"Bourne Ultimatum" a reminder of need for revolutionary tactics specific to the First World
The Bourne Ultimatum
Directed by Paul Greengrass, starring Matt Damon and Julia Stiles
Universal Pictures
111 minutes
Rated PG-13
2007
Reviewed 2007 August 8
[Contains spoilers.]
"The Bourne Ultimatum" is the third of the contemporary film adaptations of the books by Robert Ludlum. In "The Bourne Ultimatum," Bourne, who has been suffering from amnesia, remembers his "true" identity and how he came to be a killer pursued by other assassins and spies. The previous movies revealed Bourne to be a rogue CIA agent who grew a conscience and a dislike for what he was doing but was still caught up in CIA-related conspiracies. Bourne has been uncovering pieces of his history as events unfolded following an incident that left him floating in the Mediterranean Sea in the first movie. In "Ultimatum," Bourne discovers a crucial link in his history via a British reporter for the Guardian, whom the CIA tries to kill to prevent the disclosure of information about a black ops program involving assassinations all over the world, including assassinations of u.$. citizens, and "rendition." Bourne eventually meets Nicky Parsons, whom Bourne has a previous history with because Parsons was an operative of the black ops program in Paris and had been involved in the CIA effort to take Bourne out. "Ultimatum" involves Bourne's trying to learn about his history and could have been more slow-paced, as when Bourne is shown doing newspaper research early in the movie, but there is a lot of intricate, fast-paced and visually exciting spy thriller action in this movie, and Bourne is again shown to be extraordinarily skilled in fighting and counterintelligence. CIA deputy director Pamela Landy from the previous movies develops a conflict with the head of the black ops program, but predictably ends up saving face for the CIA by distancing the program from the CIA's policy and principles. Blackbriar isn't "us" -- it's not what the CIA is about. Read: "It isn't American."
After revisiting "The Matrix" (1999), it is appropriate to take a look at "The Bourne Ultimatum." Both movies are less than perfect, but, if another movie like "The Matrix" were to be released today and compared with "Ultimatum," one would be better than the other for the struggles that are happening today, and contrary to what one might think there's a good chance it wouldn't be the Matrix-like movie. It would be idealist to simply say both are less than perfect and one can't be preferred to the other. But, in addition to that, it's not that moviegoers would embrace "The Matrix" as a movie about revolution but just digest "Ultimatum" as another action movie. The action is arguably overpowering in both movies, and any political message other than individualism may be lost, but in situations where people do absorb political ideas from movies or for political theory and strategy illustration purposes, there is a difference between "The Matrix" and "The Bourne Ultimatum," and at this time "The Matrix" wouldn't necessarily win out.
Even if people just go to see something cool and don't get anything out of either movie, "The Matrix" or "The Bourne Ultimatum," and even if the proletariat isn't trying to infiltrate Hollywood, it is useful to think about "The Bourne Ultimatum" in the context of "The Matrix" for strategic purposes. The crux of the matter is that the white so-called working class and the middle class aren't going to join any genuine revolutionary movement in droves, but elites in the united $tates and to a certain extent the upper-petty-bourgeoisie are interested in government spying accountability questions in relation to u.$. citizens at the moment. That's true even if the underlying dynamic is mostly elections, dissatisfaction with Bush, bureaucratic turf war, or not wanting to be embarrassed internationally -- not disagreement over any aspect of repression in principle. It's not that the population will draw distinctions and say that the FBI and police can spy on and kill u.$. citizens but the CIA can't, but people may disagree with the government's spying on u.$. citizens on the instructions of just a handful of individuals with no oversight, or at least worry about media exposure of such activity for international reputation reasons. On the other hand, there is little basis in amerikans' interests and thinking for them to be receptive to the message radicals see in "The Matrix" about consciousness and revolution. There are more opportunities to divide amerikans and exploiters internationally, to benefit the oppressed, than opportunities to recruit amerikans for revolution.
At first glance, it may seem "Ultimatum" doesn't have any potential despite its depiction of a rogue CIA assassin tired of killing. In polls, most amerikans will say they don't approve of Bush. They also claim to be opposed to selective release of information about the CIA for political purposes. But greater percentages of amerikans support torture, and killing people via the Pentagon, which works with the CIA, in wars. The combination of these things suggests a disconnect between general repression questions and Bush-specific questions. And amerikans may be against selective actions for political purposes. But it's harder to say if amerikans would oppose something like what is depicted in "The Bourne Ultimatum" if they knew about it. This is especially so if they are convinced the repression is confined to people who are amerika's enemies.
The Blackbriar black ops program director in the movie acts unaccountably and even leaves the people in his own command center ignorant, but he doesn't appear to have a particular grudge against Bourne other than maybe an egotistical desire to beat him. In his role as a CIA official, he appears politically neutral relative to his surroundings and indifferent to the politics of the country he says he is serving in the "national interest." As Pamela Landy points out, her disagreement with Blackbriar director Noah Vosen is in their different "methods" of going about neutralizing Bourne. Landy may just disagree with killing people instead of disabling them. Vosen implies that people who have seen the "raw intelligence" would support the black ops program and understand why the CIA had to be "brutal," in his words. "Ultimatum" raises a common argument but doesn't do much to provide anything in a way of an answer. Few movie-watchers actually have the factual and theoretical knowledge to oppose seemingly unfalsifiable arguments like that other than some sense that they would persynally like to know what the government is doing with their tax money, even if others can't know. In the real world, the "national security" Vosen says he is defending is a cover for various domestic and international political interests. In order to oppose u.$. repression consistently, people need to understand how things are connected to systems of exploitation and oppression. The oppressors' intelligence is irrelevant. "The Matrix" offers the potential for such an understanding, but "The Matrix" doesn't fit within the logic of the struggles going on today between amerikans over things that impact the oppressed's struggle.
Apparently unable to refute the argument about raw intelligence and amerikans' supporting brutal methods if they knew why they were necessary, it is unsurprising that "Ultimatum" drifts in a pacifist direction at times, depicting constant realistic-looking violence that Bourne is involved in but would like to put an end to. It is all non-stop and serious, where in other movies spies' running through people's houses could have been portrayed humorously. At the end of the movie, there are glimpses of records with photos of individuals Bourne and presumably others in the black ops program have killed, including people from Third World nations and some u.$. citizens. Many amerikans watching the movie will think "so what," and only those who know that the CIA claims it doesn't kill people itself, much less u.$. citizens, will really find it interesting. "Ultimatum" will just be another movie about a white persyn screwed over because of government secrecy or corruption, like Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg) in "Shooter" (2007), another recent movie about federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. "Ultimatum" is in fact an individualist movie that doesn't oppose imperialism but reflects the petty-bourgeoisie's feelings of isolation and lack of control within the system. That isn't the kind of thing that has the potential for much exploiter-division, but "Ultimatum" may get people to imagine problems that could develop as a result of unaccountability and secrecy and help the oppressed that way.
Politically, the climax of the movie is when Noah Vosen targets another CIA agent as a rogue, and Landy says something like, "If you start going down this path, where does it end?" in a scene that is obviously meant to evoke a threat to Landy herself for questioning Vosen. Even Landy, a deputy director, was in the dark about Blackbriar. It is a secret to Landy herself, before Vosen lets her know about it because of circumstances with Bourne. There isn't any well-known real world parallel movie-watchers can draw from to make this scene real for them. So, the climax falls flat. They just have a notion of friendly fire and how spies on the same side can mistake each other for the enemy because of undercover status, compartmentalization of spy agency information and activity, and the kinds of things people know from watching spy thrillers. Mostly, if anything, people will want to see more competence and efficiency at the CIA or even more agency cooperation to lessen information problems -- pragmatic concerns that the oppressed aren't interested in -- but "Ultimatum" may raise questions about the problem with having so much bureaucracy with the people in it have contradictory interests, motivations, and allegiances.
Part of the interest in the problems of intelligence agency unaccountability will be because of international pressure, not wanting to ruin the united $tates' image internationally, as if it weren't bad already. (Amerikan arrogance about everyone loving amerika has its uses.) Amerikans would like to preserve the myth of democracy and not interfering in other countries' affairs. The motivation for change in that case will be external, not any domestic principled disagreement over repression and state questions. However, exploiters will be divided, internationally and domestically.
