The Bourne Ultimatum (Paul Greengrass, 2007)

[Andre Jurieu]

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.

Yeah, I agree that the ending is somewhat re-assuring to the audience, but I'm willing to accept this considering we're watching an action movie where the conventions of the genre usually dictate that the efforts of one individual can topple a corrupt organization. Sure, this isn't a revolutionary ending, and an conclusion where a few of those CIA directors get away with it would probably be more realistic, but considering that Damon and Greengrass appear to be concluding the entire series, I'm willing to allow them a conclusion where they wrap things up for their characters.

Besides, if you don't place greater emphasis on the conclusion and allow the entire narrative to carry an equal weight (which I doubt anyone really does), the actions of the CIA throughout most of the film demonstrates the organization to be a series of feuding sects (as Ted mentions) where the bureaucracy is in constant turmoil and they continually drop-the-ball and demonstrate their ineptitude at solving a crisis that they didn't expect to handle and were unable to prepare for in an adequate manner. I would have to say that seems pretty realistic.

I would also say that it would be pretty unrealistic to depict everyone at the CIA as being self-serving, amoral, and merciless. As with any organization, their are bound to be people who are guided by a deep sense of morality and are dedicated to doing things in a proper fashion. I don't know how far they would get in the organization, but it seems unfair to dismiss everyone within the organization simply because the notion that they are cruel is the accepted viewpoint of a sizeable portion of society.

drop me a line next time you see that on the news.

Uh, was that supposed to come off as snarky? If so I have no idea why. I agree that these types of shadowy characters never really get exposed in reality, but I'm not sure that Greengrass & Co. are aiming to make a perfect mirror of reality, but rather make the action within his film feel more realistic and therefore more tense.

[Nothing]

Personally, I find the term "run and gun" fairly unhelpful, as this is very far from the way the look is achieved. Despite the impression of confusion and movement, most of these shots will have been obsessively choreographed with the use of a wireless follow focus and planned in co-ordination with CGI effects teams who later touch up the shots, removing wires, joining takes together, etc.

[jbeall]

drop me a line next time you see that on the news.

Uh, was that supposed to come off as snarky? If so I have no idea why. I agree that these types of shadowy characters never really get exposed in reality, but I'm not sure that Greengrass & Co. are aiming to make a perfect mirror of reality, but rather make the action within his film feel more realistic and therefore more tense.

About a week before seeing The Bourne Ultimatum, I watched Sydney Pollack's Three Days of the Condor, and the interesting thing in that movie was that it never appeared on the news; it was all 'handled' in-house or outsourced to folks who are good at keeping secrets (the von Sydow character).

But the news report of the arrests at the end was the ONLY part of the film I would've done differently. I think it made perfect sense to portray the CIA as an organization in which someone has little clue what the person down the hall is up to (possibly to their detriment, as Landy comes this close to being set-up by Strathairn's character.

[Mr Sausage]

Personally, I find the term "run and gun" fairly unhelpful, as this is very far from the way the look is achieved.

Maybe not as an all-purpose term, but it would be a helpful and accurate way to describe the effect of the formal stuff. An essential part of the film medium, I'm sure you'll agree, is creating a reality often antithetical to the actuality.

[Nothing]

The Blair Witch Project, though, really is run and gun (for example). The term implies a certain carelessness, wheras it is the thought, care and planning which show through in Bourne and which, for me at least, make Greengrass' style at least superficially interesting.

[GringoTex]

My biggest problem with Greengrass is that you can't follow the action sequences. His cutting and framing obscure the action: you know what's happening but you don't have a clue how it's happening.

What impressed me so much about the first one is that Liman lays bare the skeleton of every set piece. You can follow the logic of every action.

I think Liman's Bourne is the greatest action flick of the decade, and Greengrass has been a disapointment.

[Mr Sausage]

The Blair Witch Project, though, really is run and gun (for example). The term implies a certain carelessness, whereas it is the thought, care and planning which show through in Bourne and which, for me at least, make Greengrass' style at least superficially interesting.

Yes, but again, we can separate carelessness between cause and effect. If the cause of on-screen 'carelessness' means a lot to you, fine. But the effect of on-screen 'carelessness' is important nevertheless. This is like condemning a film for its fluid pace when you know that the actual filming was a stop-and-start affair and the film stuck together piecemeal.

[tryavna]

My biggest problem with Greengrass is that you can't follow the action sequences. His cutting and framing obscure the action: you know what's happening but you don't have a clue how it's happening.

What impressed me so much about the first one is that Liman lays bare the skeleton of every set piece. You can follow the logic of every action.

I think Liman's Bourne is the greatest action flick of the decade, and Greengrass has been a disapointment.

I agree entirely, though I haven't yet seen the third film. But you've basically summarized how I've always felt about the major decline in quality between #1 and #2.

[dx23]

My biggest problem with Greengrass is that you can't follow the action sequences. His cutting and framing obscure the action: you know what's happening but you don't have a clue how it's happening.

What impressed me so much about the first one is that Liman lays bare the skeleton of every set piece. You can follow the logic of every action.

I think Liman's Bourne is the greatest action flick of the decade, and Greengrass has been a disapointment.

There is a similar criticism to Christopher Nolan's action scenes in Batman Begins, where the camera close-ups makes it hard for the audience to follow. Still, those scenes have the impact that each director wants to give: in Batman, ilustrate the quickness and swiftness of the character and in the Bourne Ultimatum, the tightness and smallness of the buildings and how crowded the areas were. The styles in both films don't take away from the story, it actually enhances it.

