Skip to main content

Ain't nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There's nothing here to like.

Body of Lies
(2008)

(SPOILERS) Sir Ridders stubs out his cigar in the CIA-assisted War on Terror, with predictably gormless results. Body of Lies' one saving grace is that it wasn't a hit, although that more reflects its membership of a burgeoning club where no degree of Hollywood propaganda on the "just fight" (with just a smidgeon enough doubt cast to make it seem balanced at a sideways glance) was persuading the public that they wanted the official fiction further fictionalised.


Ridley Scott and politics really shouldn’t mix. Black Hawk Down found him firing on all cylinders as a director, albeit in service to a state-sanctioned rendition of what went down in Mogadishu (the heroic Americans against the oncoming hordes of unfriendly natives). Kingdom of Heaven had Orlando Bloom attempting to bring peace to the Middle East by way of laughably contemporary values. Here, Scott and screenwriter William Monahan (Kingdom of Heaven) are, to paraphrase Hans Gruber, following the terrorist movie rule book note by note, such that all you really need to know is Leo’s field agent has to track down a terrorist cell and is motivated for all the right reasons while his boss (Crowe) is a cynic much readier to get others’ hands dirty than his own.


It should probably be no surprise that the movie is essentially a government promo piece, since David Ignatius, who wrote the novel of the same name, is a columnist for the Washington Post, that publication of undiluted journalistic values (just ask Kevin Shipp). He's entirely sympathetic to the cause ("CIA officials put up with a degree of public abuse that would be unimaginable in the case of military officers") and so wants to further it in any way he can ("Even the CIA has a soft heart" says one of his characters). Accordingly, the subject matter attempts to strike a chord by addressing heartland issues; the locations may be Iraq and Jordan, but these terrorists are planting bombs in Europe (a good thing the Americans are there to save them). 


The only qualms Body of Lies shows regarding the War on Terror aren't in respect of its causes or rectitude, but how the fight is fought, so good Middle Easterners are the ones showing an almost British gentility and cunning (funnily enough, because Jordanian Hani Salaam is played by Mark Strong, all eccentric "My dears" when addressing Leo, tailored suits and – as pretty much every review noted – unswerving suavity). Salaam’s methods are effective, and Leo, being a cultured sort who learns the local language and likes the local people, has respect for him that contrasts entirely to Crowe’s china shop bull (he takes his calls to Leo while giving his son toilet training). The CIA as a flawed, fallible outfit is part of the official script of course (as well as being accurate), since it fits with the idea that it is necessary but cannot do everything (so requires ever more funding).


The illusion of complexity created by Leo being stuck in the midst of others' agendas, thus leaving him jaded and disillusioned with the apparatus (I'm guessing this is why he thought Body of Lies was a throwback to The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor – I mean, really?), is consistently fought by Scott's stylistic choices, all desert panoramas of billowing dust spread by convoys of cars, black helicopters sweeping stylishly by, Enemy of the State-style satellite (and drone) surveillance, and action sequences chock full of slow-motion and blood squibs. The present and correct tropes are all here – suicide bombers, torture, including a conversation on how it doesn’t work, lecturing a terrorist on how his behaviour conflicts with the Koran – ensuring a pervading sense that this is re-treading a well-worn furrow, and the promise of starry names does nothing to alleviate the fatigue.


Matthew Alford in Reel Power read the movie as "not about the legitimacy of US actions, which are taken as read, but rather how we can make better use of foreigners to implement the War on Terror more effectively" – "What we need to do learn to get it right" as the film’s writer David Ignatieff puts it (on the DVD commentary).


Crowe's actually pretty good, making Ed Hoffman a cocky blowhard morally and empathically detached from process and results, for whom expendability is a byword; his casual approach to dealing with Leo’s Ferris or Jordanian politics rather oversells the point, though. He's a caricature, every bit as much as Ferris is a ridiculous man child, in the era before Leo was effectively delivering adult roles but trying his best to fill their shoes, with the aid of as many props (goatee, baseball cap, tooth pick permanently in place) he could muster. The general failings of the characterisation are only underlined with by his romance with nurse Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani, memorable in the recent Paterson), leading to a risible "kidnap" plotline. There’s also an early role for Oscar Isaac, unfortunately killed off in the first act.


Monahan substitutes hangdog jadedness for any kind of insight ("Nobody’s innocent in this shit, Ferris"), but I don’t think audiences were ever buying into this faux hand-wringing. Give them a jingoistic real hero with no nods to the cause of the conflict itself and there might be a response (American Sniper), but this kind of fare satisfies no one (still, Ridley just can’t keep away from the region, as Exodus: Gods and Kings would prove). At one point, Ferris tells terrorist Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul) that one of his men is working for the Head of Jordanian Intelligence, and since the Head is working for the US, that means Al-Saleem really works for the US Government. He means it as a wind-up, mid finger-crushing, but it’s about as close as Body of Lies gets to what’s really going on. 


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

If a rat were to walk in here right now as I'm talking, would you treat it to a saucer of your delicious milk?

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
(SPOILERS) His staunchest fans would doubtless claim Tarantino has never taken a wrong step, but for me, his post-Pulp Fiction output had been either not quite as satisfying (Jackie Brown), empty spectacle (the Kill Bills) or wretched (Death Proof). It wasn’t until Inglourious Basterds that he recovered his mojo, revelling in an alternate World War II where Adolf didn’t just lose but also got machine gunned to death in a movie theatre showing a warmly received Goebbels-produced propaganda film. It may not be his masterpiece – as Aldo Raines refers to the swastika engraved on “Jew hunter” Hans Landa’s forehead, and as Tarantino actually saw the potential of his script – but it’s brimming with ideas and energy.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994)
(SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump. And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Hey, everybody. The bellboy's here.

Four Rooms (1995)
(SPOILERS) I had an idea that I’d only seen part of Four Rooms previously, and having now definitively watched the entire thing, I can see where that notion sprang from. It’s a picture that actively encourages you to think it never existed. Much of it isn’t even actively terrible – although, at the same time, it couldn’t be labelled remotely good– but it’s so utterly lethargic, so lacking in the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness that characterises these filmmakers at their best – and yes, I’m including Rodriguez, although it’s a very limited corner for him – that it’s very easy to banish the entire misbegotten enterprise from your mind.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra (2019)
(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

Our very strength incites challenge. Challenge incites conflict. And conflict... breeds catastrophe.

The MCU Ranked Worst to Best

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

The adversary oft comes in the shape of a he-goat.

The Witch (2015)
(SPOILERS) I’m not the biggest of horror buffs, so Stephen King commenting that The Witchscared the hell out of me” might have given me pause for what was in store. Fortunately, he’s the same author extraordinaire who referred to Crimson Peak as “just fucking terrifying” (it isn’t). That, and that general reactions to Robert Eggers’ film have fluctuated across the scale, from the King-type response on one end of the spectrum to accounts of unrelieved boredom on the other. The latter response may also contextualise the former, depending on just what King is referring to, because what’s scary about The Witch isn’t, for the most part, scary in the classically understood horror sense. It’s scary in the way The Wicker Man is scary, existentially gnawing away at one through judicious martialling of atmosphere, setting and theme.


Indeed, this is far more impressive a work than Ben Wheatley’s Kill List, which had hitherto been compared to The Wicker Man, succeeding admirably …