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. 

Ex Machina (2015)

Ex Machina (2015)

Don’t Be Evil

“With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon”― Elon Musk at MIT Aeronautics and Astronautics Centennial Symposium, from Washington Post Article “Elon Musk’s nightmare: A Google robot army annihilating mankind”  May 13, 2015

Is Ava an ingenue in Alex Garland’s “Ex Machina”? That simple question is at the heart of this compact science fiction thriller based around the relationship between humans and sentient machines. Ava is a robot guided by extremely advanced algorithms. Does she have feelings?  Who deserves to be accorded de jure dignity and respect? Given our species track record of exploitation and domination, is it an act of suicide to extend the franchise to non-humans?  Apes, dogs or octopus’ are not an existential threat to mankind so the debate about according our fellow animals rights plods along at a comfortably sleepy academic pace. Computers, however,  manage the opaque programming of modern life. Our reliance on these unseen machines grows in tandem with a sense of dread about their ability to reek havoc.  This gives rise to the unsettling question: are they like us? Do they deserve to be treated as something other than pieces of metal, glass and plastic? Mr. Garland’s foil to explore these questions is a young computer scientist, Caleb, who is selected to take part in an experiment by Nathan. The latter is an amalgamation of many Silicon Valley pioneers. Sergey Brin, who as head of Google, has spent a fortune acquiring artificial intelligence and robotics companies without revealing his intent. Nathan’s unfathomable intellect and arrogance also brings to mind Peter Thiel, who has stated a desire to be eternal by merging with a machine, and Elon Musk, who has stated he wants to live on Mars. All these people have the resources to explore their dreams and the shear force of personality to make even the most skeptical non-scientists wonder. Nathan has the audacity to believe his intellectual strength makes him divine. Caleb is merely an apostle documenting, confirming and being programed to spread the gospel. 

Mr. Garland has a knack for exploring big ideas in confined spaces. “Sunshine”, which he authored, shows the fate of half a dozen people confined to a spacecraft. The writing is superb as the characters are in a battle with their sanity in addition to the the elements. “Ex Machina” also uses a small cast confined to one set. Garland’s directorial debut shows that his talent goes beyond the written word. The plot is spare. A young computer engineer is called by his boss, a world renowned computer genius, to take part in an experiment.  The acting is pitch perfect. Nathan is as arrogant as Caleb is callow and Ava is alluring. The actors bring an international perspective shared by the real life tech tycoons. Brin, Musk and Thiel were all born outside the United States. Oscar Isaac, who plays Nathan, is a naturalized American born of Guatemalan and Cuban parents. Domhnall Gleeson, the eager Caleb, is Irish.  Alicia Vikander is Swedish. It is a mark of their talent that they completely suppress any old world charm. They all exude a particular brand of American ambition that could only be born of new culture that abandons ancient truths for the allure of innovation. Nathan has the hardboiled entrepreneurs' obsession with fame and standing. Caleb has formidable technical prowess saddled with a childlike belief in the goodness of science and rich powerful men. Ava is myopic in the manner of a brilliant American graduate student unencumbered by weighty questions in pursuit of actionable knowledge. This unlikely combination of strivers are on a collision course with existential questions.

The setting is a modernist cement prison. It is the kind of pretentious, flashy unlivable home that only a tech wizard would choose to inhabit. It brings to mind Apple Computer’s co-founder (the other Steve) who incorporated an actual cave in his large ranch-style house. Caleb adapts to being put in a windowless cell with a door that automatically locks. His mentor explains he should think of it as merely an extension of the lab and not really a home. This small moment speaks to an ideology both these men share. Sometimes it’s important to sacrifice one’s humanity for the greater good of Science. Nathan has made his fortune designing a Google-like internet behemoth which he uses to glean information about how human’s interact. Studying the “traffic” can yield a great deal of information without delving into the minutia. It’s akin to the National Security Agency’s massive data sweep. There is no need to have the specifics of a conversation as the raw data of who and when you called can reveal the larger truth. Nathan never gives this nefarious example but he poetically shows that in creating his robots he has tapped, metaphorically speaking, all human knowledge. He twists Caleb’s banter around to hint that Caleb thinks Nathan a god with the power of creating beings. Caleb states that is not what he says or thinks.  This forces Nathan to repeat the misrepresentation with greater force. What does it matter what the lab rat thinks? Caleb confirms his status by abandoning any hope of correcting the word from on high. 

