond copped a lot in his pursuit, including being shot at by Patrice.

Of course, not keeping active, the heavy drinking, the medication - all would take a physical and psychological toll on Bond. Then when he does take all the tests, he realises he's not the man he once was, which seems like a product of his self-indulgence - it's a vicious figure 8 cycle, and proves his inner demons is something that he has to overcome.

I do think it's more a psychological burden than a physical one. And I think M passing Bond on his tests was a vote of confidence, which Bond recognised when Silva tells him he had failed - and despite Silva's efforts in spinning it to make it appear M was sending Bond out to die.

It's a much more complete and emotionally satisfying journey to see Bond on than in CR/QOS.

you said it much better then I did, great analysis! -{

ToTheRight

I don't feel as though much justification was thought out as to why Bond is down all the time in SF other than "we're just continuing the dark somber Bond we started with CASINO ROYALE".
If anything Bond should be rejuvenated after surviving that fall with NO injuries, no 6 months of physical therapy learning to walk again, etc etc He could have spent months in the hospital and recovery after a fall like that. I imagine I'd be on a high, and feeling indestructible had I fallen some 322 feet into a river and come out completely unscathed.
I like to think before his Istanbul assignment, Bond had popped into his usual barbershop. However, Kurt The Barber wasn't there that day and without his picture of Hoagy Carmichael handy, he tried to describe an old school "gentleman's haircut'. The new stylist didn't quite understand what he was asking for and gave him the "Biff from Back To The Future" look instead thinking that was what an old school haircut would have looked like. 007 left so pissed he decided to splurge his most recent paycheck on a whole new wardrobe reasoning some new suits might take the focal point away from his embarrassing new do. Unfortunately THAT didn't go well either as his usual Saville Row tailor was also out that day and the new guy made ALL of his suits 2 sizes too small. Sh"t, and there's no time to rush home to pick up his own suits before flying out to Istanbul, because M is constantly on his a$$ about everything. So he boards the plane to Istanbul insecure thinking everyone is secretly laughing at him for looking like a blond Pee-Wee Herman.
That would probably put me in a funk for 3 weeks- the time it takes a haircut to grow back long enough to get it fixed.

MarcAngeDraco

Oakvale wrote:

I'd also say that Bond is in his prime in Spectre, and would likely be in the next film if Craig returns.

But then we enter the discussion about the trajectory of Craig's era. The Bond of SPECTRE should have been the Bond prior to us getting Skyfall, i.e. Bond should not have been an ageing agent before getting into his prime.

Matt S

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Oakvale wrote:

I'd also say that Bond is in his prime in Spectre, and would likely be in the next film if Craig returns.

But then we enter the discussion about the trajectory of Craig's era. The Bond of SPECTRE should have been the Bond prior to us getting Skyfall, i.e. Bond should not have been an ageing agent before getting into his prime.

This is what confuses me so much about Skyfall. I just don't understand how Bond can be finished with his prime in SF when we never saw him reach his prime. I can't find the meaning in the way the character is in SF because of this. There's so little build-up to this breakdown that while it seems I know the reasons for his breakdown, I can't feel them or accept them. I brought up this question because I thought I was missing something. Bond's journey in SF is hardly complete because we don't see the beginning. I can't understand why Bond is so depressed because I don't know what is supposed to be normal.

Gassy Man

It fits the script. To me, Skyfall came too soon in the series -- it should have been the last of the Craig films rather than the first. Though the plot mainly cribs The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs, it borrows a lot of its sentimentality from Star Trek II. The final scene in the church is rather like the final scene in Engineering in that film, right down to the way the camera backs away before fading to the aftermath.

superado

Yes, SP before SF would have made better sense timewise. Bond Begins w/CR, continues to begin with QoS, then SF comes along it seems like 10 years later. This is purely conjecture on my part, but I think that with Mendes, the most critically acclaimed Bond director ever, who assumed that he was going to get just one shot at a Bond movie, wanted to make his Bond film an art house magnum opus. Middle-age crisis just fit the bill with the death of a mother figure and some family dysfunction thrown in for good measure.

