A Modest Defense of Tanya Roberts as Bond Girl Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill"

One of the most reviled Bond Girls is former "Charlie's Angels" actress Tanya Roberts as California geologist Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill" (1985).  Whenever lists of the best or worst Bond Girls are put out by know-nothing magazine writers, she usually ranks at the top of the list in terms of being among the worst examples of what a Bond Girl represents.  I've acknowledged at different times in my blog that Roberts' performance in "A View to a Kill" wasn't ideal and that I think Priscilla Barnes (a much better actress who played Della Churchill in 1989's "Licence to Kill) would have been a preferable choice in the role.  (Barnes would have brought some nuances to the role that would have given it more gravitas and depth.)  Nevertheless, I think that the level of vitriol directed at Roberts by some Bond fans through the years has become overstated and misplaced at times.  At the risk of jeopardizing my own credibility at discussing movies, I don't think Roberts' performance is as bad as people have alleged through the years.  It's a flawed character and performance, but Roberts has a couple of moments in the movie where her acting comes across okay and, even if she and Roger Moore don't exactly set the screen on fire with their scenes together, they at least seem at ease with one another and appear to enjoy each others company.  I find both Roberts's performance, and the Stacey Sutton character itself, endearingly clumsy in the movie. 

I've always felt that one reason why the Bond movies remain relevant all these decades later is because they are a cinematic Rorschach test in terms of tastes and perspectives.  Just a glance at Bond movie message boards on the internet confirms how none of the movies, or the elements in them, are seen the same way by two different people.  That's why it's fun to discuss and revisit the movies in order to debate and discuss one's favorite Bond actor or Bond movie.  Tanya Roberts as Stacey Sutton is consistently criticized by Bond fans on these message boards, but sometimes it feels like the people who are saying she is awful seem to enjoy saying they hate her just for the sake of it.  They act as if her performance was so bad that it somehow ruined their lives.  I recall someone on a message board saying how Priscilla Presley, who was also considered for the role of Stacey, would have been a preferable choice for the role.  I chuckled when I read that because whoever wrote it evidently never saw Presley's five-year stint as Jenna Wade on the hit prime time soap "Dallas" from 1984 thru 1989.  If you go over to "Dallas" message boards, you'll find that fans of that series hate Presley for what they perceive to be her whiny disposition and weak acting--which are the same criticisms that Bond fans lodge against Tanya Roberts' work in "A View to a Kill."  On that basis, Presley would not have been better than Roberts in the role.

Tanya Roberts is an easy whipping-boy for Bond fans, but I sometimes wonder if director John Glen isn't also to blame for the qualities in Stacey Sutton that people respond negatively to.  I recall Glen saying in his memoirs that he had doubts about Roberts' acting ability and that he consulted John Guillerman, who had just directed Roberts in "Sheena" (1984) as to whether he felt she could act.  I remember in college an acting professor telling us that, if an actor gives a bad performance in a movie, you shouldn't only blame the actor.  You should also blame the director because he or she made the final decision to hire that person and should have known based on their audition, or prior work, what they were capable of bringing to the role.  Since John Glen acknowledges he had doubts about Tanya Roberts' acting ability, he needs to take responsibility for hiring her to play Stacey.  I also recall on the DVD supplements for "A View to a Kill," Glen introduced some deleted scenes which included a scene between Stacey and her boss Mr. Howe (Daniel Benzali), where she tries to convince him of the dangers of arch villain Zorin's (Christopher Walken) plan to pump sea water into the Hayward Fault.  While introducing the deleted scene, Glen admits that "somehow this scene didn't work terribly well.  I think I started to shoot it and didn't bother to do any close shots in the end and I always thought I'd pick the scene up when Roger (Moore) enters the scene outside the elevators.  And that is, in fact, what happens."  When you watch the deleted scene, you don't get any sense that director Glen did more than one take of it, much less rehearsed it or gave the actors any direction on how to play it.  The fact that Glen didn't put much thought into the scene also suggests the extent to which he didn't try to work with Roberts to help develop her performance more effectively.

I think it's too bad because Tanya Roberts could've been a good Bond Girl if only she had been cast in a part more appropriate for her that allowed her to demonstrate qualities that worked well for her in other roles.  When she was on "Charlie's Angels," Roberts had a scrappy, street-wise quality that struck an effective contrast with her more refined co-stars Jaclyn Smith and Cheryl Ladd.  Her husky/raspy speaking voice, tinged with the remnants of her Bronx accent, gave her gravitas in some of her more serious scenes on that series.  On "Charlie's Angels," Roberts had a confidence and assurance that was absent in "A View to a Kill," as well as a feisty, athletic quality in the action scenes that demonstrated she could have been an exciting heroine in the Bond series.  None of those qualities were utilized in "A View to a Kill" and I sometimes feel that Roberts was miscast as the demure damsel-in-distress Stacey Sutton.  John Glen cast her in a role that didn't play to her strengths, which is why I think her performance was considered grating by some Bond fans.  In fact, I sometimes feel Roberts should have been cast as former Army pilot-turned-DEA operative Pam Bouvier in "Licence to Kill."  Carey Lowell always seemed too light-weight to have the grit required for that role, and I think Roberts' scrappy Bronx edginess might have served that role better, especially if she went back to being a brunette instead of being bleached blonde like she was for "A View to a Kill."  (As information, check out at the 6:08 mark Roberts' entrance scene in her debut episode of "Charlie's Angels."  You can see it on YouTube here.  Ironically, she's acting in this scene opposite "Licence to Kill" featured player Don Stroud, who played Heller in that movie.  I believe you will get an idea of the quality that I feel would have made her a better Pam Bouvier than Carey Lowell.) 

