Casino Royale Analysis – Part 1

By Leonard T. Grey

 

Introduction

Leading up to the remake of Casino Royale, the James Bond series was widely acknowledged to have devolved into a campy and predictable corporate product homogenized for mass public consumption. With a brand new actor at the helm, the filmmakers pushed forward with a concerted effort to reboot and redeem the series.  Released in 2006, Casino Royale achieved both massive financial and critical success. Despite the wide acclaim, the film is still underrated by even it’s supporters. Not only is it one of the best espionage action films ever made, it’s one of the best films period.

 

Part 1. Black and White

 

The intro scene to Casino Royale is presented in black and white. This not only pays homage to older espionage films, but it also serves a thematic purpose. By closely examining Bond’s first two kill assignments, you’ll see that this black and white dualism is not only expressed literally, but figuratively as well, reflected through the camerawork, wardrobe, setting, lighting, sound, and virtually every other aspect of the film making process. To get a clearer understanding, you’ll need to have watched the extended version of the introduction, which features footage edited out of the theatrical cut.

Bond’s first kill mission takes place in the daytime during what appears to warm spring weather. A crowd watches a cricket game from a clubhouse.

The second takes place at nighttime during cold winter weather. The office building appears deserted.

Bond’s first target, Fisher, becomes aware of Bond’s presence and a chase ensues.

Dryden remains unaware of Bond’s presence and is walking into a well-calculated trap.

Bond and Fisher battle with their fists up close, tearing apart a brightly lit bathroom.

Bond and Dryden battle with their wits from a distance, across a darkly lit office.

Bond’s first kill is up close and difficult. Emotions are clearly heated.

The second kill is much easier. Bond remains cold and distant.

As Dryden is shot, he knocks over his family photo. Just like Dryden’s safe and handgun, Bond has also examined the photo prior to Dryden’s arrival.

Black and white, day and night, hot and cold, clean and messy. There is clearly a deliberate pattern of dualism between the two scenes. Can you guess why the writers named them Dryden and Fisher?

 

 

So now that you see the inherent dualism throughout the introduction, let me explain why it’s there. Dualism is a very prominent theme in Freemasony(the film displays masonic symbols and concepts throughout) and is conveyed by the black and white checkerboard floor of the house, which represents base consciousness. The Masonic initiate’s goal is to receive the light by raising their consciousness and thus see the game board from a higher vantage point. Many who enter secret societies tend to view the world from a higher perspective due to the knowledge and experience that they subsequently gain. In that respect, M16 is very much a secret society as well and the entire introduction is about Bond’s initiation into an occult order.

The black and white checkerboard floor of the house representing low awareness.

The MIV logo features the all-seeing eye which represents higher consciousness.

 

To become initiated, Bond has to obtain double O status. The ‘00’ in 007 very clearly refers to the eyes, because in espionage, as well as in movies, it’s all about awareness and perspective. And by becoming a double ‘00’ agent, Bond is symbolically opening his eyes. The film illustrates this perfectly.

 

From the POV of a gun-barrel (which looks like the iris of an eye), Bond completes his first kill and color is finally introduced to the film through blood.

The screen then proceeds to fill with psychedelic imagery. By becoming a killer, Bond is now viewing his world through a new perspective.

Bond has obtained ‘00’ status and his eyes have been opened to the dangerous game of espionage.

No Country For Old Men Analysis

By Leonard T. Grey

Upon initial viewing, No country for Old Men appears to be a very cryptic movie. However, once you understand a key concept about the film, it becomes deceptively simple to figure out. The first thing you have to know is that this film, more modern though it may be, is very much a western. Themes such as survival, law and order, and honor are still present, as well as the classic archetypes: the honorable sheriff, the evil outlaw, and the morally ambivalent mercenary.  And yet, the film manages to remain uniquely different.

 

“That was one of the things that interested us when we read the novel. The way that Cormac set up the expectation of a genre piece and then pulled the rug out from under you.”

– Joel Coen

 

As the director himself states, what interested them about the novel is that it subverts genre expectations of the standard western and this is most certainly the case with the film as well. 

