Skyfall - Dir. Sam Mendes (The Bond Project #23 - JM)

Skyfall (2012)

Dir: Sam Mendes

Mendes Aims a Walther at Oscar
by
Jay Maronde

                50 years after Dr. No was first released, and six James Bonds later, the James Bond Franchise is now going stronger than ever with the release of BOND 23 aka Skyfall. While this film featured an almost interminable wait while MGM reorganized under Chapter 11, director Sam Mendes, who was signed onto the project during the filming of Quantum of Solace, hung on quietly through the corporate bankruptcy process and did everything possible to make the film more than worth the wait. And it shows with beautiful colours.

His vision of a big money blockbuster action movie with a plot and story worthy of a real film was directly inspired by Christopher Nolan’s exciting work with the new Batman trilogy, and much as the that new trilogy has delighted audiences worldwide, Mendes work has been just as successful, managing to stand tall against other epic holiday releases such as the conclusion of the Twilight saga. The movie has something for everyone. I’ve seen it three times so it’s easily worth it for you, dear reader, to see once.

                Let me start with the two biggest features of this film: Dench and Bardem. First off this is Dame Judi Dench’s 7^th appearance as the staunch old grey lady at the head of Britain’s MI6. This is easily her (or any M’s) biggest role in the entire James Bond Franchise and she is glorious! Let me say right here, if nothing else, she deserves an Oscar for this this performance. As the only woman who Bond can relate to or respect, her role in his life and Bond’s role in hers is profoundly explored in beautiful twisted ways throughout the film. Such character development is almost rare in a Bond Movie, but as I’ve already mentioned this isn’t a movie, this is a film.  Mendes directs her so well and explores her character so deeply and thoroughly it almost brings to mind the levels of stunning character development within his Oscar-winning American Beauty (of note: Skyfall is the first Bond ever to be directed by an Academy Award winning Director, and the Eon Productions staff should stick to hiring very good directors because—in truth—when you give a very good director a very large budget, there is a relatively high chance of them producing a film as enjoyable as Skyfall).

                While there had been much speculation that BOND 23 would complete the Craig/Bond trilogy, and finally have Bond take down the evil organization known as Quantum, the producers announced during press conferences that in true Bond fashion the franchise would go new places, leaving this evil organization to be slain by Bond at a later date. As such there is no reference to Quantum and a new villain is brought to the silver screen and most certainly the history books in Raoul Silva.

Mendes had originally spoken with Kevin Spacey (who I have long thought would make a fantastic Bond villain) about taking the role of Silva, but after he refused talks turned to Javier Bardem. Bardem is only the second Oscar winner (having won for No Country For Old Men) ever to play a Bond villain (the first was Christopher Walken, fresh off of The Deer Hunter, in A View to a Kill ) and if I were part of the Academy I would make him the first Bond Villain to win an Oscar. He is outrageously good—sickeningly and scarily good! Bardem had the whole script translated into his native Spanish so as to be able to better understand the film and he worked extensively with Mendes on his character’s development. All of this sets the bar incredibly high for whoever accepts the role as the next Bond villain.  I’ve seen all the Bond Films, and there have been a few weirder villains, but Bardem can easily stand toe-to-toe with the bests (worsts). I don’t want to give away any spoilers but Silva definitely made the audience collectively gasp at all of the screenings I attended.

                 As always this film features certain Bond staples such as beautiful women. And yes, women, as Skyfall is the first Bond ever in which all of the Bond Girls are referred to as Bond Women. First off there is Bond’s associate Eve (played magically by the inordinately beautiful Naomie Harris) who provides great assistance to Bond in the opening scene before things take an ugly turn. She returns later in the film to provide a few gasps of her own, but her beauty is stunning and her onscreen rapport with Craig is unmatched. Also of note is Silva’s henchwoman Severine, who is played by the stunning Berenice Lim Marlohe. I’ve always felt that the Bond franchise has chosen more “typically Asian” actresses, often to the detriment of the film, but Marlohe is radiant, effluent, and magical. She has also commented that she was surprised at Daniel Craig’s modesty when filming their shower scene, and that she demanded he lose his shorts and that she offered to do ANYTHING to make him more comfortable. Clearly, being James Bond has some perks even in real life.

                Another Bond staple that returns in this film is Q and the Quartermaster Branch of MI6, which have both been revamped for the modern era. Instead of an armorer, Q is more of a super nerd, and is played excellently by the very believable Ben Whishaw, who I am told by numerous women is easily as “hunk-able” as Daniel Craig. Q plays one of his larger roles in the Canon, providing much assistance to Bond throughout the film even while the Franchise eschews more of the sillier Bond gadgets, in lieu of more realism. Q and Bond’s interactions throughout the film also always serve to enlighten the audience even more to the dark icy role of Craig’s (again marvelous performance as) Bond by using Whishaw’s delightful nerd as the perfect foil.

                I couldn’t write this review without paying at least some mention to the action in this film. While the Bond Canon has always been known for its stupendous action sequences, Skyfall takes the franchise to an entirely new plateau. There are car chases, fist fights, assassinations, helicopters (which by the way, the helicopter featured in the film is the same exact helicopter from which Bond and Her Majesty the Queen jumped to open the 2012 London Olympics) train chases, scorpions, automatic weapons, motorcycle chases, and even an all-out gun battle in the middle of Parliament. Again I can’t stress how great of a plan it is to give a really good director a really big budget. The movies have always been about making “unreality” happen for the viewer and this Bond is heart-stopping (though hopefully it will not end your life).

