Black Bag

 

Director Steven Soderbergh

Soderbergh behind the camera

Soderbergh on the set with Michael Fassbender

Soderbergh with screenwriter David Koepp

screenwriter David Koepp

musical composer David Holmes

BLACK BAG             B+                                                                                                             USA  (93 mi)  2025  d: Steven Soderbergh

Whatever you may say about the films of Steven Soderbergh, one thing you can count on is that they will be stylishly entertaining, in this case like being immersed in the middle of a John Le Carré spy novel.  The maker of SEX, LIES, AND VIDEOTAPE (1989), one of the most influential catalysts of the 1990’s independent film movement, leading to Out of Sight (1998), The Limey (1999), and Traffic (2000), which remain among Soderbergh’s best films, all made at the height of his creative peak, yet this feels more along the lines of Haywire (2011), moving invisibly through a world of espionage, double agents, government cover ups, and secret identities, where the one certainty is never trusting anyone.  Soderbergh indicated he wanted this film to feel like the espionage version of Mike Nichols’ Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966), but it doesn’t have that kind of verbal pyrotechnics, as it’s much too sublimated for that, avoiding the high-octane action sequences typical of spy thrillers, instead there’s a unique focus on the interior psychology of the characters, where it actually feels more like an Agatha Christie novel, a spy thriller that’s also an interpersonal relationship movie, with a terrific ensemble cast that continuously plays mind games with each other, where Soderbergh’s bag of tricks is in stark contrast to Tomas Alfredson’s much more somber and subdued Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011).  Given the state of the world at the moment, where lying and disinformation have become the new normal, with nations sabotaging and undermining their own people to prevent the truth from ever coming out, we are living by new rules of engagement, where we suddenly find ourselves mired in a labyrinthian sci-fi dystopia, where we may never see the light of day, as the odds are continually stacked against us, with Soderbergh having a little fun at our expense, poking holes in our perceived covers, twisting the knife in what was once conceived as an open democracy.  Nowadays all bets are off, with this film demonstrating just how convoluted and confusing it has become, with the power brokers dangling the strings, making us believe whatever the hell they want us to believe, closing off all avenues of the real truth, while wrapping it all up in a mirage of freedom and democracy.  Having written three of the director’s last four movies, including his minimalist ghost story PRESENCE (2024), released just two months ago, the ridiculously talented and successful screenwriter David Koepp has written more than thirty feature films, including a wide variety of genres, with U.S. box office receipts grossing over $2.6 billion, making him the fourth most successful American screenwriter of all time (Top Grossing Screenwriter at the Domestic Box Office), though evaluating who is “best” is another story (The 100 Best Screenwriters of All Time), consulting with actual spies to write this movie, which is simply immersed in the culture of keeping secrets, which extends into personal relationships, including marriage, where confidential things that are off-limits for discussion are kept in a “black bag.”  That’s the amusing premise for the film, with Soderbergh having fun subverting genre expectations, becoming a puzzle piece that turns into fun and games, where if you can lie about everything, then how do you tell the truth about anything?  Perhaps unintentionally, that’s the real dilemma of living in America at the moment, where it’s like living under the Russian KGB, as everything is filtered through a wall of authoritative threats and manipulated disinformation.  Lies and cover-ups, along with a blatantly racist disregard for even the barest trace of historical diversity, are the cultural cornerstones that have literally replaced truth and honesty in American politics, the exact opposite of the Watergate era of the 1970’s, which opened a new door of ethics reform along with journalistic integrity and transparency.          