[toiletduck!]

The benefit of Greengrass' style is most apparent to me in the magazine fight in Supremacy -- the fight begins all high-speed and testosterone-driven and the audience doesn't care what happening because they know whatever it is kicks ass. And then, about halfway through, there's a distinct flash of red, and the reality starts to sink in.

For me, Greengrass' approach effectively puts me in Bourne's mind during the fights/chases, where the gravity of the situation (along with any details of what's actually happening) are an afterthought. This makes the viewer's return to earth and discovery of the aftermath that much more powerful.

I love Identity to death and wouldn't want to ever be forced to rank the trilogy, but in my mind, Greengrass solidified the uncertain relationship between the audience and Bourne.

-Toilet Dcuk

[souvenir]

Does anyone else think there's much more to discuss than the Greengrass handheld style? I see the whole trilogy as an answer to post-9/11 American foreign policy. Surely I'm not alone.

[exte]

Does anyone else think there's much more to discuss than the Greengrass handheld style? I see the whole trilogy as an answer to post-9/11 American foreign policy. Surely I'm not alone.

Well, there seems to be a nice political statement at the end of the third, but I haven't seen the first two yet. But that handheld sure is sexy, no?

[Nothing]

Yes, but again, we can separate carelessness between cause and effect.

But the Bourne films are not careless and they do not feel careless. To be more succinct: "handheld" does not automatically = "run and gun" in my mind. Would you say that the Dardenne Bros are run and gun?

[GringoTex]

But the Bourne films are not careless and they do not feel careless. To be more succinct: "handheld" does not automatically = "run and gun" in my mind. Would you say that the Dardenne Bros are run and gun?

If the Dardennes Bros' camera move's a foot off track, they're going to have to reshoot the scene. If Greengrass's camera moves a foot off target, nobody's going to care.

[Nothing]

If the Dardennes Bros' camera move's a foot off track, they're going to have to reshoot the scene. If Greengrass's camera moves a foot off target, nobody's going to care.

I'd have to disagree with that. They are equally precise, simply that the Dardennes chose to focus their camera directly on the actors at all times.

[LeeB.Sims]

I can't believe Greengrass is being compared to the Dardenne Bros. here. Not criticizing your choice of comparison, it just is very surprising. Like others have mentioned, my main disappointment was that the action scenes were completely indecipherable. Bourne Identity won an American Choreography award for Best Fight Scenes, but I doubt any such award will be forthcoming for Supremacy. My feeling was that those fight scenes not only lacked careful choreography, but they could have just as easily been faked by me and a couple of my friends who were willing to slap each other around while I shook the camera uncontrollably.

[denti alligator]

I liked this one better than the second. There was one thing that I found somewhat annoying.

Spoiler

That's the scene when Bourne gets everyone out of the office thinking he's going to meet up with Landy. Of course he breaks into the office to get the files. Then he calls Noah (whatever his last name was) on the cell. Now, he needs to do this in order to get his name recorded to get into the voice-activated safe. So much is clear and (of course) clever. But why does Bourne identify himself and reveal his location? Why? It's totally out of character. There's no strategic reason for it (and everything he does is strategic). It just makes for a bad-ass exchange, and makes Bourne's escape from CIA headquarters that much harder. Totally unnecessary and sloppy plot point.

[foggy eyes]

Bordwell tackles the film yet again.

[Jeff]

I liked this one better than the second. There was one thing that I found somewhat annoying.

That bugged me too, denti. I loved the film, but I had the urge to yell out "What the hell?" when Damon told him that. Other than an admittedly fun "Gotcha!" to David Strathairn, it was completely counterproductive and out of character.

[LeeB.Sims]

I liked this one better than the second. There was one thing that I found somewhat annoying.

That bugged me too, denti. I loved the film, but I had the urge to yell out "What the hell?" when Damon told him that. Other than an admittedly fun "Gotcha!" to David Strathairn, it was completely counterproductive and out of character.

I agree with you both, however, the numbskull audience I was in attendance with gave a resounding round of applause at this scene... so I guess it had its desired effect, regardless of how gratuitous it was.

[Barmy]

I will chime in that I also felt Damon's revelation made no sense whatsoever.

[denti alligator]

Well, I'm glad I'm not alone in noting this. What's fascinating is that it is such a crowd-pleaser, so much so that it was included in the trailer. This discrepancy reveals a lot about the Hollywood genre picture.

[Antoine Doinel]

I'll say that I really liked that scene and didn't think it was too out of character for Jason Bourne. Given that he was on essentially a revenge mission, everyone pretty much knew he would end up at the C.I.A. headquarters eventually. I thought it was a lot of fun that he rubbed his little trick in their faces.

[Steven H]

I definitely remember arching my eyebrow during that bit and thinking "what the hell is he doing?" I was assuming there was some sort of master plan and he was going to denude them with a bike pump or somesuch, but no, he just runs out of the building.

As for the sloppiness of the editing, I'm just waiting until the league of imitators start cropping up so we can really see some nasty work (or did they already come and go?)

[denti alligator]

I'll say that I really liked that scene and didn't think it was too out of character for Jason Bourne. Given that he was on essentially a revenge mission, everyone pretty much knew he would end up at the C.I.A. headquarters eventually. I thought it was a lot of fun that he rubbed his little trick in their faces.

That's just it: he's not on a revenge mission. he's out to find and reveal the truth. And no move is wasted. Ever. Except in this scene, which is a glaring deviation from his methods over three films. Bourne is not the type of guy who rubs anybody's face in anything.