Chriscoop

There is a theory that he is depressed as he is being poisoned by the depleted uranium bullet that Patrice shot him with! Its one of my biggest irks that bond goes from new 00 to old dog in one film, especially as two film before Sf we have the series shake up of a reboot to supposedly give the franchise fresh legs, it's one thing I dislike about Mendes tenure, his lack of vision and happiness to make a film with an incoherent plot, and disregard for Bond's character development is astonishing, qos is heavily slated but it's plot makes more sense. The whole premise of Skyfall is flawed, why the hell is Ronson in possession of the list? is bond depressed because as they know all about Patrice why wasn't he intercepted before he got the list? Getting shot off the train and winding up in a beach resort having had to sell your watch to fund your pain killers and drink and feeling betrayed by m would be a reason for low mood. Tanner and m failing to recognise Patrice even though they've sent you after him would be highly annoying but not depressing, what might completely make bond miserable is going back to skyfall, bad memories, his parents home he obviously struggles with that which is why he never went back, at this point m's betrayal in risking his life makes more sense as he's obviously attached some parental emotion to her but in amongst all this navel gazing we do get bond winking and smiling during a gun fight where people are dying! just after a bloody tube train crash! Pretty inconsistent really. I think Mendes noticed this in Skyfall and then completely over corrected it in SP and decided to homage his way back to a more normal bond....back to a pre reboot bond in some ways all delivered in a beautifully shot film.

MarcAngeDraco

Matt S wrote:

MarcAngeDraco wrote:

Oakvale wrote:

I'd also say that Bond is in his prime in Spectre, and would likely be in the next film if Craig returns.

But then we enter the discussion about the trajectory of Craig's era. The Bond of SPECTRE should have been the Bond prior to us getting Skyfall, i.e. Bond should not have been an ageing agent before getting into his prime.

This is what confuses me so much about Skyfall. I just don't understand how Bond can be finished with his prime in SF when we never saw him reach his prime. I can't find the meaning in the way the character is in SF because of this. There's so little build-up to this breakdown that while it seems I know the reasons for his breakdown, I can't feel them or accept them. I brought up this question because I thought I was missing something. Bond's journey in SF is hardly complete because we don't see the beginning. I can't understand why Bond is so depressed because I don't know what is supposed to be normal.

This is why discussing timeline with Bond is futile. They're all standalone adventures, and that was certainly the intention with SF before SP tried to be clever and tie everything together. If you adopt this perspective, it may help buying into the story of SF. I personally never found it as an issue - just an issue for the entire Craig era - because I always understood that Bond's gig is a tough one, and having a superior lose faith in you, plus be shot out, plus have to deal with the cognitive dissonance surrounding Ronson - it's enough to drive you crazy.

Gassy Man

It's also true, though, that they just disregarded the concept of a dramatic build up to Bond's sense of aging and burnout. Like so much in modern film, we're just supposed to accept it because it's acknowledged on the screen and not because any serious effort was made to show us. That's generally considered lazy storytelling, but it's common today. At least the Star Trek film had the good sense to wait until 20 years later to do the idea. That made it seem natural and in correspondence with the characters.

heartbroken_mr_drax

superado wrote:

Middle-age crisis just fit the bill with the death of a mother figure and some family dysfunction thrown in for good measure.

)

Charmed & Dangerous

Imho, Bond's beard is the metaphorical turning point in the film. In the first half he has the stubble, and he's no longer on active service - that must be depressing for a man who lives on the edge. Until the point where he goes to Shanghai, nothing goes well.

Then he basically gets a mission, gets to Shanghai, gets a shave (and one would hope, more than that from the gorgeous new Miss Moneypenny), and these combined rejuvenate him to 00- status - after which I don't see too many signs of depression.

