Skip to content

The Bourne Identity (1988,USA) versus The Bourne Identity (2002,USA)

11/06/2012

Directors: Roger Young (’88), Doug Liman (’02)          Starring: Richard Chamberlain, Jaclyn Smith, Anthony Quayle, Donald Moffat (’88) Matt Damon, Franka Potente, Chris Cooper, Brian Cox (’02)

I first encountered Jason Bourne about twenty years ago when I read The Bourne Identity for the first time. It had been recommended to me by my high school English teacher in an attempt to broaden my literary horizons beyond the confines of the science fiction and fantasy I was pretty much hooked on at the time. It was a cracking book, dense, convoluted and generally pretty exciting (if occasionally far fetched) and so when I heard, in the early noughties, that it was going to be made into a film I was simultaneously intrigued and concerned by the mammoth task of adaptation that lay ahead of the filmmakers. Ten years on and hindsight proves my concerns were unfounded as Doug Liman’s modernisation of Ludlum’s novel rewrote the rulebook on spy movies, its influence reaching even as far as the long running James Bond franchise. What I didn’t realise until recently however was that in 1988 there was a TV mini series of The Bourne Identity starring Richard Chamberlain as the amnesiac assassin that stuck much more faithfully to the original novel. So which one is best? Well, you know the drill by now… (N.B. contains spoilers).

Bourne Again

Liman’s film (written by Tony Gilroy and W. Blake Herron) brings the novel bang up to date, dispenses with the Cambodia elements of Bourne’s back story (making him a lot younger) and – crucially – massively simplifying the mission that leads to his discovery in Marseilles, shot, half drowned and memory free. This is a very sensible decision on the part of the filmmakers. By freeing themselves from the encumberance of the convoluted plot details of the novel they leave themselves free to focus on the job in hand – making Bourne a convincing killing machine and keeping the story frantically paced. Matt Damon does an excellent job of portraying the character, all brooding intensity and determination coupled with the physicality required to convince as a trained killer.

With more running time to play with the makers of the ’88 mini series are a little more slavish with their adaptation of Ludlum’s text, pretty much catching most of the detail from the novel and sacrificing a lot of the pacing that makes the 2002 version so enjoyable as a consequence. Bourne is a bit older here and arguably Chamberlain is a better choice of actor based on the Bourne of the books but his age coupled with the cheesy 1980s TV action sequences make him utterly unconvincing as a deadly CIA hitman. “I’m an expert in small arms and martial arts” he declares at one stage but you can’t really believe it, especially when he resolutely fails to display any kind of martial skill at any stage. It’s impossible to imagine him to ever have been able to disarm and knock cold a couple of cops in a Zurich park in a matter of seconds as Damon’s Bourne does in the later version.

Stockholm Syndrome

The one thing that never really sat right with me from the book, which is in the ’88 version too, is the relationship between Bourne and his unwilling sidekick Marie. In the earlier version (and the book) Marie is a French/Canadian economist who is kidnapped by Bourne in order to facilitate his escape from an encounter in Zurich. He threatens to kill her a couple of times and is generally kidnappy until the bad guys get their hands on her, attempt to rape her before they kill her (they’re the bad guys remember) and gets rescued by Bourne at which point she falls in love with him. Convincing right? Right? And there’s me thinking it was just old school misogynystic nonsense. The line of reasoning makes a certain degree of sense I suppose (despite Chamberlain seeming about as threatining as a catalogue model) if the goal is to try and get kidnap victim to girlfriend in a way that seems at least plausible but the whole “I know you can’t be a real cold blooded killer because you saved me from being raped” schtick is a tricky pill to swallow for me. Call me crazy, I just don’t find the scenario particularly palatable or realistic. Especially when it culminates in what is possibly the worst love scene ever captured on camera. Don’t worry, it’s pre-watershed stuff:

Fast forward fourteen years and Marie is not a kidnap victim (although she is unwittingly put in danger by helping Bourne) but rather a willing collaborator, even if she isn’t quite sure what it is she’s collaborating in, and as a result her attraction to the dynamic, mysterious Bourne makes a lot more sense. Nobody has to save anyone from being raped (nobody even attempts it, what with this world of black ops assassins who seem concerned primarily with professionalism) and while he might occasionally snap at her a bit, Bourne never threatens her with death if she doesn’t do as he asks which if you ask me is pretty much a prerequisite of a successfull relationship. Thank goodness for progress eh? Potente’s Marie seems a lot stronger, more adventurous and more capable than Jaclyn Smith’s portrayal too, which is kind of important as I can’t imagine Bourne being into weak, easily influenced women. Two nil to the noughties version then!

Aaaaaand Action!

When things kick off in the Chamberlain version of the story you become all too aware that what you are watching is an eighties TV production. Stilted, unconvincing fight scenes, A-Team level firefights (now I love the A-team but come on! Some realism please?) and mediocre car chases make for a less than pulse quickening experience. Now obviously there are budgetary considerations at play along with the acceptable standards of TV production of the day but really, if you are trying to convince an audience of the capabilities and daring of a crack CIA trained assassin this isn’t the way to go about it. Chamberlain’s preparation for the role appears to have been a scale and polish at the dentist’s and a spruce up at the hair salon rather than any useful training. Damon, on the other hand, trained in both Kali and Jeet Kune Do before filming with stunt coordinator/martial arts expert Jeff Imada and it most definitely shows. Admittedly, it’s not until the later films in the series where this becomes truly convincing (Paul Greengrass it would seem is a superior director of action than Liman) but even in this first one it makes for some very satisfying fight scenes, performed by Damon himself that are only let down by some slightly over-enthusiastic foley work.

