L'agent secret

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.

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

Anyone looking for some exciting tale along the lines of the Bourne trilogy in a film named The Secret Agent is going to be disappointed.

What you have here is a dark and deep intellectual exercise in the actions of spies, anarchists, agent provocateurs, and the like in 19th Century England.

While Bob Hoskins (Unleashed, Who Framed Roger Rabbit) leads the cast, it is truly an ensemble film.

Hoskins is a man playing all sides. He is an anarchist, but in the employ of the Russians, and under the thumb of a local police inspector (Jim Broadbent). His wife (Patricia Arquette) only married him to gain protection for disabled brother (Christian Bale). When the Russian boss (Eddie Izzard) puts the pressure on, he has to act and he manages to kill the brother. Everything falls apart at that point, and it is where the film really gets interesting. So, if you bail before that, you miss it all.

One of the most interesting things in the film was his actions after his wife found out that her brother was killed. She is leaving, and he orders her to stay. He is stuffing his face while "consoling" her and sits on the couch. He then tells her, "I know what you need. Come over here." I hope this is not a reflection of the attitude of men towards women in this period, but I am afraid that it probably is. Anyway, it was what she needed, but not in the way he imagined.

Things do not end well in this film. There is a good performance by Gérard Depardieu (Cyrano de Bergerac, The Man in the Iron Mask) towards the end, and a great performance by Robin Williams throughout.

They must really like Conrad's story, as it has been done on TV a couple of times before this film. It is worth your time.

Whoever cares about international terrorism? It's just a boring subject, let's face it. Any objections? Well, I can understand if there are some. This film, however, might unexpectedly make you accept the truth of the above provocative statements. At least until the next time you zap to a TV news channel that is.

It's hard not to see awesome potential in doing an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'The Secret Agent'. And it's hard to believe such a boring and inconsequential mess could be created following up on that very idea. Incredible, just think of the following issues explored in the movie: a web of anarchist militants finding political refuge in 1880s London, an agent provocateur run by the Russian embassy, a would-be suicide bomber, human drama complicating plots and counter-plots and so on. If I managed to excite you a little by mentioning these themes, so sorry, the film will still be boring.

To say something positive, at least it's not altogether unwatchable and, totally unexpectedly for me, the scenes between two actors from whom I would have normally anticipated the least were actually some of the best moments of the film, the scenes between Robin Williams and Gérard Depardieu, both playing anarchists with a rather mysterious (anarchic?) mindset. Oh, and it's quite likely I'll read the book after all, for what I have seen at least was enough to convince me that it might be a good idea.

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.