Chriscoop

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Imho, Bond's beard is the metaphorical turning point in the film. In the first half he has the stubble, and he's no longer on active service - that must be depressing for a man who lives on the edge. Until the point where he goes to Shanghai, nothing goes well.

Then he basically gets a mission, gets to Shanghai, gets a shave (and one would hope, more than that from the gorgeous new Miss Moneypenny), and these combined rejuvenate him to 00- status - after which I don't see too many signs of depression.

Yes I've taken that view as well, but thinking on, his whole demeanour is very subdued for bond, during Silva's chat to M while he's locked up there are no quips or sarcastic smiles, and when he and m stop on the way to skyfall and also while talking to M about his obituary he seems at a low ebb. In stark contrast to his character in the other 3 DC films.

Thunderpussy

I think this shows, that Bond isn't simply a Two dimensional action character but ( as observed by the actors
who have played the role) he has many subtle levels and moods.

zaphod99

ToTheRight wrote:

I don't feel as though much justification was thought out as to why Bond is down all the time in SF other than "we're just continuing the dark somber Bond we started with CASINO ROYALE".
If anything Bond should be rejuvenated after surviving that fall with NO injuries, no 6 months of physical therapy learning to walk again, etc etc He could have spent months in the hospital and recovery after a fall like that. I imagine I'd be on a high, and feeling indestructible had I fallen some 322 feet into a river and come out completely unscathed.
I like to think before his Istanbul assignment, Bond had popped into his usual barbershop. However, Kurt The Barber wasn't there that day and without his picture of Hoagy Carmichael handy, he tried to describe an old school "gentleman's haircut'. The new stylist didn't quite understand what he was asking for and gave him the "Biff from Back To The Future" look instead thinking that was what an old school haircut would have looked like. 007 left so pissed he decided to splurge his most recent paycheck on a whole new wardrobe reasoning some new suits might take the focal point away from his embarrassing new do. Unfortunately THAT didn't go well either as his usual Saville Row tailor was also out that day and the new guy made ALL of his suits 2 sizes too small. Sh"t, and there's no time to rush home to pick up his own suits before flying out to Istanbul, because M is constantly on his a$$ about everything. So he boards the plane to Istanbul insecure thinking everyone is secretly laughing at him for looking like a blond Pee-Wee Herman.
That would probably put me in a funk for 3 weeks- the time it takes a haircut to grow back long enough to get it fixed.

)

zaphod99

Gassy Man wrote:

It fits the script. To me, Skyfall came too soon in the series -- it should have been the last of the Craig films rather than the first. Though the plot mainly cribs The Dark Knight and Straw Dogs, it borrows a lot of its sentimentality from Star Trek II. The final scene in the church is rather like the final scene in Engineering in that film, right down to the way the camera backs away before fading to the aftermath.

This makes good sense to me. It just felt too soon for burnt-out Bond, particularly after QoS which I regard as a major misstep. If I had managed to like QoS more (believe me I have tried...) it would not have jarred so much. As the last film in an actors tenure it would have been fine. I would like to have reversed the order and had Skyfall after Spectre which is what I will do in future watchings.

Matt S

Thunderpussy wrote:

I think this shows, that Bond isn't simply a Two dimensional action character but ( as observed by the actors
who have played the role) he has many subtle levels and moods.

Sorry, but I never found Bond in Craig's films to be any more dimensional than in other films. Bond in Craig's films just shows a different side of the character than we've seen before, but discards other sides of the character.

Thunderpussy

Exactly my point
All the actors who've played Bond have been able to give subtle hints to his inner character .

walther p99

Charmed & Dangerous wrote:

Imho, Bond's beard is the metaphorical turning point in the film. In the first half he has the stubble, and he's no longer on active service - that must be depressing for a man who lives on the edge. Until the point where he goes to Shanghai, nothing goes well.

Then he basically gets a mission, gets to Shanghai, gets a shave (and one would hope, more than that from the gorgeous new Miss Moneypenny), and these combined rejuvenate him to 00- status - after which I don't see too many signs of depression.