Think about it. Not only does the villain not get killed, but he also manages to escape at the end! The sheriff fails to save the day and he quits his job as a result. The climatic showdown between the sheriff and outlaw that the film slowly builds towards, ultimately never happens. The two other main characters, Llewellyn and his wife, who we expect will eventually reunite, are killed at unanticipated times in the movie. In fact, we don’t even see their actual deaths onscreen!

All the familiar clichés and tropes you’ve come to know from the genre are turned completely on their head.

Remember the good old days when we would always save the day and capture or kill the bad guy all while cracking one-liners and eluding thousands of gunshots? Yeah, neither do I

 

Not only does the film subvert the western, but it also critiques it by exposing just how unrealistic most portrayals are. By de-romanticizing the cowboy flick and twisting it upside down, the film gave the audience a fresh and palpable sense of realism and unpredictability from beginning to end (to those who had not read the book).

This uncertainty IS the central theme of the film and it is perfectly represented by the coin toss and the character Anton Chigurh.

This film is the flipside to the boring and predictable western.

 

Usually the bad guy is taken into custody towards the end of the film. Here, he is arrested at the beginning.

 

“Yes, sir, I got it under control.”

 

When Anton demands the clerk to call the coin toss, he’s also speaking to the audience.

 

The sheriff and the outlaw both stare blankly into the same TV, foreshadowing the coming showdown between the two.

 

Who could have predicted that the ultimate badass would lose a stare down with this lady?

 

Anton shoots a crow up close and misses. Yes, he is indeed fallible.

 

“The point being, that even in the contest between man and steer, the issue is not certain.”

 

The film demonstrates over and over that Anton is still just a human.

 

• Anton: It will be brought and placed at my feet.
• Carson: You don’t know to a certainty.

 

Even though the film sets up expectations of a deciding battle between Chigurh and Moss, these two never actually meet again.

 

• Moss: Just looking for what’s coming.
• Woman: Yeah, but no one ever sees that.

 

The inevitable showdown between the sheriff and the outlaw comes to an anticlimactic end. Again and again the film is playing with the audiences’ outlook.

 

“I got here the same way the coin did.”

The coin and Anton both represent the same thing. Wild chance.

 

An unforeseen car accident sets up yet another expectation. With his broken arm and the police sirens approaching, the audience might start to anticipate that Anton is going to be caught, but nevertheless, he eventually escapes.

 

Contrary to what most people would have anticipated from the beginning, the outlaw ultimately wins and the sheriff gives up his badge. The film is (thematically) one coin toss after another with most people calling heads when it actually turns out to be tails.

 

Hopefully this analysis clears up a lot of confusion regarding the film. While researching, I found most of the other essays that I came across to not be of much help, as they tend to obfuscate the viewer to the film’s core meaning with too many questions regarding nihilism, societal breakdown, and supernatural mumbo jumbo, all while being unable to see the simple spine of the film.

To sum up this review in one sentence:

No Country for Old Men is the wildest western ever made.

But I can’t be certain.

Inglourious Basterds Analysis

By Leonard T. Grey

 

The film Inglourious Basterds is not a World War 2 movie. Let me repeat, Inglourious Basterds is not a World War 2 movie.

On face value, this statement seems absurd, but the director leaves various subtle, and sometimes obvious, clues throughout the film that encourage the viewer to look past the façade that is being presented. To put it quite simply, the true message of the film is disguised and things are not what they appear to be. This is visually hinted at throughout, referring to both the surface narrative and meta-narrative.

Getting to the root.

Beyond the veil.

What lies beneath?

Take note of the discrepancies between the painting and Hitler. Are you starting to see a thematic pattern here?

 

Even before the film’s release, the deliberate misspelling of the title was a clue that visually something was off. Also, the marketing materials and promotional trailers portrayed Inglourious Basterds as a jingoistic blockbuster action film. The target audience, however, was misled to find that the actual film featured heavy dialogue driven set pieces with only calculated moments of violence. The inconsistencies between the trailer and the actual film were another hint at something much deeper.

