L'agent secret

I'm constantly amazed how well Conrad is adapted by modern film makers. The political intrigue can be mostly ignored, as it is slight and not very interesting. What this movie does well is depict human emotions and reactions in difficult situations, and here is where the well picked cast delivers. Robin Williams is unbilled, but provides a fascinating character study of a true anarchist which contrasts nicely against Bob Hoskins' unwilling agent role. I was beginning to grow tired in the middle of the film, thinking the shallow political action was the ending, but the later intense focus on the human reactions and struggles following the incident do a wonderful job of drawing you back in.

Joseph Conrad was a visionary. He realized that the society in which we live is imperfect and hypocritical. Over one hundred years ago he realized, as did Herman Melville and other great thinkers, that women do not enjoy an equal stature with men in society. So he chose to write a great novel that deals with this issue both subtly and forcefully. The Secret Agent is not what it may seem to some to be upon first reading or viewing -- i.e., a spy thriller. On the contrary, it is an in-depth analysis and portrayal of the relative powerlessness of most women in society. It does not preach. It does not advocate. Conrad leaves it up to the reader (or viewer in the case of the excellent movie version) to draw whatever conclusions are pertinent for that person. Thus it is art, because it creates an enduring impression that seems to come from the reader's or viewer's own mind.

The movie version is superbly acted by a cast of master actors who quite clearly are very pleased to be participating with each other in creating this masterpiece movie. One gets the impression that each of the "lucky" actors has great respect for the book and its author and its messages, much as many Shakespearean players do when they "give their all" for the play.

The result is a realistic heart-wrenching tragedy. This may explain why it is not favored among common moviegoers that want and expect a Hollywood happy ending. Instead they get the real world, superbly depicted.

If you want fun, don't view this film. If you want to be challenged intellectually and ethically, then by all means watch it several times. And then tell your serious-minded friends and acquaintances about the existence of this movie. They will thank you!

Professor JimBob

A very good film, if not quite a masterpiece....

This film aims very high, with every intention of obtaining stratospheric heights, but time restraints do not allow this film to fulfill it's full potential, and I think that the obvious effort put into the film by all involved, can produce a slight sense of disappointment in those who appreciate the film, and only increases the alienation of those who are not attuned to the themes of the film.

Essentially, I think that the film's greatest flaw is that it is excessively abbreviated, and most characters are not able to be fully developed. This is partly the fault of Joseph Conrad, who wrote complicated and intricately plotted books, but the slow pace which adds greatly (and appropriately) to the atmosphere of the film, also prevents the insertion of additional scenes to develop the characters. This film could have been expanded into a masterpiece, but it would have been very long. To appreciate the film, one must grasp the nature of a large number of characters, and often there are only abbreviated cues to show the way. Thus a story about betrayals small and great, becomes a film of great betrayals.

It appears that opinions are very polarized on the acting in this film, but I found most of the performances engaging, with the strong exception of Robin Williams, who seems to be mainly engaged in an attempt to break out of his comedy roles with the aid of a phony scowl. I should note that others disagree with my opinion of Robin Williams in this case however.

I found the soundtrack (by Philip Glass) to be outstanding, with a traditional flavor as is appropriate to the film, but quite original.

You have to take into consideration that the book with which this was based was first published in 1907 and written by Joseph Conrad, author of "The Heart of Darkness". Conrad is not the kind of writer to spoon-feed "good" and "bad" characters. Simultaneously, the late 19th and early 20th century was not exactly an era teeming with spy thrillers. The closest comparable tales were those by Arthur Conan Doyle and his character Sherlock Holmes. (High-adventure books, such as Allan Quatermain, were all the rage.) And yet, this is a very literary take on the suspense-thriller genre that strangely transcends its era--almost eerily. But instead of the west vs east situation that became the perfect backdrop for spy thrillers of the late 20th century, this story centers around the very beginnings of socialist and anarchist groups that would eventually rise up and seize Russia and later China.

The film captures well the dark atmosphere of late 19th-century London on the east-side. Bob Hoskins in one of his finest performances is Mr Verloc, a plain person, who owns a plain shop inside a plain house in London of the 1880's. His one asset is that he has a beautiful wife, Winnie, played brilliantly by Patricia Arquette. And she takes care of a handsome brother who is feeble-minded enough to be on the verge of retardation, played by Christian Bale in one of his earliest films. (Of course, people didn't yet understand retardation at this time, and he is labeled a "degenerate".) They seem a happy family. But Verloc has some dark secrets. At first, we learn he hosts anarchist discussion groups at his home. But then we learn Verloc does much more than simply provide tea and cookies to would-be criminals and traitors to the government. He has a secret life in which continental agents hire him to make political statements through violent means. And Robin Williams (billed as Jeorge Spilvyn!) is the anarchist's anarchist who becomes the pivotal character.

Although it takes a few scenes to get moving, the story concerns one of Verloc's missions gone awry that has dire consequences to himself and his family. The form of the film is brilliant and is done in such a way as not to confuse the audience. We learn pieces of back-story in flashback, and it is not until movie's end that the entire picture emerges. Chief Constable, played by Jim Broadbent of "Topsy Turvy" fame, has put everything together, almost. And yet, the story keeps coming back to Robin Williams, the nameless "professor" who is the one crucial element.

Despite some of the negative press here, I think this is a brilliant film, subtle yet quite compelling from beginning to end. The performances are all top-notch, absolutely first-rate, from Hoskins to Gerard Depardieu as a self-centered lowlife often found at the tavern drinking with the "professor". Certainly, if you're looking for the usual 007 spy fair, you may have to look elsewhere. But if you're in the mood for something different and cerebral, take a chance on "The Secret Agent".

London in the late 19th Century is a haven for all manner of political exiles. Verloc is an anarchist who has spent years in the employment of the Russian Government as a spy while also providing information to the London police. When Vladimir, the new Russian ambassador demands that Verloc start to prove his worth by bombing selected targets. Without a choice but to act, Verloc starts in motion a chain of events that will end with a bombing but hurt himself and his family in the process as it is only a matter of time before the police can find him – unless his "colleagues" can silence him first.

Although the plot is fairly enjoyable, it is the delivery of the film that somehow stops it being anything more than interesting. The simple tale shuns the political detail that could have come and centres on the emotional drama around Verloc and his family, but it doesn't totally succeed in doing this to the point where it is enough to make the film work. The construction is good enough; Verloc's position is quite tense and the consequences had the potential to be quite impacting but it somehow never becomes as interesting as the material suggests it would. Part of this is the delivery, that is a bit uneven and unsure of itself but the most obvious weakness is the acting.

Hoskins does as well as he can, but spread over the uneven material he comes over as a bit unsure of what he is meant to be doing. Regardless though, he is a big part of me sticking with the film as his character is effective. Of course, sharing his scenes with Arquette can only serve to make Hoskins look like a master of his trade in the same way that Arquette's make her look like some talentless waitress who was sleeping with the director (not that she was of course). Her accent is terrible of course, but this is only one failing in a performance that is wooden, emotionless and totally unconvincing. Support from Depardieu, Broadbent, Izzard, Bale and others adds colour and the impression of depth but none of them really work that well – Broadbent and Izzard in particular seem to add a slight comic touch that doesn't really fit. Williams has a small role but it is effective and memorable – just a shame that he seems to almost be in an entirely different film from the main narrative.

Overall this is an OK film that is interesting enough to be worth seeing but it is hard to shake the feeling that nobody was totally sure what to do with it and the end result shows an uneven hand on the tiller. Hoskins helps it but Arquette is pitiful and the famous support cannot make up for her being so bad in so central a role.