Revisit: The Bourne Supremacy
A reflection on the second installment of the Jason Bourne film series
It’s hard to believe that The Bourne Supremacy is 20 years old; but the 2004 spy thriller starring Matt Damon as former CIA assassin, Jason Bourne — a rogue suffering from amnesia — still remains one of the most influential action movies of the 21st century.
Unlike its predecessor The Bourne Identity, the Paul Greengrass directed sequel popularized a violent, chaotic cinematography known as “shaky cam” in order to thrust viewers into the mayhem, be it a fist fight, and a foot and/or car chase. The story-telling method has been, and still is, copied by numerous films though not with the same impact or immersion (as is the case with most copycats). In short, The Bourne Supremacy is a watershed movie, and for that it warrants a revisit.
But the thriller is more than its run-and-gun visuals; and even still, the cinematography serves a purpose. After all, Bourne is a man who cannot remember his past life. One could argue that, ironically, his espionage and fighting skills — which he mechanically enlists from muscle memory — are the only non-hazy characteristics of his obfuscated former self; yet the viewer can merely catch glimpses in the action. Instead, when the camera is steadier, we see the “real” Bourne: a regretful, apologetic, troubled soul, constantly outrunning the U.S. government and other assassins.
The cinematography, therefore, serves a duel purpose: enthralling, havoc sequences (like an excellent car chase through Moscow), while also reflecting Bourne’s unsettled mind. As he writes in his journal after a troubling dream (fragments of his first hit job in Berlin), Bourne constantly searches for “who was I?”
Yet the deeper he goes searching, the more he uncovers about himself and the corruption within the CIA. But Bourne is not necessarily a hero. Unlike James Bond, Ethan Hunt or even Jack Ryan, he is not also stopping terrorist plots while on the soul-searching, reconciliatory journey; even when he was an assassin, he only protected obscure U.S. interests — or the interests of a few top brass in the government.
The film’s plot hinges on corruption. In the opening mirage, Bourne is tasked by his former handler, Alexander Conklin (Chris Cooper) to kill Russian politician Vladmir Neski, who is vocal critic against oil privatization after Soviet Union’s disintegration. CIA officials and Russian oligarchs, who stand to make millions, cannot afford Neski’s pesky criticisms. However, when Bourne is about to commit his first kill, he discovers Neski is not alone. His wife is unexpectedly present. In a quick readjustment, the assassin kills both the politician and his wife, and arranges the crime scene as a murder-suicide. The wife’s cries haunt him.
Hiding in India with his love interest, Marie (Franka Potente), Bourne is living a quiet life — at least to the best of his ability. Yet, continents away, files revealing the true intent of Neski’s murder are on the verge of being acquired by Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), a CIA deputy director, and her agents. However, a Russian assassin (Karl Urban) kills the agents before the transaction, frames Bourne, and then tries to eliminate him, burying any final leads that could threaten the reputation — and wallets — of those involved in the cover-up.
But things don’t go according to plan. During a car chase in Goa, Marie is accidentally struck by the assassin’s bullet instead, and she and Bourne careen off a bridge into a murky river. In his last conversation with her, the former CIA operative exclaims, “We don’t have a choice,” meaning he would fight back and lay waste since “they didn't leave us alone.” However, acting as his conscience, she states, “Yes you do.” Those were her final words.
With her death, Bourne embarks on a revenge tour. However, as he barrels through Italy, Germany and Russia, he continuously runs into demons from the past. The more he undercovers, the more he detests the CIA and himself — and how he made an orphan of Neski’s daughter. In the end, he recognizes Marie was right, and she has once again saved his soul like she did in The Bourne Identity, though this time from beyond the grave. He does have a choice; instead of resorting to his prior, sordid life, he utilizes his skills to root out corruption and to bring peace to someone he wronged. Though wounded (by grief and a limp), Bourne emerges from the wreckage more spiritually unburdened, casting away his former identity and freer to forge a new one.
Yet the Bourne franchise was not made in a vacuum, as an early 2000s wariness toward the government remains prevalent. The series is not only ‘not-so-subtly’ critical of the George W. Bush Administration’s War on Terror and Patriot Act, but also the CIA’s historical involvement in regime building and espionage. In this way, Bourne — as a product of the U.S. intelligence agency’s callous, ruthlessness — represents Americans realizing its country’s past sins, and rejecting a government acting in such a manner. Throughout the film, the titular character seeks forgiveness and mercy, all while bringing down corrupt actors in the system.
Today, one would think this view on government is not only reserved for post-1960s liberals, but it has increasingly become a mainstay of the Right. In fact, 45% of Republicans have an unfavorable view of the CIA, while 54% of Democrats hold a favorable view, according to an August Pew Research Center survey. No doubt this skepticism is a remarkably “big shift,” influenced by Donald Trump’s election in 2016 and further entrenched after the assassination attempt this past July.
Seen in this context, The Bourne Supremacy might have a renewed relevance — but from an entirely different audience on the opposite side of the political spectrum.
As for yours truly, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie when it was first released, and still do after 20 years. For better or worse, its mark on action films is undeniable.
Top Five Scenes