"... which lives us only with the how: as the bard would say, lies the rob."

Rating: 10/10 (1 April 2006)

The film opens with Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) informing us of his intention to rob a bank for two reasons: for money and because he can. He states that since we now know the who and the what, all that's left is the how, which is what Lee's film is all about. But for someone who addresses the audience directly into the camera, he isn't being entirely honest. For as we eventually learn, Dalton and his three accomplices are after the chairman of the bank's safety deposit box and the contents that lie within. Chairman Arthur Case (Christopher Plummer) hides a dark secret in there, and he hires a mysterious woman, Madeline White (Jodie Foster), to make sure, whether she must make a deal with the criminals or the police, that what's in his box never surfaces in public.
But now that you know the basic plot, there are two minor characters in this film who are the key to understanding it. The first is a young boy, who's a hostage along with his father. It's during his conversation in the central vault with Dalton that we get the film's most telling moment. Lee begins the scene with a slow zoom into the vault, intentionally highlighting the importance of this scene. All the other hostages had to strip down, give up their keys and cell phones, and put the same painters' suits on as the robbers, but this boy was allowed to keep his PSP player and his clothes along with receiving much gentler treatment. So in the vault, he and Dalton are each sitting on a pile of money, and they begin to talk about the video game he's playing, which apparently is some version of Grand Theft Auto.
The video game fills the screen for 20 seconds or so as the boy explains that the goal is to steal, assault and not be killed or car-jacked. We watch him controlling the game as he places a grenade in a character's mouth and blood splatters everywhere. And since this young child narrates bloody violence with such nonchalance, it provides a sort of disturbing comic relief. As he and Dalton continue to talk, we discover that the boy completely sympathizes with the plight of these thieves, casually dropping his thought that everyone's got to get paid somehow. Again, we laugh, but we're uncomfortable with ourselves for doing so. The second scene involves the brother of Frazier's girlfriend, who's a crack head bum. At the end of the film when Frazier returns home, we see him sitting stoned on a sofa.
So what is Lee saying with these two? The young boy and the brother represent the common scapegoats for the ills of contemporary American society: thugs and drugs. But real corruption and true evil come from seemingly good individuals whose high moral standing is due to their wealth covering up a past of transgressions. Such is Arthur Case, who has a secret to hide from many years ago and has spent his whole life as a great philanthropist, atoning for his sin. For decades he has been safe, and now he pays Madeline to keep him that way, but Dalton Russell, like an avenging angel, is here for justice.
What results is a film that sets up a clear distinction between who is good and who is bad only to deconstruct it. After all, this is a heist film, so you don't even have to be told this; whoever is doing the robbing is bad, and those trying to prevent it are good. But what happens during the film is that the good/bad polarity breaks down: as we learn new facts, we realize that Dalton, the criminal, is good, and Arthur Case is really the evil person of this film, although his concern is for preventing the crime. So there is an interplay between the apparent and the real.
But it's our strong reluctance to accept this change where Lee convicts us; we want to believe that the kind, elderly Arthur Case has paid the price for his sin and been washed clean. We readily condemn crimes like bank robberies and substance abuse, because those crimes are observable behaviors. But Lee wants us to see that it's the hidden crimes, the long-repressed wrongdoings of wealthy and respected individuals, that are much more disturbing. And with Arthur Case, he not only got away with something, but has profited off it his entire life.
But this calls into question just who is the titular "Inside Man." Perhaps it's the most obvious answer, and it's Dalton because he's the one inside the bank committing the crime. But I don't think this is so. Notice the absence of the indefinite article: it's Inside Man, and not The Inside Man. So then the film could be a playing out of an inside/outside opposition, where Arthur Case represents crimes on the inside and Dalton, those outside. If that's so, then we have a strong statement about the power and wealth of the upper class - that deceit in the heart is equal to or often worse than any outward criminal behavior.
Personally, I want to extend this a bit further, stating that Lee wants to go inside man, that is, humankind, to reveal the stereotypes and prejudices that we hold. To illustrate, the film gives us the perfect example; a Sikh bank employee-turned-hostage is one of the first that Dalton releases. However, once outside, the police harass him, beat him, and highly insult him by taking his turban and assuming he's a Muslim terrorist. So that's just it: we don't even always look at people's behavior. We only have to see what they are wearing or other surface qualities, and we form broad generalizations and stereotypes that keep us perpetually outside and disconnected, not only unable to recognize the good in others, but when appropriate, the evil.