Ironically, as written, the role of Stacey Sutton probably sounded pretty good to Roberts from the outset.  Unlike other actresses who have played Bond Girls, and who claim that their roles are different than the ones that came before (a tiresome cliche coming from every actress who ever appeared in a Bond movie), Stacey Sutton was indeed a different kind of leading lady for the series.  She wasn't a spy, or a mistress of some villain, or someone living or working in an exotic location doing something glamorous or dangerous.  She was basically an American and a civilian, a scientist studying rocks and minerals of the Earth, living and working in the San Francisco area on her family's empty estate.  In many ways, she was similar to Kate Warner in Season 2 of "24," another blonde American civilian from California whose life is turned upside down when a government agent with the initials "J.B." unexpectedly enters her life and asks for her assistance to avert the destruction of a major metropolitan area in the state.  The only extraordinary thing about Stacey is that she was the heiress to her family's oil company but got a job working as a California state geologist once Zorin stole it in a rigged proxy fight.  We learn that she got a degree in geology with the expectation she'd run the family business someday.  For once, we actually learn quite a bit about the leading lady in a Bond movie as Stacey is provided a family history and back story that is unusual for the series.  What isn't acknowledged enough about Stacey is that she was a person of decency and integrity.  She wasn't a character in a larger-than-life situation lounging around wearing sexually revealing outfits, or someone who easily gave into Bond's charms the first night he spent at her house.  In fact, he sleeps in the chair guarding the house while she goes to sleep.  It's only at the end of the film, after Bond and Stacey defeat Zorin, that they consummate their relationship by taking a shower back at her house. 

Perhaps people found Stacey uninteresting because she was probably one of the more "normal" leading ladies the Bond series ever had.  However, on the surface of it, there was potentially a lot of substance to the character had Roberts played it with a bit more gravitas and assurance.  I think one reason why Roberts is unconvincing at playing a geologist is that, with the exception of the scene where she discovers and explains Zorin's plans to destroy Silicon Valley as well as her early scenes at Zorin's estate in Chantilly, France where she appears haughty and aloof to Bond, she plays the rest of the movie with kind of a light, high pitched voice that contrasts with her normally husky/raspy delivery and considerably undermines her credibility at being a scientist.  However, Roberts is still better than Denise Richards as Nuclear physicist Christmas Jones in "The World is Not Enough" (1999).  Richards plays her role with an air of indifferent petulance that undermines her credibility, whereas Roberts gives a comparatively more sincere performance even if she sounds whiny at times.  Roberts seems glad to be in the movie and is at least trying to give a competent and sympathetic performance as Stacey, whereas Richards seems so disconnected and disinterested that she never seems to give a damn throughout her Bond movie of creating any sort of mood with her character.

Roberts' aforementioned voice also sounded terrible throughout the action scenes in the movie where Stacey is screaming "Oh James!" or "James, help me!" because her naturally husky voice wasn't suited to playing scenes that required her to be so helpless, which inadvertently caused her to sound screechy.  Especially in the scenes where Bond rescues Stacey from the fire at San Francisco's City Hall; where Bond and Stacey elude the SFPD through the streets of the city by stealing the Fire Engine; the sequence in the Main Strike mineshaft where May Day (Grace Jones) stalks Bond and Stacey and tries to pull them down as they try and climb out of the mine; the scene where Zorin sneaks up on Stacey from behind her in the blimp; and the fight on top of the Golden Gate Bridge where Stacey is dangling from atop one of the pylons, Roberts plays all of these action sequences from a hapless, helpless, at times hysterical perspective (even though Stacey's commitment to cooperating with Bond to defeat Zorin never waivers).  Her reactions to the situations going on around her would understandably be confusing to a civilian not used to espionage or action.  Nevertheless, Roberts should have played Stacey in the action scenes from the perspective of a normal person caught up in danger, who is uncertain of herself, but who stays calm and eventually rises to the occasion with grit and determination.  I think the audience would have accepted Stacey better if she had kept her cool throughout the action scenes.  Unfortunately, she didn't and, in so doing, opened herself up to the criticism she has received since then.  However, Roberts has stated in interviews that she had issues with the extent to which Stacey was portrayed so submissively in the movie, which lends credibility to my suggestion that John Glen's direction in the movie hindered her performance. 

Ironically, it's in the non-action dialogue scenes in "A View to a Kill" that I believe Tanya Roberts does good work.  The dinner scene in the kitchen of her home where Bond cooks for her has a relaxed quality that is notably different than other scenes between Bond and the other leading ladies of his movies.  Some might say that there is no chemistry between Roger Moore or Tanya Roberts in the movie as a whole, but I kind of like the fact that, for once, Bond isn't initially interested in the leading lady on a romantic or sexual level, but is trying to get at the truth of what Zorin might be up to and hopes Stacey can provide that information.  Stacey feels at ease with Bond because she senses that he has no ulterior motives with her, and I sense that Tanya Roberts and Roger Moore sincerely enjoyed working with each other.  Except for the final scene in the movie, there is an overall platonic friendship between Bond and Stacey that I find endearing.  I also think Roberts is good in the scene the next morning, after the mild earth tremor, when Bond mentions to Stacey that Zorin is pumping seawater into Zorin's oil wells near the Hayward Fault.  Roberts registers the appropriate level of outrage and determination at learning of this information.

