Jason Bourne (2016)

Jason Bourne (2016)

Bourne Identity Crisis

I expected this reception... All men hate the wretched; how, then, must I be hated, who am miserable beyond all living things! Yet you, my creator, detest and spurn me, thy creature, to whom thou art bound by ties only dissoluble by the annihilation of one of us. You purpose to kill me. How dare you sport thus with life?
-Monster to Doctor Frankenstein

Jason Bourne has a new problem. He’s had an old problem for five movies. That’s his new problem. The journey of self-discovery is inversely related to an audience’s interest in his quest. The kicks, punches, cuts, explosions are becoming more exquisite… and less compelling. The key to this movie franchise was violence in the service of righteous discovery. It has become special effects to mask self-indulgent realization. It is ironic that the bookend to this quintet would be the eponymous “Jason Bourne”. It might have been a subtle hint that the franchise is running out of bullets.

 “The Bourne Identity” begot the “Supremacy” which gave rise to the “Ultimatum” which then left us the “Legacy”. It would seem this would be a fitting place for Jason to stand on his laurels… or disappear into the unremitting hell of being the Platonic ideal of a soldier who has lost the will to fight. Fittingly “Jason Bourne” begins with our hero attempting suicide via a series hand to hand combat encounters. He is a pick-up fighter pitted against desperate pugilists in the grim, war-torn ghettoes of stateless no man lands. There is a plot twist which brings him back to face his old creators/enemies. It involves a love interest who discloses that there is more to his family story. This is an interesting choice as audience veterans of the previous tetralogy would have thought this plot line was long past bearing fruit. Those suspicions were well-founded The denouement is as tiresome as watching the never-ending fisticuffs and pyrotechnics. 

Are you sitting down. This film revolves around a discovery about…. Jason’s FATHER. Not to divulge state secrets but it is less riveting than Luke Skywalker’s paternal surprise. If this series need a re-boot they should have stayed clear of the family closet. Jason is, once again, punching his way to answers about his tormented conception. The conceit is that somehow a thorough understanding of his history would alleviate his existential torment. This is a curious premise given that the spy business rests on fluidity of character and alliances. The film series lays out a bi-polar world in which Jason is good, albeit abused and troubled. His creators are a bottomless pit of mendacity. The drama has ossified around this divide. “Jason Bourne” is…. boring. There I said it.  The franchise creators needed to go undercover within Jason himself rather than reenforcing “the innocent duped” narrative. The freshness of Jason’s self-discovery and the revelations about his “origins” cannot be sustained through five feature length films. As family secrets become stale the fireworks get louder. This latest installment contains one of the most technically impressive car chase scenes ever filmed. It is a feast for the male adolescent audience member. Adults, however, yearn for the excitement of the human drama.

The Bourne films masquerade in the action/adventure genre but are a re-envisioning of Frankenstein saga. Men of power attempt to play God via the scientific method. They use technology to create perfectly programmed beings. This is an old story and the results are always troubling. Dr. Frankenstein, Dr. Moreau, the prison reformers in “A Clockwork Orange”, the creators of the the $6 million man or the Stepford Wives, Dr. Nathan from “Ex Machina” are all members of this misguided fraternity of God-like scientists.  Sentient beings possess the ability to empathize. This trait is inconvenient for programmers. 

In the Bourne series the security chiefs discover this flaw when Jason goes off the grid in the first film. The event that prompts his breakdown is the unexpected appearance of a child on the lap of his target. This triggers the chase that has lasted for 5 feature films. Jason’s refusal to kill the innocent leads to his metaphorical parents wishing to commit infanticide. He is now the sacrificial lamb for national security. The cleverness of the plot revolved around Bourne’s recovering his amnesia while trying to gauge foe and friend. Unfortunately Jason has morphed from Frankenstein’s monster contemplating humanity to a combination of Rambo and MacGyver seeking revenge against horrible parents. Tragedy is now revenge fantasy. Romance is now pornography. 

