Thoughts on the latest James Bond film, Spectre

I am truly surprised. My views of the Bond franchise following the departure of actor Pierce Brosnan are admittedly biased. I simply don’t like Daniel Craig and his contribution to the series. However, I’m pleased to say that I enjoyed Spectre, in contrast to the previous few Bond films. I don’t consider them bad films, just not in keeping with the spirit of previous films in the series.. A few years ago, I wrote a research paper about the franchise, which can be found here towards the bottom of the page. It describes my belief that James Bond is a representation of escapist culture, particularly among males. I argued this via recurring themes of the franchise, which I will use to assess my impression of Spectre.

Scoring

In terms of the score, I felt that Sam Smith was an excellent choice for the title sequence. Previous Bond films capitalized upon popular singers known to whatever era in which they were released. The music video effectively mirrored a classic Bond style and even reflected the opening of On Her Majesty’s Secret Service by giving a brief recap of prior films in the midst of it. As for the rest of the music, each moment was accurately expressed via music in a way that felt natural.

Bond Girls

Having only two sexual conquests, this film was considerably lacking. This is not to say that I’m in support of philandering or misogyny. Unlike most Bond girls, Madeleine Swann didn’t play the submissive damsel in distress the whole time- but when she did it wasn’t out of her character, nor did it come across as a trope. Even Moneypenny turned down Bond’s advances at one point.

Vehicles/Chases

As far as Bond’s choice of getting around, the updated Aston Martin design made for an interesting chase, though not particularly exciting. Nonetheless, maintaining such an icon was a good choice. The best Bond chase sequences are always ones in which he’s outclassed. This film featured Bond in a plane chasing cars, and not the other way around, making for an interesting result. All of the action scenes in general were excellent, starting off right away with an exhilarating helicopter fight scene.

Plot

The plot was nothing extremely distinct. Bond doing his own thing under the radar, and then eventually leading to something his superiors have an interest in. Predictable, but not in such a way that’s worth critiquing. Bond films have never had amazing plots, in fact often times they’re nothing short of ridiculous. Spectre may not have been the operation grand slam of Goldfinger, but overall it provided an engaging enough story. It was refreshing to see Ernst Stavro Blofeld again, as his last appearance was in For Your Eyes Only, released 13 years before I existed.

Location/Set

Bond films have always done an excellent job of exposing its audiences to beautiful locations and cultures. The film begins at a Dia De Los Muertos parade, harkening back to festival scenes somewhat reminiscent of Thunderball or Moonraker. The set design lacked the extravagant nature of Ken Adam’s design, but was made up for by the visceral and frequently changing locations that the film took place in. Blofeld’s “lair” of sorts is nestled within a desert crater, which is a nice replacement to his previous volcano location in You Only Live Twice.

Gadgets

One of my favorite aspects of the Bond films are the various gadgets doled out by Q. Many of these are unrealistically situational, often only coming back the minute they’re forgotten about. This was, of course, the case with Bond’s watch in a life threatening situation.
Overall, I would give it a solid 8/10.
Spectre restored my faith in a seemingly obsolete franchise by effectively combining various aspects of films past in a modern and engaging fashion. To put that more simply, the fan service was simply amazing. As a long-time Bond fan, I believe other fans like myself will be glad to see the series returning to form.

M. Stuart Persson Chicago based writer, editor and social media coordinator with a never ending passion to both be inspired and inspire. I’m a wave about to splash

The post Spectating Spectre by M. Stuart Persson first appeared on Prachya Review.

It is my preference to write in the most organic form possible, without outlines. However, for the sake of organization I felt that it would be most effective to outline this analysis beforehand. I’ll do my best to avoid spoilers. So, without further ado:

Character Guide

Claire Dearing – Park operations manager, played by Bryce Dallas Howard

Owen Grady – Velociraptor expert, played by Chris Pratt

Simon Masrani – CEO of Jurassic World, played by Irrfan Khan

John Hammond – CEO of the original Park, played by Richard Attenborough

Lowery Cruthers – the Park’s comic relief and tech operator, played by Jake Johnson

The recurring themes and motifs that I found to be most prominent, in descending order of importance.

• Control
• Consumerism
• Ethics/Limits
• Learning from the Past

Control

Themetically this stretches across the entirety of the franchise. Throughout the film, the word and concept of control is eluded to frequently. Whether it’s Simon Masrani trying to pilot a helicopter, or dinosaurs unsurprisingly wrecking havoc upon a theme park, control manifests itself as a human illusion. The most prominent example of lack of control is Claire Dearing’s character, a symbolic representation of control itself. As an overseer of the park, it is her prerogative to know where every animal and person is at all times. Even Owen Grady comments ‘Who brings an itinerary to a first date?’, a shot at her overly planned lifestyle, which ultimately comes to ruin as the park gradually gets out of control. Humans live under the guise of control. And, although we have control over our routines, all it takes is one person, one day, or one minor mistake to change your life.