Probably Roberts' best moment in the movie is the scene inside the Main Strike Mine where Stacey and Bond stumble upon Zorin's plans to rig explosives to try and set off both the San Andreas and Hayward Faults in order to start a double earthquake that will destroy Silicon Valley.  ("He'll kill millions!  These green lights, they're Zorin's oil wells, the ones he's been using to pump sea water into the Hayward fault.   These (tunnels) lead straight into this section of the San Andreas fault.  You know, Zorin just has to blast through the bottom of these lakes to flood the fault...Except that right beneath us is the key geological lock that...that keeps the faults from moving at once.")  Roberts has a very controlled tone to her voice throughout this sequence as she explains the scientific and technical aspects of Zorin's scheme to Bond and demonstrates the right level of awe and concern upon realizing what Zorin is up to.  Unlike the rest of her performance, she demonstrates a level of confidence and assurance that would have considerably strengthened the character if she had used it throughout the movie.  The scene shows what the rest of Roberts' performance could have been like had both she and John Glen worked more effectively at developing the Stacey Sutton character.

Even though Tanya Roberts was not one of the best Bond Girls the series had to offer, I sincerely believe she had some moments that allowed her to rank higher than Jill St. John, Britt Ekland, or Denise Richards, who I feel were far worse as Bond Girls in the series.  I think Roberts tried to create a sympathetic, down-to-earth character, a person who the audience might easily identify with compared to other, larger-than-life Bond girls in the series.  However, I think she was hampered by being miscast in a role that didn't play to her strengths and I am convinced she didn't get much help from director John Glen to bring out the best in her performance.  Nevertheless, as written, the character does have substantial screen time (perhaps too much, in the eyes of her detractors!) and does play a significant role in helping Bond defeat arch-villain Zorin in "A View to a Kill."  That's more than could be said for the leading ladies of the acclaimed "Skyfall" (2012), who I've blogged about before were saddled with the most thankless and insignificant roles of any Bond Girls in the entire series.  If there's any virtue to Stacey Sutton, it's that, whether you like her or not, she did not play an expendable role in "A View to a Kill" the way Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) or Severine (Berenice Marlohe) played in their Bond movie.  If you take Stacey out of "A View to a Kill," and I'm sure some fans would love to do that, you would be left with a considerably different movie, whereas if you took Moneypenny or Severine out of "Skyfall," the plot and structure of that story would likely have remained largely the same.  For better or worse, Stacey Sutton contributed a great deal to the overall plot and storyline of "A View to a Kill."  Tanya Roberts as Stacey Sutton in "A View to a Kill" may not have been the best Bond Girl the series had to offer, but there's something to be said for actually showing up and getting the job done, rather than just sitting on the sidelines like Eve and Severine did in "Skyfall."

How about Kathryn Bigelow to direct "Bond 24"?

 
I just read that director Sam Mendes has officially declared that he's not returning to do "Bond 24," the next entry in the James Bond series.  This is a disappointment to fans of the series, who felt that he brought something unique to "Skyfall" (2012) that helped distinguish it as a superior James Bond film.  Christopher Nolan is a name often suggested by fans to helm the next Bond movie.  While I completely agree that he would make a great Bond movie, I think he would make a film that might be too similar to "Skyfall," if the tone of his "Dark Knight" trilogy of films is any indication.  While that is not a bad idea at all to have another film similar to "Skyfall," I think the next Bond movie should continue to forge new paths for the series and not just imitate what came immediately before.  I have a suggestion for someone who I think would also do a fantastic job and also bring a different perspective on the series.  Kathryn Bigelow.

I realize Bigelow might be a controversial suggestion given the acrimony from political reactionaries surrounding her latest film "Zero Dark Thirty" (2012) and its depiction of torture.  Perhaps Bigelow might be considered too risky to be associated with the Bond series.  After all, it is a series that has always appealed to the widest demographic of moviegoers.  But, in the last few years, producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson have made conscientious choices that demonstrate the extent that they are willing to take risks with the series.  I hope the political controversy surrounding "Zero Dark Thirty" does not dissuade them from putting her on their short list of "Bond 24" directorial candidates.  In fact, I suspect, given the way "Skyfall" was overlooked at Oscar-time, that they would welcome working with a filmmaker who evokes a strong reaction from a certain segment of the public in order to continue sending a clear message to Hollywood that they intend to keep pushing the envelope with Bond.  Hiring Kathryn Bigelow would be another significant step by Broccoli and Wilson in their continuing, largely successful, efforts to bring legitimacy to Bond.

There are a variety of reasons why I think Bigelow would do a great job directing "Bond 24."  She's an Oscar-winning filmmaker with an acumen for films with action and suspense.  She's a visually-oriented storyteller who will ensure that "Bond 24" will continue the trend set by "Skyfall" of creating a film that will be absolutely stunning to look at.  As reflected in the Oscar-nominations for actors Jessica Chastain (in "Zero Dark Thirty") and Jeremy Renner (for "The Hurt Locker"), she has sensitivity when it comes to directing actors and is the rare action filmmaker who knows how to emphasize story and character in her films.  Her work on "Zero Dark Thirty" proves that she has immense confidence in knowing how to direct a large-scale, epic movie involving international locations and multiple elements, which is one of the trademark characteristics of a Bond movie.  There's no doubt that she would be an effective ringleader in a three-ring Bond circus.