Jason Bourne needs to be reborn. The only path is to shift his moral compass. This involves a re-visiting of the ‘road to Damascus’ moment. What is Bourne relationship with the dark side? The seeds for another conversion are already in place. Spies are nick-named ‘spooks’ for a reason. Their work is rooted in the un-human and inhumane. Their consciences can be eased by the canard that “it’s all for the good”. The series sees Bourne questioning the cause and re-discovering his selfless, patriotic, civic ideal. But what if that past is merely another cover? Would it be foolish to believe that the original Jason was without flaw? Might there be a trace of glory-hunting or an unhealthy desire to ‘neutralize’ the bad guys? Here is the key to breathing life into the moribund premise. The arduousness of life on the run leads to a full embrace of the material world. Some might see as antithetical to his character. It is the malleability of Bourne’s core personality, however, that is the true gristmill of the drama. Sadly the producers have lost themselves in the flash. In this last film Jason is not missing in action. He’s missing in the action. 

“Jason Bourne” needs to be acknowledged as technically first rate in terms of production value and acting. Alicia Vikander is wonderful as the kinder, gentler amoral intelligence executive. She has chemistry with Matt Damon who never fails to bring dignity to the role. Even after five features you feel for his character. Tommy Lee Jones is the embodiment of the self-righteous, fascist, paternalistic, security state. Strangely he seems to have over-played his hand in that his Southern charm was subsumed by a Rumsfeld bureaucratic swagger. It needed more of Tommy and less of Donald. The aforementioned Las Vegas car scene is a tour-de-force of automobile carnage. These sequence have their roots in Steve Macqueen’s  1968 “Bullitt” and are a mainstay of Bollywood and Honk Kong action films. The tradition continues in  “Jason Bourne” as there are a number of magnificent motorcycle and foot chases that proceed the Vegas bacchanal. If fists and fireworks are your bailiwick, “Jason Bourne” delivers. If you are interested in a drama that has resonance beyond the movie theater, you need to watch the earlier films in this series.

There is a final sequence which summarizes the emptiness behind the adrenaline rush. Bourne makes a point of unmasking someone he had trusted as an ally throughout the story. This occurs just as he returns to the oblivion (and safety) of anonymity.  He makes sure that they know “he’s on to them”. Unfortunately this amplifies Jason’s pettiness, rather than his sagacity. He, and the producers, have mistaken Bourne for an avenging angel. In truth he is Lucifer, the fallen one. The nuance in the relationship is the lifeblood of his story.  Pure good and absolute evil have no place in this struggle. Bourne has, single handedly,  murdered nearly 30 people that the State designated as expendable. Tommy Lee Jones’ character, in verbal exposition, reminds everyone of this fact. The audience should not feel sorry for Jason as he returns to his ghost world. Nor should Jason begrudge his ally for wanting to kill him if he becomes expendable. To quote the character Hyman Roth from the “Godfather II”, “This is the business we’ve chosen”. It is ironic that after all this time the makers of the Bourne series have forgotten Jason’s identity. The rage of a spurned child should not be masked in a shroud of decency, no matter the legitimacy of his struggle. Dr. Frankenstein’s treatment of his creation might have earned him the murder of his close relatives…. but the monster was never anything but… a monster. Jason Bourne became a designated killing machine, but what role was he playing prior to his brainwashing? How different was he from the bureaucrat who was willing to liquidate him when he lost his usefulness? Jason and the producers need to remember the Godfather’s words to the corrupt politician, “we are BOTH part of the same hypocrisy, Senator”. Recalling that realization won’t bring solace to Bourne, but it will endlessly reward fans of this film franchise. 

Note: a thank you to Erica Da Costa for drawing the link between Frankenstein’s monster and Jason Bourne. 

Interstellar (2014)

Interstellar (2014)

Ground Control to Chris and Jon

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” 

