The Bourne Ultimatum (Paul Greengrass, 2007)

[portnoy]

How would you have shot Bourne Ultimatum differently? And I'm not being coy, but seriously, what would you have done to better service the narrative and cinematic themes in the film?

Of course you're being coy. Look, I'm not going to armchair quarterback the entire film for your amusement. Would I have slowed it down? Yeah, almost assuredly. But coming up with an approach to the look and feel of a film is a process that takes a lot longer than your question would seem to imply.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'm not asking you to armchair quarterback the whole film. In fact, what parts - even one part - would you want slowed down? What further explored? In fact, in forum discussions, armchair quarterbacking is pretty much a favorite pastime.

I'm just looking for you to actually expand upon criticism which so far, amounts to "the ASL doesn't service the themes of the film".

[portnoy]

I'm not asking you to armchair quarterback the whole film. In fact, what parts - even one part - would you want slowed down? What further explored? In fact, in forum discussions, armchair quarterbacking is pretty much a favorite pastime.

I'm just looking for you to actually expand upon criticism which so far, amounts to "the ASL doesn't service the themes of the film".

If you think that's all I'm saying, go back and reread my points:

1) the characterization is almost nonexistent in this film. I found myself bored a lot because I just didn't about these characters at all, or their situations, and a lot of the characters just fit into the film as plot points - the entire Julia Stiles segment, Joan Allen, etc.

2) Because everything's so fast-paced, and everything's so frenetic, there's no real sense of pacing in the entire thing. It's almost entirely one-note tonally.

Personally, I don't care that the action is pretty ridiculous - I love ridiculous action! Also, guys, I'm not shitting on this movie. As I said, it's overrated, but I didn't hate it by any means, and it's by no means a terrible film (unlike, say United 93, but we've had that thread before). I just think that this brand of filmmaking is going to date itself so quickly, and that in the end, there are a lot of decisions about how to film this movie (especially, as I said, the 'slower-paced' sequences, which employ the same faux-verite artifacts as the action) that I think were done out of more consideration for style than for substance.

[Stagger Lee]

I think the movie is a success despite the frenetic camera movement and editing rather than because of it. I am already tired of the technique(s), and I think its overuse here is one reason why Casino Royale remains a superior action film by comparison. It's not all in service of nothing, though. Overall the film felt extremely fast-paced and desperate, both of which seem appropriate. Additionally, I happen to like the aesthetic as applied to the fight scenes in Bourne specifically; presenting them as a "summary" of the actual kung-jitsu-karate-whatever conveys a feeling of reluctant badassism, as if we're seeing it as Bourne might: the details of the fight are irrelevant (and his moves are all basically instinctual anyway, right?) and the end result--unconscious bad guy--is all that matters.

Ultimatum was watchable (unlike Supremacy or anything by Tony Scott), and turned out to be quite good, but I still think people (reviewers) should be telling Greengrass to knock it off instead of encouraging him.

[Andre Jurieu]

As I said, it's overrated...

I would agree with you that the Village Voice has overrated the film's importance, but most of the other reviews seem to be simply recommending the movie as an impressive action flick, mostly due to the fact that it's simple and effective.

[Hyperion]

As toiletduck! astutely points out, the whole "music video editing" criticism is bullshit at this point. Trashing a film because of short ASL, is as meaningless as lavishing praise on a film because of long tracking shots. The bottom line is if it's effective in servicing the story. And most of the critical consensus is that Greengrass' direction and editing, more than delivers for Bourne Ultimatum. It would be somewhat odd if Jason Bourne were subject to long sweeping tracking shots.

Maybe, but there's something the whole "ASL" concept leaves out, which is the "median shot length," or some other reasonable indicator of the range of shot lengths found within a given film. Granted, this would be more difficult to calculate than "mere" ASL, but it would also permit a better sense of what we're dealing with.

