|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bourne Supremacy The action in this film far outweighs its cerebral plot. Although the CIA comes off as a combination of stupid, inept, corrupt and evil people following orders or working on the black market, I predict few people will notice. Politically, it seems that the plot could do no wrong. "Bourne Supremacy" is about the CIA's and FSB's (Russia's CIA) assassination of a politician opposed to the privatization of oil in Russia and the subsequent corruption of governments by oil tycoons established by the CIA. Of course, the facts of real life are that the CIA was involved in privatization of assets in Russia and spawning of the mafia there. The privatization was very bloody, not to mention unjust and in fact the bleeding of Russia has yet to stop. In the movie, a former CIA assassin even apologizes to the Russian daughter of two of his victims, thus rightfully raising the question as to what good ends the CIA serves with all its secrecy. The plot line is all very contemporary, so contemporary that the lines are stolen from reality. When Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter tried to tell the Congress that the planned Iraq war regarding weapons of mass destruction was a sham, Senator Biden of Delaware told Ritter that he was making judgements above his pay grade, but the Boston Herald movie reviewer thought that comment was the wittiness of the "Bourne Supremacy" script writer.(1) Leave it to the official newspaper of the Boston labor aristocracy to find a put-down by people of higher rank an entertainment high point in a movie. No wonder Trump is such a hit with his reality TV series saying "you're fired."
There are good reasons and bad reasons to criticize the "Bourne Supremacy," so we will defend this movie against those who seek to sell the public on its action alone, such as one critic who said, "Unfortunately, much like its predecessor, Supremacy’s only real failing is its muddled and confusing plot about CIA cover-ups, espionage, and a Russian politician. I’m sure there’s a cohesive story somewhere in this mess (which a rewrite would have clarified), but it’s not completely necessary to figure out."(2) Quite the contrary, there should be more films that try to show power struggle as it is; even though, the public may refuse to believe it or even engage it thanks to a naive existence. Whenever a movie portrays a sophisticated power struggle, the public and some critics say the plot is "confusing" or even "muddled." Such spectators don't want to think. They want the movie to drive the spectator instead of the other way around. All the better if the chairs would raise the soft drinks and popcorn into our mouths and maybe the arm rests should rise to open our mouths to await the food to begin with. MIM's criticism of "Bourne Supremacy" would be different. The plot and actors are in no way to blame, but the scripting of such intense action will have the effect of glorifying the life of a CIA assassin or covert operative. The various dim bulbs will fail to see the substance while seeking to join the CIA out of some romantic and adventurist hope for a thrill. In the end, if George Bush can use Woodward's book Plan of Attack to boost his campaign, then "Bourne Supremacy" might as well be a recruiting tool for the CIA. For the rest of us with set careers apart from the CIA, the film is just yet another long scene of violence seemingly justified. Instead of organizing a communist movement to do away with secrecy and oil motivations behind that secrecy, Bourne takes on the main capitalist states of the world by himself on behalf of his sense of privacy and family. The novelty in this film is that Bourne is so aggressively violent that he has the gumption to take the battle to the enemy instead of waiting for legions of evil assassins and cops to kill him. So in this movie, Bourne happens to be completely right, but we're sure the public will not notice. Instead, he's just another example that copy-cat serial killers will follow.
Notes: |