― Laurence J. Peter, The Peter Principle

Matthew McConaughey is a bore to watch. There, I said it. Unfortunately he is the star of “Interstellar”, Christopher Nolan’s latest sci-fi film. McConaughey's performance in “Dallas Buyers Club” was a tour de force but “True Detectives” showed the limits of his force. He has a propensity to ham it up if left unsupervised - see “Wolf of Wall Street”. Nolan gave McConaughey free reign to drift when the actor needed to be fastened to his command chair. Someone might have tapped the director on the shoulder and noted that John Lithgow, a seasoned master of stage and screen, was on the set. Lithgow plays a grumpy old man with nothing to do except yell at his grandkids. He did an amazing job but there are only so many ways to bark at children. Michael Caine, another screen legend, phoned-in his part as the chief Scientist. The other cast members were saddled with roles that failed to test their mettle, maybe they could have assisted Lithgow with the kids. It is a crime that all these talented people were put under the yoke of Nolan and hundreds of millions in studio money. They needed direction, not expensive props. They were crushed by an army of accountants and technicians adrift without a leader. Even Matt Damon, who has exhibited discretion in his choice of material, fell victim. Two hours into battle Matt rises out of a deep induced coma. He has openly expressed regret for rejecting a part in the sci-fi mega-blockbuster “Avatar” which explains his unfortunate decision to participate in this holiday turkey. Damon throws a few punches and then blows up, literally. His character’s fury is rooted in having lied in order to secure an undeserved rescue. The off screen Damon might be equally peeved for different reasons.

Nolan’s films prove the ‘The Peter Principle’. This is business management jargon for the idea that managers rise to the level of their incompetence.  Promotions based on past work are no harbinger of future success as the new job requires a new toolkit. This writer/director started with an innovative independent film, “Memento”, based on a leading character with no ability to retain long-term memory. It was followed “Insomnia” where a California detective is forced to solve a case in the endless sunlight of an Alaskan summer. It was a main-stream commercial feature with big name stars and pushed the boundaries of a detective story, think “Crime and Punishment” rather than Dick Tracey. The serial killer was played against type by Robin Williams. Ironically during the dissection of this actor's suicide the stress of working in constant daylight took a serious emotional toll on the erstwhile comic, leading to a relapse and a stint in rehab. It had the opposite effect on Mr. Nolan’s career leading to his taking the reigns of the Batman franchise and his own high budget science fiction film “Inception”. These endeavors showed strong box office which led to Nolan being given the opportunity to direct another of his ideas, which he penned with his brother Jonathan (who wrote “Memento”). “Interstellar” is a complicated apocalyptic tale with elements of time travel and space exploration. Commercially speaking the Nolans’ projects have shown a general upward trend in gross receipts. They have been given more resources and delivered solid returns. Artistically speaking, however, things ended with “Batman Begins”. In viewing “Interstellar” one wonders whether Robin Williams wasn’t the only victim of “Insomnia”. Plumbing the minds of brain damaged loners and guilt wracked detectives does not prepare one to paint portraits of established super-heroes or create other worlds. The Nolan brothers are better suited to a narrower canvass. Unfortunately “Interstellar” is a grand showcase of glitzy lazy amateurism born of being overwhelmed.

It’s difficult to give scope to the epic horribleness of this film. Usually the craft-related departments come through in these blockbusters. Not in this case. Even the makeup was bad. McConaughey, who plays a NASA pilot/corn farmer, had an unearthly copper hue. This dove-tailed with the flatness of the special effects, astounding for a modern day sci-fi feature. What was particularly disturbing was the blatant  borrowing from Kubrick’s “2001”. Imitation of a classic is derigueur… but a half baked, half assed re-staging? Norton's “astronaut falling into the time abyss” is even more embarrassing when one considers the original was made over 46 years ago, decades before wide-scale deployment of computer graphics in motion pictures. Nolan’s visual impairment is matched by his aural deficits. The sound mix lost all sense of proportion. Key moments of dialogue were drowned out by tinnitus inducing swells of music or special effects. Not that hearing the words really mattered. Nolan has the knack of repeating things in droning soliloquies. If you miss it the first time due to a timpani drum or a tidal wave, you will have four or five more opportunities to digest the narrative. As we drift through Nolan’s universe with this crew of tired cartoon characters, we yearn for yesteryear’s stark simplicity. Nearly half a Century ago HAL was terrorizing his astronauts with simple curt sentences as they breathed and breathed and breathed. This combined with the Strauss waltzes defined the rhythms of space. Instead we are subjected to the tedious dialogue on obscure science or non-sensical plot points. Nolan’s script is designed for obsessive test takers who are interested in passing a quiz on the plot, rather than an audience focused on experiencing the texture of other worlds. There is a madness to the grand reveals in this film. Are we supposed to believe that this passionate NASA employee is completely unaware of a major NASA installation with a few hours drive in this underpopulated world? Are we to believe that the people in charge of this super massive installation are unaware that the leading NASA pilot is just down the road? Are we to believe that the NASA chiefs would suddenly hire this pilot who happens upon the facility due to his 10 year old daughter's receiving messages in morse code from another dimension? Yes, yes yes…..  Which begs the exclamation, WTF!? It goes on and on…. for 2 hours and 49 minutes. This audience member was praying that another encounter with a black hole would speed the clock… alas unlike the Lazarus project heroes stranded on those distant planets, there was no hibernation chamber to shield us from the desolate monotony.