Using chapter headings counting down the days, one by one, this moody, atmospheric film is driven by a remarkable soundtrack written by Irish musician David Holmes, who has written the music for dozens of films going back to Soderbergh’s Out of Sight working with the director on and off for decades, Black Bag 2025 Soundtrack | Black Bag - David Holmes ... YouTube (1:09).  The super-modern, stylish look of the film is captured by none other than the director as cinematographer, working under a lifelong pseudonym Peter Andrews, while also editing the film under the pseudonym Mary Ann Bernard, where the sterile rooms and office spaces of Britain’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) are void of color or personality, much of it mimicking the sepia tones of David Fincher’s Se7en (1995), swamped by an uneasiness that persists throughout, like an underlying gloom that permeates through every character.  In a superbly constructed opening sequence filled with suspense, the camera follows British intelligence office George Woodhouse (Michael Fassbender) in a Scorsese-like, single-take opening shot through the underground walkways of an upscale, carefully guarded London nightclub, leading to a private VIP vaping room, with darkness saturating every frame, as his superior, Mr. Meacham (Gustaf Skarsgård), contends “There’s a stranger in our house,” ordering him to investigate a leak in the intelligence service, specifically the theft of a top secret cyberweapon code-named Severus, a biological weapon capable of killing thousands, where one of the five suspects who have access to it is his wife, Kathryn (Cate Blanchett), given one week to find the culprit before it activates.  Adding to the intrigue, Meacham is poisoned and killed by morning, made to look like a heart attack, with a covert murder operation suddenly infiltrating the picture, where clearly there is trouble in the ranks.  Something of a twisty cat and mouse tale, perhaps the oddest juxtaposition is an early scene of the Woodhouse’s hosting a dinner party inviting all the suspects to their swanky townhouse, including a smug intelligence analyst Freddie Smalls (Tom Burke) and his sharp and savvy girlfriend Clarrisa Dubose (Marisa Abela), a junior agent and cyber technology expert, also the ever-observant, in-house psychiatrist Dr. Zoe Vaughn (Naomie Harris) and her dapperly dressed, recently promoted, second-in-command boyfriend Col. James Stokes (Regé-Jean Page).  This social gathering with fellow spies allows George to secretly place a psychotropic drug in the curry, lowering their inhibitions, creating an opportunity to observe their reactions, as interactions among the group frequently spark subtle shifts in the mood, where a brief glance, a subtle change in tone, or a hesitant remark speaks volumes, enriching the overall fabric of the narrative.  This opportunity allows secrets to be revealed, most of a private nature, exposing cracks and infidelities in each relationship, where a culture trained to deceive simply makes cheating too easy, growing very testy with one another, often driven by their own personal ambitions, featuring stellar dialogue that is delivered at a crisp pace, almost like a screwball comedy, Black Bag Movie Clip - Nothing I Couldn't Handle (2025) YouTube (1:04), recalling the infamous dinner parties hosted by married couple Nick and Nora Charles, a romantically involved detective duo known for their witty banter in W.S. Van Dyke’s THE THIN MAN (1934), where the dinner invite was a glamorous way to flush out the decisive clues to solve a case.  Outing Freddie as a serial cheater, George meticulously details his predictable sexual promiscuity, a provocation that prompts Clarissa to furiously retaliate by stabbing him on his hand with a steak knife.  Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.  While it’s a brilliantly conceived scene, allowing deeply repressed emotions to suddenly erupt to the surface, it also sets the stage for what follows, exposing what has to be the ultimate in workplace romances with the potential for dire consequences, as we’re dealing with clandestine operations that rarely see the light of day, so the film literally toys with the possibilities, poking fun of the somber nature of the business, but also cleverly finding humor at every turn with witty insinuations and quick retorts.       

The sanctity of marriage is broken when George finds a theater ticket stub in his wife’s trash, contradicting her version of events, so he breaks into her office and learns she’s secretly traveling to Zurich without telling him, testing the loyalty to his wife or his country.  His response, completely reflective of their power dynamic, is one of the more ingeniously conceived, diabolically clever scenes of the film, requiring the expertise of Clarissa to redirect a spy satellite while deceiving the agency’s satellite video screens, watched like a hawk by the man in charge, a silver-haired Pierce Brosnan (a playful take on his late 90’s version of 007 himself!) as Arthur Steiglitz, going offscreen for a mere minute or so to allow George to spy on his wife in Zurich meeting someone of interest, a hilarious example of the extent marital partners are willing to go to find out what they want about the other, Black Bag Movie Clip - It's the Only Way - video Dailymotion YouTube (45 seconds), where the wrinkle is a split-second glitch exposing their shenanigans, a subliminal moment and potentially disastrous occurrence that could expose his dirty tricks.  This marital relationship is at the heart of the picture, as it thrives on secrets and lies, yet relies upon trust, a kind of marriage that is unique to cinema, held together by a mutual understanding of the lies they live in, where the wheels of power are forever changing, as both are deliberate, smooth, rarely cracking a smile, where a certain frostiness and cold precision is required in their profession.  George is a cold and clinical character, robotic, seemingly inhuman, like an A.I. invention, never revealing an inner life, yet super intelligent, as his views are rarely challenged, while Kathryn is more socially amenable, a master of disguise moving about with an icy calmness, with a wardrobe right out of Todd Haynes’ 2015 Top Ten List #6 Carol, where her natural disposition tends to put people at ease, allowing her to more easily gain people’s trust, including her husband, but the open question is whether there’s been a breach in their marriage, and whether she’s undermined official state secrets, becoming that mole in their midst.  This see-saw affair of shifting perspectives is the engine that generates the understated power of the picture, where everyone’s a suspect, yet the more George investigates, the more all the clues lead to his wife, delving into moral complications, yet what’s a spy thriller without the spies spying on each other?  When George and Kathryn compare notes and suspect they’re being set up, using each against the other, George shrewdly conducts polygraphs tests that mix the personal with the professional, anything to make each suspect feel precariously offguard, yet his interview with Clarissa, with Abela stealing every scene she’s in, is drop dead hilarious, as she’s devised bizarre methods to beat the test, which truly impresses the usually unflappable George, who is supposedly unparalleled in the art of psychological manipulation, taking this into unfamiliar territory while adding a bit of spice to the mix, Black Bag Exclusive Movie Clip - Polygraph Tests (2025) YouTube (59 seconds).  This sequence is cleverly edited, moving rapidly between agents, merging the personalities of everyone involved, like a musical crescendo, leading to yet another classic dinner sequence designed to catch the culprit, with Kathryn remarking, “It’s been a while since we’ve had a traitor to dinner, at least knowingly,” Black Bag | Official Clip | Cate Blanchett, Michael Fassbender YouTube (1:06), a wonderful return to form for Soderbergh, whose cinematic sophistication really shines.  Something of a throwback to those paranoid conspiracy flicks of the 1970’s, deliciously entertaining at every turn, this is masterful filmmaking, immersing viewers in a sordid universe that we are typically excluded from, yet here we’re given a front row seat in what is easily one of Soderbergh’s best films in years.

