Saturday 25 June 2016

Book Vs. Movie - V For Vendetta

   V For Vendetta is a 2006 thriller adapted from a 1988-9 graphic novel of the same name. Written by the critically-acclaimed author Alan Moore, the comic told the story of V, an anarchist revolutionary dressed as Guy Fawkes who plots to take down the fascist British government in a dystopian future (1997-8). The film has since become a cultural icon, the Guy Fawkes mask becoming a world-reknowned symbol of anti-government protest. But does the book offer anything more than the film? Why did V become so popular after the film's release, but not the book's? Let's find out.
   One thing you'll notice is that the movie's story has been changed up a fair bit from the book's, so for that reason I'm going to summarize the plots from both.
   First the book, which takes place in 1997/8. It is now approximately one decade after the USA and USSR blasted eachother to smithereens, rendering much of the world uninhabitable in the process. What remains of the United Kingdom is now a single-party fascist state ruled by the ruthless Norsefire Party. A 16 year-old girl named Evey is rescued from would-be rapist policemen (called “fingermen”) by the mysterious V, who then blows up the Houses of Parliament and takes Evey to his hideout, the Shadow Lair. Detective Eirc Finch is tasked with following the trail of bodies. V kills or incapacitates several people who, as Finch later learns, all worked at the Larkhill Resettlement Camp where V originated and that everyone who might have been able to identify him is now dead. Disgusted by V's show of violence, Evey leaves and moves in/sleeps with a much older man named Gordon. When Gordon is murdered by gangsters (under Ally Harper) months later, she plans on getting violent revenge, but is captured and imprisoned before she can carry it out. Evey then undergoes several weeks of torture and starvation, yet she refuses to give up information on V's identity or whereabouts even when threatened with execution. But instead of being executed, Evey is set free only to discover that her imprisonment was a hoax devised by V so that she could share in the experience that shaped him. Evey forgives V, who then reveals that he has hacked into Fate – the government's near-omniscient supercomputer system – and is using it to manipulate the supreme Leader Adam Susan into a fragile state of mind. V soon blows up 3 more government buildings, effectively cutting off the party's surveillance abilities. The fingermen – led by Peter Creedy – and his associated gangs (again, under Harper) try to suppress the revolutionary fervour erupting in the streets. Meanwhile, Finch correctly deduces the Shadow Gallery's location, taking V by surprise. After a brief scuffle both are wounded, V mortally so. V makes his way to Evey and dies in her arms. Meanwhile Adam Susan is shot during a parade, just as Creedy hoped. Creedy assumes emergency leadership of the country. The resulting power struggle between the remaining high officials results in all of their deaths. Disillusioned, Finch quits his job. Evey, dressed as V, appears before a crowd to incite a general insurrection. Using an underground train containing V's body and tons of explosives, she then blows up 10 Downing Street.
   And now for the movie. This story takes place in the 2020's in a world where the US is devastated by a Second Civil War and Europe is ravaged by the “St. Mary's Virus”. The UK, which for the past few years has been untouched by the epidemic, is still ruled by the fascist Norsefire Party. V rescues Evey Hammond (who in this version works at the state-run television network [the BTN], not a munitions factory) from the Fingermen and together they watch the Old Bailey being blown up. The next day V hijacks a BTN broadcast to deliver a speech to the nation inviting everyone to join him at parliament on next year's Guy Fawkes Day. The police attempt to capture him, but Evey helps him escape and they both flee together to the Shadow Gallery where V tells Evey that she must stay one year. Just as he did in the book, V begins axing off his former camp associates. Evey offers to help him take out one, but uses the opportunity to escape to the house of her boss, the talk show host Gordon Deitrich. As a show of trust, Gordon shows Evey his basement of subversive materials. Soon thereafter, Gordon does a sketch on his show lampooning the government and its High Chancellor (not Leader). This leads to Creedy and the police raiding his home and arresting him. Evey tries to escape, but is captured and imprisoned. Her imprisonment scenes mirror those of the book exactly. The difference is that once Evey forgives V, she still decides to leave him, yet promises to return before 5 November. Meanwhile, detective Finch learns of V's origins at Larkhill, in the bioweapons program detention centre. Following the trail, Finch meets a man named William Rockwood who explains to him that the program – which was directed by the now-current High Chancellor – was used to create the St. Mary's virus. This virus was released upon the British population as a false terrorist attack (similar to the Reichstag Fire), killing tens of thousands and allowing the Norsefire Party to sweep into power. (The cure was released soon after the election by a pharmecutical company owned by the inner party members. And nobody noticed this?) Finch later learns that Rockwood was actually V (even though it was pretty obvious). As 5 November approaches, V mails thousands of Guy Fawkes masks to Londoners who begin questioning the Party's rule. V proposes a deal with Peter Creedy: he'll surrender if Creedy executes High Chancellor Sutler. The two meet. Creedy executes Sutler in front of V (suddenly and rather anti-climatically), but V refuses to surrender. A shootout occurs in which V kills Creedy and his men, but is mortally wounded. He makes his way to Evey, who has returned to the Shadow Gallery, and professes his love for her before dying in her arms. Finch discovers the lair just as Evey loads V's body onto the explosive-laden underground train, but he allows her to send the train on its way to Parliament. A large crowd of masked people (a rather cool-looking visual) converge on Parliament just in time to see it demolished.