In most of the formal elements of cinematic grammar, "contrast" is an important concept. In cinematography, a balance of near and far elements in the frame and a balance of tonalities. It's well-known that including one glinting or bright object in an otherwise dark frame will make the dark areas appear darker, and that "good" (in the standard sense) compositions should draw from the spectrum of colors to better articulate the differences between hues. In terms of dramatic construction, alternating longer and shorter scenes, overt and concealed motivations/conflicts, has generally been thought to be an effective way of establishing a sense of dramatic tension and maintaining viewer interest, as opposed to a film consisting entirely of a barrage of quick eruptions or extraordinarily long, quiet ones (keep in mind that I'm talking about mainstream narrative cinema). It is important that the Aristotelian curve is a curve and not a straight line.

While of course there are numerous successful-on-their-own-terms exceptions to these standard approaches, I don't think the work of Paul Greengrass warrants such praise. Despite the hyperbolic reviews, this guy is not establishing a new aesthetics; as portnoy argued, he's merely yoking [annoyingly] ENG-cribbed camerawork and frenetic editing to banal narratives in order to establish a simultaneous familiarity and unease, the combination of which is supposed to be a [faux-]indexical "YOU ARE THERE" immediacy. Hence, the ASL of a Greengrass film isn't meaningfully comparable to that of a Scorsese; it's what's behind these numbers that's important.

[portnoy]

I think the movie is a success despite the frenetic camera movement and editing rather than because of it. I am already tired of the technique(s), and I think its overuse here is one reason why Casino Royale remains a superior action film by comparison. It's not all in service of nothing, though. Overall the film felt extremely fast-paced and desperate, both of which seem appropriate. Additionally, I happen to like the aesthetic as applied to the fight scenes in Bourne specifically; presenting them as a "summary" of the actual kung-jitsu-karate-whatever conveys a feeling of reluctant badassism, as if we're seeing it as Bourne might: the details of the fight are irrelevant (and his moves are all basically instinctual anyway, right?) and the end result--unconscious bad guy--is all that matters.

Ultimatum was watchable (unlike Supremacy or anything by Tony Scott), and turned out to be quite good, but I still think people (reviewers) should be telling Greengrass to knock it off instead of encouraging him.

=D>

I know that my writing often comes across as more combative than I intend it, so thanks, Stagger, for saying a lot of this in a way that's perhaps more palatable.

[Matt]

I know that Greengrass' style is just that, a style, but it seems like some people have problems with style that is not in service to the narrative (what might be called decorative or ornamental style). Many directors are "guilty" of this (Wong Kar-Wai to name just one). I, for one, like Greengrass' style precisely because it is so hyperkinetic and restless. I feel, as a viewer, that it makes me more engaged because it makes me work to discern what is going on in any given shot or sequence of shots. It's different from, for example, Tony Scott's style in Domino because of this. The style of Domino resulted in pure flashiness because one shot had little to no relationship to the next or preceding shot, but Greengrass' style is actually more coherent because he's not just throwing random footage together; he's making a conventionally-edited film, just with a very wobbly handheld camera and a very short shot length. He provides the absolute minimum amount of coherence in each shot before moving on to the next and thus gives the impression of incoherence without actually being incoherent. I wouldn't mind seeing him take it further and I think the action genre is the perfect place for him to do so (especially when he doesn't have to give gravitas to the subject as in United 93 or Bloody Sunday).

[Antoine Doinel]

While of course there are numerous successful-on-their-own-terms exceptions to these standard approaches, I don't think the work of Paul Greengrass warrants such praise. Despite the hyperbolic reviews, this guy is not establishing a new aesthetics; as portnoy argued, he's merely yoking [annoyingly] ENG-cribbed camerawork and frenetic editing to banal narratives in order to establish a simultaneous familiarity and unease, the combination of which is supposed to be a [faux-]indexical "YOU ARE THERE" immediacy. Hence, the ASL of a Greengrass film isn't meaningfully comparable to that of a Scorsese; it's what's behind these numbers that's important.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Greengrass is breaking new aesthetic territory. As to the effectiveness of the technique, I think this is where opinion is diverging. To me, the film is simply about pursuing someone and being pursued, and the style captures that uncertainty, as well as the uncertainty of Bourne's fate and background which is the narrative crux of the film.