 
Even though "Zero Dark Thirty" became subject to wide debate about its factual accuracy, no one can doubt the earthy manner in which Bigelow portrayed the intelligence community in her film.  She brought a unique perspective to a milieu and subject matter we've seen portrayed in countless other films and TV shows.  And her interview with the New York Times, where she continually gave credit to key members of her crew for the artistic excellence of "Zero Dark Thirty," instead of focusing only on herself like other directors would, suggests that she is a very generous and effective leader on a film set.  This is an important quality for anyone directing a Bond movie to have as they must skillfully guide the path of a major film involving hundreds of cast and crew members through a lengthy shooting and post-production schedule lasting up to a year.  This also suggests that Bigelow would be able to build a strong, diplomatic relationship with Bond producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson where she would be able to work with them to bring her own unique vision to "Bond 24," while at the same time acknowledge the iconic elements that define a Bond movie. 

Bigelow also appears to have a strong relationship with Sony Pictures' co-chair Amy Pascal, who came to her defense when "Zero Dark Thirty" (which was distributed by Sony) was criticized by some reactionaries as purportedly advocating torture.  This is important, as Sony Pictures is co-financing and distributing "Bond 24," and it's helpful that whoever is directing this film is someone that Amy Pascal has great faith in.  Also, even though Bigelow has directed many films whose central characters are strong-willed men like Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson in "K-19: The Widowmaker" (2002), and is by no means a filmmaker who shows preferential treatment to women, she demonstrated in films like "Strange Days" (1995) and "Zero Dark Thirty" that she knows how to create good parts for women in her films.  After the disappointingly small roles that Eve Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and Severine (Berenice Marlohe) played in "Skyfall," it would be nice to know that there's a filmmaker at the helm of "Bond 24" who won't pay short shrift to the Bond Girls the way Sam Mendes did in "Skyfall."  (Also, Ralph Fiennes--the new "M" in the Bond series, worked with Bigelow on "Strange Days," and that may help establish a strong working rapport between the two to ensure that the new "M" remains a vital element in the new film.)

I hope I am not being patronizing or condescending by calling attention to her gender, but I think having Kathryn Bigelow at the helm of "Bond 24" would also go a long way to help silence any of Bond's naysayers who continually characterize the series as sexist and misogynist.  Anyone who has watched the series as a whole realizes that there are a variety of different portrayals of women on-screen in the Bond series, and so it doesn't deserve that unfair label that persists to this day.  (Especially because there is already a strong female presence behind-the-scenes on the Bond series with producer Barbara Broccoli carrying on the family tradition set by her father Albert R. "Cubby" Broccoli.)  Since there was some criticism that "Skyfall" killed off Judi Dench's "M" and replaced her with a younger male (Ralph Fiennes' Mallory) who is now in-charge of MI-6, which was perceived as a patriarchal reassertion of authority in the series, I think Bigelow's participation would help to quiet any critics who feel the Bond series lost a strong female presence with the death of Dench's character in the last film.  With Kathryn Bigelow on board, Bond would still be taking direction from a woman.  But instead of it being a fictional female character on-screen playing Bond's boss, we would have a talented and authoritative woman in real-life directing the actions and activities of Daniel Craig's James Bond, and all the other characters, in "Bond 24." 

Eve Should've Jumped into the Car and Gone to "Skyfall"

Watching the new James Bond movie, "Skyfall" (2012) is a very bittersweet experience for me.  As I've mentioned before on this blog, my late father was a big fan of the James Bond series and it was a tradition in our family to go see every new Bond movie on the first night of release.  My father was unable to see "Skyfall" because he passed away in the hospital the same weekend that it opened in the United States.  I remember on the evening of Friday, November 9, 2012, when I was with him in his hospital room, CNN was reporting on the release of "Skyfall" in the United States that day.  The irony occurred to me that my father and I would have been in line to see "Skyfall" at the local movie theater at that very moment if he was not battling lung cancer.  It made me realize how important it is to enjoy and savor the little things in life with your loved ones when things are going well and everybody is enjoying good health.  I now value those moments I spent with my father going to see the James Bond movies, as those were sincerely happy times that I spent with him.

I know my father would have enjoyed "Skyfall."  I was very impressed with how producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson raised the bar with this film and helped to ensure that all parties involved with "Skyfall" brought their A-Game.  Daniel Craig continues to impress me with his portrayal of Bond.  Not only does he have the requisite elements of confidence, sophistication, brutality, and wit, but he also brings refreshing moments of humanity and vulnerability to the role that never seems as forced as when Pierce Brosnan superficially attempted to bring depth to Bond during his stint with the series in the 1990s.  Judi Dench was also marvelous as M, bringing surprising levels of ruthlessness and fallibility to an already established character in a manner that never seemed contrived.  Javier Bardem was a bit too outré for my tastes in the role of Raoul Silva, the arch-villain of the piece, but he at least creates a unique and worthy adversary for Bond.  The screenplay was witty and exciting and created interesting conflicts and moments of genuine feeling and emotion that were rare for a Bond movie.  And Adele's haunting and catchy title song sets just the right tone for the movie.  I am sure my father would have appreciated all of these elements in addition to the requisite action and suspense that is expected of Bond.

However, there was one aspect of the movie where Broccoli and Wilson and director Sam Mendes may have dropped the ball and that involves the thankless role of the Bond Girls this time around.  (I suspected something was awry months ago when the first posters for "Skyfall" appeared and ostensible leading lady Naomie Harris received fourth billing in the credits.  Typically, the leading Bond Girl receives second or, at worst, third billing in the credits, but never before has she ever received billing as low as fourth place as she does here.  It made me wonder how big a role the Bond Girls would have in "Skyfall.")  The Bond movies have always been unique in the action genre because the women in them are not expendable elements as they are in other action films.  The Bond Girl may occasionally be decorative, or reflect gender stereotyping, but they typically always played meaty, vital roles in each respective Bond movie.  I've always enjoyed and appreciated what the Bond Girl brings to the entire James Bond series.  I am always interested in seeing how each new leading lady in the series is substantively integrated into the storyline.  That isn't the case this time around.  Naomie Harris as MI-6 agent Eve Moneypenny, and Berenice Marlohe as Silva's trapped and quietly desperate courtesan Severine are almost completely expendable characters in "Skyfall."  The only purpose to have Eve in the movie is to accidentally shoot Bond in the pre-credits sequence, causing him to fall from the train into the river (and causing MI-6 to lose the harddrive with the identity of embedded agents) thus setting up the personal crisis that both Bond and M are forced to contend with in having to reestablish their credibility in MI-6.  Severine seems to only exist in so far as to bring Bond to the abandoned island that is Silva's lair so that Bond can apprehend him and take him back to London.  Even though they each have some good scenes, they are mere plot devices who serve no other purpose in the movie than what I just indicated, and what little role they do have could have easily been filled by any of the male characters in the movie.

The shame of it all is that Eve and Severine make strong initial impressions in the movie.  When Eve is introduced in the pre-titles chase sequence in Istanbul, she appears to be an assured, competent field agent who we expect will be a vital ally to Bond for the remainder of the movie.  We don't expect Eve to be sidelined for much of "Skyfall" and appear sporadically throughout.  Even when Eve has tailed Bond to Macau and helps cover him in the Casino, she contributes very little to that sequence in the story aside from shaving his beard in his hotel room and helping him dispatch one of Severine's bodyguards.  And Eve's participation in repelling Silva's attack at the public inquiry, where M had been interrogated by Members of Parliament, is limited to little more than firing a few shots to cover Bond and helping to clear the MPs from the room.  Unlike Bond Girls before her, Eve does very little to move the plot of "Skyfall" forward.  (Even imperfectly portrayed Bond Girls like Tanya Roberts's Stacey Sutton in 1985's "A View to a Kill" played meaty roles in their respective films.  Stacey had a clearly established adversarial relationship with arch-villain Zorin, and her knowledge of geology helps Bond uncover Zorin's master plan to flood Silicon Valley.  It's just too bad the character wasn't better directed or acted.)  Eve doesn't even participate in very many key scenes back at MI-6 headquarters involving M, Mallory (Ralph Fiennes), or Q (Ben Whishaw), which would have at least given her more screen time and helped to establish her role in the organization.  Eve doesn't even appear in the finale at Bond's ancestral home, Skyfall.  She is largely absent in the final act of the movie, which makes her announcement in the epilogue that she has decided not to return to field duty, and will be the assistant to the new M (Mallory) all the more perplexing.  Aside from accidentally shooting Bond at the beginning of the film, nothing further happens with Eve to make us understand why she is willing to go from being an field agent to a mere administrative assistant.  The gifted Naomie Harris, who gave an excellent performance in Danny Boyle's "28 Days Later" (2002), is pitifully wasted in "Skyfall."  Her role as Eve in this Bond movie is not nearly as good as her role as the determined Selena in that earlier movie.  When I heard Harris was cast in "Skyfall," I had great hopes that she would end up being one of the best Bond Girls in the entire series.  That was how much of an impression she made on me in "28 Days Later."  Because Eve has virtually nothing to do in "Skyfall," I scratch my head in bewilderment at the countless interviews Harris has given for "Skyfall" where she boasted about how substantial her role was in the movie, especially compared to earlier Bond Girls.  (Sorry, Ms. Harris, but you're no better than any of your predecessors.) 