                Now that I’ve raved on for some time about what makes this film so delightful I would like to take a brief moment and discuss what I did not like, which luckily is extremely minor and should not detract  very much at all from what is a great film. First off, the Adele theme song sucks. It has done well on the pop charts, and I know Adele is all the rage and probably the closest that the production staff could come in finding a new age Shirley Bassey, but the song is boring. It kind of gets stuck in your head in a way that I don’t like. To be honest, they should have had Adele record the song, and then let Kanye remix it a-la “Diamonds Are Forever.” This is obviously minor in the scope of the film, but I couldn’t let her off unscathed. The other factor I didn’t like about this movie (which is entirely personal) is that this film is really, really, really, really long. Like seriously, go to the bathroom before you sit down in the theater and only get the medium squishy because otherwise you are going to need a pee break. This is the second longest Bond film ever, only one minute shorter than Casino Royale and only one minute longer than On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. It’s long, I feel like it drags at points, but I doubt most critics would complain about this fact. Even though this film is long, it is very good, so as I said initially these two complaints are relatively minor.

                Skyfall is an excellent film and Mendes definitely deserves a pat on the back. I doubt the Academy will even consider giving the film, Mendes, or Craig a nomination, let alone the prize, as they have always been notoriously unkind to franchise films. But it will be a crime against the art if Dench doesn’t at least get a nomination for her exquisite performance. Bardem also deserves an Oscar for his performance as he is quickly turning out to be one of the great evil genius actors in a generation or more. This film is wonderful, and I suggest seeing it more than once just to be able to appreciate the way the entire audience gasps and applauds at various moments. 

Skyfall - Dir. Sam Mendes (The Bond Project #23 - JK)

Skyfall (2012)

Dir. - Sam Mendes

Perfect Bond

by

Jack Knorps

On the evening of Saturday, December 1st 2012, at roughly 6:35 PM, my friend and I tried to catch the 6:50 showing of Skyfall at the United Artists Theater on Court Street in Brooklyn.  There was a long line outside the theater, but the show was not yet sold out.  As we approached the front of the line, it sold out.  We were able to get tickets for the next night's showing at 6:50.  Skyfall had opened on November 9, 2012.  Perhaps it is unsurprising that it was still selling out by this point (indeed this is a major movie theater in Brooklyn) but it may also indicate just how good of a film it is.  It was fortunate that we were able to get good seats on Sunday night at about ten minutes before the start time.  It would have been fantastic to see it on an IMAX screen too, but that is not so affordable to us at this moment.  Regardless, if you have the opportunity to see Skyfall before it leaves theaters, I highly suggest you do so--the film demands viewing on a big screen.  

As previously noted, my knowledge of James Bond is not so great but for my editing of the reviews of my colleague Jay Maronde, who suggested this project for Flying Houses.  Indeed today marks the apotheosis of the Project, and I can only write credibly about the last three Bond films.  I loved Casino Royale and found Quantum of Solace inscrutable.  So the only question I can answer is, where does Skyfall rank amongst them?

It is certainly better than Quantum of Solace.  My colleague Mr. Maronde may disagree with me on that score (I have yet to edit--or even read--his review of Skyfall but I presume it cannot bypass its predecessor in his mind since he stated it was the best of the Bonds), but this film is much easier to follow, longer, more epic, and more star-studded.  Casino Royale is great--but Skyfall is better.  It is the best Bond film I have seen and indeed I remarked to my friend that it should be the last Bond film (though it will not be) because I think it is, frankly, impossible to top.

Okay, maybe the song "Skyfall" by Adele is not the best theme song in the Canon and that is one area where the Franchise could improve ("Another Way to Die" or "Die Another Day" or "The World is not Enough"--amongst others--were better...) but it's still a pretty good song.

The pre-credits sequence involves another fantastic chase sequence--notably on motorcycles over the rooftops of the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul, and then on a train where Bond commandeers a.tractor-trailer to demolish Volkswagen Bugs and bust through another train car for entrance.  And the final shot of the sequence may come as a shock to audiences.  Of course they will not be tempted to believe the filmmakers would actually do that, but it is a powerful moment nonetheless.  This was one of the few moments in the film I found confusing--that is, the explanation for it later--but it cannot besmirch the inherent perfection of the rest of the film.

This is a difficult film to review because one is wary of giving away too much of the plot.  All I will say is that, when I would tell friends that I was going to see Skyfall, they would all respond, "Enjoy it--it's great."  Everyone seems to have seen it (this review may be pointless - but I have my duties).  Another friend compared it, interestingly, to The Dark Knight Rises.  I can see that.  Both are very long (though Skyfall is shorter by a good twenty minutes) and deal with the idea of the film's hero "losing a step."  Also the villains are perfect "foils."  Both have incredible stunts and special effects and explosions and acting and directorial prowess--but Skyfall is better than The Dark Knight Rises (I would say Skyfall and The Dark Knight are equivalent in terms of greatness--thus I believe this film deserves to be nominated for Best Picture).  At the very least, Dame Judi Dench and Javier Bardem deserve to receive nominations for Best Supporting Actor and Actress (Dench might even qualify for Best Actress as this is M's biggest role yet - but many might disagree about the "requisite centrality to the film" component of that award).

Craig is as good as ever, playing a Bond ravaged by alcohol and substance abuse, who may not be up to the task this time.  Of course we know better than that, but Bond does make his share of mistakes in this story.  As my friend remarked, the girls always seem to end up getting killed....

Bond goes from Istanbul to a Caribbean island (or perhaps some other similar locale) to London to Shanghai to Macau and then to another mysterious island, then back to London and finally to Scotland.  All of these scenes are great, but the best scene in the film is Javier Bardem's entrance.  Indeed this was the one part of the film that you can tell, from being in a sell-out theater, that the audience loves.  

Sam Mendes is most famous for directing American Beauty.  The legacy of that film I think shows that it benefited most from really good timing--it was the right sort of movie to win Best Picture in 1999.  So maybe Mendes was just in the right place at the right time, but it shouldn't take away from his skill as a director.  Road to Perdition was, okay, not a total bore, but nowhere near as compelling.  I did not see Jarhead or Away We Go though both are based off works of semi-creative-non-fiction.  Revolutionary Road was something of a return to American Beauty territory, but I found it just "okay" also.  (To conflate the stars of those films and the eras they depicted, I preferred Catch Me if You Can to that...).  So I would say Skyfall is his best since American Beauty.  But to continue....

Bardem's entrance is a long shot.  Bond is tied to a chair and the elevator door opens up from the end of a cavernous room filled with a massive collection of computer networking wires. Bardem walks out and delivers a long monologue about how his grandmother owned a small island and how they figured out to get rid of the rat infestation problem there.  There is a very slow pan until Bardem is, basically, on top of Bond.  As I said this is a tough film to review because I am wary of spoiling it but I will just say that the dialogue in this scene is probably the most priceless dialogue I have heard in any Bond film, or almost any film at all.  In particular, when Craig responds, "What makes you think this is my first time?" there was a huge roar of laughter.

My colleague has stated that Bardem may be the greatest Bond villain ever, and I cannot disagree.  He is strangely gentle, but he has a serious motive.  He is extremely clever but sometimes acts astonishingly irreverent (as during the chase sequence in the Tube Station in London).  

Albert Finney makes a great appearance in the film for the final act--which is quite emotional and moving.  Ralph Fiennes also turns in a quality performance as a British government official "advising" M. whose trustworthiness or "understanding of what it's like to be in the field" remain a question mark through most of the film.  Naomie Harris as the "main Bond girl" Eve also plays a good sidekick to Bond in a few scenes and emerges in the final scene as a familiar character we thought might have gone away but whose past has just been re-imagined (and whose future may indeed be different).  Unfortunately Jeffrey Wright does not appear as Felix Leiter but one imagines he may return....

Whatever happens at the Oscars next year, Skyfall deserves to go down as amongst the very best in the history of Bond films.  Of course I need to see about 20 more to make that claim credible, but I would be quite surprised indeed if hardcore Bond fans did not all put it in the top 5, if not the top 3, or #1.  

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #18: Doppelgangers

In this column, I attempted to illustrate the difficulty of self-definition in the law school and job search context.  While I feared a backlash from this piece, fortunately there was none.  It would be quite easy for people to make fun of me on the basis of the idea that I am incapable of remembering names because people's appearances tend to blend together in this atmosphere.  However, perhaps a general sense of agreement with the ideas herein are present: in certain instances, it is simply better to avoid social contact than to invite social awkwardness.  In general it is better to be a social person - I think most people will agree with that - but there is a danger of being too social, as well, that may tend to rub people the wrong way.  Everybody knows that time is at a premium, and that sensitivity to wasting another person's time is useful in the development of social tact.  Regardless, the column is simply about my desire to allow people to "be themselves."

NIED #18: Doppelgangers

                One of my least favorite things about law school is seeing people that I know, but not being able to say hi to them because it’s weird since we have not both formally acknowledged that we know each other’s first names.  Even worse is when someone says hi to me and I have absolutely no idea who they are, but I want to be polite, so I say hi back, but don’t say their name, and then worry about whether or not they know that I don’t know their name.  Some might say this is a trivial matter, but I believe that Doppelgangers present a strong case for a claim for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress. 

                In the first place, these Doppelgangers—they owe me no duty to make me feel better about myself.  So the claim fails.  However, I do not intend for every NIED column to present a colorable claim—I merely intend to contribute a voice of reason into this sea of Sameness.

                My friend dyed my hair blonde last year.  A couple weeks after that, I set up an interview for a judicial internship with a bankruptcy judge nearby.  My counselor told me that I needed to dye my hair back.  Another counselor indicated that it would not be a good idea to go to the PILC Fair with the blonde. 

                I also started my internship that semester with the blonde, and when I dyed it back, my supervising attorney thought it had been my natural color.  His wife, ironically, told me that she met Andy Warhol at a party in the early 1980s.  They had both approved of my hair.

                While blonde, I came upon a brilliant realization: I could never dye it back.  It would make me stand out.  Of course, others might say it would make me stick out like a sore thumb.

                I told people that I needed to be “diverse” somehow.  I told people that it was some kind of impossible form of discrimination to judge my intelligence on the basis of my hair color—but of course, hair color is not immutable.  This much is certain, however: people knew who I was.  I was “that blonde kid” and subject to whatever criticisms or praise that appellation entailed.  I was immediately identifiable.  Then I dyed it back to brown and I receded back into the ooze of professional appearances and anonymity.   

                Many people at this school (and I would imagine every single other law school) look exactly the same (but to qualify this statement, let me specify that BLS students probably do not look like UVM Law students).  And it is very annoying for me.  How am I supposed to know who you are if you look like five other people?  I might recognize your voice?  What if there is just that awkward moment of eye contact without any kind of wave or similar friendly gesture?  Then I go into the library and keep my head down—I do not want to see anyone anymore.  Blindness is preferable to any display of social awkwardness.  The blind cannot be faulted for their condition, but I can be faulted for not making an effort to know everyone’s name and for not being able to tell them apart from a distance when, perhaps I am not even wearing my glasses.  It is absurd. 

                My advice is contrary to what the Career Services Office will tell you, but I seriously believe that law school will suck the vitality out of you and turn you into a sheep if you let it.  So, do not cut your hair.  Do not dye it back to its original color.  Keep reading the Communist Manifesto.  Maintain your pre-law school hobbies to the extent practicable.  Read for pleasure.  Use your real name on facebook instead of trying to hide.  Keep at your blog. 

If you have ideas, share them.  If you don’t really care very much about your individuality, then I guess you won’t be offended the next time I look away.  But if you feel like law school is preventing you from being the person you want to be, I suggest you go into court one day.  There are always crazy lawyers with fantastic suits and bizarre piercings and atypical hairstyles.  People might say you shouldn’t look like that if you want to get hired—but I seriously doubt the judge will rule against you because of it. 

               

                

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #17: Preemption

As previously promised, this is NIED column #17 on Preemption.  It is primarily intended to address preemption in the Law Review context--but truth be told I did not make it onto a Journal at our law school and so my analysis of the preemption concept may not square with the wisdom of such fortunate students.  However, preemption arises in other contexts, and the episode that this column describes is in fact true.  Nevertheless, at this point I have serious doubts that the friend of my friend was telling the truth when he said he was "really tired because he was out partying with Lindsay Lohan the night before."  I have heard stories of people that simply make things up on Facebook and claim they are friends with celebrities.  I have no patience for these types of persons and do not want anyone to consider me as being "on that level."  I like to think I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I do indeed have serious doubts that Ms. Lohan will be interested in a contract (paying perhaps $100) for the lead female role in Batman in Brooklyn.  Regardless, if she happens to come upon this post by some serendipitous act, I would be very interested indeed in discussing the project with her.  While my time and funding are at all-time lows, my creativity, I think, is at an all-time high.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress No. 17: Pre-Emption

                I recently heard that a friend of a friend had been hanging out with Lindsay Lohan all night. A few days later, Lindsay Lohan was on the news, apparently the victim of an assault in a Manhattan hotel room. 

                Before the assault though, I told my friend, “Look.  Hynes is no longer able to be in Batman in Brooklyn.  It would have been exciting to have him, but we can’t.  But.  If we can get Lindsay Lohan. This film will be incredibly important.  It will be her comeback.  And it is made all the more perfect by my Parent Trap Redux (due about November 18, 2016) – which specifically abrogates the Parent Trap remake.  Give me five minutes with her and I guarantee I can get her to sign on.”

                Previously I had been formulating the idea for the opening shots of the film. It opens with a shot of the new World Trade Center and the Brooklyn Bridge, 50/50 in composition. There would be many more shots. Still shots. Landmarks around Brooklyn. There would need to be music in the background. I thought Dum Dum Girls would be appropriate. I thought “Jail La La” would be appropriate.

                A couple days after that, the assault occurred, and a news item on Pitchfork discussed a new film that Lohan will appear in. It is directed by Paul Schrader (screenwriter of Taxi Driver, director of a dozen other vaguely-acclaimed films) and written by Bret Easton Ellis (uber-hipster). The preview consists of still shots taken around Los Angeles while a Dum Dum Girls song plays in the background.

                I weep.

                I get into trouble when I write about journals, but I must comment upon Preemption.  Many students complain about not being able to write about the topic they want to write about. But there are many topics that occur to me.  They occur whenever I observe a phenomenon in real life (say, for example, psychiatrist liability post-Tarasoff with the “Batman in Aurora” incident as the intro).  They occur whenever I do research for an internship (say, for example, establishing a BAC threshold for marijuana DWIs).  They occur whenever I do my reading assignment for the next day (say, for example, that holographic wills should be admitted in more states).  They do not occur when I actively try to think of a good topic to write about (say, for example, the effect of the Affordable Care Act on Medicare spending).

News flash: I did not make a journal. I wrote a 40 page paper with 188 footnotes though. 

I saw one journal article that had 350 footnotes though. 

It wasn’t good enough for the open note competition. So I am revising it.

But I found, when I did my preemption check, that I was, essentially, pre-empted by two articles.  (Briefly, my article was on the Temporary Help Industry. It was extraordinarily ambitious, but the reason stated for its rejection was that its personal elements detracted from its legal analysis. Understandable.) One addressed unemployment benefits for temps, and the other was basically the same as my article except it was longer and didn’t contain the personal element (and I quoted from it liberally).

                And so we cannot write about that topic—or rather, we just have to “tweak” our topic so that it’s “original” but we may have to focus on a tangential issue that we don’t find as intriguing—because somebody else got there first.

                It is almost like in Manhattan when Woody Allen asks Michael Murphy why he deserves to go out with Diane Keaton.  Murphy says, “I liked her first,” to which Allen replies, “What are you, six years old?” It’s almost like the Great Journal Editors in the Sky are saying, “You couldn’t possibly do a better job, so you can’t write about the same thing.”

                The obvious analogue here is copyright law—but I will not purport to know anything about that since (due to my own great fault and misfortune) I have not been able to take that course.  But I know that it is not okay to steal someone else’s idea.

                I suppose that the rationale underlying preemption is that we do not want to encourage law students to write articles that have little hope of being published, because a journal would not want to publish a duplicative article.  But as far as I am concerned, so long as the article updates an old article, it should not be pre-empted (as indeed mine was not, written as it was in 2009, before the real effects of the financial crisis had been more clearly reflected in reality).

                Which leads to my final point: since the past 5 years have involved a significant social upheaval, preemption should not be a problem, because this “Great Depression Part Two” affected almost every sector of the economy and American life in general—to the point that articles taking stock of its aftermath should not be struck down by the Preemption Hammer.

                Unfortunately for me and Ms. Lohan, the film industry doesn’t even pretend to be fair.  If the legal industry at least wants to give the appearance of fairness, it needs to be changed from the bottom up, and that means journal reform—as vague as it may sound.  I may not make the same film I want to make due to pre-emption, but law students should not be pre-empted from writing the articles they want to write. 

                Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School.  He enjoys studying bankruptcy law.  He has been told not to be defensive about his failure to obtain journal membership, but he cannot stay quiet in the face of injustice—particularly when it rains down upon him.    

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress #16 - No. 1 Against the Rush

While I have not been as prolific this year, it is not due to any fault of my own.  Whereas last year almost every single one of my columns was posted to BLS Advocate with nary a complaint, there has been a tad bit more scrutiny this year.  NIED #15: Exams/Grades was never posted--though it appeared on this blog (the link is included below if you cannot navigate the archival dates on the right hand side of this blog).  Surprisingly, #16 was considered worthy of publication.  This is a strange piece but it is written to discuss the concept of "rushing around everywhere" as law students tend to do.  Fortunately, columns #17 and #18 were published on BLS Advocate, and they will be posted here shortly (over the next two days).  I have stated that there will be 24 NIED columns in all, and that they will become progressively more esoteric and artistic.  

I may or may not hold myself to that latter adjective, but I will complete 24, and I will state that #19 will appear in January and will be on the topic of post-graduate job applications.  For now enjoy "No. 1 Against the Rush" - free of the edits made for BLS Advocate.

NIED #16: No. 1 Against the Rush

By Christopher J. Knorps

Pitchfork: I suppose I can quiz you on "No. 1 Against the Rush"-- which NFL team held that title last year?

AA: We were talking about the 49ers. They played well last year. Man, fuck. They were contenders.

AH: It's good though because when we titled that song, people thought it was this arty thing against, like, euphoria.*

I

Liars (who put this song out as the first single on their most recent album WIXIW – pronounced “wish you”) are not lawyers, but they are an important band (at least in my opinion) because they constantly challenge the listener’s expectations. With this in mind I dedicate this column to that band and suggest two interpretations gleaned from that song and that football statistic that apply to law school:

1)      Block the rush

2)      Do not mind the rush

In football, if you are number one against the rush, the other team will be forced to pass more often because they will expect you to destroy their running game. So if you are number one against the rush, you may be concerned about pass protection—or even what counts as a catch.

In law school, if you are number one against the rush, it means that you succeed where others fail. “Rush,” in this case, does not mean “euphoria” but rushing around, juggling tasks, and prioritizing (see NIED #7, “Super Administrative Priority Expense,” 3/21/12). With these principles in mind, we may now properly inquire which interpretation of the song is most useful for the average reasonable law student.

II

If you “block the rush,” you may be number one against the rush in football, but you will not be a better law student. Simply put: there is no way to block the rush.

An apt metaphor for “blocking the rush” in the context of law school is difficult to devise. But you will (generally) be forced to rush around, and “blocking” it might simply be saying “no.” 

If you say “no,” it’s still possible to succeed, but with so many other students saying “yes” (and thereby accepting the rush) it will prove more difficult.

III

If you “do not mind the rush,” you will not be number one against the rush in football, but you will be a better law student. Simply put: do not pay attention to what other people are doing.

Some (non-exhaustive) illustrations may be instructive:

·         If you make Moot Court, of course, you may want to participate in the Writing Competition (but it is perfectly acceptable not to do so). 

·         If you do not make Moot Court, it is probably a good idea to at least try your hand at the Writing Competition (but if you are guaranteed a job after graduation by virtue of nepotism, previous professional experience, or the like, then you do not need to do anything except earn C’s—which is quite easy in law school).

·         If you do not make Moot Court or a Journal, you need to be working at an internship every semester, and ideally not “repeating” internships (but I know a few “repeaters”—and I would question this wisdom in the limited circumstances where you are able to meet important people within the organization and they have told you that they like you and offer you the opportunity to stay on through the next semester). 

·         Though it is hardly mandatory that everyone earn some sort of “certificate,” it is generally a good idea to develop an area of focus (but a lot of people say you have to take New York Civil Practice and Criminal Procedure and Corporations and Federal Income Taxation—the result being that you must choose your courses for your last 4 semesters wisely).

IV

If you are on Moot Court, if you are on Journal, if you are working at an internship, if you are taking Securities Regulation, if you are on the e-Board of one or two student organizations, and you work as a research assistant for a professor, then you are probably rushing around.

If you intend to make a film, put a band together for Brookfest, and write seemingly inconsequential columns for the BLS Advocate (among other activities), you are probably rushing around. And the problem with rushing around is that you stand a greater chance of forgetting some important event or appointment you have made. And once you miss an appointment for the first time, you will know how serious an error that is (depending of course on the people involved).

While this syllogism could be criticized as a contradiction (i.e. “you are saying do not ‘say no’ to the rush, but you are also saying do not pay attention to what other students are doing, and your article is a fumbling attempt to make a point where one does not exist”), I feel that it is a subtle piece of advice that students (particularly 1Ls or even “pre-laws”) should take to heart.

V

The principles of law school success do not equate to principles of football success. Law school is not a full contact sport, though there may be poor officiating (see NIED #15, “Exams/Grades,” 9/16/12, available at http://flyinghouses.blogspot.com/2012/09/negligent-infliction-of-emotional_16.html (last visited 9/26/12)). Metaphors in this regard are only devised by means of verbal wizardry, and are hardly worth contemplating.

Music, however, may apply to whatever one desires. And as Liars reflect upon their “breakthrough success” in the neo-no-wave/electroclash “scene” in the Brooklyn music community circa 2002, perhaps BLS alums will offer similar reflections:

Pitchfork: It's been 10 years since you made your first record in New York. Since then, a lot of the bands from that Brooklyn scene have gone away. Do you feel like you had to get away from New York for your own artistic vitality?

AA: In hindsight, it was really a great time, though we definitely didn't want to be part of it then. It's funny, whenever any of those bands from that period puts out a record, I will definitely listen to the whole thing, even though I might not be that interested in the music. I still have that connection. But the thing that bugged us the most was being locked into something. Obviously, it was a journalistic tool to help people. That's fine. Since then, the approach has really been to avoid being part of anything like that as much as possible.

Christopher J. Knorps is a 3L at Brooklyn Law School. He enjoys studying bankruptcy law, is the managing editor of BLS Advocate, is the founder of Monthly Expense Project, serves as a UCD in the SBA, carries 16 credits, is trying to make a film entitled “Batman in Brooklyn,” is trying to put a band together for Brookfest, is trying to get a job that starts in August 2013, is trying to ignore the rush, and has not been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. 

*Interview excerpts courtesy of www.pitchfork.com. The full interview may be found here http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/8826-liars/

Quantum of Solace - Dir. Marc Forster (The Bond Project #22 - JM)

Quantum of Solace (2008)

Dir: Marc Forster

“Like a Bullet”
by
Jay Maronde

                Director Marc Forster scored a major Bond triumph with the 22nd official Eon James Bond film. Quantum of Solace, while not as long or initially as highly-rated as its predecessor Casino Royale, is an amazingly beautiful film which simultaneously features some of the best acting, directing, writing, and action of the entire Bond Canon. Much of this is due to the times surrounding the production of the film, but I believe Forster’s guidance was not only essential, but the true reason why this Bond is so fantastic.

                Marc Forster is the first non-British-Empire-born Bond director EVER. He is of Swiss-German descent, which he maintained gave him some insight into Bond’s character, as Bond’s mother was supposedly Swiss. But if it weren’t for Daniel Craig very strongly recommending him to the producers, he probably would never have gotten the job. For what it’s worth, Forster has repeatedly stated in interviews that he would never have taken the reins had he not previously viewed Casino Royale and really liked the new character development of Bond and the much colder realism. Regardless of the reason Forster was chosen, it was an excellent decision as the Bond he produced is so very little like any other Bond and yet an utterly stunning marvel of a film.

Forster’s influence is very strong throughout the film as the rough draft of the script for Quantum was finished only hours before the Writers’ Strike. Forster and Craig essentially re-wrote large sections of the film themselves, reworking dialogue and even huge plot sections daily while filming. The result of this “automatic director’s cut” is a film which is not only remarkably visually stunning but also has very little dialogue, which is again evidence of Forster’s skill as a director.

Numerous scenes require zero dialogue and the film shows with its images what happens—much in the way that silent films of yore had to tell their stories with expressive acting and well-placed camera angles. The entire pre-credits sequence only features five words of English. The remainder of the film’s opening is probably the most fantastic car chase ever put on film. Moreover, when Forster requires dialogue it is almost always short, pithy, and perfectly Bond. One of my favorite James Bond lines ever occurs in Bolivia when Bond and Strawberry Fields (which by the way is an amazing Bond name, but we will get to her later) arrive at the hotel, and as Bond peruses his luxurious hotel suite, he turns from the bedroom, looks at Fields, and says in a way that only James Bond could: “I can’t find the, um,… the stationery… could you come and help me look?”   Clearly Bond isn’t looking for paper. But Forster manages to maintain the cold reality of James Bond the assassin while at the same time having Daniel Craig completely out-suave all the Roger Moore movies combined. Forster also manages to reference all four major elements and pay homage to numerous Bond and non-Bond classics including Goldfinger, DR. No, North by Northwest, and Citizen Kane. This movie is shorter—quite possibly the shortest of all the Bonds—clocking in at far less than two hours. Forster commented that he wanted to the film to be that way: “Quick and hard hitting, like a bullet.” This fast-paced style of film works incredibly well for a Bond film. There are no gaps in the action, the movie doesn’t drag, the story is central, and much of the ancillary nonsense common amongst Bond movies has been completely removed to keep this rapid pace. In the end this provides for a delightful film that provides more and more enjoyment with each and every viewing.

                Part of what Forster wanted in his “bullet-like” film was to have intense, realistic action. To this end the film features some of the best action sequences in the Canon. First off, the movie starts with a riveting car chase that I feel is easily the best I’ve ever seen, and I have seen plenty of car chases. I will gladly grant the haters that the sequence is short, but the action is so remarkable, the driving is so incredible, and the scenery and cinematography is so thrilling that the sequence easily stands next to the great car chases in film history. They certainly paid for it, as the production team destroyed six $300,000+ Aston Martins during the filming—one of which had already been purchased by a well-funded Bond aficionado—even though it was completely destroyed and Daniel Craig never even sat in it. Shortly after the car chase, Bond is propelled into a remarkable foot chase which pays a great reference to Citizen Kane when Bond and the henchman fall from the roof thru a glass ceiling and into an atrium with the camera steadily following in perfect Welles-ian fashion. Later Bond engages in a dramatic boat chase scene, ostensibly so Forster can achieve the water element of the story. But while the scene is great and Bond obviously kicks serious ass, the beauty is that Bond is driving a boat with the same name as Quarrel’s boat from Dr. No. After some more of the movie plays out, Bond flies an old DC-3 in an epic plane chase sequence that not only references the air element but also pays tremendous homage to North by Northwest. The scene ends with the Bond Classic “jump from an airplane with no parachute and solve that problem on the way down!” Here again Forster shines—as rather than hiring numerous stuntmen to perform and ending up with a lot unbelievable (not in the good way) distance shots of stunt doubles falling, he had the stars Craig and Kurylenko actually perform the scene themselves with the assistance of an indoor sky dive facility. Quantum of Solace is the only Bond film to feature a car chase, a foot chase, a boat chase and a plane chase. All of these action scenes serve not only to advance the plot, but also to keep the audience on the edge of their seats.

                All of Forster’s great direction would have been completely moot had he not had amazing actors to work with. There are few unnecessary characters and all the actors have obviously been pushed to the peak of their performances by Forster who is known for filming constantly even during rehearsals and sometimes even using the rehearsal shots in the film cut. Daniel Craig is back as the coldest, most real Bond ever. He not only is doing a lot of his own stunts but you almost feel like Craig stayed in character between films to be able to really understand the coldness of the soul brought to a man who professionally kills people. Craig literally suffered for the making of this movie, requiring eight stiches and plastic surgery to his face after a mis-choreographed fight sequence gone wrong. He also lost the tip of a finger (which had to be surgically re-attached) in another “too real” scene. Craig has commented that he felt Casino Royale physically was a walk in the park comparatively even though his training was far more extensive for Quantum.

Craig isn’t the only star however, as he is backed up by a fantastic cast who all purposefully aid Forster’s vision.  To not mention Dame Judi Dench would be completely remiss, as she plays one of her larger roles in the Franchise to date, and she is excellent as the MI:6 chief torn between trusting  her best agent and a whole world who is against her and Bond. Her scene with Bond in Bolivia is another excellent example of Forster’s well-thought filmmaking style, as when Bond is “removed from duty”( in classic Bond franchise fashion) Dench is dressed all in white as Craig is dressed in black so as to symbolize their opposing sides of good and evil.

