3 out of 5

Directed by: Steven Soderbergh

I have great respect for UK spy procedural Sandbaggers; I am totally down with bureaucratic thrillers. Le Carre is probably the most classical example of that style, but, ahem, I have the very studied and worthwhile opinion that Le Carre and many of his ilk kind of get out over their skis in pursuit of the genre, kind of turning it into Lord of the Rings for paperpushers: the world-building maybe takes second seat to story aspects on occasion, but world-building in spycraft is terminology and various political parties.

Black Bag takes that concept and runs with it. Sorry – trots. Slowly. I have a curiosity / soft spot for screenwriter David Koepp’s films, as his writer/director efforts have often floated into horror elements, and then he’s also been involved with just some straight up banger movies – the first M:I; Toy Soldiers – but then also a lot of franchise tripe. Vaguely, he seems most successful when paired with very strong visual storytellers (wow, secrets of filmmaking over here), but there’s a tipping point where his style can become maudlin.

However that equation works, Black Bag tips it the other way, with director Steven Soderbergh going as dry as possible with this “thriller,” which shows over the over-the-skis bits of this stuff all the more. Thankfully, despite some odd choices with the edit and cinematography, it’s still Steven Soderbergh: the movie looks good, with even those odd choices at least interesting in their oddity. And I kind of appreciate just how deep Koepp went into a jargon rabbit hole, giving us a small plot zinger up front – George (Michael Fassbender) is a government agent of some type, and there’s a traitor in his midst whom he must find; his wife (Cate Blanchett) is a prime suspect – before dropping us into a hard half-hour of blank-faced dialogue that’s like all acronyms and code words with very little context. Steven leans into this as much as possible, giving po-faced sequences a funky David Holmes score, blown out lighting, and noir angles while the most minute stuff happens – and that could all work, but again, it’s the Le Carre problem: there’s not actually much going on. The minute stuff is not only small in terms of “action,” it feels bland in terms of a thriller, of any variety. There’s a point where the who’s-the-traitor mystery has something George is trying to keep secret spoken aloud, kind of instantly deflating the tension of the secret, and this is followed up by this master-interrogator stumbling over his words when needing to withhold some info in front of other spy-types, and I trust that this kind of mundanity and humanity is purposeful, but damn does it not really do the film any favors.

…Except maybe it does. The kind of “is this really all there is?” feeling to the movie creates curiosity, and that’s where we can ponder how much of an experiment this was, when scenes are stretched beyond normality (that’s the editing weirdness, we don’t cut) and the plot doesn’t really evolve much until its final twenty minutes or so, and even then, it feels like the reveals are given to us before we arrive at the climax… It’s conceptually weird, it’s acted well, and in the back of your mind, you’re like, “oh, I guess there is a thriller here.” On the other hand, that thought is indicative of a much more exciting version of this flick that uses the same script but punches it up a bit more through the edit and etc.

Fassbender is kind of overused in this mute super-spy role, but he does it well. Blanchett feels purposefully superficial, but she’s charming. Pierce Brosnan’s bit part is fantastic, but sigint officer Clarice – Marisa Abela – steals the show, and that is something the filmmakers did know and use for sure.

Allowed to run more than its 90 minutes, this experiment – purposeful or accidental – works. Probably not for a second viewing, but it’s just about the perfect length for its curious construction to be entertaining the first time through.