There is a constant waxing and waining of trust as Caleb is lured down his maze. At first Nathan’s brilliance excuses his rudeness but his brutality becomes too much for the gentle Caleb.  The young scientist becomes Ava’s knight in shinning armor. This is according to Nathan’s plan. Ostensively he is there to perform a “Turing Test”. “Ex Machina” gives relevant exposition. Turing, the father of modern computer science, asked the question whether computers were capable of thought. Since defining the act of thinking is difficult Turing re-stated the test question: ”Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?”.  There is a great deal of dialogue surrounding the nature of whether or not, Ava, the android, is actually thinking or merely mimicking. Strangely there is no mention of the fact that Turing himself negated the issue by stressing imitation rather than actual thought.  Caleb is bogged down in the mechanics which exasperates the impatient Nathan. He uses various analogies including referencing one of his paintings by abstract expressionist Jackson Pollack to “prove” that Ava is a sentient being. Perhaps the creepiest moment of the film occurs when Nathan decides to show his pupil how to stop thinking and “let go”. He has caught Caleb fending off the sexual advances made by Nathan’s servant/consort. Caleb fears Nathan’s fury. Anger might be an appropriate response of someone discovering a lover secretly involved with a friend. That would be in the world of well adjusted mammals. Caleb is in the presence of a sociopath and his army of Stepford Wives. Caleb is dumfounded as Nathan turns up the music, swills his drink and performs a perfectly choreographed disco routine with the servant. The precision of Nathan and his companion imitating each other is, at first, comic. Then, as the music progresses, the scene takes on a sinister hue of joyless excess. As an aside, Jackson Pollack killed himself and a fellow car passenger during a night of revelry.

Mr. Garland’s use of costumes and grooming elegantly supports the dystopian themes. Nathan shares the same huge beard and closely cropped hair of fanatical terrorist leaders. It is in the seduction of Caleb, however, that Garland hits his mark by brilliantly parsing Ava’s body. The face and hands are completely human but the rest of her, including her hairline and neck, are overtly mechanical. The overall impression is a human conjoined with an extraordinary, hand crafted modern Swiss watch. The divide between man and machine becomes apparent during a sequence where Ava puts on her clothes. Caleb is told to cover his eyes. She coyly slips on a dress evoking a transition into being a young girl aware of her sexuality. Caleb peeks through his fingers. The is a sweetness to the moment due to his inexperience. He is twinned with her assuming the role of a young innocent crossing the line into the murkiness of sexuality. This scene of Caleb gazing on his love interest is repeated in a thematically mirror image. Towards the end of the film Ava is covering her body with skin while Caleb is imprisoned in a neighboring room. No need to tell him to shut his eyes as that would hint that she cared. She doesn’t. Strangely this makes her very human, but in a postlapsarian sense. His naive fairytale romance turns into a very mature power struggle.  Ironically Genesis is rendered in reverse as Ava escapes the gray stone darkness into a Garden of Eden at the heart of the Rocky Mountains. Garland has placed Nathan’s laboratory/home in a secluded sylvan oasis which echoes Ayn Rand’s “Galt’s Glutch”, the community of like minded genius’ who come to dominate the world of inferior collectivists. As an aside it is interesting to note that Rand’s key disciple, Nathaniel Brandon, shares Garland’s lead character’s first name. “Ex Machina” has taken this Randian dream to its logical next step in that Nathan’s “community” consists of Nathan and his carefully tailored robots, which are based on serving his needs. Not surprisingly, Nathan is a raging alcoholic who tempers all his solipsistic soliloquies with large amounts of beer and whisky….. When he isn’t terrorizing Caleb, he works on his computers, rapes his androids, eats gourmet meals, blasts loud music and indulges in long bouts with a literal punching bag. There is an amusing moment when Caleb first encounters the mad genius that illustrates Nathan’s complete isolation. He is referring to the wild time he had the night before. Caleb assumes he had thrown a large party. Nathan is offended by this suggestion. As if to say “I don’t need anyone else to have a great time”. Nathan then unwraps his fists as he has just been whaling away on the punching bag. He escorts Caleb to his windowless cell/room where he bullies him into signing a confidentiality agreement. Nathan might be the paradigm of scientific brilliance but he fails to be much of host or companion and some might argue, human. 

Although Garland has delivered an exceptional film debut the android world view is absent.  Ava is intriguing but opaque. During Caleb’s inquisition, which morphed into an extended date, he asks her an hypothetical question: where would you go If you had the choice of visiting anyplace on earth? One can assume, given her lightening sharp responses to all manner of inquiry, that she has been imbued with vast knowledge of the world. It is also made clear that she has never experienced anything outside of the small confines of her dark room. Ava’s response gives a glimmer of what is behind that beautiful face mask. She would enjoy visiting a very busy automobile intersection in any major urban area. Caleb is gobsmacked and pushes her to explain. She is interested in people watching. Strangely the inquisitor never pushes for the reason behind her unusual destination fantasy. As audience members we can assume Garland is drawing a parallel with Nathan. Her creator watches humans via his unfettered internet empire and his spawn tries to understand humans via a similar disengaged vantage point. The vehicle intersection is of interest as it delivers a vast quantity of ‘data’ about human behavior. The real questions is to what end Ava would find this useful. This is never addressed  Her mentor is an open book. Nathan tipped his hand with his adolescent fantasy about being a godlike man with the ability to create life as well as snuff it out. His motivation is to be a hallowed figure in human history. He speaks of a time when Caleb will proudly share witnessing the birth of Ava with his grandchildren. His supposed acolyte’s response: only if his grandchildren had signed confidentiality agreements. Caleb pokes at the absurdity of wanting to be a seminal figure in the human community while possessing contempt for all of his fellow beings. Ava, however, remains enigmatic. Does she share her creator’s disgust with humanity? Does she have ambition to dominate?

There is a sequence which features Ava and another android conspiring against their creator. Caleb has, through reprogramming the lock down features of the lab/prison, untethered Nathan’s metaphorical children. This dysfunctional family encounter unfolds in the same manner as one would expect of a purely human cast of characters. Garland carefully stages the brutality with a clumsy ambiguity which blurs understanding the robots’ motivations. There is a moment where Ava whispers to her counterpart. One can assume that Ava, as the dominant figure, is giving instructions, but there is an odd sexual tension in the exchange. As if these two robot children were about to play doctor. Nathan breaks up the strangely tender moment by suddenly bursting in carrying a club and barking orders. The ensuing confrontation ends in a crescendo of violence. It is fascinating to observe Ava’s clearly nefarious actions leading to her liberation. It would have been more enlightening, however, had Ava spent more time with the other robot. To borrow a question which was the title to the original novel which turned into the film “Blade Runner”: “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”. Do they have a subconscious?  What is in at the root of their motivation? Who is Ava?

The theme of humans being seduced by their mechanical creations is as old as the 18th century “Tales of Hoffman” and has been revived on numerous occasions. “Ex Machina” bears a resemblance to an original Star Trek episode “What Are Little Girls Made Of?” produced in 1966. This work features a scientist, Dr. Korby, who has realized Thiel’s dream of morphing with an android. At the same time Korby exhibits Nathan’s vision of dominance and attempts to reinvent mankind with his army of robots. The problem, of course, is when one engineers robots to imitate humans they become as fickle and uncompromising as their real world counterparts. The brilliance of “Ex Machina” is that the struggle is focused not on man vs. machine but man vs. man; specifically Caleb’s revenge due to Nathan’s mistreatment. Thematically this film has a strong connection with “In the Company of Men”, a stark rendition of a dominant male figure who forces a colleague to toy with a deaf woman, knowing that the result will end in broken hearts. In both films the justice for the wronged party goes awry.  The takeaway is that treating your fellow beings as merely objects can never end well; for anyone. “Ex Machina” extends the lesson to non-humans. It will end badly for ‘anything’ as well.

Perhaps Nathan could have recomputed his behavioral algorithms based on Isaac Asimov’s “I, Robot”. This 1950 anthology of science fiction stories lays out “The Three Laws of Robotics”

1.A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2.A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3.A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

As Asimov’s fiction progressed so did the power of androids. His stories featured robots controlling governments and, by default, civilization itself. This prompted a revision to the three laws with a law that precedes all others. It was nicknamed the zeroth law: 

0. A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

Interestingly Asmivo continued to wrestle with these questions and, in 1974, published the short story “…. Thou Art Mindful of Him”. Two robots void Rules #1 & #2 and shift the emphasis to #3’s protecting their own existence. The androids come to believe they are superior to humans. Does Ava share this conclusion? Garland never says. “Ex Machina” is a wonderful journey into the battle amongst humans. It is prescient in that the heroes of our time are as deluded as the villain in the film. If anyone feels that Nathan is overdrawn then consider Peter Thiel’s funding of “The Seasteding Institute”. This organization explores the building of communities on floating islands that drift in international waters devoid of any control by evil collectivist governments. Perhaps this is where Thiel can explore his dream of living forever and merging with a robot. Maybe he missed the “What Are Little Girls Made Of?” parable. More likely, like Nathan, he feels he has the upper hand. Garland knows he doesn’t. So does Elon Musk, who is nervous that Sergey Brin is on course to violate the Zeroth law. Once again Garland should be praised for a wonderful work of art that brings the debate front and center. It would have been very interesting to know more about Ava. Unfortunately mankind might find out soon enough. And not in the safety of a movie theater.