Even the most insipid late night television spot can lay bare insights into the society at large. This holiday blockbuster offers a strange asymmetrical message regarding scientific progress. “Interstellar’s” earth has suffered an unspecified ecological disaster leading to the degradation of farmland and a one generation end-time. There are vague references to greedy selfishness being at the heart of the debacle. Everyone wanting too much which might hint at a call to collectivism. Strangely McConaughey seems to exhibit an abhorrence to the idea that the government, or anyone, can tell him anything. The apocalypse has had no dent in our hero’s solid American individualism. Oddly the this end-time earth bears little resemblance to the standard “Mad Max” set-piece. It is a subdued shabby rural setting. Imagine a crappy small town in the Mid West or upstate NY that is visited by a dust storm every fortnight. It’s drab, but people are well fed. There is a muddled sense of order more Mayberry than dystopia. The government has the same listless quality. There is an odd sequence where the local school teaches McConaughey’s daughter that his beloved Apollo missions never made it to the moon. This propaganda is designed to keep the young people interested in farming rather than technology. This makes little sense as McConaughey’s farm is swimming in high tech automation. Logic would dictate a Federal push against publicizing space exploration achievements would have no bearing on agriculture as a career. Unfortunately we are in the Nolan’s strange universe. This particular storyline makes Pol Pot’s campaign to promote smoking seem downright comprehensible. “Interstellar”, despite the reams of expository dialogue, is riddled with inexplicable reasons for the characters’ motivations. Probably the central incredulous plot point lies in Caine lying to McConaughey about the prospects for earth. We are supposed to believe this former NASA pilot, who loathes his current farm work and obsessively collects space trinkets, would refuse to lead an intergalactic mission to save mankind. All because of his young daughter. I guess the Nolan’s missed the news story about Mars One, the current ONE WAY mission to form human colonies on Mars. Here is a quote from the NY Times article: “More than 200,000 people from dozens of countries applied”. No doubt there are hundreds of parents amongst the throngs willing to abandon their families to serve some outlandish fantasy of “progress”. McConaughey himself is an odd proselytizer about Science’s place in man’s future. He rails against the lying PC police who deride NASA. At the close of the film he has a change of heart. He sits in the old farmhouse replete with a small little league field outside. It is now located in a huge space station orbiting Saturn. He senses something is wrong and embarks for the wormhole to get to his sweetheart. Her partner has conveniently died. His sweetie sits in her brave new world. The odd thing is it bears a remarkable resemblance to the desolate earth everyone is abandoning. One again, WTF? One keeps on thinking - why didn’t everyone just stay on earth and try to solve those problems? This sort of question is never really addressed in the film. Earth IS finished. Period. All the wizardry that assures a successful space mission never applies to the mother planet. Underneath the copper skin of McConaughey’s “down to earth” hero is a pernicious technological escapism. This badly executed, poorly thought-out, feature is really a paean to mankind’s technical prowess. Our answers lie in our abilities to innovate. We can always build tunnels to escape out mistakes.