Yeah I thought that was pretty obvious.

ToTheRight

I think the concept of Bond laying low after the failure of the mission- growing a stubble - then only perking up once MI6 is in danger-is in line with Fleming's Bond loathing the soft life. I always got the impression the day to day office hours at Mi6 were 007's least favorite part of the job. He lived for the more dangerous assignments and having screwed one up as in the PTS of SF puts him in that funk.
Also during the fitness tests he knows he's not shooting nearly as well as he should, and passing the mental and physical. He's on the brink, and that edge I think is a fairly decent representation of Fleming's Bond in that situation.

walther p99

ToTheRight wrote:

I think the concept of Bond laying low after the failure of the mission- growing a stubble - then only perking up once MI6 is in danger-is in line with Fleming's Bond loathing the soft life. I always got the impression the day to day office hours at Mi6 were 007's least favorite part of the job. He lived for the more dangerous assignments and having screwed one up as in the PTS of SF puts him in that funk.
Also during the fitness tests he knows he's not shooting nearly as well as he should, and passing the mental and physical. He's on the brink, and that edge I think is a fairly decent representation of Fleming's Bond in that situation.

I agree, I think the portrayal of Bond in SF is one of if not the closest to the one Fleming created in terms of showing how broken and conflicted he is but still pushes forward and gets the job done.

Matt S

walther p99 wrote:

ToTheRight wrote:

I think the concept of Bond laying low after the failure of the mission- growing a stubble - then only perking up once MI6 is in danger-is in line with Fleming's Bond loathing the soft life. I always got the impression the day to day office hours at Mi6 were 007's least favorite part of the job. He lived for the more dangerous assignments and having screwed one up as in the PTS of SF puts him in that funk.
Also during the fitness tests he knows he's not shooting nearly as well as he should, and passing the mental and physical. He's on the brink, and that edge I think is a fairly decent representation of Fleming's Bond in that situation.

I agree, I think the portrayal of Bond in SF is one of if not the closest to the one Fleming created in terms of showing how broken and conflicted he is but still pushes forward and gets the job done.

It's true that Bond in SF is conflicted and still pushes forward, but unlike Fleming's Bond, Bond does not get the job done in SF.

walther p99

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

ToTheRight wrote:

I think the concept of Bond laying low after the failure of the mission- growing a stubble - then only perking up once MI6 is in danger-is in line with Fleming's Bond loathing the soft life. I always got the impression the day to day office hours at Mi6 were 007's least favorite part of the job. He lived for the more dangerous assignments and having screwed one up as in the PTS of SF puts him in that funk.
Also during the fitness tests he knows he's not shooting nearly as well as he should, and passing the mental and physical. He's on the brink, and that edge I think is a fairly decent representation of Fleming's Bond in that situation.

I agree, I think the portrayal of Bond in SF is one of if not the closest to the one Fleming created in terms of showing how broken and conflicted he is but still pushes forward and gets the job done.

It's true that Bond in SF is conflicted and still pushes forward, but unlike Fleming's Bond, Bond does not get the job done in SF.

He mostly does but you're right, M still dies, he gave it his all though. As Bond says in Thunderball "you cant win em all".

caractacus potts

I just assumed Skyfall was set several years after the events in the first two movies, and he'd had all these other unseen adventures in between
I don't think theres anything in the dialog to tell us this, it may have been something I'd even read here before the film came out
stoopid SPECTRE makes a mockery of that explanation though, as Blofeld brags all Craig's previous enemies were secretly working for him, but we only see the same enemies we already know from the first three films, there should have been at least a dozen other photographs shown/names dropped but otherwise left to our imagination to account for those missing years/unseen adventures

I know why he's depressed though cuz I've read Fleming, its a dirty damn business and he wants out
the real question is how he could go through 24 of these adventures with corpses piling up all around him and still be winking at the camera and making bad puns, that's not healthy

Chriscoop

Matt S wrote:

Thunderpussy wrote:

I think this shows, that Bond isn't simply a Two dimensional action character but ( as observed by the actors
who have played the role) he has many subtle levels and moods.

