Directed by Roger Young; produced by Frederick Muller
After a gun-battle at sea, a man (Richard Chamberlain) washes ashore unconscious at a small village on the south coast of France. Aside from bullet wounds, many old scars, a talent for fighting and, once he wakes, an absence of memory, the man is an enigma. The only other thing he discovers about himself is that virtually everyone wants to kill him.
This is the beginning of an exciting adventure in which the viewer is never sure who is who, or what. Inevitably, this lesser-known version of the Robert Ludlum thriller will be compared to the 2002 version, starring Matt Damon. In all things, the earlier is the better.
One of the problems I had with the Damon version is the extremely limited story. ‘Man loses his memory, people try to kill him’ is a premise, not a plot. In the 1988 movie, there are several layers that both the viewer and the protagonist must dig through to arrive at the conclusion. And even when that is reached, there is more to be revealed. One of the limitations I have found with movies that have an amnesiac as the main character (eg. Mirage, Mr Buddwing) is that the revelation is usually disappointing. This version of The Bourne Identity satisfies because once the truth is learned, there is still more to uncover.
There is greater allowance for character development; though Damon is a very good actor, he is given little more than an automaton to play. There is no convincing portrayal of confusion and frustration that a real amnesiac must feel, especially when constantly in mortal danger through, as he sees it, no fault of his own. Chamberlain, on the other hand, develops a personality based not just on his own, hidden traits, but on what is happening to him. The 1988 movie was originally a two-part television production, and the longer running time (185 minutes) permits other characters to have greater parts to play. Jaclyn Smith’s Marie, initially Bourne’s hostage, quickly displays a resourcefulness that surprises him; Franka Potente’s appearance as the same character in 2002 is almost pointless. Denholm Elliott also expands the role of Washburne, the alcoholic doctor who saves and befriends Bourne.
Greater thought is given to the details. In the security-conscious but less paranoid twentieth century, crossing international frontiers was difficult but much easier than it would be fourteen years later. Bourne’s borrowing and altering of a passport to enter Switzerland is acceptable. In 2002, Bourne simply shows up in Switzerland, with no elaboration of how he crossed the much more complicated borders of the twenty-first century. This disregard of a fundamental of the espionage/intrigue genre is more a trait of a Rambo movie than a Ludlum story.
The treatment of Bourne’s professional nature is more realistic in 1988. Instead of the super-soldier of the Damon film, Chamberlain’s Bourne is a strong, highly capable fighter, but no brain-washed tool. There is motivation behind his forgotten actions. As well, the fight-scenes are more credible; the 1980s were before the stylised martial arts that exist only in movies became popular.
There are problems with the film, though. Flashbacks are included, scenes that take place in an Indochinese conflict (possibly the Vietnam War), which imply a previous acquaintance between Bourne and the shadowy terrorist to whom he is linked. This aspect of the film is unexplained, distracting and leads nowhere. It would have been better deleted all together.
But, aside from minor annoyances, 1988’s The Bourne Identity is an entertaining, thrilling ride, less spectacular than the re-make but with much more thought. It is an international adventure for those who remember such movies before comic books became the staple source of film adaptations.
I saw the Damon version, and was...underwhelmed. So many movies nowadays expect their audiences to put their brains to sleep and just absorb the rat-tat-tat of special effects, loud noises, and chase scenes. So much easier than writing an actual script.
ReplyDeleteAnd, hurrah, this is available for free on YouTube! I'll check this one out.
I've read the book and enjoyed it - one of the reasons I tend not to see movies is that when I read, I can see it in my mind and usually movies don't live up to the imagination. It's not always the case, but often enough.
ReplyDeleteI understand completely. Even if the movie does measure up, it's still the director or writer's vision, and not your own, which can spoil or at least alter the experience.
DeleteWe will definitely check this out on YouTube. The remake is simply an action flick which as action flicks go is fair but no meat.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent way of describing the remake: 'no meat'!
Delete