Why Spectre is a zombie movie | Little White Lies

Why Spec­tre is a zom­bie movie

23 Oct 2015

Words by David Jenkins

A man in a suit running across rooftops amidst smoke and dilapidated buildings.
A man in a suit running across rooftops amidst smoke and dilapidated buildings.
How come there are no peo­ple in the world of this new James Bond movie?

I’ve been think­ing a lot about Spec­tre since see­ing it, even though – full dis­clo­sure – I must admit to not car­ing for it a great deal. There was an aspect to the film which only struck me 24 hours after view­ing – that with Spec­tre, British direc­tor Sam Mendes has in fact made a zom­bie movie. Glib, crack­pot and unsta­ble though the thought may sound, it derives from a set of sub­tle back­ground details in the film, and is not a com­ment on the list­less­ness of the per­for­mances or the dynamism of the action. Whether these details are inten­tion­al is tough to dis­cern. James Bond goes about his stan­dard man’s man tra­vails in a world which is almost entire­ly depop­u­lat­ed. And when we do see peo­ple, they act with a respon­sive­ness that’s redo­lent of the liv­ing dead.

I realise I’m stray­ing into fer­tile spoil­er ter­ri­to­ry with this one, so I promise to tread care­ful­ly. It’s per­haps no coin­ci­dence that the film opens on the Day of the Dead fes­ti­val in Mex­i­co City with throngs of rev­ellers clad in skeleton/​lady ghost garb, all hav­ing a gay old time. Yet instead of sim­ply accept­ing that there are real human beings under those ornate masks, Mendes has these mass­es loi­ter in the streets and squares as may­hem erupts all around them. Build­ings are lev­elled, the prospect of an extreme­ly vio­lent death hov­ers mere meters above their frag­ile heads. And yet their emo­tion­al synaps­es are so slow, they remain in place to bestow the big set piece its ele­ment of high dan­ger. It’s like a cir­cus act where two jug­glers pass flam­ing wands across the face on an unwit­ting audi­ence mem­ber who has to stand per­fect­ly still. Yet why would these peo­ple refuse to scat­ter to save them­selves as the city tum­bles around them?

There are two instances lat­er in the film which cor­rob­o­rate this the­o­ry, albeit in a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent ways from the above. Where the open­ing scenes shows bray­ing, sway­ing mass­es, the remain­der of the film is coloured by an eerie absence. One of the sec­ondary neme­ses in the film is a thick-necked brute named Mr Hinx, played by WWE main­stay, Dave Bautista. The pair race through the streets of Rome in mus­cle cars, and luck­i­ly for them, there’s no-one on the street to get in the way of their high speed duel. It’s an extreme­ly strange sequence, as it appears as if the entire cen­tre of Rome has been cleared out for the film­ing. As such, dan­ger lev­els plum­met accord­ing­ly. The clas­sic car chase in William Friedkin’s French Con­nec­tion has attained its clas­sic sta­tus because the action occurs in a dense­ly pop­u­lat­ed zone and the risk of death is made to feel high. Spec­tre ush­ers in a handy, momen­tary apoc­a­lypse for Bond to play safe­ty first street rac­ing. There’s no-one around to die, or no-one for Bond to save.

Lat­er, there’s a hand-to-hand dust-up on a mov­ing train. While Bond and his beau, Madeleine Swann (Léa Sey­doux), share a qui­et drink in their evening garb in the buf­fet car, Hinx spoils the par­ty once again. Even though it’s a com­mer­cial car­ri­er, when the fight starts and we actu­al­ly get to see more of the train, it is revealed – like cen­tral Rome – to be com­plete­ly des­o­late. Even when the pair par­ry through the kitch­enette, there’s no chef in there to barge out of the way. (Maybe Hinx polite­ly fore­warned fel­low pas­sen­gers of ensu­ing car­nage pri­or to his big entrance?). But the com­bat takes place on an emp­ty train. Of course, the inten­tion is that view­er focus is trained tight­ly on the impact of fists and the strain of choke­holds, and you do real­ly get a sense of the phys­i­cal endurance of such a sequence. But the ques­tion remains: where is everybody?

Mak­ing these obser­va­tions is all well and good, but the ques­tion remains: why? I can think of three pos­si­ble answers, all of which are a far­fetched in their own way. The first is that it is the phys­i­cal man­i­fes­ta­tion of Bond’s eter­nal lone­li­ness and the dif­fi­cul­ty he has mak­ing mean­ing­ful emo­tion­al con­nec­tions with nor­mal” peo­ple. If this is the case, it’s a very strange and heavy-hand­ed direc­to­r­i­al strat­e­gy which serves to alien­ate more than it does to enrich the mate­r­i­al. The sec­ond would be as a nod to Mendes’ the­atri­cal roots, and that the rea­son for all anti-clut­ter tac­tic is as some Brecht­ian manœu­vre to empha­sise the essen­tial unre­al­i­ty of the char­ac­ter and of the series. But that doesn’t stick either, as this is the Bond era in thrall to real­i­ty, to fram­ing Bond as a man rather than a com­ic formulation.

The third rea­son is that it’s an oblique ref­er­ence to the film’s cen­tral theme of covert sur­veil­lance becom­ing the pre­ferred method of nation­al secu­ri­ty. A ques­tion at the cen­tre of the film con­cerns the rise of dig­i­tal spy net­works and the ways in which they nat­u­ral­ly super­sede the need for human sol­diers (eg, Bond). Is Mendes mak­ing a state­ment in favour of the Dou­ble O pro­gramme by sug­gest­ing that we have this incred­i­ble tech­nol­o­gy that can be employed for nefar­i­ous means, but it’s not worth a jot if there’s no-one there to actu­al­ly spy on. Peo­ple deserve their pri­va­cy, and in remov­ing tra­di­tion­al extras from the scenery, Mendes is empha­sis­ing that fact – peo­ple should not cast a dig­i­tal shad­ow. Zom­bie movies are about the tran­si­tion of the pub­lic into an anony­mous mass, and Mendes is in favour of the anonymi­ty, even if it’s at the expense of realism.

You might like