Friday, January 11, 2013

Overreaching Symbolism!

I’ll be honest:  I was a bad English major in college.  Victorian Poetry, one of my only successful classes, went well because the professor loved sexual symbolism.  That poem about strangulation?  Really a poem about sexual asphyxiation.  Lord of the Rings?  Really Tolkien's take on homosexual relationships as represented by the hobbits.  Sunsets in poems?  Really different forms of ejaculation.

Intro to Poetry was probably my least successful class.  My professor once gave me a 0% for an in class essay where the only written comment in bright red ink read: “No!” Thanks Dr. Finklestein.  

Since leaving Xavier University’s academic world, though, I occasionally like to flex my English major muscle, much to the amusement of my wife who actually was a successful English major.  (By “successful English major” I mean she eventually got a Masters degree in a science and now works in the medical field.)

Anyways, here’s some overreaching symbolism for you concerning the latest James Bond movie, Skyfall.  It seemed like a good way to ease back into blogging for the new year.





I know, I know.  This James Bond movie continued the theme of showing the personal toll a real person would actually experience as an international spy. You know what this movie was actually about though?  Babyboomers.

That’s right, you think it’s a coincidence that Bond and the Rolling Stones premiered the same time and both turned 50 this year?  Both represent different and seemingly contradictory personality qualities of their generation.  One loves blue jeans, rock & roll, rebeling, money and women.  The other loves suits, fancy cars, disobeying orders money and women.  Notice a pattern?  

But Babyboomers fell out of love with rebellion in the 80s when they started getting mortgages, leaving the Stones and Bond feeling a little toothless the last decade or so.  

Cut to Skyfall!   Quick Plot Synopsis:  It’s like most Bond movies in that there’s Bond, M (played by Judi Dench and called “Mum” throughout most of the movie), a Bond villain, a plot to kill M and a car.  What else do you need for a Bond movie?  

Bond’s villain, we’ll call him Villain, is an ex-MI6 spy with an axe to grind.  He creates an interesting family structure with Judi Dench as the mother and the Bond family groundsman (who literally walks out from behind a corner in the last act of the movie and says something like, “You’re fight is my fight.”) as the father.  Bond somehow comes off as the younger responsible brother and Villain appears to be the batshit crazy older brother who blames his mommy for everything.  


Bond, trying to bounce back from a failed mission, takes it on himself to protect “Mom.”   Dench spends most of the movie protecting Bond (her loyal son) while trying to defend her bad decisions concerning the older son (he had it coming).  Oh, and the Bond Family Groundsman tries to offer sage fatherly advice to Bond before realizing Bond’s evolved past any advice he has left to offer.  How’s all that for a babyboomer fantasy?  Mom loves and needs me and Dad doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about. 



So at the climax, the crazy brother corners “Mom” and “Dad” in a church (In a church!  Oh, Babyboomers, you make it too easy for me.) and wants “Mom” to kill both of them in a murder suicide.  Oh, and the deranged brother, of course, is gay.  Bond kills the brother  but his “Mom” (Judi Dench) dies in his arms.  He’s left with a father figure he’s surpassed, a critical but ultimately nurturing dead mother figure, a warning of what he could become (damned crazy gays) and a sense of self awareness that only comes from separating yourself from your childhood/parents/home.