There’s a similar vibe in the car chase sequence which attempts to seem a bit more dynamic than it is with fast cutting and overcooked sound effects (again, see the Greengrass Bourne films for proper car chases) but it’s still light years ahead of the ’88 version’s highly pedestrian car chase. Here the sound effects are even more over the top considering the complete lack of action on show. Maybe it would have been exciting fourteen years ago but it’s pretty tame looking now.

Bad To The Bone

All good heroes need villains to be pitted against and in the original book (and subsequently in the mini series) Bourne’s nemesis is a mysterious international terrorist called Carlos. Bourne’s mission is to provoke him into making a mistake by being a constant nuisance to his operation, claiming credit for his kills, messing with his contacts, that sort of thing. He’s a definite, singular villain (granted, with loads of accomplices) and the CIA, whilst being seen as being a little bit bloodthirsty in their tactics, have a noble cause – stopping Carlos – at the heart of the things they do. Rustle up some twenty first century cynicism though and Liman’s film paints a very different picture of the CIA who prove to be Bourne’s real enemy as they mobilise the rest of the Treadstone agents in order to take him out. Not because he’s a threat to national security, but because he could potentially let the cat out of the bag when it comes to CIA’s black ops murder team, ending careers in the process. No matter how clever Carlos the assassin is, he’s no match in terms of villainy for the self serving, devious, politically minded senior players in the CIA who hang Bourne out to dry in 2002.

So there we have it. If you were to judge the different versions on how faithful they are to the original text, the 1988 version would win hands down but I prefer to judge things on how good they are, how effective they are as films, and the less is more approach of the 2002 version (the writers worked from an outline from Liman rather than reading the book) serves the story well in its transition to the screen, dispensing with the unecessary details allowing us to focus on the important stuff – the fighting, shooting, exploding, chasing, etc, etc – rather than being bogged down in faintly implausible detail. Finally one in the win column for remakes!

About these ads
6 Comments leave one →
  1. 30/06/2013 07:09

    [“The one thing that never really sat right with me from the book, which is in the ’88 version too, is the relationship between Bourne and his unwilling sidekick Marie. In the earlier version (and the book) Marie is a French/Canadian economist who is kidnapped by Bourne in order to facilitate his escape from an encounter in Zurich. He threatens to kill her a couple of times and is generally kidnappy until the bad guys get their hands on her, attempt to rape her before they kill her (they’re the bad guys remember) and gets rescued by Bourne at which point she falls in love with him. Convincing right? Right? And there’s me thinking it was just old school misogynystic nonsense. The line of reasoning makes a certain degree of sense I suppose (despite Chamberlain seeming about as threatining as a catalogue model) if the goal is to try and get kidnap victim to girlfriend in a way that seems at least plausible but the whole “I know you can’t be a real cold blooded killer because you saved me from being raped” schtick is a tricky pill to swallow for me. Call me crazy, I just don’t find the scenario particularly palatable or realistic. “]

    Then you must not be a woman or haven’t ever been threatened by rape. Despite the number of times Bourne had threatened Marie, he ended up saving her from rape and murder. I’d be grateful, as well.

    • 01/07/2013 23:35

      Well, you’ve got me there, I’m not a woman nor have I ever been threatened with rape. I think my issue is the fact that she wouldn’t have been in that situation in the first place if it hadn’t been for Bourne’s actions. He put her in harms way, so it was probably the least he could do to deal with her would-be-rapist. Where’s the anger at being forced into that situation? Would you be so grateful that you’d immediately jump into bed with the guy that shoved a gun in your face and put you in the position where you may have been raped?

      Also, why would they have attempted to rape her in the first place? Professional hit men? That doesn’t seem logical, especially given the circumstances. It feels to me like a device Ludlum threw in there because he couldn’t figure out another way to get Marie and Bourne together. Would it not have been sufficient to simply save her from being killed? I dunno. It seems gratuitous to me. And implausible.

      I much prefer the way it plays out in the Damon version, where there’s no kidnapping and no attempted rape. Horses for courses.

  2. 03/07/2013 05:57

    Your arguments are not about logic. They’re about preference, pure and simple.

    And Marie didn’t immediately jump into bed with Bourne. You’d know that if you had paid more attention to their first scene together after she had driven him away from safety.

    You’re rushing the plot of the story in order to make your point. And that’s cheating.

  3. 05/01/2014 22:03

    I appreciate and really liked your comparison! THANKS!!

  4. othaday permalink
    05/01/2014 22:03

    EXCELLENT comparison of the two! THANK YOU!!

  5. 22/06/2014 20:23

    “Bourne’s nemesis is a mysterious international terrorist called Carlos. ” (the Jackal.) — based on/”inspired by”, of course, the _real_ (and now imprisoned) terrorist criminal Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, nicknamed (in the newspapers) Carlos the Jackal. Just for anyone who happened not to have heard of the latter..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 34 other followers

%d bloggers like this: