This film puzzled me in ways I think it wasn’t meant to. Maybe more philosphically inclined contributors can help me out.

‘You are killing citizens. Once you go down that road who knows where it will stop?’ says Pamela Landy (Joan Allen) to a somewhat indifferent Noah Volsen (David Strathairn), in the terrorist control centre in ‘The Bourne Ultimatum’, third and much the best of the Bourne trilogy. At least, I think that’s what she said; out of deference to my companions I wasn’t flipping pages and clicking my pen. I'm almost sure it was indifference Strathairn was emoting– hard to tell with an actor who has only two expressions, the other being 'sardonic'. As the lighting was normal, I’d say this was indifference.

Now, you’d think everybody was in a sense a citizen, wouldn’t you? Pamela wasn’t suggesting it was perfectly alright to bump off non-Washingtonians – that’s where the conversation took place, as I recall, although the film did skip about a bit and I’ve never been good with multi-location capers. What she meant by ‘citizens’, I think was ‘Americans’ - as in, ‘It’s OK to kill off anybody else, but Americans are off limits.

Well, fair enough, up to a point. To a military mindset, it’s important to distinguish the enemy from your own side. That doesn’t include court-martials followed by executions, of course – pace the case of a mother recently re-instating the good name of her son who’d been condemned to death for cowardice. Apparently he was shell-shocked.

Not that D.H. Lawrence considered it a moot point, either. He thought that any man who donned a uniform and agreed to obey orders without question surrendered his responsibilities and ergo his right to be considered a human being. The point was argued to a nicety at Nuremburg – when is an order not an order, or when is an order not legitimate. It exercised the members of the good ship Bounty, too. One hardly expected it in a Hollywood action film, albeit one directed by Paul Greengrass.

To get back to the film, which is, by the way, full of excitement and thrilling set pieces from the off, with Matt Damon stretching his own range of facial expressions to the limit : the crisis at which the question recurs is a late stage in the film – almost the last scene, in fact. Jason is looking down the barrel of a gun in the hands of someone who has been ordered to kill him, (onside killers are called ‘assets’, not as I for one first thought, ‘assholes’) Jason, in extremis, with the choice of being shot or leaping off twelve storeys, gives him a direct look and says ‘What do you even know about me?’

Granted, it has taken him three films to find out his real name, but he’s no longer making enquiries – rather, in a rhetorical way, suggesting you shouldn’t kill someone unless you definitely know he is the enemy. Or does he mean that you should think carefully before you kill anyone at all? No, it can’t be that subversive a film. David Herbert, you should be living at this hour.

Three other queries – the first a disappointment and the others of minor consequence. Firstly, I want to know where the timetable-consultation scene went to. I don’t mean the one which allows Jason to knows when last ferry to Morocco leaves, but the scene where he consulted the timetable at the bottom of the main entrance to Waterloo station. I know there was one, because I saw it being filmed. Maybe the editors decided to discard it as it slowed down the action of an amazing foot-chase sequence, no matter the inconvenience to commuters on a rainy Tuesday afternoon of standing aside so Matt could walk down the steps. Arguably we were more greatly discommoded dodging bullets on the concourse, but as I didn't notice this I can only assume they filmed that with extras at night.

Secondly, how come Jason bought three pay-as-you-go phones and apparently used them straight away? In my experience you have to charge them up for hours, time well-spent trying to understand the instructions booklet, and that only after a very lengthy conversation with a man at CarphoneWarehouse.

The third one is minor, really, and I could easily have missed it in the mayhem: where and when was the ‘ultimatum’ delivered?

Sheila - trying to be helpful

I guess they lost the shots of the timetable board because they weren't going anywhere from the station. If the narrative meant that they had to catch a particular train from the station and were being pursued, then you can imagine the tense cross cutting between clocks and those very photogenic mechanical timetable boards. I suspect they filmed them precisely because they are so photogenic but discarded them for the reason above. Or maybe they had a plan for him to escape from the station but abandoned it.

Your point two is sharp continuity. Send it to the IMDB, they'll post it. They love that kind of thing. It's only a battery thing though and I guess he could have ased to buy a diplay one already charged, but that would have wasted a few seconds.

I guess the whole film was the 'ultimatum' in the sense that once his girl was killed despite him having dropped out of sight and just wanted to be left alone, his message was I'm gonna get you, get the truth, or die in the attempt.

The 'citizen' remark clearly didn't mean just Americans because the first persn killed was a Guardian journalist - and that's about as English as you can get. I rather thought the point here was the very relevant contemporary issue of whether in response to terrorist threat that is totally without scruple or limit; that will kill anyone women and children included, does this justify extreme measures to combat? Just as the terrorists admit no-one as a non-combatant so secret defense measures may accept the necessity of what in an open military setting is called 'collateral damage'. I guess the classic nightmare situation for this is almost certainly going to arise one day. And I'm glad I'm not the one who has to decide: i.e. a civil airliner is hi-jacked and a la 911, aimed directly at a majopr centre of population. At some point someone has to decided on the trade off between the 200-300 passengers and the 1,000s on the ground. Then shoot the airliner down before it can reach its target. Such contingencies actually exist and were touched on in a West Wing story-line when Bartlett's daughter was kidnapped.