Another very famous and very important woman in the film is Olga Kurylenko as the resplendent undercover Bolivian Agent Camille Montes. Numerous times in the history of the Bond franchise there have been co-stars next to Bond who are supposed to be the “female equivalent of Bond,” some sort of tough female agent who is supposed to be Bond’s equal (be they allies or enemies)—but compared to Kurylenko, they all fall drastically short. This film, for the first time in the Canon, really features a lady agent who can stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Bond. The two never make love—there is only a fleeting kiss as they part ways—but more importantly she is just as personally troubled as Bond and is more than willing to use her sex to achieve her mission objectives (exactly as Bond always does). This is further evidence of Forster’s well-planned directorial style.

                Another delightful cast member (so delightful she deserves her own paragraph) is the Lovely Strawberry Fields, played masterfully by the utterly gorgeous Gemma Arterton. Miss Arterton was chosen from over 1400 applicants for the role and while her performance is fleeting, she is radiant, first as the paper pusher sent to intercept Bond, and later in the greatest self-referencing homage in any film franchise ever, when she is covered in oil and left dead in Bond’s hotel a la Goldfinger. Arterton (who, yes was born a polydactyl (6 fingers and toes on each hand and foot)) and her strawberry hair were already a physical homage to all the remarkable red-headed Bond ladies throughout the Franchise, but the oil scene in which she really suffered through being painted completely black was such a fantastic homage that die hard Bond fans still gasp every time they see her lifeless black body.  It’s also worth noting that the viewer never learns her name is Strawberry Fields until the end credits roll, as no matter how many times Bond asks her name, she always responds, “Just Fields.”

                Any Bond movie would be lacking without a strong villain and Quantum of Solace surely took note of this fact with numerous villains and henchmen throughout the film. First off there is the special type of old illuminati evil that is Mr. White (once again played by the resilient Jesper Christensen, reprising his role from Casino Royale). While Mr. White is once again devilishly good, the real star on Team Bad Guys is one Dominic Greene (played by the French actor Mathieu Amalric). Mr. Greene is one of the few Bond villains in the Franchise and who has no outward physical deformities, but he is still a really, really, creepy looking villain. Amalric, who has publicly stated numerous times that this was the role of a lifetime and that he felt unable to refuse the honor as there was no way his future self could have ever explained to his children that he turned down the role of a Bond villain, apparently asked Forster several times to include some form of prop or effect or something to make his character more villain-ish, but Forster staunchly refused, citing his realistic vision of the film. While it may not seem like a compliment, I personally think that Amalric is more than freaky enough as a Bond villain. The scene where he arrives in Austria and hops into his waiting limo as CIA agents look on always reminds me of a snake who has dislocated its jaw to enable to consumption of overly large prey, and his fight with Bond at the end of the film is just as dramatic and far more gripping than any other final battle that Bond has with any of the other villains in the entire franchise. His scene with Bond and Camille at the party is another point where the film’s writing and directing are beyond reproach, as when Bond and Greene meet, Greene says to Bond, “My friends call me Dom-min-nic,” and Bond retorts, “I’m sure that they do.”

Amalric’s slick non-American sounding way of saying Dom-MIN-nic is first off evil in just the particular way that you would expect a super villain to be evil. Bond’s retort is priceless, perfectly pithy, perfectly-Bond, and the look that Amalric shoots back in response is a special kind of evil. In interviews Amalric has stated that he tried to base the character of Greene on a cross between Tony Blair and Nicholas Sarkozy (who he claims is the worst villain the French people have ever known) but whatever his methods, he isn’t just creepy or weird, he is downright evil in a way that is rarely expressed so well on film.

While on the topic of villains, this review would be completely remiss without mentioning the stunning performance of Joaquin Casio as General Medrano. Casio was absolutely the perfect casting for the coup leading serial rapist General Medrano. He looks the part, he sounds the part, and his impressive physical size next to Kurylenko and his other attempted rape victim make him a great casting decision—but he almost didn’t get the role, as during pre-production none other than AL PACINO expressed interest in the role.  Negotiations betwixt Pacino’s people and the Eon productions team were rather extensive, and it never came to fruition, but as a big Pacino fan myself I can only imagine what might have been.

                While this film relies heavily upon fantastic action, writing, and acting to get its points across, I feel that the music department at Eon certainly deserves a mention for its outstanding work in this film. First and foremost the title song “Another Way to Die,” performed by Jack White and Alicia Keys, is exquisite. The song is not only very Bond-ish, but also a very good pop rock song easily worthy of a place on the Billboard charts. This song was actually the second choice of the producers, as Amy Winehouse and Mark Ronson did record a demo for the song but the producers felt that they needed to pass, as due to Winehouse’s “personal issues,” they couldn’t be assured of a timely delivery of the song. Someday that demo tape is going to go up for auction and it’s going to be worth a lot of money. But the music doesn’t just play a role in this singular part of the film as it does in many Bond movies. The score throughout this whole film is absolutely critical as it enhances every scene from the very first moment as the film opens with low strings and a long pan to the car chase, all the way through the very last moment when the iconic James Bond theme plays.

Also of note is the delightful opera scene which was really shot during an actual performance of Tosca at the real floating opera which is really in Bregenz, Austria. The opera scene is a gorgeous piece of cinematography, and it was a matter of outstanding luck that the real Bregenz Opera was actually performing during the time of filming. Tosca, with its own convoluted plot line of revenge, is perfect as a backdrop, and the uber-postmodern opera house with its giant eyeball sets fit perfectly into the James Bond Mythos. The music team also scored Bond’s escape from said opera house perfectly using the music from Tosca to provide an amazing backdrop for another essentially silent segment of the film. At all points in the film the music seems to carry the viewer seamlessly from one segment to another much the way an organ player would have in a classic silent film of yore.