   So yeah. Pretty different. Let's go over the methods by which the producers changed things. As with a lot of movie adaptations, the story was altered to give it a more actiony feel. The movie doesn't go as far with this as a lot of others do, but it's pretty clear that the escape from the BTN station scene and the scene where V kills Creedy were just added for thrills. But to be fair, I'd still consider this a “thriller” movie, so whatever.
   If you've read the comic, you'll definitely notice that there were characters left out of the movie. This includes Ally Harper, Dominic Stone, Derek and Rose Almond, and Conrad and Helen Heyer. Yeah, the comic had a ton of characters in it, and because of film's feature-length time constraints I think it was fair to expect that some of them would be jettisoned. With the possible exception of Rose Almond's story, I don't think the dropping of these characters was that big a loss.
   There are however many characters whose movie depictions are noticeably different than the book's. For example, the film version of Eric Finch seems to already be skeptical of the government's morality. Although he initially disbelieves the Norsefire plot to unleash the St. Mary's virus, it doesn't take much to change his mind later. Also, he chose to allow Evey to blow up the parliament buildings (effectively joining V's cause, taking the place of Stone in the comic) whereas in the book he remained loyal to the side of law and order. Even after his great epiphany moment, the comic book version of Finch still sought after V and tried to kill him. The main bad guy in the film is High Chancellor Adam Sutler instead of Leader Adam Susan. They changed it from Leader to Chancellor to make it sound like 1930's Germany and they changed his name to Sutler to make it sound like “Hitler”. Do you get it yet? Have they hammered it in enough for you? Whereas in the book the Leader was a solitary, depressed figure whose loneliness was manipulated by V through Fate (which is completely absent in the film, by the way), the film's version of the Leader is a total non-character. All he does in the movie is be grumpy, yell at his subordinates, and threaten them. And lastly, Gordon was completely changed from his depiction in the comics. Instead of a small-time bootlegger, he's now a talk show host who's also a closeted homosexual (which is a crime under this regime). This is one change that I actually like; since he and Evey already know eachother there's already a trust bond the audience can buy. Not to mention, the thought of a 40-something sleeping with a 16/17 year old girl ain't quite right. Also, I really like the scene showing Gordon's comedy sketch. It's a bit of good old fun, a rare moment where the movie doesn't take itself so seriously.
   As for Evey, she's a bit older, has a steady job, and is more confident and open to rebellious ways of thinking than she was in the book. The original portrayal of Evey showed her as a desperate and timid young woman who was being forced into prostitution. Also, the ending of the book has her taking up V's disguise and continuing his crusade. As for V, he seems a bit more romanticised than his comic book counterpart, who is ruthless and keeps you questioning whether or not he is truly a hero or villain. He also seems to use a lot more words with V in them. At least his voice sounds cool thanks to Hugo Weaving. The movie also played up the V-Evey relationship into a full blown romance, which was simply unnecessary if you ask me.
   One major change in the movie that rubbed me the wrong way was how Americanized it was. Instead of an anarchy vs. fascism conflict (i.e. criticizing Thatcher) we get liberalism vs. neoconservatism (i.e. criticizing Bush). (This would explain why there is far less rioting and chaos in the movie.) The Norsefire government of the movie doesn't appear to care about racial purity – in the book, they more or less exterminated Britain's black population – and instead are concerned with wiping out Islam. Likewise, the whole “the government initiated a crisis in order to give itself more power” sounds an awful lot like some 9/11 conspiracy theories. And more blatantly, it is implied that the movie's ongoing US Civil War is a result of the War on Terror. Now look, I'm all for updating old stories to make them more relevant to modern audiences, but in this case having Americans write and produce the update causes the story to lose its overall British character. Even the two lead characters are portrayed by American actors, for cryin' out loud!
   In fact, there are even moments where it seems the movie's story was dumbed down for American audiences. For example, the comic hardly ever mentions Guy Fawkes by name, but the film flat out explains who he is right in the opening (and continuously mentions him several times throughout). Also, whereas the book began with V blowing up parliament and ends with Evey blowing up 10 Downing Street, the movie begins with V blowing up the Old Bailey and ends with Evey blowing up parliament. Why'd they change this? Maybe because blowing up parliament would make for a more impressive finale... or because the filmmakers didn't think American audiences would know what 10 Downing Street is?
   Here's a few more change-ups I noticed, yet couldn't categorize anywhere else:
  • Instead of traumatizing Lewis Prothero – a propaganda broadcaster – like he did in the comic, movie V just kills him.
  • The use of Beethoven's 5th Symphony is used in different scenes. In the comic it is played when V kills Bishop Lilliman. In the movie it is played when V breaks into Creedy's house and makes his proposition.
  • The movie makes little mention of the “body part” ministries found in the book: the Nose (police), the Finger (secret police), the Ear and the Eye(surveillance), the Mouth (propaganda), and the Head (inner party/government)
  • Neither the book nor the film show V's face. However the movie suggests that most of V's body is covered in ghastly burn scars, so one can assume that his face would be a big disfigured scab.

