The Good Shepherd was something I was not very interested in, really, until I saw a preview for it. To my surprise, it wasn’t about someone herding sheep at all. It was instead a movie about the CIA, starring Matt Damon, Robert DeNiro, Angelina Jolie (grrr…), Alec Baldwin… the list goes on. God made IMDB so I didn’t have to list the famous people here.

With DeNiro in it, I thought there was at least a chance that it was a cerebral, honest, convincing depiction of spies doing spy-stuff. Like a LeCarre novel, y’know?

Cut to the film, and holy fuck, all my prayers were answered. Not that I’d consciously made any prayers or anything, but if upon hearing about this flick, I could have requested of the gods that it be a certain way, that way would certainly be what it is. In other words, it’s very good.

Due to the fact that my brother is also maintaining this blog, I happened to have recently read a review of 300 that had me sort of… desperate to find relevance to present-day events in the film. I must confess, while my brother seems to believe that the laws of physics demand that films reflect their times and only their times [I never said that! --Jeremiah], I tend to believe that thoughtful film-making reflects its subject as much or more than its creator. So I was torn…

Should I watch this movie, desperate to find some sort of parallel to the Iraq/Iran/Afghanistan miseries in which the US finds itself embroiled today? Should I instead look at this film, which takes place in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, from the point of view of someone living in the Cold War era? Should I look at it as an example of modern film-making, or as an example of our own zeitgeist interacting with the classic spy-story?

My brother’s an ass, sometimes.

So am I, unfortunately. In the end, all of those viewpoints are valid lenses through which to view The Good Shepherd. And regardless of the lens you choose to use, it’s a solid film. The parallels to the current-day crisis are few, in one sense - Iraq simply isn’t similar to the Communist Threat Of South America(tm) that we had serious issues with in the 50s/60s. But if you are the type of person who believes that choice of subject-matter is in itself a statement, there’s a lot of subtext there.

I honestly believe that this film was mostly about just telling a story. People can get all up in arms about how every story told has an agenda, on purpose or not, but I don’t think that’s as important as how well the story is told (outside of outright propaganda, which exists for the purpose of explaining its purpose, and not the story it tells). This film is absolutely like a John LeCarre story, told by a British person, writing about the CIA. Americans simply don’t write their spy-stories this way. The American spy-story was defined by the (ironically British) Broccolli family, telling the (ironically British) story of James Bond. The Good Shepherd has nothing in common with those sorts of movies.

As far as I’m concerned, that’s great. Rather than being a film which revolves around a snazzy guy doing crazy action things, it’s a film which revolves around a person doing the things people do. Namely, getting by, making mistakes, choosing their battles, and doing a lot of wondering.

Okay, we’ve reached the point where I should just tell you about the movie and be done with it. Some would say I should have done that from the get-go, but those people don’t realize how insanely cool the preceding was. The movie watches like a LeCarre spy story, which means that no one is perfect, no one is to be trusted, it is believable, and suave macho what-have-you is virtually nonexistent.

The characters are all believable and all well acted. I must confess that I found myself distracted by Matt Damon’s dorky glasses. I just kept thinking of Sin City’s Elijah Woods. This is the hottest I’ve ever seen Angelina Jolie, because she seems to be a regular (rich, white, bourgeoiusie) chick, instead of an “edgy hotty” or whatever it is she normally plays. The whole cast is full of people who know what they’re doing, and do it well.

Plot? I’m not entirely sure I even figured it all out, but basically it’s the story of Matt Damon being a dorky outcast who cares about nothing as much as the United States, and sacrifices everything for it. And really, that’s about all you can point at and go “This film is relevant to the current political situation,” or anything. Damon’s character gives a damn about doing his patriotic duty, and believes in that so much that he sacrifices everything for it. God bless the good ole’ USA. Or maybe not; I kind of got the feeling that patriotism wasn’t really his prime motivation, but I keep second-guessing myself. Either way, if he is simply supposed to be a patriot doing his duty, that would tend to make a reader believe that the film is a propaganda piece, if they hadn’t seen it, but that doesn’t explain the best line in the movie.

“It’s always in someone’s best interests to promote enemies, real or imagined. I see this as America’s eyes and ears; I don’t want it to become its heart and soul.”

This is DeNiro’s statement about the then-being-formed CIA. And it rocks. Despite the fact that this film is about a person who gives up on everything in life except for doing what’s right for his country, it’s very, very, very much not about blind patriotism. Which is why it seems more like a LeCarre novel than an American spy-flick. And if you want to look at it as commentary on the present-day state of affairs, then I suppose you have to assume that DeNiro’s character would be disgusted by the use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. But I don’t, for the record, think you should do that. I don’t think this film is trying to say that any specific thing is bad… it’s just commenting on the way things got to how they are.

And there’s a line which quite perfectly describes the justification of the US intelligence agencies, in all their glory. Too often–or perhaps not often enough; it depends on your politics and I probably tend toward the latter–we focus on America’s war-creating screw-ups. Be it Iraq or Vietnam or all the semi-success-stories that fall in between, liberals have the tendency to see America’s CIA as being an entity that creates war. What does Matt Damon have to say about that?

“No, we make sure the wars are small ones, Mr. Palmi.”

You decide if that’s realistic. I have no doubt that Matt Damon’s character believes that the wars he creates prevent the onset of WW III. But as far as real-life goes… well, they may actually make it more likely. Beats me. I wasn’t even alive when this cat was going about his daily routine. And this movie isn’t about present-day politics. It’s a Cold War story, told damn well. Told almost as well as LeCarre told the same kind of stories.