James Hitchcock
In the words of the opening titles: "In the 1880's -unlike today- London was a haven for political refugees of all nationalities. They were kept under constant surveillance by their embassies as well as by Scotland Yard. This was fertile soil for every kind of conspiracy and betrayal". This is the world against which "The Secret Agent", based on the novel by Joseph Conrad, is set, although I am not sure what was meant by that "unlike today". In 2008 there are probably far more asylum seekers in London than there were 120 years ago, and I am sure the same was true in 1996 when the film was made.The central character in the film is Verloc, a Soho bookseller with a sideline in pornography. (Soho, although situated in the West End of London, was at this period a poor working-class district which had more in common with the poverty-stricken East End than with the wealthier surrounding areas). His nationality is something of a mystery; his name sounds foreign (Conrad may have derived it from the German "verlocken", meaning "to tempt"), but Bob Hoskins' Cockney accent sounds very British. (We learn that he has served in the French armed forces, presumably as a member of the Foreign Legion). He is married to Winnie, an attractive younger woman who has only accepted him as a husband in order to provide a home for her simple younger brother, Stevie.Besides dirty books, Verloc has a couple of other sidelines. One of these is anarchism; he is a member of a multi-national anarchist cell plotting the downfall of every government in Europe. His final sideline is treachery towards his fellow-anarchists; he is secretly a spy in the pay of both the British police and the Russian embassy.Verloc is called into the Russian Embassy for an interview with his controller, the diplomat Vladimir, and learns that the Russians want him to become an agent provocateur as well as a spy. Their plan is that he should blow up the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, hoping that such a terrorist outrage will persuade the British Government, who at this period often took a soft line with criminal conspirators if their conspiracies only involved the commission of crimes in other countries, to crack down on the anarchist movement. This puts Verloc in an unenviable position. If he carries out the attack and is caught, he faces a lengthy prison sentence or even the death penalty if anyone is killed in the attack. If he refuses, he faces the possibility that the Russians will reveal his treachery to his fellow-anarchists, who will doubtless take bloody revenge. In the event he decides to carry out the attack, but uses the simple-minded Stevie to plant the bomb. Unfortunately, something goes wrong, the bomb explodes prematurely and Stevie is killed.Conrad's novel was also filmed by Alfred Hitchcock in 1936. That film today is generally known as "Saboteur", although when it first came out it was sometimes shown under the title "A Woman Alone". (Hitchcock could not use Conrad's title because, confusingly, he had made another film called "The Secret Agent", based on Somerset Maugham's "Ashenden", earlier in the same year). Hitchcock updated the story to the 1930s, which was probably a wise move, as period costume drama was never his forte. ("Under Capricorn" is not one of his best films, and "Jamaica Inn" is one of his worst). Although there are problems with the plot, "Saboteur" is an effective thriller in which Hitchcock makes good use of the devices, which he would perfect in later films, for creating a mood of ever-increasing tension.The 1996 film is not a thriller of that sort, but rather a downbeat character study. The film-makers seem more interested in their characters' personalities than in their political views, and there is no serious attempt to explore terrorism as a social phenomenon. (The only major terrorist act we see is actually instigated by a reactionary foreign government, not by the revolutionaries themselves). During that period in the nineties when it became fashionable to talk, in Francis Fukuyama's phrase, about the "end of history", there was perhaps a lessening of interest in the ideology of violent revolutionary movements; today, in the post-9/11 world, I suspect that a film made on this subject would have a very different emphasis.There are a couple of decent performances from Hoskins and from Jim Broadbent as Verloc, and two major foreign stars, Gerard Depardieu and Robin Williams, are seen in surprisingly minor roles. (Although it is a British film, the film-makers obviously thought that they needed some overseas talent to boost its international market appeal). Williams, unusually playing a villain, is good as the Professor, a ruthless explosives expert acting for the anarchists, but I was less impressed by Depardieu, a brilliant actor in his native French but much less so in English. I was also disappointed by Eddie Izzard, a comedian who rarely impresses as a serious actor, as Vladimir, but the real disappointment was Patricia Arquette's lifeless performance as Winnie, something which seriously affected the film as Winnie emerges, after the death of her brother, as one of the most important characters. Arquette also had one of the worst American-Cockney accents I have heard, a female version of Dick Van Dyke in "Mary Poppins".In keeping with its theme, the look of the film is a dark, sombre one, with many dimly-lit interior settings. While it had some good points, I never really found it an engrossing experience. 5/10
Weredegu
Whoever cares about international terrorism? It's just a boring subject, let's face it. Any objections? Well, I can understand if there are some. This film, however, might unexpectedly make you accept the truth of the above provocative statements. At least until the next time you zap to a TV news channel that is.It's hard not to see awesome potential in doing an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 'The Secret Agent'. And it's hard to believe such a boring and inconsequential mess could be created following up on that very idea. Incredible, just think of the following issues explored in the movie: a web of anarchist militants finding political refuge in 1880s London, an agent provocateur run by the Russian embassy, a would-be suicide bomber, human drama complicating plots and counter-plots and so on. If I managed to excite you a little by mentioning these themes, so sorry, the film will still be boring.To say something positive, at least it's not altogether unwatchable and, totally unexpectedly for me, the scenes between two actors from whom I would have normally anticipated the least were actually some of the best moments of the film, the scenes between Robin Williams and Gérard Depardieu, both playing anarchists with a rather mysterious (anarchic?) mindset. Oh, and it's quite likely I'll read the book after all, for what I have seen at least was enough to convince me that it might be a good idea.
jotix100
"The Secret Agent", a novel by Joseph Conrad, had already been adapted for the screen. Alfred Hitchcock's 1936 film seems a masterpiece in comparison with this attempt by Christopher Hampton of a remake. Although both films are not exactly alike, this new version seems to suffer from a short vision that results in an uneven film.The first problem with this film appears to be the casting of Patricia Arquette in the pivotal role of Winnie. Her accent is wrong and the obvious age difference between her and Verloc doesn't help the film. It's curious to note that Mr. Hampton has done much better work as a screen writer as well as his work for the stage. Nothing of that talent is in clear evidence in the film.The film makers were lucky to get all the talent in the cast. Unfortunately the material doesn't suit Gerard Depardieu, or Robin Willimas, a good actor when he wants to do serious work, but not here. Bob Hoskins, Jim Broadbent, Christian Bale, Eddie Izzard and the great Elizabeth Spriggs, do all they can to make the film better, without much success.