  And so that's V for Vendetta. As you can probably tell, I much prefer the book over the movie; it comes off as a more complete, thought-provoking, well-rounded, and realistic story. Nevertheless, the movie is enjoyable enough. It's a decent thriller that does a reasonable job of bringing its original tale to life. But if you haven't read the book, just be aware that you're doing yourself a big disservice.

Thursday 16 June 2016

Movie Review - X-Men: Apocalypse

   X-Men: Apocalypse is the third film in the new x-team series (as I call it), the sixth X-Men film overall, the eighth if you count both Wolverine movies, and ninth if you also count the Deadpool movie. (Dude, the tenth one should just be called X-Men: X!) That's a big universe to follow, but if you remember 2014's Days of Future Past you'll recall that the slate was wiped half-clean. So how does the latest X-flick add on to the legacy of one of the longest-running superhero franchises ever?
   Clumsily is the word I'd choose. Let me explain why. The film – or at least the version I saw – opens with Alexandra Shipp (Storm) thanking the audience for attending/repaying the film crew's hard work and wishing them an exciting viewing experience... OK then. The frick was that? Some kind of preemptive apology?
   Apocalypse takes place in 1983, ten years after the events of DoFP which means that we get to see our favourite mutant characters in some bodacious 80's hairstyles. Magneto has finally found a peaceful life. Or has he? Yeah, I'm not spoiler alerting this one as it's such an obvious plot device that you can see it coming a mile away. The only thing surprising about it is that both the most precious things in Magneto's life are ended by the clumsiest policeman in film history; seriously, the guy gets a no-scope double kill with a freakin' bow! Anyways, the ancient Egyptian super-mutant Apocalypse is awakened from his 5500-year slumber and intends to establish himself as the god of Earth. He's so powerful that he causes all of the world's nukes to launch and hang in orbit until people just sort of forget about them... um. So what happened to them? Did they just disappear? What a let down! I thought something really cool was going to happen with those tens of thousands of nukes, but we're just supposed to forget them? Lame! So the X-Men must band together if they're to have any hope of defeating Apocalypse and his Four Horsemen (who don't really do much until the end). It's a story that does provide a bunch of fun and interesting scenes, but it also meanders a lot. The film is loaded with scenes that didn't need to be added. For example, there's a scene in which the entire X-mansion is destroyed (from just one little jet engine blowing up) which only serves as a chance to show off Quicksilver's abilities as in the kitchen scene from last film. Another is when Quicksilver reveals that Magneto is his father, but again this plot thread goes nowhere and hardly adds anything to the story. But the worst case is when a bunch of characters are kidnapped and taken away to Colonel Stryker's Weapon X test site. This 15-20 minute scene only exists for the sole purpose of shoving in a Wolverine cameo. All of these scenes are wholly inconsequential to the plot and feel like they were only added to provide some unnecessary fan service.
   One thing I do have to commend this movie on is that it has the largest roster of characters of any X-Men flick yet. The only downside to this is that the writers clearly didn't know what to do with all of them. A lot of the time you'll be wondering “what is _____ doing right now?” Half the time the answer is “standing around, doing nothing.” The worst offender in this category is Moira MacTaggert. I know she doesn't have superpowers, but could you at least have given her something to do other than standing there looking worried? (Actually she is responsible for Apocalypse awakening, so yeah, everything bad in this movie is her fault.) Another