The wider issue I guess is whether we should stay true to the very values the terrorists are trying to destroy and refuse to let go of our civil liberties and freedoms. Vosen is only the last voice ringing out through history claiming that ends justifies the means.

interesting review

Zettel

Zettel, thanks for your response and the thoughtful attention you gave to this.

Yes, I think I completely missed the point about 'citizens', which clearly meant civilians, not Americans.On the other hand, as you say, the distinction becomes blurred.

I read a Guardian article and an interview with Paddy Considine reflecting on the portrayal of the journalist. When watching he film I just had the impression it was a clash of wills and judgement rather than the director making a statement about the bravery or otherwise of the reporter. He was made to look foolish because he didn't obey Jason's advice to stay put.

However,it was good to watch the second 'Bourne' film, also directed by Greengrass, on TV the other day and be reminded of the personnel, particularly the roles of Pam Landy and the girl with the stripey hair. The first film was screened on the same night but clashed with something else I wanted to record.( A rivetting doucmentary on US interference in Latin American regimes) I think a family member recorded the film, so I'll get to see it soon. It would be interesting to write a comparison piece. It's hard to strike a balance between viewing and writing. I've got at least two other reviews half-written.

I wonder if you saw 'V for Vendetta' last evening? It was very garbled, even ridiculous at times, but seemed to make serious comments ( I thought) about the civil liberties issue you raised. I remember this film looked too silly even in the trailers to consider seeing in the cinema, but it had some thrilling set pieces.

Sheila

<Added>

In the first film there was indeed a shot of Bourne consulting a timetable at the bottom of station steps, but it was in Berlin or Moscow, I think. I did like Bourne's fluent command of Russian.

Sheila

Sadly, missed V for Vendetta. I would have liked to see the John Pilger piece but missed it. In many ways the tone of the Bourne Franchise echoes what I would regard as the best 'conspiracy' thriller of the 70's - Three Days of The Condor' with Robt Redford. Brilliant. If you haven't seen pick it up on DVD.


regards

Zettel

OK. Thanks for the tip-off - I'll order it. I joined a DVD postal service called Sofa.cinema about a month ago, on a a month's free trial, mainly so I could get Spanish and Chinese films to watch on my laptop. However, there's a big catalogue and I've just received 'United 93', a Paul Greengrass film I missed when it was released. I'm looking forward to seeing this over the next couple of days. My partner says he doesn't want to see it again because it was too depressing.

'V for Vendetta' was recorded from one of the Sky Channels as they are having a free three-month film-channel promotion. We won't continue after September because there's enough to create a backlog from the other channels, especially Filmfour. Unfortunately, we also like those 1940s b.&w. movies the BBC screen in the day time.

Sheila

I have a couple more questions in addition to yours, Sheila. How can Jason be punched hard and repeatedly in the face without showing any sign of it afterwards - and likewise survive serious car crashes etc totally unscathed, like Captain Scarlett? Sometimes he walks with a bit of a limp, but then he forgets the limp.

And why introduce a potential romantic lead (Nicola, the stripey-haired girl), then do nothing with her in romantic terms (something happened in the past?), apart from Jason softening slightly in his manner towards her? I thought it was a cop-out to keep doing flashbacks to the old girlfriend (shot and drowned) - we should have had flashbacks to the Nicola affair. Perhaps they were filmed and then cut?

I think the film actually WAS suggesting that it's a bad idea to shoot anyone - hence Jason wanting to apologise to his past victims - and at least twice making a conscious decision not to shoot the assassin.

Great review - thank you!

Frances

Ok, having just watched the film Landy was not talking about citizens but employees of the CIA. So what caught my attention with that one was the asset was on his way to kill another senior employee (against which little objection was raised)

Not entirely sure about the punching in the face because I'd tend to avoid it whenever possible but certainly in my experience you tend to bruise less and even stop bruising when continually inflicting such damage to your body. At least I do (skin will still come away though).

Other things about the film. How easy is it to spy on the CIA? Apparently you can just use a telescope from across the street; not likely in reality.

How the 'asset' who kills the journalist manages to arrive on scene so quickly is beyond me unless he happened to be in a hotel room around the corner from Waterloo station.

Then again without Bourne announcing himself he (the asset) turns up in New York.

Where does he get up to date code cards that give him access to a CIA building from?

Why would a senior field operative who apparently runs all the covert operations in Europe and North Africa use an issued passport if he knows how the CIA trace people? Thus allowing them to track him down.

How did the number one target of the CIA manage to walk into a CIA building and break into someone's office? No wonder they can't find Bin Laden, he's probably a data admin clerk at the Pentagon.

Lastly, nerd like technical point, but the set piece wrist lock that Bourne applies in Tangiers. The assassin rightly performs the only real counter to it (though it's actually much more effective to kick or knee the face as you go over) but for someone of such calibre to not anticipate and prevent the counter is just stupid.

Wow,Geoff, they should definitely have had you on the advisory panel for that film. It must be quite painful for you to watch these spy capers. I just thought it was very clever of Bourne to lure everyone away from the main office so he could break in. I suppose the film makers rely a lot on pace and surprise elements so most people just accept events without thinking too much. We're already into 'suspended disbelief' mode anyway. I love your detailed account of the errors.

Sheila