The Nolans have proved themselves clever with their early work. This film is dumb which is highlighted by it’s attempts at being smart. There is a constant refrain from Michael Caine of Dylan Thomas’ wonderful poem, “Do Not Go Gentle into that Goodnight”. The force of this work lies in KNOWING the fight will inevitably END IN DEATH. The valiance is born in being DOOMED. So why is this poetry triumphantly repeated by the lead scientist charged with manning earth’s salvation? Well the clever Nolan brothers might say that Caine knew the earth would fail. Correct. Except that he had a strong faith in his mission’s success exhibited by the fact that he felt guilty about not having a majority of earthlings join in his careful PLAN B. Thomas’ words sound good, especially when rounded by Caine’s rough English accent. Unfortunately they make about as much sense as the rest of this draw-out mess of a film. It is inconceivable that people who would carefully plot the logical progress in “Memento” would make the amateurish mistakes which permeate every aspect of “Interstellar”. How could this happen? It is preferable, from an artistic POV, to believe the Nolan brothers are simply in it for the money. Sadly it seems this nearly three hour waste of time is rooted in a genuine effort to produce good work. It would be economically more rewarding to produce a shorter film. There is also an excess of heartfelt nonsense that simple con men would eschew. No, the fraternal duo are being blinded by misguided accolades and the Sirens’ call of huge budgets in order to spare no expense for their “vision”. Audiences everywhere can hope that their inner circle possesses an honest friend who can advocate for spare modesty in their next endeavor.  How about a ninety minute film of a father caught between the pull of duty and his tween daughter? Unfortunately one sense future movie-goers are in store for more of the Nolans' magic. The brothers might want to ponder the lyrics of a current indie calypso band: “Don’t need no message from outer space, to see what’s goin’ on in front me face” *.  And maybe someone could send them a copy of “The Peter Principle”. 

Promised Land (2012)

The Promise of Matt Damon

Matt Damon is one of those rare species that manages to pick appropriate material to showcase his talent. Sean Penn is a better actor than his body of work; the opposite might be said of Damon. His films give him a broader range than one might imagine. His matinee idol quality (Bourne Identity series/Bagger Vance/Saving Private Ryan) fails to obscure his gravitas (Syriana/ The Green Zone/ The Departed/The Good Shepard).  Off screen Damon maintains a solidly progressive political track record culminating in being the voice over for the documentary “Inside Job” which chronicled the 2008 financial debacle . Even if you’re a reactionary; it’s hard not to like the guy. His comity glows whether he is fiercely debating a reporter over teacher’s pay or signing autographs to exuberant fans.   He has a self-depreciating “everyman” quality that belies a dogged determination.  It has been over a decade and a half since he broke onto the scene with “Good Will Hunting” and yet he has remained “on top”.  That doesn’t happen by accident. Mr. Damon has now decided to reprise working with the director, Gus Van Sant, who guided his breakthrough project. It is an interesting combo as they both share the same social concerns and have chosen to base this feature around a contentious political issue: oil shale fracking.

Van Sant has a jaundiced view of the wholesome American dream.   “To Die For” is based around a woman who seduces teenagers to murder her husband who is blocking her dreams of stardom. “Last Days” is a fictional account of the suicide of a rock star based on Kurt Kobain’s final week. “Elephant” is a meditation on the Columbine massacre. Van Sant also had the courage to tell the story of the gay political pioneer Harvey Milk who was assassinated by a deluded blue collar hero.  The edgy subject matter never matches the filmmaking. “Milk” was milquetoast (my review: http://thebettertruth.blogspot.com/2009/01/milktoast-heroes-my-grandmother-was.html). “My Own Private Idaho” and “Drugstore Cowboy”, once again dark heartland tales, established a meandering, listless conventional story-telling that permeates his work. Stripping away the daring subject matter, one is left with forgettable conventional features.  The idea of Van Sant teaming up with Damon on a hot button topic conjured up the prospect of an uninspired preachy rant - however much one may agree with the perils of Natural Gas Drilling.  In the end “Promised Land” surprises. Damon manages to pull Van Sant from his gloominess and delivers a solid romantic comedy. Who woulda thought?

The key to the success of “Promised Land” is channeling the “off screen” amiability of Matt Damon. Here is an example of the spirit of the man. Most movie stars cringe at being accused of being gay.  It has been viewed, even in this day, as potential box office poison. Here is Damon’s response to accusations that he was romantically involved with Ben Affleck:

“I never denied those rumors because I was offended and didn’t want to offend my friends who were gay, as if being gay were some kind of f--king disease. It put me in a weird position in that sense.”

That response deserves an academy award for magnanimity given the fact that most stars choose to curse the reporter posing the question. Van Sant and Damon’s very open political and environmental beliefs one might have expected “Promised Land” to be a screed against BIG ENERGY. It does deliver that message - but it also surprises and draws the audience in with the acknowledgment that the dividing line between good and evil is more of a circle.

The central character in this Dave Egger’s story is a disillusioned Iowa farm boy turned huckster of big gas fracking. (Note: Damon and another star John Krasinski wrote the screenplay) The backstory is critical as the protagonist’s embrace of corporate power is rooted in a bitter acknowledgment the inevitable reach of modern corporations. One such company destroyed his beloved hometown by closing down a manufacturing facility. Matt Damon’s character isn’t a true believer but someone who lives his life in a Freudian reaction formation. To quote wikipedia:

In psychoanalytic theory, reaction formation is a defensive process (defense mechanism) in which anxiety-producing or unacceptable emotions and impulses are mastered by exaggeration (hypertrophy) of the directly opposing tendency

In other words Matt is an effective salesman because he believes this is the ONLY way that small farmers can embrace the future. In his mind there is NO choice but to join the winning side - so he does - WITH GUSTO. His dressing in costume and practicing his “down homeness” matches his scoring points with the home office by low-balling the “marks”. It is all an embrace of the mirror image of the values of the heartland: he’s an honest, hardworking bullshit-artist.... and you like him. Ditto for his partner (Francis McDormand), a beleaguered single mother wistfully watching her son grow up on Skype while she struggles to bring home the bacon.  She is less convinced of “the mission” but all she has to do is look across the table at the desperate farmers to know that it’s better to be a hammer than a nail.  Interestingly Damon, in order to suppress his pity, erupts with rage against those trying to ignore the onslaught of big business.  All the characters who have post-highschool education are finely drawn:  John Krasinski is wonderful as the Bendict Arnold environmentalist as is Hal Holbrook as the retired engineer/science teacher.  In the end you get what makes them tick delivered in crisp credible dialogue and gesture.  The local yokels fail to inspire. They are incarnations of how college people view the rural underclass.  Their words might inspire but the quality of expression is devoid of the taciturn, hard worn brevity of many farmers. Can anyone imagine the farmer in Grant Wood’s American Gothic giving a speech? All you have to know is the clenched pitchfork - direct all questions to his spouse. Note: Mr. Wood changed her role to “daughter” after depression era audiences were uncomfortable with husband having a wife half his age. The old man in the painting is remaining silent.

In the end it is the faceless company playing games with Damon’s integrity forces our anti-hero to be the real deal. He’ll play the game... to a point.  Krasinki and Mcdormand are bewildered.  We’re all getting paid in the end and we win.... so who cares?  But the beauty of this set-piece is that Damon does.  The closing scene shows him channeling the shame of John Proctor in the Crucible. The dialogue fails to match Arthur Miller’s words of the farmer from Salem MA; but one can feel Damon channeling the pathos of the American Classic:  “How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”  In a sense this film fails to be about Natural Gas as much as the hopelessness of good people forced to do bad for all the good/wrong reasons. Matt gives us the unvarnished truth about fracking: You might get paid; but the cost could be your land and heritage.  The movie cleverly recognizes that even good people on both sides of a sale will make the wrong decision; but it’s THEIR career or land and, more importantly, THEIR choice. We are in a soapbox-free zone.

As a coda I would like to mention an article I saw in the Daily Mail.  It is strange that I should quote a newspaper dedicated to tearing apart the subject’s integrity but that makes the headline all the more poignant:

Friday, Jan 11 2013

'I couldn't leave them': Matt Damon clasps daughter tight... as he reveals he gave up director role to be with his four children

I believe him. Maybe I’m a fool and this is an elaborate PR campaign to boost the “goodness” of the film - but I don’t think so. Boxoffice fails to rule in this case. Damon will jump at the chance to be in the blockbusters.... but it seems merely a platform for quieter, more important work.  That is a promise well worth keeping.

Added in early 2018 - as a coda to the coda. The sexual abuse scandals have rocked the business and entertainment world.  Maybe I saw too much in Damon in that his failure to call out Harvey Weinstein coupled with a less than robust response to the "me too" movement has certainly tarnished his standing as an unblemished "good guy." There are no reports of his being directly involved in abuse, but there is a certainly the impression that he could have done more to stand up for vulnerable women.