Long Sunday
‘You are reserved for a great Monday!’ Fine, but Sunday will never end.—Kafka

« "but you're still fuckin' peasants as far as I can see..." | Main | al qaeda in the subdivisions; or, AP american history »

Suspension of Disbelief

(The following contains spoilers for the latest Bourne film – though its nothing you couldn’t reasonably guess if you’ve seen such a movie in the last 20 years.)

Towards the end of the latest Bourne movie, moralistic CIA cog Joan Allen - having acquired a black bag full of dirty agency secrets - hides herself in a basement, dutifully faxing off the incriminating pages.  She is blowing the whistle on the Blackbriar program, an almost comically small-time (by present standards) assassin-training program, responsible, in addition to waxing several internationals, for killing a couple of U.S. citizens.  The aggregate response to this information is consistent with the genre – outrage towards the Program, accolades for Allen, a fictional President commissions a special investigation, and our bad guy CIA cogs are shown being taken away in cuffs.  Movie over - world safe.

It happens that in this week’s New Yorker there is a lengthy article detailing the set-up and operation of the CIA black-sites in the years following 9/11.  Explained at length is the resurrection and perfection of Cold War torture techniques by head CIA policy makers, the process by which thousands were kidnapped and deported, regardless of nationality, and the generally illegal and reprehensible conduct of the agency over the past six years.  The fact that none of this is really news mitigates only slightly the effect of reading this information in the New Yorker, and even less the resounding silence to which this article will, undoubtedly, be met.

Which brings us back to Allen in the basement, frantically hitting the send button, and begging the question - Who is she sending these documents to?  The movie doesn’t specify, choosing instead to gesture vaguely towards that always-as-yet-uninformed justicemachine of post-Watergate spythrillercinema, the press, and by extension, the American citizenry.  If only they knew what those agency rogues were up to!  Then the bastards would really pay, and our hero’s three-picture odyssey of nifty carnage could be tidily brought to a conclusion.  If only.

We all have different cinema fictions that irk us, little bits of untruth that, despite ninety or so minutes of credulity straining stunts and downright laughable plot twists, stand out as particularly outlandish, puncturing, at their worst, the delicate membrane of our suspended disbelief.  Yesterday, after setting down the New Yorker and hopping the subway to the cinema, I added the-existence-of-a-populace-and-a-press-and-a-president-capable-of-meeting-the-
revelation-of-deeply-evil-behavior-at-the-highest-level-of-government-with-
something-approaching-a-demand-for-justice to my list of things I simply cannot accept as realistic, even, as it were, in a spy movie.

By Squibb | August 12, 2007 in Representation | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/361357/20778796

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Suspension of Disbelief:

Comments

Jane's Dark had a similar reaction, which I had missed, but is dead-on.


http://janedark.com/2007/08/the_bourne_ultimatum.html

Posted by: Squibb | Aug 13, 2007 10:31:53 AM

I would add, in re your clear point(s), that Hillary Clinton — for whom whom I take Joan Allen to be a deixis, if not a mirror — has now clarified that when she says she would, as President, stop US involvement in the war, she in fact means that she would NOT stop US involvement in the war.

Which is perhaps to start to recuse the film from your charge, insofar as I don't take such artifacts as Hollywood cinema to do anything as limited as simple reproduction of ideology against all empirical counterindication. They can, I think, also clarify what our national wish-images are: this is the Hillary, and the Democratic party, that we want; just as Bourne is the public we wish we were, and the Army we wish we could have.

The question with all due force then becomes not, Why does Hollywood propagate such bullshit? — but rather, If we're so clear about our own national wishes, how are we so utterly feeble and self-deceptive about what will be necessary to achieve it?

In the inability to confront that matter, Hollywood (and culture at large) is a collaborator, and not rightly a cause, one fears

Posted by: jane | Aug 13, 2007 3:49:24 PM

"....in this week’s New Yorker there is a lengthy article...blah blah blah"

Simply f-n ghastly! Peoples of Cape Cod, unite.......

Posted by: Heinrich Von Stuckinzeescheisse | Aug 13, 2007 6:09:08 PM

Jane -

I think your comments are well taken.

I would add, I think, that I am not so much charging the film with anything other than being what it is - indeed, it is precisely its fidelity to the conventions of its genre that invites my disgust - not at the film, mind you - but at, as you say, the prosecuting public we manifestly are not - its a role for which we are, recently, woefully miscast.

In that respect I think your Bourne/Public relation is an interesting one - for certainly we flatter ourselves with any pretense to amnesia, no? We must know how we got here, surely?

Or is that the fantasy too? That we should suddenly find ourselves thrown into this state of affairs, and, in the blessed ignorance of our awakening, reactivate our long dormant moral compass? And further, be in possession of some badass political moves to wreak our righteous justice on the deserving?

Thats a fantasy I can get behind.

Posted by: Squibb | Aug 13, 2007 6:58:29 PM

Well, no, I think we can and must indict the movie for precisely that unreality. Ideally, the spy thriller was invented to be able to explore the differences between free democracies (say, England, where the genre originated) and tyrannical or unjust regimes through the vehicle of the spy and his attending drama. Of course, in hands of debased authors, the spy thriller was generally turned into racial/ideological propaganda about the hated Other of the moment.

But where the genre began to have problems is when the spy must investigate the nature of the tyrannical regime which he himself works for. Which must ultimately come to mean, in an American context, how our own tyrannical regime came to be. Which would point the finger straight back at us as American "citizens".

This is surely difficult for a movie to do and remain a blockbuster, but the genre itself demands it. Otherwise, the whole genre is effectively pointless.

Posted by: burritoboy | Aug 19, 2007 2:21:48 PM

Sarah Churchill's review 'The Bourne Misogyny at the guardian website... is more useful than Jane Dark's in that it clearly identifies the strangely un-Ludlum like passivity of women in the films.
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,2152344,00.html

Posted by: sdv | Aug 21, 2007 6:24:14 AM

American legend:Savannah

Posted by: Celine | Oct 4, 2007 10:46:41 AM

Post a comment

Please note: comments are published at the discretion of the post's author and will not appear immediately. Do not submit comments more than once.






 

Technorati Tags: