This blog has become very dusty as of late due to its author
being absent from its pages. I have been
deeply engaged in a graduate program in economics as well as keeping up with
the demands of life. Regrettably, I have
not been able to contribute to this ongoing commentary. Yet, what would draw me out and away from my
studies? Would it be the growing war on
ISIS? The Fed's moves on tapering QE and
possible increases in interest rates?
The midterm elections and the Republicans efforts to once-again snatch
defeat from the jaws of victory?
No. None of these are so
important. But the possible return of
Jason Bourne to the silver screen is.
I am a major fan of the Bourne movies and in the past week
it was announced that Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass are in discussions to
return to the franchise. I wish I had
time to read the Bourne novels by Robert Ludlum. However, at the end of the day when my brain
is fried and I need something to pass the time, I will watch any Bourne movie
when opportunity affords me the chance to watch. I cannot count the dozens of times I have
seen each one.
When the Bourne 4 movie with Jeremy Renner debuted, my wife
and I had to see it in one of the new luxury movie theaters that have been
trending in the last few years. In a
small room with 20 other people, I sat in a luxury recliner and had food
brought to me as I watched this new character in the Bourne genre try to
capture my imagination. The only problem
is that it did not. If fact, it made me
angry at the studio who made the movie.
I felt manipulated and resentful as I watched The Bourne
Legacy, the latest in the series. The
studio did a number of things that were bound to put the audience on edge. Mostly, the plot was contrived. There wasn’t a natural story that caused the
audience to feel connected to the main character, Aaron Cross, who is genetically
modified to have the skills of a Jason Bourne, someone who came by his skills
naturally. The science of genetics is
only on the verge of curing cancer, and it is not plausible that science would
be producing super human people at this stage of genetic development. Further, it is not plausible for one of its
key scientists, namely the Rachel Weisz character Marta Shearing, to be
ignorant of the unethical application of her science.
But the contrivances did not stop there. As the movie was drawing to a close, I
remember sitting in the theater thinking “this film is rather formulaic. We are close to the end and there has been no
chase scene.” Sure enough, as soon as I
thought that a chase scene appeared.
Every Bourne film has a chase scene and this one showed some invention
with motorcycles. Regardless, it was
still a formulaic contrivance that echoes the days when action films were about
Cowboys and Indians.
The most blatant contrived plot twist was really bait for Jason
Bourne to re-enter the series. The Tony
Gilroy story includes scenes from Capital Hill that potentially flips the
intended outcome of the first three movies in the series. Jason Bourne spent the screen time in these
films chasing down bad guys and exposing the Treadstone and Blackbrier CIA
programs that concentrated on assassinating world leaders. His main ally in this was a CIA Deputy
Director Pamela Landy, played by Joan Allen, who brought the assassination
plots to the attention of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee. Now, with Bourne 4, all that work is
potentially up in the air to where the tables have turned and Pamela Landy is
viewed by the public as the potential villain.
The implication is that Jason Bourne needs to return and set things
straight in the next Bourne film or the heroin Pamela Landy will go to jail. Oh come on Universal Pictures! Give me a break! Are you saying that the six hours of movie
running time in the first three Bourne films was for naught? That we, the audience, wasted our
time? Do you think we are really that
dumb?????
Well, you are a movie studio, so I guess the answer to all
the above is yes.
So, what does the movie studio do now? The problem is that once you have a
contrivance in a story line, you need another contrivance to correct it. The only problem is that one more contrivance
is too much and the audience will not believe it. Or to put it in terms that studios
understand, ticket sales will go down – a lot!
Years ago, the producer of the James Bond films, Albert
Broccoli, transferred control of the Bond franchise to his daughter, Barbara
Broccoli, and advised her to go back to the Ian Fleming novels whenever the
franchise got into trouble. After four
movies with Pierce Brosnan in the title role the producers did not know where
they wanted to go next. This led to a
revisit to Casino Royale, a new Bond lead in Daniel Craig, and a more revealed
Bond character. We found out where he
came from, something we did not know before.
The writer of the screenplay for Star Trek II: The Wrath of
Khan, Jack Sowards, said that films are about people. When you write a film you start by completing
the sentence “this film is about a guy who”, or “a gal who”. A film is not about bad people chasing good
people. Such chases are tools that should
expose the character of good people in an action film. Films are not about chases per se.
The Bourne Legacy film had a strong element upon which to
build a sequel and that is the relationship between the main characters of
Aaron Cross and Marta Shearing. The next
film should develop that relationship, and the bad people who threaten that relationship
should be believable. Further, genetic
science behind the Aaron Cross should be downplayed. The Legacy film was a little too reminiscent
of Blade Runner. The authors need to
remember that Bourne is not a Sci-Fi picture, at least, not as Robert Ludlum
envisioned it.
I and anyone else who ever saw the first three films will
applaud the return of Jason Bourne to the series. Matt Damon has declined up to now to
return. He wants a good script and Paul
Greengrass to direct it. Greengrass was
director of the second and third films of the franchise. One or both of these demands have been absent
up until this point. There is a lot of
potential material for the new Jason Bourne film to explore. When we last left Bourne we had learned that
his real name is David Webb. Shouldn’t
we see him finding out who that is?
What about the Nicky Parsons character played by Julia Stiles? She helped Bourne fight the CIA and was
declared an enemy. Bourne put her on a
bus and helped her run. Will Bourne get together
with her and if yes, why? There could
be an immense story line here too. But
with the CIA exposed, the reason why the CIA will continue to chase him needs
to be plausible. Simply because the CIA
is bad and Jason Bourne is good is not enough of a reason. Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass spent years
exploring plot alternatives and they failed to come up with something that
solved all the problems that have been discussed here. I
want to see the next film, but I also want to see a good film.
As a final thought I think a good film might be made in about
ten years about the mess surrounding the Bourne film franchise. It would be a docudrama that explores the promise of the
original Bourne series and how it came to be, and all the moves and machinations engaged
by the studio to persuade principled and highly creative people to compromise
by making the Legacy sequels and trashing the original series and the Ludlum tradition. Hopefully, both the forthcoming Cross and
Bourne films will come to us uncompromised negating the need for any such
docudrama.
