The Bourne Ultimatum concludes the trilogy that started with Bourne Identity in which a man (Jason, the eponymous Bourne), shot and left for dead in the sea, found himself unable to remember who he was, and so started a quest to find and recover his lost identity, as well as to discover his own past and attempt to remedy the wrong done. Thus began a thrilling series which featured relentless action and frenetic chase scenes that covered three continents and which, once started, never let go of you as a viewer.
The Bournd Ultimatum is to my mind the best of three, it features some of the best action sequences seen, for example, the tight, well-paced, and supremely well-done scene at the Waterloo station. It brings a satisfactory conclusion to the trilogy that leaves you exalted, but still somewhat saddened at the journey he had to undertake, his discovery and the cost to him. If I want to nit-pick, I'd say that the Tangier chase and fight scenes went on just a little too long, and the relationship between Nicky and Jason was never fully explained. The Bourne Supremacy is I think the weakest of the three, primarily because of the sheer illogicality of the plot - if Abbott (Brian Cox) had a secret so grave that he would kill his own man and himself over it, then surely he would have killed Jason Bourne when he have the chance to do so in the first film. It does, however, feature the best car chase sequence (the Moscow one) I have ever seen. Many people have complained about the shaky camera technique, but apart from a couple of moments which I found irritating in Bourne Supremacy, it had worked pretty well in general, especially in the Waterloo scene as it heightened the confusion, agitation and tension of the moment.
If we want to see the point of the film, it is what Jason Bourne said to the Paz who asked him why Bourne didn't shoot him when he can - "Look at us. Look at what they make you give.", echoing the same words said by the dying Professor in Bourne Identity (a rather nice link back to the first film). He was asking Paz to reflect on what he has given (his whole life, his own judgement, and above all, his humanity) for the cause he has undertaken, the unquestioned surrender of his self to a higher power to be used as it so wished, and implicit in it a question if this is the right thing to do. Bourne himself discovered the limits of how far he can sacrifice his humanity when, at the assassination attempt of Wombosi, he was faced with having to kill the children (since there must be no survivors who can bear witness to Wombosi's killing). This, he decided, he would not give, and is what ultimately saved him as a person even if his hesitation nearly cost him his life.
Some may read the film as a very specific (and I think, very parochial) attack on the CIA, however, I would see this as of more general relevance to someone in the service of any organisation (perhaps a governmental or secret service one on one side, or a terrorist organisation on the other) that demands certain sacrifice of their humanity for what they do. Read the terrible events in the news that occurred regularly all over the world (perhaps another bombing in Iraq, or Burmese soldiers killing monks) and wondered perhaps if the ones who perpetrated the dreadful deeds at the behest of their organisation would just reflect on this - "Look at what they make you give"?
The film also questions whether any organisation, given untrammelled power, would exercise their power in a responsible way. And if you are prepared to give your all to that organisation, would your trust be abused?
But let's not get too carried away with philosophising. This film is, ultimately, an action-packed entertaining film, and as such, it is a great success. It is a fitting end to the Bourne stories, but, do I want another one? Well, perhaps yes. There is the risk any new film may ruin what is a near-perfect series, but I think these three will stand on their own as a discrete trilogy, and anything else will be a bonus.
No comments:
Post a Comment