By contrast, "The Matrix" offers only a vision of liberation that amerikan exploiters are predisposed against even if they find the movie entertaining. What "The Matrix" and "Ultimatum" together serve to illustrate is the difference between building up a revolutionary party at the expense of other work as if a revolution were imminent in the First World, and organizing to influence public opinion in the First World and pit the exploiters against each other, domestically and internationally, to allow the oppressed, united globally, to have more freedom of action. In its potential illustrative uses, "The Matrix" is better than "The Bourne Ultimatum" for party-building and teaching people the truth, but that doesn't mean all revolutionary activity is about building a party or trying to get exploiters to see the truth for that matter, i.e., speaking truth to exploiters. The exploiters will be educated mostly after the proletariat seizes power. The majority of amerikans are exploiters. As long as the exploiters have power, they can only be manipulated, and that will not usually involve trying to explain revolutionary theory to exploiters. "The Bourne Ultimatum" is farther away from the truth than "The Matrix," but the kind of tendency "Ultimatum" points to can play a role in some current struggles that "The Matrix" wouldn't.
"The Matrix" actually has to be lumped with similar movies. It isn't in some category of its own. If "Ultimatum" can be lumped with decadent spy thrillers, "The Matrix" can also be categorized. "The Matrix," "The Truman Show," "The Thirteenth Floor," "Pleasantville," even "Brazil," "Twelve Monkeys," and "Vanilla Sky," etc. -- for most amerikans, these are basically the same. "The Matrix"'s revolutionary message falls flat in the concrete contradictions going on in the First World today and the united $nakes in particular and ends up being another movie that stirs up white petty-bourgeois angst, just giving a boost to postmodernism and a phony Marxism divorced from concrete conditions. "The Matrix" is an advancement in its genre, but so is "Ultimatum" its own genre, which may as well include everything from "Mission Impossible" to "Mr. & Mrs. Smith," to "Spy Who Shagged Me," because Hollywood today is more likely to come out with a movie like "Spy Kids" than a movie such as "Three Days of the Condor" (1975). Both "Matrix" and "Ultimatum" have an edge in their respective genres, but one is more useful in the circumstances that exist in the First World today.
The one movie, which could be included in that list, that "The Bourne Ultimatum" is similar to is the Arnold Schwarzenegger sci-fi movie "Total Recall" (1990), which also deals with an amnesiac who volunteered for an operation and has a bout of morality (or apathy) while trying to survive. "The Bourne Ultimatum" differs from that movie in its realism and also in that Bourne doesn't join the side of the oppressed. That's fine, because it's not like you could expect amerikkkans to root for a Jason Bourne who fights on behalf of the Iraqis. What amerikans will buy is an amerikan hero opposing "corruption" or "abuse." The only way the proletariat could get amerikans to watch a movie about Bourne defecting, instead of just saving himself and obsessing with trying to find his true self, is if it outdid "Ultimatum" in artistic and technical terms that overpowered any message in the movie.
In terms of what it may have been trying to do, "Ultimatum" still could have been improved. "Ultimatum" is part of a resurgence of a tradition of bourgeois movies criticizing u.$. intelligence agencies; any improvements over "Ultimatum" are going to be within that framework. Not all of them represent that trend, but is timely that there are all these movies about intelligence agencies recently, because in fact spying activity and employment have grown massively since 9/11, and there have been revelations about secret and questionable aspects of that. Unfortunately, "Ultimatum" doesn't achieve what one could call a Liberal condemnation of the united $tates' militarism and spying bureaucracy, and despite its portrayal of Bourne's difficulties still seems to glamorize a career in spying. It's not as crass as the CIA recruiting "Cody Banks" movies or the recent disgusting NSA recruiting movie "Transformers" (2007), but it's still there when "Ultimatum" draws from amerikans' fascination with the physical fighting and technology aspects of spying, alongside Pamela Landy's ridiculous indignant defense of the CIA to the effect that black operations and killing are worthy of whistleblowing but against CIA policy. The CIA comes off as cold-blooded, coordinating the killing of people in other countries from an office thousands of miles away, but the sterility of that is also attractive to people thinking about a career in the military or intelligence but too scared to get their hands dirty. Compounding this is Landy's defense of the CIA's reputation, portraying Noah Vosen as a kind of maverick the CIA has no control over (which ignores that the u.$. spying bureaucracy structurally leads to activities it claims are exceptions). Landy herself symbolizes female advancement in the CIA. It could have been someone's idea of being PC, but it may contribute to intelligence agency recruiting.