problem I've noticed with a lot of the characters is that they don't seem to age. Shouldn't Xavier and Mystique be in their mid-40's by now? Shouldn't Havok be about 35ish? Again, MacTaggert is especially affected with this ailment; Xavier himself remarks at how she “hasn't aged a day” in the past 21 years. Remember how Moira was a competent enough character in First Class, but she had her memory wiped at the end? Well, in Apocalypse the payoff to that is that she's now a clueless airhead who is the butt of a lot of lame jokes. Also, if you blink you'll miss Jubilee. I smell deleted scenes. But not all the characters suck, in fact some are done even better than they were in original trilogy like Jean Grey, Nightcrawler, and Cyclops (even if his personality seems a little inconsistent at times). Even the longtime established characters get some development, like Mystique and Magneto. And best of all, Xavier is now bald!
   Maybe it's just me, but the CG effects didn't look all that good, which is a shame because the makeup effects looked great. At one point an early Metallica song, “The Four Horsemen”, is used during one of Apocalypse's scenes. That was awesome. Less impressive was the film's use of the Auschwitz scene from the very first X-Men film in 2000. That makes this the third time we've seen this footage. How lazy is that? They should have been concentrating on giving us a Ronald Reagan impersonator.
   What is impressive is the number of things in this film that wind up being unintentionally funny: scenes with people getting partially stuck in walls, people yelling “no!” in an overly dramatic fashion, security camera close-ups, Apocalypse randomly building a statue of himself and his minions in the middle of a frantic battle scene, and scenes with people in the background standing together staring at eachother. I chuckled a fair bit.
   On the whole, X-Men: Apocalypse is a great big mess. The script would have seriously benefited from another proofread or two. If you liked the previous two X-Men movies, then you'll probably like this one. Otherwise it's just more of the same from a franchise that really needs to try something new next time. There's one scene where some characters walk out of a theatre after seeing Return of the Jedi and one of them jokes that a franchise's “third movie is always the worst”. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Grade: two and a half out of five.

Saturday 11 June 2016

Alternate James Bond Continuity Theories

As I mentioned last week, fans of the James Bond 007 series are pretty dedicated and creative, enough to come up with such fan theories as the Code Name Theory. As promised, I'm going to go over some other 007 chronology theories today: not because I think any of them are valid, but because they seem rather interesting and fun. Let's take a look.

The Dual Timelines Theory
   One theory I've heard is that the ending to On Her Majesty's Secret Service spawned two separate alternate universes. The first splits directly into the Roger Moore era, in which Bond was able to keep his rage and anguish from losing Tracey under control. That's why the James Bond of the Roger Moore era is so lighthearted and pleasant; it's his way of coping with it. Once he finally, and rather luckily, got his revenge on Blofeld in the opening of For Your Eyes Only, he found true closure and happily continued a few more years until his retirement after A View to a Kill.
   The alternate timeline picks up at The Living Daylights. In this version Tracey's death led to Bond being consumed with anger and the drive for revenge. This accounts for why Timothy Dalton's Bond is so ruthless and intense. This timeline continues to the end of the Brosnan era. (The Daniel Craig era is presumably a different universe altogether.)
   This is a pretty interesting theory. The only problem though is that it doesn't account for the events of Diamonds Are Forever. Which timeline does that one belong to, if any?

