00:09:25
Bond and Swann talking about secrets
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, despite them being intimate, and lovers, we see a simple example of reciprocity here. Swann will reveal her secrets if Bond does his. Very realistic, considering a relationship is based on trust, and they are mutually deciding to take it to the next level;
- Techniques Present:
- Reciprocity (Bond and Swann talking about revealing each other’s secrets);
00:20:15
Bond trying to “break” Swann
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- Here we see grace under fire, and also tension. At its best. So, everyone is shooting up the car, Swann is in panic, but Bond thinks she still has something to reveal, so he’s just standing there, saying nothing, and looking away, while she’s in panic. He eventually gives in, but we can notice it in these tense seconds;
- We can also see the power dynamic here, which is Bond putting Swann on the defensive. That is, since the bomb blows up, Bond is acting like she is guilty, and like she is the one who needs to prove herself;
- Techniques Present:
- Grace under fire + tension (Bond remaining neutral while Swann is in panic, while the others are shooting up the car);
- Contextual power (Bond putting Swann on the defensive);
00:36:25
Felix and Ash convincing Bond
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we both Felix and Ash using exclusivity. Sayin that Bond is the only man for the job, that he’s the only one they trust, and so on. We also see a bit of contrast here, when Felix tries to use the “door in the face” technique, trying to ask a smaller favor after being rejected in terms of a bigger one, saying, “Hey, at least take my number”;
- Techniques Present:
- Exclusivity/specialisation (Bond being the only man for the job);
- Contrast (Felix trying to ask for a smaller favor after being rejected in terms of a bigger one);
00:40:15
Nomi and Bond talking
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we see a bit of spinning in the beginning, when Nomi is saying the world is changing, since she made 00 very young, and Bond saying the world doesn’t change that much. They are both spinning and reframing their world view, but in specific due to emotions – Bond wants to believe the world doesn’t change, because that would take away from her credibility as an agent, and she wants to do the opposite;
- We also see some labeling manipulation in the end. That is, Bond is naturally associated with the 007 number, and Nomi is “breaking” him by telling him she’s the new 007. He’s deflecting, saying “it’s just a number”, not associated with his identity, but obviously he feels hurt;
- Techniques Present:
- Spinning (Bond and Nomi arguing about their worldview – changing or not);
- Labeling manipulation (Bond identifying as 007, but saying “it’s just a label” when confronted by Nomi);
00:56:00
Bond telling Nomi he’s hijacking her plane
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, in the middle of this big action sequence, we see Bond telling Nomi, who is about to be arrested, or at least targeted by the cops, “I’m taking your plane”. It can be considered a type of last-minute rigidity, and he knows she’ll accede. Obviously, both the MI6 and the CIA are after the terrorist scientist, but it’s better that the CIA take him than nobody take him, and him continuing with the terrorists. Therefore, Bond saying he’s taking her plane is him making an additional demand, but she’ll take it, because it’s the best possible option;
- Techniques Present:
- Unexpected rigidity (Bond making a last-minute demand of Nomi, of taking her plane);
01:06:15
Bond and M talking
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we see Bond taking a hit at M at the beginning, saying, “Did the desk get bigger? Or did you just become smaller?”. Then, we see M taking a shot back at him by saying, “We thought you were dead, but you were alive and working for the CIA”;
- We also see some negative reciprocity here. Bond was Blofeld, and M refuses. And when M says, “We can’t risk losing the last member of Specter”, Bond replies, “But you can risk developing a DNA-targeting weapon for 10 years?”. So, favor for favor, and insult for insult;
- Techniques Present:
- Reciprocity (Both in favors, and in insults);
01:13:25
Safin and Swann in session
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Somewhat);
- Description:
- So, we see Safin mention here the purest form of reciprocity. That is, saying that if you save someone’s life, they are forever dependent on you. In specific, we’re dealing with favor dynamics. That is, what you give back must be equal to what you obtained. And when someone is given literally life, naturally, they can only pay it back with someone as huge in return;
- Then, we see reciprocity in threats as well. He wants Swann to kill someone, and if she doesn’t comply, he’ll kill someone she cares about in return. Typical villain reciprocity;
- Techniques Present:
- Reciprocity (Safin talking about how saving someone’s life makes them owe something equally big);
01:17:20
M and Bond speaking
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Extremely);
- Description:
- So, we see transparency here. M finally talking about why they developed Heracles, and how. Then, he also assumes responsibility – not just transparency, but adverse transparency, too;
- Then, he also provides a justification. He says that they developed the weapon because they can’t identify the enemy anymore, and they can be anywhere;
- Techniques Present:
- Transparency + adverse transparency (M confessing he developed the program, and that mistakes would be his fault);
- Justification (M saying why);
01:20:00
Everyone meeting at M’s office
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we see a pretty funny case of lack of grace under fire by Q. As soon as he sees Bond, he tries to pretend he hasn’t seen him in a long time, but it’s a bad attempt and M sees right through him, saying, “Oh, shut up, I know he’s staying with you”;
- We also see lack of grace under fire by Nomi, when M says Bond has been reinstated. She’s afraid of losing the number that’s now hers. And she seems needy when asking about it;
- Techniques Present:
- Grace under fire (Lack of it by Q and Nomi, for different reasons);
01:24:55
Bond and Swann entering Blofeld’s chamber
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Extremely);
- Description:
- So, pretty good example of grace under fire and lack of it. First, Swann freaks out and has to leave, as she can’t take the situation. But then, we see Bond starting to speak with Blofeld, without skipping a beat, with perfect composure. Great example of two people, in the face of the same situation, having completely different reactions;
- We also see here flattery and a change of pace. First, he flatters Blofeld for his party, and his attempt to kill him. And we also see a change of pace to create contrast. He goes from saying, “It was a testament to your greatness”, with this performative tonality, and then stops and says, with a sober tone, “But then it all went wrong, didn’t it?”;
- Then, we see Bond finally being shaken when Blofeld tells him it wasn’t Madeleine who planted the bomb from the beginning, but him, with the intention of rattling him, which he finally does, and there goes Bond’s grace under fire, finally;
- Techniques Present:
- Grace under fire (Demonstration of it by Bond, and lack of it by Swann – Bond also losing it in the end, though);
- Flattery (By Bond);
- Pace and tonality (By Bond, switching tonalities for contrast);
01:37:35
Nomi speaking with M
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we see a code of conduct and rigidity here. She literally says, “By the book, sir”. She’s performing her mission within the rules, a lot unlike what Bond does;
- Techniques Present:
- Code of conduct + rigidity (Nomi doing the mission by the book);
01:50:25
Bond finding Ash in the woods
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- We see a bit of labeling manipulation. Ash says, “Why don’t you help me out, brother?”. Using the “brother” label makes them seem closer. But Bond clearly rejects it;
- Techniques Present:
- Labeling manipulation (Ash trying to call Bond “brother”);
01:56:10
Safin taking Swann and Mathilde to the garden
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Somewhat);
- Description:
- So, we obviously see rigidity here, by forcing them to go to the garden, forcing them to obey what he says, and so on. We also see an attempt at indoctrination, saying that he’ll raise Mathilde the same way he was raised in the island, and so on;
- Also, naturally, it can be considered the home advantage, since they are on his territory, after all, and on his own terms;
- Techniques Present:
- Rigidity + indoctrination (Safin forcing both Swann and Mathilde to obey his orders and start living like he does);
- The home advantage (Them being on Safin’s iasland, on his own terms);
02:08:00
Bond sitting down with Safin
- Is It Realistic: Yes (Very);
- Description:
- So, we see an interesting metaphor by Bond. He’s establishing a bond with Safin, saying both had few chances, and contrasts that with what he wants to do, killing millions, which gives them no chance. So he’s establishing identity traits and characteristics in common to persuade;
- Then, Safin uses identity in a different way. He tells Bond that they are similar, in that they are killers, and he’s just cleaner;
- This is a great scene, because Bond picks the characteristics in common that are useful to demotivate him, while Safin picks the characteristics in common that are useful to motivate himself. Two opposite sides of the spectrum;
- We also see unexpected rigidity. That is, Safin is trying to make a deal with Bond, but he refuses when he demands that Swann with him. Bond literally refuses a possible deal when he states this, drawing a boundary – he could accept other things, but not losing Swann;
- Then, we finally see a distraction. Bond using a false apology to draw his gun and and try to shoot his way out;
- Techniques Present:
- Identity (Bond establishing common characteristics for his purpose, and Safin doing the same for his);
- Unexpected rigidity + personal boundaries (Safin making the last-minute demand of having Swann stay with him);
- Physiological priming (Bond causing a distraction with the fake apology);
