A reign of confusion

Rating: 8/10 (7 March 2007)

The Good Shepherd, coming so hot on the heels of a reinvention of James Bond, does much to stand out from the pack. Instead of making espionage seem more exciting or glamorous than it really is, it attempts to show the profession in its natural state. Unfortunately, it does this using a fictionalised version of a founding member of the CIA. This approach has its upsides and downsides, of course. Since the CIA's archives are full of disinformation, it is expecting far too much that an account of the organisation's history be completely factual. However, the narrative style creates an abundance of confusion. The first thirty minutes in particular can be summed up with a quote spoken by James Woods during Videodrome: "So when does the plot start to unravel here?". While I applaud the effort to make a film that does not assume its audience is borderline retarded, allowing ease of plot navigation does allow some of the deeper details to shine through. But this is a moot point, as much of the best experience the film offers is in reflecting on what one has just seen.
One of the film's key problems is the decision to not use any makeup or other such special effects to age Matt Damon as he takes the journey of his character. With an actor who is capable of appearing to be in his fifties under the right lighting, this is not such a big deal. But Matt Damon is not such an actor. He looks like he should be on one of those high-school soap operas that were all the rage in the 1990s, not portraying a man who could order the death of anyone he pleases. Angelina Jolie, who is far more believable as a covert agent even in the 1940s, is instead relegated to a sideline role as the long-suffering wife of our central character. If it had only relied on the performances of these two main actors, The Good Shepherd would have sunk to an embarrassing low. Fortunately, the story instead focuses on ironies, making its point by showing the yawning gulf that widens every time Damon's character is forced to put his job before his family. This is indeed where The Good Shepherd derives all of its strength.
The film adaptation of Fight Club was criticised by fans of the novel for changing the story structure into a linear pattern, but I think The Good Shepherd illustrates why this is actually a good thing. As The Good Shepherd leaps back and forth between the CIA of the 1960s and the events leading to its foundation, confusion reigns as to who is doing what and when at times. When the narrative does become focused enough for the viewer to understand what the story is about, the realisation takes over that a good forty minutes of the script could have been jettisoned without the slightest impact to the story's cohesion. Yes, these forty minutes attempt to make other points, but they do not add anything. Another problem is that, given that the central mystery of the film is who gave away one of the CIA's big secrets in the failed Bay Of Pigs invasion, the answer is foreshadowed in such a ham-fisted manner that the audience spends much of its time waiting for the central character to catch up with them.
On the plus side, it is quite astounding that a film of such length about one of the world's nastiest government organisations contains so little actual violence. Instead, it focuses on the organisational and familial relationships of its pioneers, building all of the characters as human beings. This way, when the assassinations or suicides do come, they have about ten times the impact of the myriad of slayings that occur in such films as Goodfellas. Towards the end, when we are shown there is literally no one that Matt Damon's character will not kill for his country, it sends a shockwave of revulsion through the audience. But it is also the dialogues that hammer home the point of the film. When we see the offices of the CIA about to open as Damon eyes the unfinished furnishings, we are given one of the best in-film explanations of the story's inaccuracies and fabrications. Sure, the CIA is intended to have civilian oversight, one of its members jokes, but they must be mad if they think we are going to let them in on any of this.
In the end, what makes The Good Shepherd work is that unlike a lot of films supposedly based on facts, De Niro apparently stands by every creative decision made in the process. Sure, the film is very loose with the facts as they are officially known, and the characters are amalgamated, but there is no apology for it. Indeed, as I said above, there is even a good justification given. A lesser director would have used the fact that the facts as the public are allowed to know them and the real facts are two different things to gin up the script and go down the James Bond route. Although there is one dialogue that was recently featured in similar context within a Bond film, its usage here confirms the greater authenticity of the new Bond compared to its predecessors. The "get out of this business while you still have a soul left" speech is going to become a staple of spy films for a long time to come. And the end of The Good Shepherd particularly reinforces it with actions rather than words. Its just a pity that the rest of the film seems so jumbled and out of (narrative) focus.
All told, I gave The Good Shepherd an eight out of ten. That De Niro worked for over a decade to get it made proves that there are passions worth fighting for. It is one of the most enjoyable films I have been confused by in years.