Spy Game (2001)

Tony Scott

127 min, color, English

Nathan Muir (Robert Redford) is a CIA operative who is 1 day away from retirement when he hears that Tom Bishop (Brad Bitt) has been jailed in China on charges of espionage just before some important trade talks between the two countries. As his superiors at the Agency question him about Tom, Nathan quickly becomes aware that they are looking for a way to "let the Chinese kill Tom." As Nathan's efforts to save Tom despite the Agency working against him unfold, he narrates his long professional relationship with Tom, from their first meeting in Vietnam, through work in East Berlin and Beirut, and ending with their parting in Lebanon.

This is a well-paced film, much like the director's Enemy of the State, and boasts a similar love for conspiracy theories. For all his supposed ruthlessness, Muir cares deeply about Tom, and his elaborate ploy to rescue him does not come off like some puerile patriotic fluff, but as a completely personal venture. This makes it more believable (it is always easier to see people engage in such behavior for less abstract causes) but it also places an enormous emphasis on the strength of the relationship between the two.

Despite the superb performance by Redford and the very good acting by Pitt, I did not see that chemistry that would make the cold Nathan care so deeply about the fiery Tom. It may have been the case that Redford overplayed the coolness bit a little, at least he did come off as this old Cold Warrior who does not give a second thought to the people he sacrifices on his way for, I don't know, "global security" (?!). Although it was obvious that he admired Tom for his spy/recruiter skills, it was not clear that he would not follow through on his threat (not to come to Tom's rescue if the latter ignores orders and takes matters into his own hands; which is exactly how Tom had ended up in the Chinese jail --- trying to save his nutty British girlfriend.)

In addition to the lack of connection from Nathan to Tom, there was a fairly dubious link in the other direction as well. In Vietnam, Tom starts out as a very calculating and quite unfeeling Boy Count turned sniper. A little later, he begins to develop "conscience" about their spy activities, and finally breaks with Nathan over the issue of his personal involvement with Elizabeth (Catherine McCormack), the above-mentioned British nutcase. Tom's final words to Nathan was "I do not want to end like you," or something to that effect. Not exactly a heart-warming parting, especially since Nathan's lack of faith in Tom's ability had caused the bombing of an entire apartment complex in Beirut (with a lot of "collateral damage"), which, to Tom and his newly found sensitivity must have appeared abhorrent. (It did if one is to judge from the dramatic slow motion sequences.)

Bottom line: the film relied on the chemistry between Nathan and Tom and although there is no denying the chemistry between Redford and Pitt, the relationship between the characters remained underdeveloped and quite unconvincing. Such a pity too.

Good points: Redford did not pretend he was 30 by running to Pitt's rescue, thank goodness. I am getting tired of seeing old guys hopping like 20-year old commandos and performing feats of superhuman endurance and strength (cf. recent action films with Harrison Ford). At some point one has to stop and ask whether the desired suspension of disbelief is not, in fact, a plea for suspension of sanity. Thankfully, Redford's role was basically that of portraying really intense paper-clip pushing, conference-room quipping, cell-phone confabulation, and heavy coffee drinking. Pitt's role, on the other hand, was to be badly mangled, which he performed with great success and no less makeup.

The action sequences were great, as one would expect from a member of the Scott family. Both Tony and brother Ridley can command the megabucks necessary to bring to screen the simmering forests of Vietnam, the smoldering ruins of Beirut (these were incredible, almost as if taken from newsreel footage), or the dark streets of Berlin. Daniel Mindel's cinematography was excellent, and was obviously done with much enthusiasm. The camera never rests, the lighting is nearly always right, and the events unfold in such proximity that I was drawn into their pace without realizing it.

Problems: Arabs=Terrorists or Arabs=Extremists or Arabs=Ready to Avenge with Extreme Prejudice and Less Than Convincing Proof. This was a glaring weakness in the film. Perpetuating the stereotypes, much attention was paid to suicide bombers who do not care whether they hurt a bunch of innocent civilians. Thankfully, the film did not transgress even further by having the "good" CIA manage a kill with less collateral damage (although not for the lack of trying). The worst offender was the good Lebanese doctor, who agreed to off one of his patients (in a violation of everything he stands for) on flimsy "evidence" that the latter was somehow involved in the murder of his parents. Disregarding the simple fact that pictures of the "crime" scene do not equal proof of such involvement, I was still quite jarred by the unquestioning acceptance of information coming from an obviously biased source; i.e. the Americans who clearly had an interest in seeing said patient killed. The supposed inner struggle that the doctor went through while carousing on the Lebanese beach was simply unbelievably insipid given that.

There were more problems. The Chinese, apparently, still run prisons out of the 1940s and are quite incapable of preventing a simple break-in by the special forces despite being on home turf and well armed. I guess they are afraid of the dark and/or their bullets function in daytime only. Why, the hell, did the Chinese want to kill Bishop anyway? If they believed he was a spy, there is no sense in hurrying with the execution (hope to extract more information or trade him for a Chinese spy). If, on the other hand, they did not believe he was a spy, why kill him? The Chinese communists are, according to the film just these brutish beasts who revel in torture and murder. Unlike us, the civilized jailers.

More problems? Muir asking, "Do you remember the times when we could tell the good guys?" (Apparently the good old Cold War.) It is not as much as this is such a throwaway line one invariably expects to hear delivered at one point or another in any "political" film, but that it was not clear that there was a time when Muir himself could tell the difference. After all, he was the relentless, cynical, and unethical spy who relished "the game" without much regard of who he hurt. Always, of course, for a good cause!

November 29, 2001