Similarly, Severine starts out as a potentially fascinating character who dies moments after being introduced in the story.  A better-acted, much more tragic and heartfelt variation on Andrea Anders (Maud Adams) in "The Man with the Golden Gun" (1974) and Lupe Lamora (Talisa Soto) in "Licence to Kill" (1989), we learn that Severine had been forced into prostitution from an early age in the Macau sex trade and that she is desperate to escape from Silva's imprisoning grasp on her life.  She agrees to bring Bond to Silva in the hope that this stranger can kill her captor so she can finally set herself free.  Unfortunately, Severine is killed by Silva moments before Bond gets the upper hand and reveals that he has had a team of British military helicopters following him to Silva's island.  It seems strange that Bond would allow Severine to die when it is apparent that he could have overpowered Silva and his henchmen, and signaled the helicopters to appear, moments earlier so that Severine could have been saved.  Severine is an underdeveloped character who had great potential in the few scenes we have with her.  Bond's scene with Severine at the casino bar, where he sees through her veneer of confidence, is one of the finest acted scenes in the history of the series.  Berenice Marlohe is marvelous in that moment.  Marlohe effectively plays the scene at simultaneously different levels of emotion--her smiling assuredness on the surface masks immense fear and vulnerability underneath--that suggest she is a promising actress of considerable depth.  At times, she reminds me of the great European actresses of the 1950s and 1960s, especially Sophia Loren and Francoise Dorleac.  Unlike Andrea Anders or Lupe Lamora, we actually sense how frightened Severine is of the man who has enslaved her, which makes her potential survival or escape from him much more emotionally vital than it was with her earlier Bond Girl counterparts.  Later, on the island, when a bound Severine is led away from Bond, she sincerely tells him "I'm sorry."  That line resonates because it suggests the extent to which Severine is genuinely apologetic about getting Bond involved in her problems and potentially getting killed over it.  She has no idea who Bond is, nor that he can take care of himself, so her apology resonates deeply as a selfless expression of contrition.  In a short amount of time, Severine makes a strong impression that you want to see more from her, which makes it all the more bizarre that the filmmakers don't take advantage of allowing her to have more scenes in the movie.

A friend of mine opined that the diminished roles of the Bond Girls in "Skyfall" was because the story was really about the relationship between Bond and M and I agree that that is where the focus of the storyline is this time around.  It was a good decision on the part of the screenwriters to delve into that complex relationship more deeply.  But that doesn't mean Eve and Severine couldn't play vital roles in the plot as well.  I don't buy the theory offered by some critics that M is the Bond Girl this time around.  M is a powerful character who is in a category all to herself.  The Bond Girl is a separate, important element to every entry in this series and there is no reason why both M, and the Bond Girls, couldn't each play a major role in "Skyfall."  To short change Eve and Severine just because M has a larger role sends the wrong message that there's room for only one woman per movie to have a substantial, major role when there are so many movies (Bond or otherwise) featuring more than one male character playing a major role in the proceedings.  Some commentators have complained about "Skyfall" for what they perceive to be its "Regressive Sexual Politics" because of the politically incorrect manner in which Eve and Severine (and even M) are portrayed as either helpless victims (Severine) or incompetent (Eve).  Even though these are relevant issues to consider, I am actually not so much bothered by that as I am by the fact that I simply wish there was more screen time for their characters.

I sincerely believe that there is a way to better integrate Eve and Severine into the storyline of "Skyfall" without undermining all the qualities that make this a superior and unique entry in the Bond series.  If you'll allow my indulgence, here is my modest proposal regarding how I think the movie should have proceeded in the second half of the film to allow both characters more screentime.  Let's pick up at the scene on the abandoned island where Severine is bound and tied to the rock and Silva is about to shoot her in the head.  Bond should've gotten the upper hand earlier, taken down Silva's men and apprehended Silva before revealing the helicopters who have been tracking and following him since he left Macau.  Due to his quick actions, he saves Severine from getting killed.  During this sequence, they should have cut briefly to a shot of Eve in one of the helicopters hovering overhead, to establish that she is part of the surveillance team tailing Bond to the island and helping to bring Silva into custody.  Back in London, at MI-6, after M has confronted Silva in his cell and before her public hearing with the MPs, Bond should have a brief scene with Severine.  He walks into a conference room where Eve is debriefing Severine on her knowledge of Silva's organization.  Eve, sensing the chemistry between Bond and Severine, announces she must get ready to accompany Mallory to the public hearing and leaves them alone.  After Eve has departed, Severine thanks Bond for having freed her from her life of enslavement to Silva.  She tells Bond a little bit about her life, how she was forced into prostitution at a young age and later sold to Silva, and how she had been hoping for this day for years.  I think the screenwriters should have given her a line where she reveals to Bond that today is her birthday and he's given her the best gift she could ever hope to have--a future.  (A line that echoes what Diana Rigg's Tracy says to Bond after their wedding at the end of 1969's "On Her Majesty's Secret Service.")  Later, when Silva escapes from custody, he seeks out Severine (who is being transferred from MI-6 to a safe house) and either kills her on the spot or, alternatively, kidnaps her to use her as a pawn to bring Bond out in the open during the finale at Skyfall ranch, Bond's ancestral home.  If we go with the option of having her kidnapped, during the finale at Skyfall, Severine (grateful to Bond because he tried to help her) would get killed attempting to save his life.  This way, I think her death would have much more resonance with the audience because we would have spent more time with Severine to be able to care about her, and also because she would have died in an effort to finally fight back against Silva.