                I’m going come right out and say it: Quantum of Solace is the best of the Bonds. The film is easily the best-planned and executed Bond film in a very long time—but more importantly to me the film’s brevity is really at the heart of what makes it so special. Forster wastes not a frame with uselessness. The film is really as he desired and described: like a bullet. Many have complained about the fact that this is the only direct sequel in the franchise, but honestly the film only really deals with leftover issues from Casino Royale at the very beginning and very end, leaving the rest of the movie as a monument to epic filmmaking, and evidence of what a wonderful director can do with a very large budget.

               

               

Casino Royale - Dir. Martin Campbell (The Bond Project #21 - JM)

Casino Royale (2006)

Dir: Martin Campbell

Re-Rebirth of Bond
by
Jay Maronde

                 

                For the 21^st Bond the Producers at Eon Productions wanted to start the slate clean. Through various deals with Sony the rights to the original Ian Fleming James Bond novel had finally been acquired, and they would make the “first Bond” for the first time as a restart to the Franchise. Martin Campbell, who had directed GoldenEye several years earlier, was re-hired, and an extensive search was conducted to find a new Bond. Soon thereafter, a very controversial choice was made with Daniel Craig to star in the role.

                Let me start right here with Daniel Craig: he is easily the best of the Bonds, hands DOWN. Daniel Craig put a tremendous amount of effort into the Bond role, reading every single Fleming novel and gaining 20 pounds of muscle in anticipation. And it shows—as this new Bond is tougher, colder and more real—much like you would imagine a British assassin to be like. The pre-credits sequence, which is the first James Bond scene ever filmed in black and white, explains the circumstances by which Bond acquires his 00 status and his license to kill, in a manner that introduces this new Bond very clearly as a cold, dark, murderous character. Shortly after this opening scene, the newly “made” agent is sent on a mission to question a bomb-maker. When the spot is blown, Bond chases him down in a fantastic parkour (extreme running) scene in which Bond destroys an entire construction site and runs directly through a wall like the unstoppable force that he is. When the bomb-maker escapes into an embassy, Bond follows him directly in and assaults the entire place to drag his prisoner back out. It’s worth noting that this scene is indicative of how this new Bond not only does not give a fuck but will single handedly disable an entire enemy force (without actually murdering any of them). Clearly this causes some hell back at MI6 where a very upset M. (with Dame Judi Dench anachronistically reprising her classic role better than ever before) tells Bond to get lost. So Bond goes to the Bahamas, and finds his way back into trouble, but only after first seducing a henchman’s wife, and acquiring  a classic Aston Martin db5. Bond goes to Miami, and in another way too cold scene, murders the henchman right as a camera crew is passing while the two are at the Bodies Exposition (it is worth noting that this is the first time there has ever been an actual corpse seen in any James Bond film, ever, even though they are part of the exhibit). 

                Bond stops the henchman’s plans, which the upsets the film’s main villain, Le Chiffre’s, master plan. Le Chiffre is a fantastic villain, one of the ultimates in the entire James Bond Canon. He is an evil banker (which, considering recent feelings against Wall Street types, is probably evil enough to make him super evil already) but he also weeps blood, which by the way is a real, yet super freaky condition. Anyways, this super evil villain has been gambling his clients’ money in the stock market while attempting to radically affect the market through acts of terrorism. Now that Bond has foiled his plans his only chance of getting the money back is through a high stakes poker game at Casino Royale.  This is Bond’s next assignment: defeat Le Chiffre in the poker game and thereby force him to defect from his life of crime and tell MI6 about all the bad dudes who are his clients (Bond is obviously the best poker player in the service and is the only choice for this job). While riding the train to the poker match, Bond meets his contact from HM treasury, the gorgeous Vesper Lynd (who is portrayed wonderfully by the stunningly beautiful Eva Green in what is literally a performance of a lifetime) who first denies Bond’s advances, but later falls hard and fast for him in a romance that has been described as the only woman Bond ever loved.  Also worth noting is that the martini that Bond concocts at Casino Royale and names “The Vesper” is really the “official James Bond martini” as espoused in the Ian Fleming novels, and if you’ve never had one I would urge you strongly to try one as while they are very strong they are fantastic. Bond beats Le Chiffre in the poker match—but that’s only about 2/3 of the way through the film. The rest of the film is about the love between Bond and Lynd. The fact that this film is really three Bonds in one (Bond gets his 00; Bond wins at Casino Royale; Bond & Vesper) is a big part of the reason that this is, by far, the longest Bond film, and also a great deal of the reason why this film is so wonderful to watch. The viewer is drawn into the James Bond universe as never before.

                While in the James Bond Universe there are certain things that the viewer expects. One of these major things is Q branch. But while Bond has some very impressive equipment, there is no Q branch briefing, and much like Dr. No, Bond relies much more on brute force and tricks of the trade rather than gizmos. One thing that Q branch does deliver is a brand-new, super-nice, racing-edition Aston Martin DBS. This car, while not featured that prominently, is the newest, slickest Bond car yet. The car and the franchise also set a Guinness World Record (again) later on in the film when Bond flips it and rolls the car 7 times. This scene was really filmed, and a stunt man was really in the vehicle (driving at over 70 mph) when the car was flipped, completely destroying the $200,000+ asset. Another Bond fixture that returns in Casino Royale is our old friend Felix Leiter, played wonderfully this time by Jeffrey Wright. Wright’s Leiter is spot-on and his acting and on-screen rapport with Bond is beyond reproach.

                With Casino Royale the Eon Productions team didn’t just manage to restart the James Bond movie series—they managed to make a masterpiece. The actors, the action, the stunts, the plots, the cars—every single aspect of this film has been taken to the next level and beyond. Daniel Craig, while initially causing a media row over being the first Blonde Bond, is utterly heartstoppingly fantastic: he’s so hard, so cold, so real it’s beyond description. The only advice I can give is to pay close attention to Daniel Craig if you really want to see a great feat of acting. Further, this movie wonderfully sets up the rest of the franchise and really begins to illustrate the reasons why Bond is so Bond. Casino Royale is simply a “must-see.”