Amurika!

Rah-rah! Get some! Notice that this shot appears in the trailers, but not in the actual film.

 

Tarantino is a master of genre subversion. A perfect example would be Tarantino’s first film, Reservoir Dogs. On the surface, Reservoir Dogs appears to be a heist film, but actually, it is a horror film disguised as a heist film. Think about it, you have a gang bonding like a group of teens in a cabin, a hidden monster (a secret police informant) psychologically tormenting the group, and gruesome scenes of physical torture and gore. These are all standard horror genre tropes, which is why Reservoir Dogs has more in common with John Carpenter’s The Thing then it does with The Italian Job. And to throw it all in your face, YOU ARE NEVER EVEN SHOWN THE ACTUAL HEIST.

“Let me tell you what Reservoir Dogs is about.”

“The whole idea is subversion. You want subversion on a massive level.”

 

In the case of Inglourious Basterds, the film is a spaghetti western disguised as a World War 2 film. Tarantino even explicitly states this in his interview with Rachel Maddow.

“I was trying to do a spaghetti western using World War 2 iconography. So in my re-imagining of this whole thing I’ve placed the Jews as the Indians in this scenario.” – Quentin Tarantino

 

If the words of the filmmaker aren’t enough, take note of the spaghetti western-style intro credits, the Mexican standoff at the saloon, and the constant references to Native Americans.

Scalping? Check.

Indian war whoop? Check.

War paint? Check.

Aldo the Apache and the Basterds. Circa 1850.

Brad Pitt’s raine dancing scene didn’t make the final cut.

Tarantino has a great eye for film, but an even better ear. Notice that most of the film’s soundtrack is taken from spaghetti western favorite Ennio Morricone.

 

So why choose a spaghetti western? Well, aside from being one of Tarantino’s favorite genres, the time period of westerns is more in tune with the actual identities of the characters in the film. Which are of course, the Native Americans and the early Anglo-Americans represented by the Nazis. It becomes clear that this is about a different genocide and resistance.

Pay close attention to the dialogue.

Well, is he?

The card game is a perfect metaphor not just for this scene, but the entire movie.

On the surface narrative, the British and Americans are hiding their identities from the Nazis. The meta-narrative reveals the true nationalities of the characters, which are hidden from the audience by the surface narrative.

• Willhelm: You out there! Who are you? British, American?
• Aldo: We’re American! What are you?
• Willhelm: I’m a German you idiot!
• Aldo: You speak pretty good English for a German.

Check out the poster behind Landa’s head.

 

Cue laughter and cheesy rock song. Hugo Stiglitz is named after a Mexican actor. Clearly we’re not meant to take his German identity seriously.

 

Tarantino has made his liberal views regarding slavery in America and the Indian genocide clear on several interviews. This is why he thematically equates the early Anglo-settlers with the Nazi regime. So now that we’ve established the actual identities of the characters, let’s take these implications to their logical conclusion.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, the film was marketed toward patriotic meatheads looking for their next shoot ‘em up war fix. But what they actually got was something substantially and subversively different. Really stop and think about the climax of the film.

Covertly attacking a nation’s pride.

On the surface narrative, the ‘Nazi’ audience in the theater cheer on the deaths of ‘Americans’ in the film within the film Nation’s Pride. In the meta-narrative, the real life American audience in the real life theater cheer on the deaths of ‘Nazis’ within Inglourious Basterds who they have no clue are really the early Anglo-Americans. Tarantino designed the film to subtly mock the gung-ho US audience members who have no idea that they are actually cheering on the deaths of the early settlers of their own nation. Tarantino even goes so far as to brand them as Nazis at the end of the film!

Getting a whack at planting old Uncle Adolf, or Uncle Sam?

Tarantino brands his target audience as Nazis (not see).

The thirty-three from the Scottish highlands. The film features plenty of occult references.

 

And finally, Inglourious Basterds is not even remotely close to being historically accurate. Once again, Tarantino throwing it in your face that this is not a World War 2 movie.