Does the "big screen" effect the way a film is experienced?
Does it effect other factors, such as auteur?
Can character representation still be appropriately recognised with the enhanced environment?
One could say that the opinion, ‘There is no better way to watch a film than on the big screen in a cinema’ is appropriate when it comes to Mendes’ work. His ability to imbue the film with his auteur touch gives a dark complexity to the modern Bond while also thrusting the audience into a ‘suspension of disbelief’, richly emphasised by the ‘big screen’. Yet, one could say that Mendes’ auteur, along with the narrative, is purely lost in the spectacle of the cinema screen, partly due to the tropes of the spy genre.
Firstly, the opening scene of the film is, in some ways, enhanced by the ‘big screen’. To a more active audience, the opening plays a very nostalgic part in the film as they are met with a crescendo of non-diegetic sound that almost all audiences will know as the theme tune, only made greater by the sound system of the cinema surroundings. This score also tells the audience that the blurry figure shown in a long shot, is in fact Bond, therefore inducing a comforting atmosphere on the spectator. One could say that this is an early sign of an underlining theme of identity, implying that Bond’s real self is hidden to the spectator yet foreshadowing its reveal. The re-assuring mood is swiftly neglected as the narrative leads to the audience seeing several murders. Supported by opening in media res, Mendes does this to propel the audience into a state of dis-equilibrium. This is emphasised by the grander scale of screen in the cinema, allowing the audience to take in the chaotic set-piece. Overall, the ‘big screen’ enables the audience to grasp the initial narrative of the film and to contribute an effective emotional response to the developing action sequences. To a more perceptive audience, a negative to this would be that the cinema screen only highlights the similar/ repetitive narrative of action set-pieces strung together by implausible plots that past Bond films reflect. Yet one could argue, by having Bond die, the genre tropes are in fact inverted as it gives the audience an experience they have not yet come across.
Mendes also analysed many of Nolan’s films before making Skyfall, therefore suggesting that his later choice in IMAX is influenced by Nolan and his ethics. Particularly in the opening scene, IMAX aids the argument in support of the ‘big screen’ as it induces an unwavering immersion experience for the spectator. Accompanied with the climatic non-diegetic score and fast editing, the grander visuals employ greater amounts of details leading to an enhanced sensory engagement for the audience. This is supported by Roger Deakin’s (cinematographer) opinion that “the images looked spectacular on the big IMAX screen” after being controversial about the switch from Arri Alexa digital which he originally filmed in. Although the elevated immersion experience creates a greater emotional response from the audience, one could say that the narrative is in fact lost in the spectacle created by the big, IMAX screen. This is supported by how Skyfall is a franchise film and, also due to its grand fan-base, it therefore has a tent-pole release and doesn’t need an aesthetically enhanced action-set piece to entice an audience, as they are under no pressure to make back the money spent on the budget (between $150 million and $200 million). Throughout the opening, Mendes’ elevates the mis-en-scene in order to give an adequate representation of Moneypenny (Naomie Harris). Due to her being out in the field, having a different ethnicity and a newly-found wit, it gives the impression that Mendes’ has the intention of taking her away from the stereotypes the character carries from previous Bond films. This suggests conflict against the male-dominated world and the ‘male gaze’ resulting in the audience aligning with Moneypenny rather than Bond. One could say that the big screen results in these attributes not being recognised due to the over-bearing surroundings. For example, if the audience were watching on a smaller screen at home, the representation would be clearer as even passive audiences would have to concentrate more on the finer details. Concerning her representation, a more active spectator could argue that Moneypenny is still re-enforcing these stereotypes as she is still shown being dependent on Bond, for example, Bond grabs the wheel leading to the enemy’s car crashing (a more misogynistic representation of Bond as it gives the impression that he feels he needs to take charge). On the other hand, one could say that, by presenting a inverted stereotype on the big screen, it gives greater value towards the representation.
