Oscar nominee David Strathairn (Good Night, and Good Luck) plays the heavy in the third film of the Bourne franchise, The Bourne Ultimatum.
David Strathairn Press Conference
How did you prepare for this role?
“Mostly in collaboration with Paul's thoughts and thinking about what precedent was set in the other films, what kind of requirements there were for this particular genre. But then take it away out of such generalization to this particular design of film. We came to sort of settle on the fact that he's not a consciously evil mastermind and if he were to be, that might tip the tone of the film out of the plausibility, the authenticity, the sort of gritty realism that is one of the great things about the Bourne movies.
He’s sort of to the manor born. He may have grown up within this system, and for better or for worse, he is the point person now. Maybe now that he's implementing the methodology can be considered evil, yeah, but to stay within the delineation of a corporate clerk for a company whose interests are sort of high stake interests. There's a lot of pressure on him but he's one of these guys who probably never was in the field. He was in administration, in policy, and he went down that alley to get to where he is. And where he is now, he has ascended to a place where he might feel now he is a bit of a Napoleon. But it wasn't, ‘Let's make evil Monster Man.’”
Did you see any topical issues in the story?
“In specific, no, but there's a lot of allusions. And the fact that there is a display of technical toys available that are probably the ones they have discarded to the public — nowadays they have more incisive technology — I think that in a way is topical.
The particular threat of Jason Bourne…I love it that it's a threat that is coming back home, not necessarily a generalized threat like the threat of terrorism. That a company like this would address its expertise to, that it's coming home. One of the reasons I think the film succeeds is that it awakens all this plausibility and potential topical terrain. Therefore it's entertaining on more levels than just a cut-to-the-chase good guy gets bad guy. To Paul's credit, it's that he has managed to evoke all these things in this film, and that Matt has made this man so human that you have various kinds of entertainment in this film. You've got the great chase, you've got the great actions, you've got all the plausible technology, you have people you care about, and you have a wonderful camera. The camera is a character in and to itself.
But in terms of topical, I think people can walk out of this film and go, ‘Yeah but what about all the cameras that London has, and CCTV and all the surveillance cameras that we see in our world today?’ It rings a lot of bells.”
Did you create your own backstory for him?
“By watching the other two films, to see what sort of niche this character occupies, what this character contributes. And the back story as to whether he takes his kids to school or what is his favorite hobby, that really wasn't pertinent to what I had to do [which was] basically stay on point with the chase. ‘Your stakes are high, you've got to get this guy. If he gets home he can burn your house down.’ All those things could be applied to anybody in that kind of situation. So I didn't do a lot of biographical work. Like when I was researching Edward R. Murrow, that was a different creature altogether in that film.”
This guy considers himself a patriot and that the end justifies the means. What would Edward R. Murrow or Joseph McCarthy have thought of him?
“That's interesting . . . muse about that. Gosh, I don't know what Joseph McCarthy… Well, you know, I'm going to jump to some conclusions that might be right. Probably not. I think Murrow would love to get an investigative assignment on somebody like this. But I also think he would have understood the potential good use of an entity like Blackfriar. And I'm saying ‘potential’ good use. He would understand its necessity in the world, and he was such a historian in that he was aware of many many implications happening at the same time. I mean he was an amazing reporter because he was a student. He wasn't just a crow on a tree branch. I think he would have assessed the situation and said, ‘Okay, Vosen has stepped out beyond his camp, so to speak, as did Joseph McCarthy.’
Now, what Joseph McCarthy would have thought about this guy — he probably would have said, ‘Yeah, our system is threatened. We need to take care of that threat.’ Because that's the way he went through his accusations. He was part of a system and he would have felt threatened and cut to the chase, get rid of the threat. So he probably would have been pretty much in character today as they were then.”
The moral question of whether violence is justified hangs over the film. Did you find your opinion on the subject changed after working on this movie?
“I love that these questions are happening over an action picture. It's really great, and it's kind of a testament to what Paul has achieved and what Matt has achieved, what this trilogy has achieved. It’s great.
The use of force, use of violence, use of trained programmed assassins to compromise a perceived threat for the sake of what? And I think that's where the equation for the discussion begins. For the sake of what? In this story, it is excessive and reprehensible because all he is looking for is himself. It's kind of mythic, kind of Greek, that here is a hero who is returning from the wars, who has been spewed out of some system to do its duty, and he is now becoming awake and he is returning home. It's quite mythic, really great. He's not a threat, but they don't know that. But they should know that. So I think Vosen's implementation of this is loathsome and reprehensible, and therefore he should be taken ignominiously away in car. I hesitate to expand beyond the film because it's such a huge discussion about the world we're in. Hence, the topical thing about Bourne.
My own personal feeling? The use of lethal action is never — lethal action instituted by an institution upon individuals — no.”