Tying Up Loose Ends
   Another theory I've heard is that James Bond is indeed a codename passed down successively through agents, but each new 007 appointee is given a file detailing their predecessor's activities. This is so that each new agent can tie up the loose ends of his predecessor. This explains why Connery's Bond is so obsessed with finding Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever. Perhaps Lazenby's Bond just couldn't handle seeing his wife killed and quit the service, thus forcing Connery to return from extended leave to finish this one last mission. This explains why Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond in OHMSS. Also according to this theory, Lazenby's Bond wasn't reminiscing over the gadgets in his office; he was wondering what they were. He hadn't been agent 007 for long, so it may be possible that he hadn't fully cleaned out Connery's junk from his office yet.
   As for Blofeld, one could argue that that name is also passed down along to the next highest ranking Spectre agent: number two, number three, etc.
   While this is a pretty creative idea, it's a bit too convoluted to take seriously. I'd like to think that both Bond and Blofeld are the same guys they've always been.

The Spirit of Bond
   I've seen a couple comments saying that Bond's character is always the same, it's just that his consciousness switches bodies...OK. So 007's spirit floats around and possesses the bodies of already-grown men after leaving the body it's possessed for the past decade or so? Then whose consciousness was it originally? Is that man still alive? Is it Ian Fleming's? Is each host's body already an MI6 agent? What happens to the host body after the spirit leaves? Did it possess Connery twice then? This is just weird.

Daniel Craig's Bond is Connery Bond's Son
   Think about it, man. In real life Craig was born in 1968, when Bondmania was at its height. Perhaps Craig's Bond is the illegitimate son of Connery's Bond, named after his father. He then grew up wanting nothing more than to be a spy. His lifelong training is what allowed him to develop such marvelous skills. Under the watchful eye of Judi Dench's M he is swiftly promoted to 00 status, leading to his cocky attitude in Casino Royale. It makes perfect sense, right? After all, both characters are Scottish! Yes, this is just some crap I cooked up. You got me.

James Bond is a Time Lord
   Yeah, heh heh heh heh heh. No! If you've ever browsed any sort of comments section talking about the Code Name Theory then you've probably seen this joke about 10,000 times. And no, it doesn't get any funnier the 10,001st time. Also, I'm not from the UK; I couldn't care less about Doctor Who. So I've got a better idea...

James Bond is an Immortal à la Highlander
   It's brilliant, isn't it? The only downside is that he's only ever been in one sword fight (Die Another Day). Future movies should have a long-haired Bond get in epic swordfights and slicing dudes' freaking heads off while hard rock music blasts. I wanna see more of that in the sequels!

Saturday 4 June 2016

Judging the "James Bond Code Name Theory"

   In the past decade, the internet has been much more geared toward user-generated content. As a result, movie fans have been able to share a plethora of fan theories about their favourite films. This extends to the James Bond 007 series which, as exquisite as it is, is still not perfect. Of course it's fair to expect a 50 year old movie series with 24 entries to have a few inconsistencies. The most popular fan theory of explaining these disparities is the Bond Code Name Theory, which asserts that the name “James Bond” is not agent 007's real name but instead a code name that is successively passed down along MI6's best agents. It's an interesting theory, but does it hold water? Let's take a closer look at the infamous Code Name Theory.

The Case For
   The main purpose of the Code Name Theory is to explain why the character of James Bond does not age despite the obviously changing times (Cold War, Space Race, War on Terror, etc.) and stages of technological advancement. The Theory also explains why Bond's appearance and personality seem to change over the years. Third, the Theory also goes some way to account for the fact that agent 007 just can't seem to maintain any romantic relationships. And lastly, the Theory accounts for the fact that the spy's name is thrown around so much; pretty much everyone knows agent 007's name and so it would make little sense for him to be using his real name while on missions. Such a code name scheme could also be extended to account for the changes in both M and Q's appearances. (This explains how Judi Dench continues her role in the Craig-era films.)
   The evidence supporting the Code Name Theory comes mainly from just one movie: 1969's On Her Majesty's Secret Service featuring George Lazenby as the second actor to portray James Bond. The opening scene of that film concludes with Bond looking at the camera after the hot chick gets away and saying, “This never happened to the other fellow.” According to the Code Name Theory, this is Lazenby's Bond referring to his predecessor (Connery) as agent 007. The other main bit of evidence supporting the theory is the fact that Blofeld doesn't recognize Bond despite their meeting face to face in the previous film You Only Live Twice.

