01 August 2016

STILL BOURNE

The consensus around Jason Bourne has quickly emerged that it's disappointing because it's just more of the same: that director Paul Greengrass has retrenched to simply copying his own The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum from 12 and 9 years ago, respectively, and is doing nothing new. In fact, it is even worse. If anything, this is less of the same. All the stylistic extravagance that marked out the Greengrass Bournes as both famous and infamous has been toned down so much that when it appears it has the distinct feeling of just going through the motions, and the sense of constant undying momentum that defined those films as well as the franchise-initiating The Bourne Identity in 2002 has been scaled far, far back in favor of momentum-flattening sequences where we sit in as nefarious CIA types plot their wickedness in somewhat more detail than we need. It's breathtakingly inefficient pacing for a series that has defined itself by its efficiency.

Before I get carried away with complaining, I should probably foreground this part: there's nothing necessarily wrong with Jason Bourne, and there are at least a couple of things right. It has a couple of good-to-excellent action scenes that are as good as anything in Identity, even if they fall short of the heights of Supremacy and Ultimatum; one is a motorcycle chase that recalls Identity's Mini Cooper chase done in Greengrass's distinctive style, and one is the closing fight between Bourne (Matt Damon) and the nameless killer (Vincent Cassel) who has been hunting him throughout the back half of the movie, the one place where the chaotic fast cuts that deny continuity and stress physical impacts characteristic of Supremacy and Ultimatum are used in this film anywhere near as effectively as they were in the 2000s.

It also has the bones of a worthwhile story: after years in hiding, supporting himself as a pit fighter, Bourne is dragged back to a life of running when his old accomplice Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) tracks him down, uninvited, in Athens, to wave just about the only document under his nose that could catch his attention. Namely, a history of how he came to be caught up in the long-defunct Treadstone operation back in 1999, and how it involved his father's murder. Mostly through accident, he's put on the wrong side of the CIA, in the form of director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones) and the head of the agency's cybercrimes division, Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), and spends the movie trying to find them and stop them from killing him, inadvertently getting involved with Dewey's attempt to bully Aaron Kalloor (Riz Ahmed), the CEO of a Facebook-like platform, into giving the CIA access to all of its users' complete profiles. The fact that most of this hinges on a case of mistaken identity (the CIA thinks Bourne orchestrated a hack to acquire a huge parcel of classified files; in reality, he barely wants anything to do with them) recalls The Bourne Supremacy a little too close for comfort. Also, the whole fake Facebook angle leaves the film feeling powerfully like screenwriters Greengrass and Christopher Rouse (the editor of every one of Greengrass's films since 2004 and the writer of nothing at all other than this movie) weren't prepared to make a Bourne picture without contemporary political ramifications, and in a panic, "social media raises privacy concerns" was all they could come up with, and it leaves the film with a weird shape. I won't even touch the utter bullshit of giving Bourne daddy issues at this late date. Still and all, I do very much admire the filmmakers for making crisis come to Bourne rather than the other way around; the simple answer to the question "why would he want to have another adventure after nine years (other than Universal wanting the box office revenue from a Damon-led Bourne film)?" is, of course "he wouldn't", so having the plot unspool as a matter of accident and human error, with Bourne almost entirely to the side of the "real" conflict, is definitely the way to do it.