And you are right, the framework of shots is important, as is the script behind it, but both directors ASL are used to completely different ends.

[Nothing]

If you think that's all I'm saying, go back and reread my points

Your suggestions would undoubtedly make the film even more conventional and more boring. I would agree that the plot / characterization / narrative structure of the film is simplistic / clichéd, but given this restraint (an inevitable restraint with any Hollywood movie these days), Greengrass does about as much as he can with the material. Frankly, some consideration for style, realism and viscerally (and disregard for the Aristotelian curve, the "invisible camera" and other such tripe) is a breath of fresh air in the muggy basement of modern Hollywood cinema.

The "faux-verite" extends beyond the zooms. When Bourne beats and strangles a man to death it hurts; when a bunch of cars collide on a freeway you feel like spectator to something truly horrific; Waterloo station at rush-hour feels exactly right (I can't comment on the other locations, but expect the same to be be true); and, given the ASL, Greengrass actually creates a reasonable impression of cinematic space (unlike, say, the Scott brothers)... and yet it's all in service of a plot that makes James Bond look like Claude Chabrol, themes that make Michael Bay look subtle and a horrible pandering-to-America cop-out of an ending (the "exposure" of the CIA bosses) that makes you reach for the sick bag. I probably wouldn't want to see it again, but it does stand out in the context of the last 15 years of so of Hollywood blockbuster drivel to which we have become accustomed (as does Supremacy).

[Andre Jurieu]

...and a horrible pandering-to-America cop-out of an ending (the "exposure" of the CIA bosses) that makes you reach for the sick bag.

I agree with a great deal of what you said, but could you expand upon that part a little?

[davebert]

The CIA is unimpeachable, naturally.

[Barmy]

A hybrid of "Run Lola Run" and "The Amazing Race".

A

[dx23]

I know that Greengrass' style is just that, a style, but it seems like some people have problems with style that is not in service to the narrative (what might be called decorative or ornamental style). Many directors are "guilty" of this (Wong Kar-Wai to name just one). I, for one, like Greengrass' style precisely because it is so hyperkinetic and restless. I feel, as a viewer, that it makes me more engaged because it makes me work to discern what is going on in any given shot or sequence of shots. It's different from, for example, Tony Scott's style in Domino because of this. The style of Domino resulted in pure flashiness because one shot had little to no relationship to the next or preceding shot, but Greengrass' style is actually more coherent because he's not just throwing random footage together; he's making a conventionally-edited film, just with a very wobbly handheld camera and a very short shot length. He provides the absolute minimum amount of coherence in each shot before moving on to the next and thus gives the impression of incoherence without actually being incoherent. I wouldn't mind seeing him take it further and I think the action genre is the perfect place for him to do so (especially when he doesn't have to give gravitas to the subject as in United 93 or Bloody Sunday).

I think you nailed it here Matt. Scott's Domino is the perfect example of where a style takes away from the story and the narrative. Man on Fire is the same and the "dizzy", flashy shot sequence hurt the potential the films could have had.

[foggy eyes]

Bordwell's two cents.

[Nothing]

Hi Andre -

one of the stronger aspects of the film, at least for the first 90 minutes, is its depiction of the CIA as entirely amoral and ruthless; murdering innocent UK and US citizens; requiring agents to execute prisoners as part of their training, etc. And yet this is thrown away with the happy ending in which a "good" CIA agent, the woman, exposes the atrocities, high-level CIA figures are prosecuted and their programs are shut down. drop me a line next time you see that on the news.

