The Bourne Legacy

[petronia]

Enjoyed this a lot more than I expected to. But then, I wasn’t a huge fan of Matt Damon or the “chaotic close-up” Bourne action style, and the fridging really pissed me off. What I liked about those movies were the talky bits, the jargon, the cover-up — a sense, as with Iron Man, that this vision of the American political-military-industrial complex was grounded in an internally coherent universe. One has to believe the machine functions, because Jason Bourne doesn’t even start off as a saboteur; he’s a heart-cog jammed by a richocheting pebble. And parts of the machine continue to function, out of sheer inertia of complexity set in motion, even as the controls blow and the power shuts down… So it doesn’t bother me that there are franchise-record levels of talkiness, that the first 30 minutes are a Hawkeye Canadian shack fic Jeremy Renner hiking in snow, and that there is no ending. (As in, I was literally surprised when the movie ended, because we were clearly still in act 2.) Your mileage may vary considerably.

All of Jeremy Renner’s agent dudes are basically the same agent dude, which I’m fine with: when I watch a Bruce Willis action movie I also expect to get Bruce Willis. More to the point, Ed Norton’s tightly-wound organization men are all basically the same guy as well. (Crisis level in the room? Watch how far he’s rolled his shirtsleeves.) It’s particularly subtle casting, because what the two personas share is an embedded-ness, a beholden-ness to the system. Renner’s guy is a genius grunt, a super-competent grunt, but he’s always a grunt. It’s why Hollywood keeps having him inherit franchises rather than invent one around him; the mere fact that he’s there buttresses the believability of the system that put him there.

Regarding that system, I posit a sort of Evil Mirror-verse Aaron Sorkin effect — that there is something enjoyable about the Bourne-verse machine, because it may be morally bankrupt but by gum these people are intelligent and know how to get shit done. If only, one thinks, the non-imaginary branches of the government were as competent at what they do, as these guys are at brainwashing and assassination! I thought quite a lot about Obama’s Predator drone kill list while watching this, for obvious plot reasons, but also because I feel that way about said Predator drone kill list in real life. (Do you know, I’ve never seen anyone post about that on Tumblr?) I keep pondering something William Gibson noted, a while back — that immediately after 9/11 happened, he contacted some people who contacted some people, and was assured that the Army, CIA, etc. knew what they were doing: that this was asymmetrical warfare and they were going to respond in kind. Both theory and tools were in place, or could be. But the political directive ended up being quite different.

I have a streak of technological determinism in my makeup, and so my instinct on the thing is that we were always going to end up at the drone strike/cyber-warfare stage, Dubya just delayed the inevitable by a couple of terms. But also, that all US Presidents get their hands dirty (I would expect no less), and this is a flavour of dirt that’s tailored to Obama’s personality.

Comments

[naanima.livejournal.com]

Your thinky-thoughts are always so intellectual.

I loved 'Bourne Identity', the second film broke my heart and really pissed me off, and the third film made me HATE Paul Greengrass and his fricking shaky-cam. It probably says everything that I have re-watched the first film multiple times, saw the second film twice, and refuse to re-watch the third film.

Like you, I love the talky bits of the Bourne franchise, the jargon, and yes, the internally consistent/conherent universe. Love it to tiny bits.

So, this review have made me all EXCITED about seeing the film this Saturday!

[petronia.livejournal.com]

Let me know what you think! I am very against shaky-cam, but this one wasn't nearly as bad (not the same director, mind you).

[naanima.livejournal.com]

Have seen it.

Loved it! Will see again. Have much thoughts about motivations and how I LOVE internal coherent/consistency universes, and how I can watch Jeremy Renner as Aaron Cros forever and ever. I loved everything about him.

Also, Bourne films has always done amazing things with female characters when really they are very simple on paper. I think it is because they always have their own agencies, even if it is just to survive. Watching Aaron and Marta in the hotel room where he is explaining to her why she can't call her family - I almost started crying because I loved Marie, and the writers/directors decision to kill her off. Yeah, still upsetting. (I truly think Damon's un as Bourne should have ended at Supremacy, in many ways it was the conclusion of his emotional arc).

I want to write more. But must go. Will write more thoughts later tonight.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

Have other people talked about the drones? To me that was the whole selling point of the movie, in a way -- Bourne never really felt "of a political moment" so much as a slightly darker take on pretty classic (and pretty 90's-style) government-as-cyberpunk-villain paranoia. There wasn't a huge difference, that is, between the first three Bournes and something like "Enemy of the State."

But this one seemed to nail a few eerie of-the-now details -- drones being a big one (I don't think I've ever seen a drone in a movie!) and another being that in this one (SPOILER ALERT) no one has to leave the comm building ever. In the first three Bournes, a lot of key action happens in the mythical comm room, but in this one you get a sense of lived-in sweated-in stink of such a room. I'm pretty sure no major government character actually participates in any significant action -- compare to the first Bourne, whose final act hinges on the in-person participation of a shadowy government dude, and the other ones, where people are shuttling this way and that.

[petronia.livejournal.com]

I haven't heard many ppl talk about this movie, actually - I get the sense the consensus was that it was kind of boring.

Not sure I've ever seen a 'real' drone in the movies either, though it's likely in certain cases I saw real aircraft and thought they were fantasy, or vice versa. But it's definitely the first time I've seen a drone deployed successfully in the movies, the way they're meant to be used. Usually these things exist in action flicks so the hero(es) have something to blow up without concomitant loss of life.

I think Ed Norton ventures forth occasionally to cut deals and stuff? Like he was somewhere else when talking to the army general guy. I would actually credit this more to the fact that the movie ended during act 2 -- I'd be surprised if Ed Norton and Jeremy Renner don't come face-to-face in an eventual sequel (since they were at some pains to establish that the two characters have met each other out in the field). But this movie definitely does better at establishing a realistic distinction between the comm room ppl and the field ppl.