All of which is well and good and whatever. The fact remains that Jason Bourne is a downright logy film, with far too many drawn-out stretches where the plot untwists its not-terribly-kinked knots as the action patiently waits on pause - it is the great triumph of the original Bourne movies, of course, that they barely had plots at all, just scenarios, which flew at us at several hundred miles per hour - and not nearly enough time spent in Bourne's company, relative to the seemingly endless scenes of Lee and Dewey sparring with each other over the proper handling of the Bourne Affair. It helps this feeling of paciness not at all that the acting in the movie is across-the-board weak, which makes those character moments go by even longer: Jones is quite plainly phoning it in, and I really have no idea what the hell Vikander is trying for. Faced with an oddly-conceived and rather irrational character, she doesn't attempt to make sense of Lee, but simply adds new wrinkles of weirdness, including a terribly distracting accent and a series of annoyed expressions like she just remembered she left the milk on the counter this morning, and can't wait to get to home to throw it out. Damon is simply a flat granite slab. He looks astonishingly old (more than his actual 45 years of age, and ages more than his character's now-explicit 38) and worn-out, which maybe could serve the character in a different story; this one, which still requires him to be a super spy bad-ass, would have benefited from slightly smaller bags under his eyes. And there's no there in his performance, just a sense of perfunctory duty to the role and to the action.

Outside of the moments where the action kicks in, and the editing suddenly flares up and starts racing, Jason Bourne is the most unforgivable thing that a movie in this genre, and especially a movie in this franchise, could ever be: it is boring. Thank God for John Powell, writing his fourth score for the franchise, this time aided by one David Buckley (I can't begin to say what their division of labor was, but there's really not a single disposable cue in the whole of the soundtrack, so it doesn't matter): for long stretches of Jason Bourne, the music is the one and only thing there to remind us that in greener times, this was a series based on endless adrenaline rushes and constant stimulation. At no point is Jason Bourne ever truly, irredeemably dull, and this is almost entirely thanks to the score; it's not much of a thing to keep a supposed action movie propped up, but I would hate to see this same film without it.

6/10

Reviews in this series
The Bourne Identity (Liman, 2002)
The Bourne Supremacy (Greengrass, 2004)
The Bourne Ultimatum (Greengrass, 2007)
The Bourne Legacy (Gilroy, 2012)
Jason Bourne (Greengrass, 2016)

14 comments:

  1. One thing I wanted to point out was the dialog in this movie is truly, truly terrible. One thing the Bourne trilogy prided itself on was being "brainy", there was an knowing intelligence to its hurried interactions and interrogations. The dialog in this film is exactly like an editor who never wrote anything tried to ad libs Supremacy and Ultimatum. Truly awful.

    Gilroy alone got Legacy, Greengrass/Damon together got Jason Bourne. They needed that trifecta of Director/Writer/Star for the magic to work, like Scorsese/Schrader/De Niro

    ReplyDelete
  2. There may or may not be some natural bourne punners who appreciate what you've been doing with certain review titles recently.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is what happens when you make a film for the wrong reasons: In this particular case, I reckon this was a stick it to Tony Gilroy (and an opportunity to make a few bucks, of course).

    The feud between Gilroy and Greengrass dates all the way back to Supremacy. Gilroy delivered the script but that wasn’t necessarily what was put on screen. In the “making of” of Supremacy, it is pretty clear how much in love Greengrass was with the Bourne character. He understood him and he knew how to convey through mood and action (not words) the experience of being Jason Bourne. That’s why the movie’s so visceral, a masterpiece and the best of the series. It is a great example of a director fully in charge, employing all his skill in service of storytelling. In the process of doing all this, Greengrass trimmed a lot of fat from the script and even changed a few things. Gilroy wasn’t pleased at all, to the point he stopped talking to Greengrass. He was under a contract though and the studio asked him to write another Bourne screenplay. Displeased with all of this, he regurgitated a version of Ultimatum, though the final movie and this is my guess, was mainly concocted by Greengrass himself (with the aid of 2 screenwriters) by making an even more relentless and fast-paced version of Supremacy. Gilroy disavowed the movie and said he wasn’t even going to watch the movie.

    Then Legacy came in. Greengrass and Damon were out and after proving himself a good/great director with Michael Clayton and Duplicity, Gilroy was offered to write and direct another entry to the Bourne franchise. He finally watched Ultimatum. The first thing he did? In the first 10 mins of Legacy he gets his revenge by adding a completely unnecessary bit to the story, as he ruins Bourne’s efforts in Ultimatum by making Vosen and Kramer go unpunished and instead pinning it all on Landy. Understandable as it was that Gilroy was mad with the whole thing, there’s no excuse, especially for a screenwriter and storyteller, to the lack of respect for the overall story and characters of the previous movies. It was cheap and vile and one of the things that keep me from liking a movie that actually has its strengths.

    I’m sure Greengrass and Damon noticed this and after almost singlehandedly building the franchise’s most successful entry, they must have thought they could come up with something good with a hand behind their back. The result is an exact copy of Ultimatum (with some bits from Supremacy), not just conceptually but narratively.

    This is fascinating in and of itself. Watching 2 movies fall apart because the heads of their screenwriter-directors are clouded with negative feelings is profoundly interesting, especially because their technique becomes apparent. In most cases, when the directing stops being invisible or organically embedded with and in service of the storytelling, it becomes a liability. Which is what happens in both Legacy and Jason Bourne, however, I love the trilogy way too much not to enjoy seeing how blatantly the gears move and picking these movies apart. It’s just like with the other JB, even the worse of the worse James Bond, and there are a lot of stinkers, is still an enjoyable experience for such a hardcore fan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think the best thing to do with a post-Ultimatum Jason Bourne–if one wanted to keep the franchise going–is to make him a Mad Mad type of character, where he wanders into more interesting stories.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Damian Oakes Your idea is genius!

    ReplyDelete
  6. @Damian Oakes, the izz: And then they can swap out creepy blood-harvesting Immortan Joe cultist Immortan Joe for creepy, blood-harvesting Ayn Rand cultist Peter Thiel, and have Jason Bourne help whoever they hire instead of Charlize Theron defeat him!

    Yessss. I like this movie idea. ;) :P

    ReplyDelete
  7. I was voting for "From Whose Bourne No Traveler Returns", personally, but this is probably the better title.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If it was the quality popcorn thriller we all hoped it would be, I'd have pulled for "Pretty Good, Sure As You're Bourne".

    ReplyDelete
  9. That had in fact been my plan for the title, but then it came up in that gigantic pun thread on the July movie preview post.

    As recently as Wednesday, I did not expect to need a "this movie was not very good" title.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @Ajay - That was super interesting, thank you for that. I had no idea of the drama behind the scenes and always really liked Gilroy, mainly for Michael Clayton.

    Now, less so.

    I was really hoping JB was gonna recapture the magic of the trilogy, even though I must now admit that was always a little naive on my part. I haven't seen Legacy because of its bad rep, and I might not even watch this. I love the trilogy too much to dilute my impression of it with shoddy sequels/side-quells.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I lost it with the USB thumb drive emblazoned with "ENCRYPTED" in giant capital letters on the side. I would dearly love to see a subplot where Julia Stiles pays extra to have the drive custom-etched with that at a mall kiosk or something, or goes to a big-box electronics store and has to choose between drives labeled encrypted and drives labeled nonencrypted.

    My mind may have wandered a little during the course of this film.

    ReplyDelete
  12. You do Julia Stiles an incredible kindness by not mentioning her hands-down career-worst performance. That one scene is unspeakably bad, without question the worst screen performance I've seen in a decade or more.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Still and all, I can't wait for the next movie to find out who really REALLY for real this time was responsible for Treadstone.

    ReplyDelete
  14. By chance, I ending up watching The Bourne Identity again the other night, and I was reminded how exhilirating and exciting it was. I had somehow misremembered it as being somehow less fleet of foot than its two sequels, but it holds up well, and I think I prefer Liman's handling of the action to what Greengrass was doing.

    The new film feels more disappointing the more I've thought about it. It's completely lacking in the story department - just a non-engaging extended chase in which it's not always crystal clear where people are going or why. The poor choices Greengrass and his screenwriter make start early on by deciding that Bourne - a character who always lived as much by his wits as by his fists - should have spent the intervening years bare-knuckle fighting.

    Depressing.

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.