Amerikans have this idea of spying as James Bond sort of stuff, and "Ultimatum" reinforces that notion while trying to deny that the CIA is involved in violence in interfering in other countries' affairs. The CIA released some of its family jewels, but it isn't like that anymore, supposedly. That's okay, the distinction between what the CIA does by itself and what the Department of Defense does with CIA information and help to carry out "pre-emptive" war is like splitting hairs anyway to revolutionaries. If only the CIA would own up to all the things it does by propaganda means to pit the oppressed against each other, distort revolutionary politics, and bolster revisionist phony Marxism and lackeyism.
Tactically, "Ultimatum" has nothing to offer except maybe some pointers about cell phone-related security and cameras. It would actually take less resources and be easier for a vigilante to put a microphone and recorder or transmitter somewhere or track someone using GPS with products anyone can buy at a store. Even if they don't use lethal force, the information gathered can be used for provocations, psychological warfare, and manipulating and infiltrating political organizations and movements. The individual moves in the chase scenes in "Ultimatum" aren't interesting. They are just entertainment and irrelevant to revolutionaries without state power, resources, mass support, or any advantages in the violent methods portrayed in the movie. Violence isn't a part of First World revolutionaries' tactics at this stage of struggle or for any foreseeable stage as long the international proletariat is unable to project state power.
To its credit, in contrast to the previous Bourne movies that were more geopolitical and in which Bourne played a more pivotal role individually, at least "Ultimatum" is not so individualist as to show Bourne singlehandedly saving the world or defeating the system. Bourne has to rely on Landy, the media and politicians (u.$. senators) to stop the black ops program. "Ultimatum" is perhaps undeservedly optimistic about the ability of the media and elected representatives to bring about change even at this level, for one spying program, but "Ultimatum" portrays an arduous piecemeal struggle that is realistic in terms of what moviegoers understand. A reporter writes about a secret u.$. spying program using information from a source, and the state tries to hush it up, with some spy thriller movie embellishments. Appropriately, in terms of international considerations, the reporter isn't an amerikan reporter, but a foreign one. Britain is an ally of the united $tates, but there is still some inter-imperialist rivalry between English exploiters and Euro-Amerikan exploiters, and the united $tates has international image problems globally. It's not that the fictional journalist for the bourgeois Guardian has to be some kind of revolutionary himself to play a role in change useful to the oppressed.
In line with the movie's abuse-of-power theme, "Ultimatum" shows the Blackbriar program using surveillance cameras in Britain, which is well-known for its closed-circuit television camera security; London by itself has hundreds of thousands of cameras. According to a July 18-21, 2007, TNS/ABC News/Washington Post poll, 71% of u.$. adults, 71% of independents, 66% and 81% of Demokrats and Republikans, 66% of adult males, and 75% of adult females, supported "the increased use of surveillance cameras" (N=1,125, +/- 3). According to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics July 17-18, 2007, poll, 58% of registered voters supported "increasing the use of surveillance cameras" (N=900, +/- 3). Brits may see more to be concerned about in the movie's depiction of CIA use of CCTV in Britain since Bourne's situation is unrealistic for apathetic amerikans with safe, comfortable jobs, and "Ultimatum" doesn't show how such widespread invasive security affects the stability of the capitalist ruling class in the long run in the bourgeois Liberal view. The two recent polls on camera surveillance and the break-down, though, suggest more contradictions at work over expanded repression than just Demokrat/Republikan or pro-/anti-Bush.
Note
"We're becoming a nation of sheep," 2007 August 3, http://www.tribune-georgian.com/articles/
2007/08/03/news/opinion/1opinion8.3.txt