Consumerism

The very inception of the park is a consumerist dream. A zoo but with higher stakes, Jurassic World is the place to be. Merchandise, live attractions, rides, it’s the ultimate theme park. How could this possibly go wrong? The reputable Wikipedia cites the creation of the Indominus Rex as a symbol of consumerism itself. Seeking bigger, more dangerous dinosaurs, a new one is genetically engineered, without regard for the consequences of making such a deadly creature. Truly, consumerism stands as a behemoth, fed by American desire, rapidly growing each day. The park is designed to profit, and will do anything at the cost of many lives simply to bring in more money. Too afraid to lose business and cause panic, the park directors fail to warn its visitors of impending disaster, and many lives are lost as a result, unsurprisingly.

Ethics/Limits

What I would also consider an overarching theme of Jurassic Park, and a present issue as well. Particularly in the field of science, ethical guidelines are always under fire. The question is, how far should science be taken? The creators of the park failed to take any ethical considerations, and “played god” by reviving and creating entirely new dinosaurs merely for the purpose of gaining a profit. Although it could be argued that John Hammond’s purposes were different, those that continued the park are responsible for the consequences. Is it right to create a new species? That is a central question of the film. The limits to which science should be taken to alter our world are brought into question as well. Is it ethical to imprison such dangerous yet magnificent monsters, merely for profit? To be more succinct on the issues of ethics: just because you can, doesn’t necessarily mean you should.

Learning from the Past

What I appreciated about this film was the call outs to the original Jurassic Park. There are many subtleties, such as the cartoon DNA strand, or a model of the amber trapped mosquito. Remnants of the original Park are brought on screen to represent a literal and figurative fossil, with which the park directors should learn from. Lowery Cruthers is reprimanded by Claire for wearing an “old” Jurassic Park t-shirt. ‘People died,’ she says almost arbitrarily. All of this points to the park owner’s lack of learning from past mistakes. Had they simply not continued the park operation, there would be no possibility for things to get out of control in the first place.

My review – Overall, excellent film. I really had no quarrels with it, and am a fan of the franchise. I appreciated the actors’ contribution to the film, as well as the inclusion of new species and getting a look at a functioning park. Action packed, minimal plot to follow, and aesthetically pleasing, and with a significant take away. To sum it up, do not miss out on this summer blockbuster, you won’t regret seeing it.

Billy Brenan: You have to believe me, this was a stupid decision, but I did it with the best intentions.

Dr. Grant: With the best intentions? Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions. You know what, Billy? As far as I’m concerned, you’re no better than the people that built this place.

– Jurassic Park 3

About the Writer

M Stuart Persson is an undergraduate at the University of Illinois. In pursuit of a bachelors in sociology, school is merely one facet of life. Long boarding, stand up comedy, music, film and writing make up the rest of his free time. An aspiring creative writer and editor. I’m a wave about to splash.

Contact- bhnc920@hotmail.com

The post ‘These people, they never learn’ – A Critical Analysis of Jurassic World by M Stuart Persson first appeared on Prachya Review.

Race and equality are highly emphasized almost immediately stepping into the film. The audience is thrust into a foreign city, both literally and figuratively. Skyscrapers reach beyond eyesight, casting darkness on the slum-like grounds underneath. Cars no longer have need for wheels, gracefully flying through the air. As a moviegoer in the 1980’s, these visuals were breathtaking, to say the least, portraying an entirely new world. Among the many displays floating about the city, people of Asian descent are often featured, accompanied by text in a foreign language. The streets are crowded, dirty, and dark. Merchant stands adorn every corner. The audience is introduced to Deckard at one such merchant stand. He orders noodles, given to him by an illiterate Chinese man, as evidenced by the man’s difficulty to understand what he wants to order. Deckard is then approached by Gaff, a member of the police force. He speaks in an amalgam of many different languages and is translated by the Chinese man. The city has no official language, it is a polyglot. This was extremely different than U.S. society in the 1980’s, in which this sort of multicultural melting pot was not the norm. It was also around this time in America that outsourcing began, moving many jobs overseas. Many looked upon China and other Asian countries in a negative light because of this, viewing “those” people as people taking away their jobs. Drawing on this real world issue in the U.S, this cinematic city effectively evokes the fear of orientalization. Terrified by the idea of racial change, many Americans manifested this fear in stereotypes, emphasized by the “Chinatown” areas of the lower streets.

Additionally, the entire city and its obviously foreign aspects, are shrouded in literal and figurative darkness. This cityscape sets the stage for the rest of the film, with Scott actively maneuvering the viewer into equating being foreign as something overtly negative. A strong emphasis is placed on this idea from the very beginning, so that, ultimately it can be contrasted with the overall theme of the film: equality within life. The city serves a societal template of inequality. Regardless of race, humans should be treated equally, not confined to a life in the streets.