The Case Against
   There is much more evidence countering the Code Name Theory than there is supporting it. For instance, there's a scene in On Her Majesty's Secret Service in which Lazenby's Bond is considering resigning from MI6. He looks through a collection of gadgets in his drawer, reminiscing about past adventures (which took place in the Connery films). A similar scene appears with even more gadgets later in 2002's Die Another Day. Diamonds Are Forever shows Connery's Bond obsessed with finding and killing Blofeld. Considering that in the previous film Blofeld killed Bond's wife, this suggests that both Bonds – Connery and Lazenby – are the same character.
   In fact, references to Tracey Bond (and her death) are littered throughout the series. Here's a list of them:
  • In The Spy Who Loved Me agent Anya Amasova lists everything she knows about Bond (Roger Moore), including the tragic end to his brief marriage. Bond impatiently cuts her off with “Alright, you've made your point.”
  • For Your Eyes Only opens with Bond (Moore) placing flowers at Tracey's grave.
  • Felix Leiter tells his newlywed wife in License to Kill that Bond (Timothy Dalton) “was married once, but that was a long time ago.”
  • Elektra King asks Bond (Brosnan) in The World is Not Enough if he has ever lost someone close to him. Bond briefly pauses, then changes the subject, ignoring the question.
   Admittedly those last two points aren't very conclusive, but I'd like to think that they are indeed referring to Tracey. If they weren't, then they would just be random, inexplicable lines leading to nothing, and that would just be Tommy Wiseau-level of sloppy filmmaking.
   Other than that, there are additional pieces of evidence linking Bond portrayals together. For example, in The Spy Who Loved Me Moore's Bond runs into an old friend from Cambridge University, the same place where Connery's Bond recalled studying in You Only Live Twice. The Code Name Theory is also debunked by the fact that Bond is still called Bond after he leaves MI6 in License to Kill. His absence from they spy game is the reason why he's being evaluated for duty at the beginning of the following film, Goldeneye (featuring Pierce Brosnan taking the place of Timothy Dalton).
   Taking the Code Name Theory to its logical extreme quickly reveals its ridiculous reasoning. While the theory may be appropriate for such characters as M and Q, is it really appropriate to other characters who have changed actors like Ms. Moneypenny, Ernst Blofeld, or Felix Leiter? Are we also supposed to assume that recurring actors like Maud Adams, Charles Gray, Joe Don Baker, and Walter Gotell are playing the same character every time?

What About Daniel Craig?
   This one's easier to figure out. The films featuring Craig as Bond take place in a separate, rebooted universe from the rest. This is proven by the opening scene of Casino Royale, which shows Bond earning his 00 status early in his career. This is further backed up by the fact that in Spectre Bond has clearly never heard of the organization before. As for the continued presence of Judi Dench, I'm guessing the producers finally realized that they oughtta do something with this Academy Award-nominated national treasure of an actress, so her role was expanded upon in the following three films.
   It's also pretty clear that James Bond is this character's real name. In Skyfall Bond returns to the orphanage where he grew up. The groundskeeper there recognizes him and calls him James Bond. Furthermore, we later see the grave of 007's parents and their headstone has the name Bond engraved on it. If that doesn't convince you that the Theory doesn't apply here then I don't know what will!

Conclusion
   In my view, the Code Name Theory sounds interesting but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Most of the evidence supporting it comes from just one movie, and even then the most important piece of supporting evidence (Blofeld not recognizing Bond) comes from a simple continuity error. (In the book order, OHMSS came before YOLT , which would mean Bond and Blofeld were meeting for the first time in OHMSS. The screenwriters must've forgotten this when the movie order was changed around.) I think it's pretty conclusive that every Bond actor from Connery to Brosnan all portrayed the same character. Taken as a whole, the series' chronology was never all that comprehensive/cohesive, and the chronology of the 007 movies was probably never meant to be taken too seriously.

   Still I think it's cool that the fans have been dedicated enough to devise a way to try to make sense of everything. It really goes to show how much the fans care about this great series of films. Now if a black actor were suddenly cast as Bond, that would really throw a wrench into things... Anyways stay tuned next week when I'll go over some alternate 007 continuity theories.