Sow's Ear For Some, Silk Purse For Kathleen

Bourne Ultimatum worked for me. Totally.

I've been thinking about this all week, and I decided to offer a counterpoint to Deb's view (Monday). We've been talking about vampires most of the week, and behind the scenes the vamp-lover Riders have fretted about the possibility of vamp overload. No worries here. I'm not a vamp fan, but it's fascinating to see how it works for other people. It's all about that suspension of disbelief phenomenon. It's so much fun when it totally works, and sometimes you can't even explain why. All you know is that for a brief time you were somewhere else.

Action-adventure is not my favorite fare, but a good a-v movie is worth the price of the big screen. Bourne Ultimatum will lose a lot on your TV, no matter what kind you have. I don't read many a-v novels, not a Ludlum fan, but I'm going to guess that this movie is not the same animal as the book. This is a different experience. It's heavily visual, and it's the camera work that makes it so. This is not "jiggly" or amateurish like Blair Witch. It's masterfully crafted. I'm thinking of paying the price a second time just to study that aspect. You saw strong images in the midst of motion--things catching your eye as you're moving. Those sequences drew me into an immediate, exciting experience in a new way. It was, for me, a ground-breaking kind of movie.

If you're looking for a relationship story, this isn't it, but I thought it was interesting that the women served to ground the story. They were human. They had the courage to see the truth about the "company men" who would serve the organization at all cost. They were the ones who cared about people and had a conscience. But this movie is all about action and suspense. It slowed down in the "command post" scenes, where the intelligence agency gone amok was able to watch the hero as though he were an ant in a glass farm. I did think there were political points well made--unchecked power leads to Big Brother. But that was a sidelight to the suspense. It had me on the edge of my seat, heart pounding, hands gripping whatever was handy. Fun stuff!

Casino Royale not so much. Now, this was a nice shot. Lovely shades of blue and beefcake. And I did enjoy the tender moment in the shower. But this movie was way too long. I knew it was too long because I was aware of real time. If it was working, I wouldn't be.

I had several problems. One, Bond is nothing if not suave, and Craig's Bond falls short in my book. He's nicely put together, and he does moody well, but he's no Sean Connery. Two, the big competition between hero and villain finally came down to a poker game. It was boring. Bond is no Maverick. And finally, the foot chase through the construction site made me laugh. Didn't work for me. Couldn't believe it. In my mind both men had broken all their bones by the time it was finally over. I don't care if they were gold medalists in the Decathlon. And that was the difference between Bourne and Casino for me. It wasn't a choice. It was getting sucked in and not getting sucked in.

I'll take a book over a movie most days, and I really love movies. But few movies explore relationships in a way that satisfies the way a good novel does. On the other hand, I don't think I could get the same physical, visual experience from the printed page that I got from Bourne. It took the movie experience to a new level for me.

What do you think? What are the differences between camera and pen? There's a place for both, but is it enough to keep both alive? Will books and movie theaters still be around in 2050?