Drawing again on real world issues, slavery and racism rear their ugly heads throughout the film. Replicants, perhaps the most important characters, deal firsthand with slavery and inequality. Their very inception is for the purpose of being slaves. While serving at an off-world colony, a mutiny occurred, making replicants illegal on Earth. Although virtually indistinguishable, the replicants are treated as slaves because of being created differently. Perhaps most responsible for this mistreatment are the police, those who hunt the replicants. The police have gone so far as giving them a dehumanizing derogatory name: “skin jobs.” Among the victims of their mistreatment is also Deckard himself, having been forced into Bladerunning again. When he tries to decline, the police chief Harry Bryant says, “Stop where you are! You know the score pal! If you’re not a cop you’re little people.” This obvious sense of superiority in the chief’s statement exposes the horrible life of being on the wrong side of power–of being one of the “little people.” Deckard spends the film hunting the replicants, eventually finding himself on the wrong side of that power, clinging for his life. At the climax, he is hanging by only a few fingers before he is saved by Roy Batty, a replicant that he was hunting. After catching Deckard’s slipping hand, he gives light to living as a replicant: “Quite an experience to live in fear, isn’t it? That’s what it is to be slave.” Prior to this, the audience sees replicants merely as tools used to fulfill certain purposes. Watching the film from Deckard’s point of view, the audience begins to learn what it means to be a slave, being forced into something against their will-and for a brief moment living in the very fear in which replicants live every day. By shedding light on the true beauty of the life of a replicant, Scott brings the audience into his story, showing the inhumane nature of slavery and the problems with living in an unequal world. No one should ever be considered “little people” in the face of superiors or a slave to those in power.

The question of equality carries with it another important question: What does it mean to truly be alive? Pris, another replicant says to a genetic engineer, P.F Sebastian, “I think, therefore I am.” This could be an answer to that question, and although rather simple, does speak great lengths about what it means to live. Free will is also typically an answer. Bladerunner however extends past the typical cliches when answering it. When investigating another replicant’s apartment, Leon Kowalski, Deckard comes across a stack of photos. To the viewer, the pictures seem typical and replaceable. To a replicant, however, these pictures are physical copies of memories. During a conversation with Deckard, Dr. Eldon Tyrell, the creator of the replicants, says they are “emotionally inexperienced, with only a few years in which to store up experiences which you and I take for granted.” Replicants walk, talk, and think, but what truly makes them “live” is their ability to experience and recollect experiences. Although “emotionally inexperienced,” Batty expresses remorse in his last moments:

“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time….like tears in rain….time to die.” These final words are what ultimately help replicants as a whole cross the line from replicant to human. This is a transcendent moment for Deckard, having hunted the replicant and then being saved by it. Deckard held the view that replicants are “like any other machine–they’re either a benefit or a hazard.” Replicants are merely the subject of his job, not necessarily people. After his encounter with Batty, Deckard sees the light, realizing that he witnessed not the end of a replicant, but the end of a life. Replicants are no longer seen as something below human; their place in society is now equal.

“Have you ever taken that Voight-Kampff Test yourself?” Rachael, another replicant, asks Deckard. Realizing she is a replicant, she seeks to know what makes him so human in contrast to herself. He feels that he should not have the legitimacy of his existence questioned by something “artificial.” Throughout the film, he holds the opinion that the replicants are less than him, remorselessly hunting them. However, he slowly begins to fall in love with Rachael. Through this relationship, his views on replicants and indeed, life shift, and the audience finds its views shifting as well. Deckard watches Batty take his last breath, and in finally doing so, Batty releases a white dove he was holding into the air. This symbol of peace represents Deckard’s realization of what it means to live, and the significance of replicants’ lives as well. What began as a forced mission from the police ends as a transcendent journey. While stalking the replicants, Deckard learns how much they cherish their short lives. He learns to respect their existence, regardless of how they were created, and that they too, deserve to be treated equally, in spite of their differences.[tx_divider size=”24″]

Work Cited:
Blade Runner: The Final Cut. Dir. Ridley Scott. Warner Bros, 1982. Film
“Quotes.” IMDb. IMDb.com, n.d. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.

About the Writer

M Stuart Persson is an undergraduate at the University of Illinois. In pursuit of a bachelors in sociology, school is merely one facet of life. Long boarding, stand up comedy, music, film and writing make up the rest of his free time. An aspiring creative writer and editor. I’m a wave about to splash.

Contact- bhnc920@hotmail.com

The post Replicants and Racism: The Struggle for Equality in an Unequal Society by M Stuart Persson first appeared on Prachya Review.