This could be related to Mendes’ auteur. Due to it being a franchise movie with necessary genre tropes, one could say that Mendes’ is bound by these characteristics and therefore has to portray characters in a specific way (even if it is more politically correct). This prevents him from being able to demonstrate his auteur character development, perfected through his previous films (American Beauty, Road to Perdition). When it comes to the big screen, a more active audience would be able to recognise these restrictions put on Mendes’ as the heightened surroundings of the cinema reveal the lack of repeated characteristics that the auteur theory (originated from Truffaut, Godard, Rohmer and Chabrol) suggests an auteur needs to possess. This could be a correlation with the theory ‘death of the author’ by Barthes as Mendes is almost driven by the audience’s input, and the constant distraction of making the film universally intelligible, that the spectator may as well be directing the film. The big visuals of the big screen would allow the audience to acknowledge this shift in Mendes style. It could be argued that the big screen only enables the audiences to see aspects of Mendes’ auteur that effect the film visually (expressionistic lighting, centered subjects) and that the deeper themes and intentions (theme of isolation, identity and character development) are actually lost.
On the other hand, one could further comment on Mendes use of IMAX in M’s court scene in support of the bigger screen. As Mendes didn’t film the original in IMAX like Nolan did with ‘The Dark Knight Rises’, it means that he doesn’t have the problem of switching ratios from digital to IMAX. Even though this doesn’t enhance the audience’s cinephiliac spectatorship, it means that there isn’t the distraction for the spectator that would have been more apparent if there was a change and it was shown on the big screen. Due to this, it means that the film doesn’t lose its immersion experience and the audience don’t lose their emotional response to the film. Likewise, Mendes harnesses the aesthetic impact of the big screen in order to fully develop and direct the audience’s representation of M (Judi Dench). From previous Bond films like ‘Die Another Day’ and ‘Casino Royale’, Audiences already know that M doesn’t fit into a stereotypical impression of an older woman but instead a strong willed and tough individual with power at her disposal due to her position of authority in MI5 (For example, she helps Bond in killing mercenaries at the end of the film). Yet one could argue that, in Skyfall, Mendes uses M as a mouthpiece in order to demonstrate to the audience his unquestionable theme of tradition. Heavily influenced by Robert Baers ‘See No Evil’, M’s speech brings attention to the idea of technology taking over, and being a weakness, in modern Britain. This is supported by how Mendes continues to show MI5 ‘unplugging’ themselves from technology and ‘going back in time’ in order to defeat Silva. To bring this point across further, Mendes uses Judi Dench’s social and respected position in society to reflect these same attributes onto M in the film, so that the audience take heed to her speech in the court room. Mendes also purposefully places M in a dominant location in the scene as she is in the centre, outnumbered by her accusatory opposition in front of her. This highlights her authority and persuades the audience to align with her.
Another set piece we could focus on when concerning the ‘big screen’, is Bond’s rehabilitation scene. Mendes purposefully uses quite harsh, pale, low key lighting in order to induce a sense of realism onto the audience, this is only confirmed at the end when we see Mendes’ auteur centred frame of Bond highlighted in a dimly lit doorway. Thus, creating a sympathetic yet distressing atmosphere as the audience witness Bond struggle to complete simple tasks putting his past film “stunts” (are put) into perspective. Mendes’ does this to enlighten the audience that this is a turning point in the formulaic narrative of the Bond films. The audience are witnessing Bond, the symbol of invulnerability, struggle to do a pull up. However, one could argue that Mendes only does this in order to abide by Todorov’s narrative theory and that all we are seeing is Bond at a state of disequilibrium which is only to be restored later on. This idea also brings to light Mendes’ in-depth theme of old against new. By having Bond shown at his weakest, it makes the audience interpret this character as being old and therefore useless. This could be developed to say that Mendes is only lulling the audience into frustration towards the old so that the ending is even more triumphant, as Silva dies to a knife in the back. As this scene is at a point of distress, the bigger screen simply emphasises the chaos that Bond is under. Accompanied by the overbearing sound system and Mendes’ auteur expressionistic lighting, the big screen builds the set-piece to a crescendo of overwhelming discomfort for the audience and lovers of James Bond, who watched him defeat villain after villain since Dr.No to simply fall short at the smallest hurdle.