Citizenfour

Director Laura Poitras

CITIZENFOUR          B+                   

Germany  USA  (114 mi)  2014  d:  Laura Poitras         Official site

This is as much a glimpse into the future as anything you’re likely to see at the movies, where honestly, this will play just as well on a laptop or any sized computer screen as a theater experience, as what we’re dealing with here is coded in such technical terminology.  Perhaps this is the 21st version of Coppola’s The Conversation (1974), only with more chilling implications.  While the whole concept of Windows computer technology was supposedly to open doors and avenues into new terrain that was previously unavailable and off limits, creating a multitude of endless possibilities where curiosity would only be rewarded, the idea of looking out into open cyberspace also allows other unnamed entities, otherwise known as governments, to look in at you, since the computer is the device that keeps us all connected.  It’s a hard to conceive idea, but this is a film that specializes in the latest, most sophisticated surveillance techniques ever devised by humankind, where this window into each person’s personal identity and information is just like wiretapping every citizen without a warrant.  Perhaps the strangest piece of sci-fi in this film is the extent to which these individuals protect their secrecy, where literally any and all electronic gadgetry can be used as an eavesdropping device, where rarely has paranoia been elevated to this level of counter sophistication in order to prevent detection.  The third film in a post 9/11 Trilogy, following MY COUNTRY, MY COUNTRY (2006), about life for Iraqis under American occupation, which follows a Sunni Arab doctor as he prepares to run for the early 2005 elections in Iraq, a film that got the director placed on watch lists at airports when entering the country, where she has been stopped and detained regularly ever since, but was also nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary, also THE OATH (2010), which documents the legal ramifications of an Iraqi detained at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp as an enemy combatant, the first to be tried by U.S. military tribunals, eventually transferred to Yemen, as the case was appealed to the Supreme Court which ruled the military charges that led to his arrest were not war crimes by international law at the time he committed them, making the detention and subsequent prosecution unconstitutional. 

What do we know about this filmmaker?   She comes from a wealthy background, where her parents donated $20 million dollars in 2007 to found The Poitras Center for Affective Disorders Research at the McGovern Institute for Brain Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, while being raised at an experimental private school in Massachusetts, the Sudbury Valley School.  While she planned to be a chef, spending several apprentice years at a French restaurant in Boston, she changed her mind, moving across the coutry to the San Francisco Art Institute, where she studied with experimental filmmaker Ernie Gehr, eventually moving back to New York where in 1996 she graduated from The New School in Greenwich Village.  Bearing the distinction of being a 2012 MacArthur Fellow which partially funded her work on this film, she is part of a new social movement rising out of the ashes of a dying newspaper business that challenges conventional language of media, which limits the idea of personal freedom of expression, as the communications industry itself has become a protected corporate interest that sets its own standards of acceptability that are rarely challenged.  For instance, in the use of drone “signature strikes,” conventional media through international wire services have settled upon the supposedly acceptable terminology of “targeted killings” as opposed to calling the actions “assassinations,” a term most all newspapers would simply not print.  However, Journalist Glenn Greenwald in Salon articles as early as America's drone sickness - Salon.com, April 19, 2012, suggest drone attacks kill far more civilians than reported, as the government maintains a policy of secrecy, suggesting assassination is a more apt term for what’s going on, further elaborated upon by Erik Wemple from The Washington Post, February 10, 2014, "Glenn Greenwald and the U.S. 'assassination' program, where Greenwald’s explanation is “the accurate term rather than the euphemistic term that the government wants us to use…I’d say anyone who is murdered deliberately away from a battlefield for political purposes is being assassinated.”  The broadened position used by governments is that the battlefield in the War on Terrorism exists everywhere, where this expanded definition intrudes upon the lives of literally everyone.  Enter Edward Snowden.     