With regards to Eve, the filmmakers should have allowed her to play a much more vital role during Silva's attack at the public hearing where M is testifying.  While she is helping to clear the MPs from the room, and bring them to safety, Eve should have noticed that M needs additional protection and followed her and her aide Bill Tanner (Rory Kinnear) to where Bond is waiting and jumped into the car with them, leaving Tanner behind.  Eve would accompany M and Bond to the warehouse where Bond's Aston Martin is in storage and join them as they switch vehicles and head to Skyfall ranch.  At Skyfall, Eve would play an instrumental role in helping Bond, M and Kincade (Albert Finney) prepare for Silva's arrival.  When Silva's first team of men arrive by foot to attack Skyfall, Eve's job would be to cover M while Bond and Kincade are busy dispatching the henchmen.  However, despite her best efforts, Eve is unable to prevent M from being shot.  As Kincade helps M escape through the underground tunnel, Eve helps Bond fight off Silva's ground and aerial assault.  Like I mentioned earlier, Silva would have brought Severine with him by helicopter to try and bring Bond out in the open.  When Severine tries to save Bond by getting ahold of a firearm and shooting Silva in the shoulder, she is shot and killed by his henchmen.  As Bond makes his way to the church to save M, Eve helps by eliminating several of Silva's henchmen who are lying in wait to attack him.  She arrives upon the scene when M dies in Bond's arms at the church.  Feeling remorseful because M died from the wounds sustained at the assault on Skyfall when she failed to effectively cover her, Eve decides not to return to field duty and becomes Mallory's personal assistant.  It would suggest that the reason why Eve has decided to become Mallory's assistant isn't that she couldn't handle being a field agent, but that she wants to be on Mallory's detail so that she can protect and ensure the safety of the new M.  I sincerely believe that a course of events like the one I am suggesting would provide the sort of explanation as to why Eve would settle for working in the office (and provide even more of an impact when it is revealed that Eve is actually Miss Moneypenny).  As it is portrayed in the actual movie, Eve's decision simply does not make any sense. 

Anyway, these are just some rough ideas as to how Eve and Severine could have been better utilized in "Skyfall."  If they had played a larger role similar to what I described, I would have been even more satisfied with the movie and agreed that it is perhaps the best James Bond movie ever made.  I sincerely believe there was a way to better integrate them into the story in a manner that is not contrived and without sacrificing any quality.  The Bond Girls are an important element to the James Bond series, and nothing should ever tamper with it.  As it stands, I agree with the consensus that "Skyfall" remains one of the finest achievements in the entire James Bond series, a film that successfully integrates genuine depth and resonance and one that should last through the ages.  Daniel Craig continues to reinvent the role and set the bar high for future portrayals of James Bond.  Craig genuinely deserved an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of James Bond in "Skyfall."  He brought unexpected nuances to the role without ever sacrificing the established elements in the character.  Even though I admit it sounds like I'm quibbling too much about the role of the Bond Girls in "Skyfall," I enjoyed the movie immensely and look forward to returning to it for repeat viewings for years to come.  I just wish I would have been able to share the experience of watching "Skyfall" with my father, who would have appreciated it as much as I did. 

A Seemingly Unlikely, Yet Genuine, Movie Star

This is a big week for Judi Dench.  Her latest James Bond movie, "Skyfall" (2012), went back to the top of the list of highest grossing films in the United States.  She was part of the ensemble nominated for a SAG Award for "Outstanding Performance by a Cast in a Motion Picture" for "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" (2012).  Her own performance in that movie was nominated today for a Golden Globe as Best Actress in a Best Actress in a Musical or Comedy Film.  And she celebrated her 78th birthday earlier this week, December 9th.  That's a heady list of accomplishments for an actress who defies our usual expectations of what constitutes a movie star.  But that's what Judi Dench is.  Despite all her awards, and the position she enjoys as perhaps the most esteemed and respected actress of our time, she really is a true movie star of the classic definition.  My late friend Polly Platt once said that her definition of a movie star is someone that men and women equally like.  If only one or the other gender like you, you're not really a movie star.  Not only does Judi Dench have the esteem and affection of men and women, she also gets it from young people who, not only know who she is, but they also like her and revere her the way their elders do.

I have been fascinated with Judi Dench's success since she burst onto the scene in America in the mid-1990s when she debuted as "M" in the James Bond series and soon followed that up with her Oscar nominated performance in "Mrs. Brown" (1997).  I already knew who she was from her BBC romantic comedy series "As Time Goes By," which aired on PBS, and her earlier movie roles like "A Room with a View" (1985), "84 Charing Cross Road" (1987), and "A Handful of Dust" (1988).  I also remembered her from her early performance as a young actress in the Sherlock Holmes mystery thriller "A Study in Terror" (1965).  I already had a vague understanding that she was an established and respected stage actress in the U.K. even before Bond and "Mrs. Brown."  So it was kind of wonderful to see how she reached a much broader audience in the last 17 years when she was already in her sixties and at an age when most of her peers are probably starting to collect their pensions and prepare for retirement.  I liked her from the moment she debuted as "M" in "GoldenEye" (1995).  She gave the Bond movies respectability, and Bond returned the favor by giving her visibility.  What's interesting is how Judi Dench has maximized her opportunities since then to put herself in a position where she is offered the best roles available for an actress of any age.  She could've just done "Mrs. Brown" and the Bond movies and left it at that, but her continuing success appears to be boundless.  Whether it's luck, good instincts, or by design, she has done all of the right things to allow herself to rise beyond just being considered a respected character actress to being a true movie star.