It is a fair argument to say that at times Mendes’ auteur touch enhances the big screens immersion experience, therefore supporting the above opinion. This is most directly shown when Bond returns to Scotland. The initial opening shot is a long shot with the centerd subject (Bond) surrounded by negative space, a typical Mendes’ shot, yet (for the second time in Skyfall, the first being when Bond dies creating rain as if the nation is mourning) Mendes uses pathetic fallacy. Using mist to take advantage of the audience’s emotional response and to drive them into a sense of vulnerability. This can be related to Bond’s mentality and the conflict he is in after returning home. With the help of Roger Deakins, even passive audiences would have noticed that Mendes’ auteur expressionistic lighting was taken to a new level when the house burst into flames. Inducing the spectator with a sense of fear and symbolising the “fiery” tension between Silva and Bond. One could take this conflict and apply it to Freudian’s symbolic function, in the sense that M symbolizes both Bond and Silva’s surrogate mother. This can be applied to the narrative to suggest that they are both fighting for her approval.
The representation of Silva (Javier Bardem) is in fact elevated, as Mendes takes on the big screens ability to amplify mis-en-scene in order to create the terrifying, modern model of a Bond villain. Silva undoubtedly represents Propp’s villain role, also taking on Bond’s villain mannerisms due to his unknown ethnicity and sharing Bond’s debatable misogynistic behavior. Yet Silva draws parallels to the socio-political issues of terrorist organisations, most likely a result of 9/11s influence on Mendes and the political awareness it brought to the public, which audiences would be able to relate to. Silva isn’t stereotypical when it comes to his physical characteristics as he goes against the American blockbuster villains like Nolan’s Bayne from ‘Dark Knight Rises’ and the Russo Brother’s Thanos from ‘Infinity war’ in which they are muscly and intimidating, but instead takes a more mental dominance over the spectator, with his technological abilities which are in direct contrast to M and Bond’s traditionalism. This could be developed to say that Mendes represents Silva as predatorial as we see his helicopter slowly passing the windows, bringing to mind Steven Spielberg’s ‘Jaws’. This is also supported by his containment when he was captured, mirroring that of Hannibal Lector from Jonathan Demme’s ‘Silence of the Lambs’. Mendes purposefully uses this intertextuality to compare Silva to other iconic, historical villains; making audiences feel the same fear for Silva that they felt for them.
When looked on a big screen, Bond’s return to Scotland undoubtedly captures the highlands at a grander, more breathtaking interpretation for the audience. If the spectator was to look at a smaller screen, the landscape wouldn’t have such a great impact and an ability to highlight the strong contrasts between rural Scotland and urban Britain. Mendes maintains Skyfall’s universal intelligibility by associating Scotland with its landscapes and provides a web of intertextuality by associating Britain (and Bond) with that of the Aston Martin Db5 from ‘Goldfinger’. This stark contrast is maintained between the two environments, Britain bustling with British iconography (landmarks, suits, rain) and Scotland suspended in eerie silence as if foreshadowing the isolated house. This contrast can also be applied to Bond’s character as part of him is raw, emotionless (‘waste of good scotch’) and a dark complexity when compared to the emotionally vulnerable and tense person he is when confronted with his past.
In conclusion, considering all the arguments, I think that the opinion is justified. Firstly, Mendes’ influenced use of IMAX, accompanied with his unique, aesthetically pleasing, auteur usage of expressionistic lighting and negative space, aid in elevating the immersion experience as it brings finer details and impressive visuals for the audience. Even though one could argue that the narrative is lost in the spectacle, it recovers itself by giving a more than adequate representation of M. Mendes uses her as a mouthpiece in order to bring across his theme of old against new along with an independent “Bond girl” that is powerful in her own right therefore not dependent on Bond, which even passive audiences would be able to understand. Without a doubt, the cinema screen aids in highlighting Skyfall’s unique narrative cohesion resulting in a holistic unit of set-pieces, separating it from just being a formulaic, mass market/ commercially driven response.
Research
Comments