In January 2013, filmmaker Laura Poitras was still in the process of developing a final chapter in her film trilogy about abuses of national security in post-9/11 America when she started receiving encrypted emails from someone identifying himself as “citizen four,” who was ready to blow the whistle on the massive covert surveillance programs run by the NSA and other intelligence agencies.  Apparantly motivated by the stream of lies and denials from upper echelon military brass and intelligence officials to various congressional inquiries asking about the extent of the government’s reach into the private lives of ordinary citizens, extending the reach of the USA PATRIOT Act, implemented immediately after the devastating effects of 9/11, designed to prevent terrorists from striking again on American soil.  However, Poitras began receiving highly detailed yet secretive information that would implicate the White House, the NSA, tech companies, and a variety of other American institutions in a broadranging initiative of illegal wiretaps, computer access and listening devices to spy on every American citizen as well as government officials abroad without any of them ever knowing of it.  While the Act itself requires judicial overview, where wiretaps and various other surveillance methods require court approval, this rapidly developing surveillance phenomena was already having a massive impact on the rights of privacy while taking place without any apparent oversight or accountability.  This not only captured the attention of the filmmaker, but the whistleblower, who turned out to be Edward Snowden, a 29-year old NSA contractor who demanded utter secrecy in all subsequent contacts, eventually meeting six months later in a hotel room in Hong Kong, along with two journalists working for The Guardian, Glenn Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill.  Meeting him for the first time with the cameras rolling is a tense moment where no one really knows what to expect, but it becomes one of the historical and perhaps defining events in our lifetimes.  It turns out Greenwald was initially sent encrypted emails some months earlier, but he dismissed them as junk mail, so the contact established with the filmmaker allows us a window into this moment, along with audiences for generations to come.     

What’s immediately fascinating, once Snowden starts engaging the journalists, is the extraordinary level of caution, meticulous detail, and intelligence, where the mindful nature of protecting themselves from anyone who might be listening in on them is just stunning, elevating the level of paranoia not seen since those tense atmospheric thrillers of the 70’s, like The Parallax View (1974), The Conversation (1974), CHINATOWN (1974), THREE DAYS OF THE CONDOR (1975), and ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN (1976), yet this is real life unfolding before our eyes.  All of this lends a certain theatricality to the geeky and overly technical nature of much of the material Snowden intends to make public.  Poitras seems to realize this and maintains her focus more on the man than the nature of his revelations, allowing the journalists to do their jobs (where The Guardian was subsequently awarded a Pulitzer Prize in public service), which by the time viewers see the film will have already been thoroughly debated and analyzed in public and speak for themselves.  What’s curious about what the audience sees is that none of this is actually known yet, but is about to unfold in the upcoming days and weeks ahead.  Condensing material gathered over the course of eight days, we learn that Snowden is highly articulate and displays a natural brilliance, where his ease with his own conscience suggests unassailable convictions, which will certainly be challenged in the upcoming days and years ahead.  While Snowden never intended to become the focus, preferring instead to remain on the sidelines, it’s interesting to see his reaction once the secret revelations are exposed, where suddenly a construction crew has mysteriously moved around his home, his family and friends are questioned, and the government is awkwardly caught offguard, searching for answers, eventually introducing a smear campaign against him, where he is subsequently charged as a “traitor” for violating the Espionage Act that was passed after America’s entrance into World War I.  The film doesn’t enter the discussion of whether Snowden is a hero, a whistleblower, a dissident, a patriot, or a traitor, all labels that have been attributed to him, but it’s certainly ironic that those artists and journalists that effectively conspired with him to help expose these public revelations have all been lauded and acclaimed.  Greenwald has separated from The Guardian, and joined forces with Poitras, fellow journalist Jeremy Scahill and others to form an independent news website called The Intercept, where they’ve delved further into the ramifications of Snowden’s documentation, which includes the fact that 1.2 million people are currently on Homeland Security’s watch list, reminiscent of similar tactics practiced by J. Edgar Hoover during his tenure with the FBI.  The government’s hardball tactics used against Snowden have also been applied to journalists and their families as well as the filmmaker in the room, where they or their loved ones are routinely stopped and interrogated at length at airports, practices so intrusive that Poitras now lives in Berlin while Greenwald had already chosen to reside in Rio de Janeiro in Brazil.