Sorry, but I never found Bond in Craig's films to be any more dimensional than in other films. Bond in Craig's films just shows a different side of the character than we've seen before, but discards other sides of the character.

Not sure I fully agree, DC's bond has shown a fuller spectrum of character traits than possibly any other, we have petulant bond, over confidence, love lorn, grief, anger all in CR, qos brought us hell bent revenge driven bond displaying his deadly side, Sf as we are discussing delivers a bond at a low ebb disenfranchised by his job and boss, and finally we arrive at SP in which we see DC portraying bonds conneryesque nonchalance and Moore's quips, with a small dose of Daltons playing to gallery bond.

Chriscoop

caractacus potts wrote:

I just assumed Skyfall was set several years after the events in the first two movies, and he'd had all these other unseen adventures in between
I don't think theres anything in the dialog to tell us this, it may have been something I'd even read here before the film came out
stoopid SPECTRE makes a mockery of that explanation though, as Blofeld brags all Craig's previous enemies were secretly working for him, but we only see the same enemies we already know from the first three films, there should have been at least a dozen other photographs shown/names dropped but otherwise left to our imagination to account for those missing years/unseen adventures

I know why he's depressed though cuz I've read Fleming, its a dirty damn business and he wants out
the real question is how he could go through 24 of these adventures with corpses piling up all around him and still be winking at the camera and making bad puns, that's not healthy

as I touched on earlier, in Sf bond only cracks a smile when people are dying! In the Macau casino after the feckless henchman is dispatched, after severine is killed and in the courtroom together with a wink! However an extended beach holiday with an attractive sexy girl, and a great nigjtlife does nothing to lift his melancholy? I like to think along the lines of Bond in the novel Dr No, where his body tingles at the prospect of a dangerous case. Bond lives for the mission.

ToTheRight

Matt S wrote:

walther p99 wrote:

ToTheRight wrote:

I think the concept of Bond laying low after the failure of the mission- growing a stubble - then only perking up once MI6 is in danger-is in line with Fleming's Bond loathing the soft life. I always got the impression the day to day office hours at Mi6 were 007's least favorite part of the job. He lived for the more dangerous assignments and having screwed one up as in the PTS of SF puts him in that funk.
Also during the fitness tests he knows he's not shooting nearly as well as he should, and passing the mental and physical. He's on the brink, and that edge I think is a fairly decent representation of Fleming's Bond in that situation.

I agree, I think the portrayal of Bond in SF is one of if not the closest to the one Fleming created in terms of showing how broken and conflicted he is but still pushes forward and gets the job done.

It's true that Bond in SF is conflicted and still pushes forward, but unlike Fleming's Bond, Bond does not get the job done in SF.

Fleming's Bond perseveres, uses his ingenuity and solves problems intelligently. As devious as the villains are, Bond thinks ahead and wins.
Craig's Bond, on the other hand, is shown as a character who loses. Quantum of Solace presents him as a Bond who kills before thinking and he comes off as an amateur. He's kind of a f**k- up. By SF he's more seasoned, but still loses. I suppose the idea is that he's a Bond who makes many, many, many mistakes along the way.....like getting his superior, M, killed.
Whether or not he learns from his mistakes is debatable, as by SPECTRE, his characterization is more along the cinematic Bond film style. Maybe by then he's come into his own?

heartbroken_mr_drax

ToTheRight wrote:

Maybe by then he's come into his own?

I hope so, but I also wish they would've maintained the continuity of his development that exists from CR to SF. With SP, the development of Craig's Bond almost feels rushed to the point where Craig just needed a "normal EON mission" before he quit. This is of course written in hindsight

I have plenty of issues with SF's plot, but overall the narrative structure which exists in context of the preceding DC films is brilliant - SP comes along and screws it up.