"Well I'm here." - Case Study: Skyfall
 |
| Skyfall filmstudies, ink in sketchbook, digital colors in Photoshop |
Skyfall might very well be the best looking Bond film. As you probably know, It was of course shot by Roger Deakins, who is one of the greatest cinematographers of our time. And he sure is in top form here.
But when I rewatched this film there was this one scene that really bothered me. To be specific it bothered me that during this conversation, Bond is kept to the left side of the screen while M is on the right. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it, but something felt off about this; like it should be the other way around. After watching it multiple times and even sketching out the shots (pictured at the top of this article) I noticed that there is more going on here than you might initially think.
Have a look at these stills, or even better watch the full scene on youtube:
Now, when I say that something felt off I don’t mean to imply that the filmmakers messed up, with people like Sam Mendes and Roger Deakins it’s a safe bet that everything you’ll see is as it was intended. If they break the rules it is for a reason so what is going on here?
First of all, except for the first two shots this entire scene is filmed handheld, the camera is moving ever so slightly and the shot is always at a slight angle.
But more important is that when M looks over her shoulder to discover Bond sulking in the dark, he actually is on the right side of her (screen-right). At first both Bond and M are kept more or less in the centre of the frame. Then M walks to (screen)left to turn on a light and then we get to the weird Bond on the left, M on the right bit. So it is actually the breaking of the pattern that bothered me.
I believe that the break in screen side and the handheld camera are very deliberate, because the whole point of the scene is that something is off. Bond is back but he is not sure if this is the right choice and he is unsure as to how far he can trust M.
Later on I listened to Sam Mendes commentary track on the BluRay and he specifically mentions the importance of this scene. In fact he tells how they went back to redo this scene because in their first take at the end of the scene, everything seemed to be all right again, and he thought that that was wrong. He felt that at this moment in the story everything is still very uncertain and both Bond and M are unsure if they can trust each other:
"There is an interesting story attached to this scene: I shot it once and I felt I got it wrong. I thought I staged it badly and it was bit safe. I also thought it was too long and a bit polite. When I got to watch it in dailies, (...) I asked if I could shoot it again.
Because I felt (that) it is a pivotal scene, really, and I felt that Bond wasn’t in enough pain and also that they were too nice to each other. So much of this movie is about the relationship between Bond and M, it’s very important that it’s not resolved in this scene. And I suppose the big note from the previous version was that they seemed to end up being good friends again.
He knows perhaps he shouldn’t be, he knows perhaps he might be finished, and he says it himself: so we’re both played out. And she says, if you thought that why did you come back. And that seems to me a pivotal moment. But, even at the end of this scene, Bond himself is not sure he’s made the right choice. "
I think it’s one of the best bits of acting from Daniel in the movie: the pain you see., the lack of vanity. Looking how he does in the scene, which is pretty shot. And particularly the way he says, ‘Well, I’m here’ the sense in which he almost can’t believe he is back.
So, to me this a great example of how you can break the rules to advance the story. The fact that I felt something was not right in the scene was exactly what the filmmakers wanted me to feel.