[TedW]

I thought that it might've actually been more subversive to go the other way, to depict the CIA as a fragmented series of fiefdoms without any real central control. The DCI doesn't know what the Treadstone people were doing, the Blackbriar thing is a rogue element, etc. The bureaucracy of the intel community is so convoluted, high-ranking officials' personal agendas have so much at stake, that the system permits these fuck-ups to occur. The old-school conspiracy-movie convention that Ultimatum obeys -- namely, that the government, while evil, is still ruthlessly competent and in control of the situation -- is hopelessly passé in the Bush/Tenet/Rumsfeld/Cheney era. I only bring it up because the film is made in a basically realist style and does purport to represent a very close approximation of our actual world. So the criticism is fair, where it would not be in, say, Transformers.

[Nothing]

But Ted, perhaps this is Greengrass' one true innovation - the adoption of a 'realist' mode to tell a flagrantly sensationalistic and unrealistic story.

[portnoy]

But Ted, perhaps this is Greengrass' one true innovation - the adoption of a 'realist' mode to tell a flagrantly sensationalistic and unrealistic story.

"Realism" is an entirely subjective aesthetic claim - we call Bourne or Greengrass's other films 'realist' because their aesthetic bares some superficial resemblance to cinema verite documentary, but even within the world of documentary, it's fallacious to claim that verite is more 'real' than any other style - it's a style, an affectation, a mode of address used by filmmakers for distinct discursive purposes, just as Errol Morris' conscious artifice is a style, just as Ross McElwee's first-person subjectivity and reflexiveness is a style, and just as Ken Burns' emphasis on primary sources and expert testimonial is a style. So the notion that because Greengrass satisfies what is right now considered by some a realist cinematic aesthetic, and that because of that, his work is innovative, is at best a reach.

The 'run-and-gun' aesthetic of narrative cinema (nice term from Bordwell), which is actually quite maximalist in presentation and is very difficult to justify as in any way truly 'realistic', is, in my mind, much more sensationalistic/embellished than classical continuity filmmaking.

[TedW]

Yeah, I don't disagree with that.

[Mr Sausage]

But Ted, perhaps this is Greengrass' one true innovation - the adoption of a 'realist' mode to tell a flagrantly sensationalistic and unrealistic story.

"Realism" is an entirely subjective aesthetic claim - we call Bourne or Greengrass's other films 'realist' because their aesthetic bares some superficial resemblance to cinema verite documentary, but even within the world of documentary, it's fallacious to claim that verite is more 'real' than any other style - it's a style, an affectation, a mode of address used by filmmakers for distinct discursive purposes, just as Errol Morris' conscious artifice is a style, just as Ross McElwee's first-person subjectivity and reflexiveness is a style, and just as Ken Burns' emphasis on primary sources and expert testimonial is a style. So the notion that because Greengrass satisfies what is right now considered by some a realist cinematic aesthetic, and that because of that, his work is innovative, is at best a reach.

The 'run-and-gun' aesthetic of narrative cinema (nice term from Bordwell), which is actually quite maximalist in presentation and is very difficult to justify as in any way truly 'realistic', is, in my mind, much more sensationalistic/embellished than classical continuity filmmaking.

Come on, he put realist in quotes and called it a "mode" of filmmaking. How many more qualifiers do you need?

And his point is valid: using an aesthetic normally associated with a certain kind of subject matter and using it to film something that appears antithetical to that is worth discussing.

[Cronenfly]

And his point is valid: using an aesthetic normally associated with a certain kind of subject matter and using it to film something that appears antithetical to that is worth discussing.

Like the Domino-paperwork scenes in Hot Fuzz?

[Mr Sausage]

And his point is valid: using an aesthetic normally associated with a certain kind of subject matter and using it to film something that appears antithetical to that is worth discussing.

Like the Domino-paperwork scenes in Hot Fuzz?

I wouldn't know, I haven't seen either of them.

[Cronenfly]

I wouldn't know, I haven't seen either of them.

You didn't miss much.

[malcolm1980]

It's a well-crafted and very entertaining thriller that doesn't rise above it's material despite the talented direction and excellent cast. Unremarkable for sure but not a bad time at the movies and is as good as the first two.