And Dench is a movie star, whether or not she fits our stereotypical expectations of one.  Even though she is not tabloid fodder, her life and career represents the best aspects of what a movie star should be.  She is well-known and well-liked by critics and audiences.  Her name and image are always prominently on display, sometimes even above the title, in the advertisements of any films or shows she appears in.  You always see her doing publicity and interviews for every project she is in.  Unlike other actors with false modesty who shun publicity, Dench appears to realize that effectively promoting the project she has performed in is as important as acting in it.  She also does not disdain appearing at the Oscars.  In her interviews, she talks about how she still gets a little starstruck and excited at the people she encounters at the Oscar ceremonies, a refreshing counterpoint to English (or American, for that matter) "thee-uh-tah" actors who act like they're too good to attend such events, much less be nominated for the award.  And, even though she admits that the stage is where she is the most comfortable, she does not pooh-pooh the cinema.  Dench pays it the respect it is due, which keeps her in high esteem among movie aficionados like me.  What does not get discussed often is that she also has a subdued and understated elegance about her that is glamorous in its own unique way.  Her flattering and distinctive silver pixie hairstyle has become her recognizable trademark.  She looks absolutely stunning on the red carpet, whether it's at the Oscars or at a Royal premiere for a Bond movie in London.  And I genuinely believe that people like her to such a degree that they will see her in anything she is in.  As unlikely as it sounds, I believe she's got box office appeal and that her name is enough to attract people to see something they might normally have overlooked if she did not otherwise appear in it.

 
The success of "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" is a perfect example of this.  Even though it is a beautifully written and directed movie, everything about it went against the grain of what you expect a successful movie to be.  It was an ensemble piece, starring actors well in their 60s and 70s, about a group of pensioners from the U.K. who settle in a hotel in Jaipur, India because they are unable to keep up with the high cost of living in England.  Dench was the lynchpin of this movie.  Even though it had a wonderful ensemble, she was the lead character and the heart and soul of "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel."  She played a widow named Evelyn who comes to the painful realization that her late husband has made unwise investments and left her in a precarious financial position.  Evelyn is forced to sell her flat to cover her husband's debts and moves to the film's eponymous hotel in India so she will not become a burden on her family.  While there, she must start over again and face new and exciting challenges, which she keeps a daily record of on her blog.  Evelyn gets a job working at a call center where she can advise her youthful colleagues how to better understand and effectively interact with British customers.  She befriends and advises a young Indian couple she has gotten to know on the joys and pitfalls of relationships.  She even falls in love with one of her married neighbors at the hotel, a relationship which allows Evelyn to truly and openly share her feelings and emotions with someone in a way she never did with her late husband.  In Dench's skillful hands, Evelyn blossoms in this new environment, as she welcomes new friends and potential romantic interests into her life.  She really carries this movie on her shoulders and proves to be as lovely and romantic a leading lady as the cinema has ever seen.

I recently read Dench's memoir "And Furthermore."  I thoroughly enjoyed it because it was everything a memoir should be.  She told good anecdotes about the making of the films she appeared in, while at the same time opened up a bit about her life so that the reader had an understanding as to who Judi Dench is as a human being.  She didn't stint on the personal or the professional aspects of her life in that book.  One anecdote that sticks out in my mind is the section dealing with why she acted in the Vin Diesel vehicle "The Chronicles of Riddick" (2004).  She explained how another film she was slated to appear in fell through, Diesel showed up backstage at a play she was appearing in with a bouquet of flowers and asked her to appear in his film, and she agreed to do it because she liked him.  Even though it is probably the worse film she has ever appeared in, Dench never denegrates it or the experience.  She simply says that she never understood the script while they were filming, and still does not understand the completed movie, but she was impressed with the sets and enjoyed working with her colleagues, and would never trade the experience for the world.  It was so refreshing to see her not take the easy way out and trash the movie, a critical and financial failure, when she easily could have.  Many other, lesser actors, have not shown such respectful tact and restraint in discussing some of the projects they've chosen to appear in.

A good friend, who is the daughter of an actress who has worked a lot in movies and TV, recently reiterated in a phone conversation how she hates all actors because the ones she grew up encountering turned out to be unjustifiably pompous and snooty (especially the New York "theater" actors).  My friend said "I think the only actress who has the right to be snooty is Judi Dench, because she's earned it.  But, somehow, I don't think she would be snooty because you never sense an attitude from her."  I agree.  Dench deserves to be haughty if she wants to be.  The fact that she chooses not to be proves to be her most endearing quality.  There is something about Dench that evokes a sense of warmth and humility in a way that Vanessa Redgrave and Glenda Jackson do not.  (Only Maggie Smith and Helen Mirren are also able to inspire that sense of awe and accessibility with audiences as Dench does.)  Dench also seems like she is someone who would be a good sport.  I recall an appearance on a British telethon during the 1980s where Joanna Lumley was asked to take off her dress by a caller who promised to make a huge donation.  You can see it on YouTube here.  My understanding is that, after the caller's donation pledge was independently verified, Lumley agreed to drop her knickers on-air while Dench, who sat nearby, reacted by delightedly clapping and laughing in a good-natured manner.  Dench clearly wasn't uptight or fazed by Lumley's provocative gesture.  So, during this notable week for Judi Dench, I wish her a Happy (belated) Birthday and I hope she enjoys the attention and accolades that her latest nominations have brought her.  I also hope that the Oscars follow suit and recognize her work in "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" with another well-deserved nomination.  With the help of her co-stars, as well as the script and direction, she brings depth and gravitas to what could have been a "cutesy" role and movie if it had been in the wrong hands.  In her many transcendent close-ups throughout that wonderful movie, Judi Dench truly glows as only the best movie stars do.