By Anna Merlan
By Lee Escobedo
By Alice Laussade
By Scott Reitz
By Claire Lawton
By Kiernan Maletsky
By Anna Merlan
The trailers for The Siege similarly leave room for confusion: They suggest the sort of federal conspiracy scenario that would have seemed downright subversive in pre-1963 films. But it is one that has, since the Kennedy assassination, become a simple, all-purpose story contrivance, supplementing and at times almost supplanting the master criminals, Nazis, Communists, and freelance troublemakers who have traditionally served as antagonists for commercial Hollywood action films.
But in reality The Siege is clearly a political film in the form of a thriller, rather than a garden-variety potboiler gleefully helping itself to stock political tropes from the genre's grab bag. Which is to say, in the spectrum of political thrillers it falls closer to, say, Z or JFK than to Mercury Rising or The Peacemaker.
The Siege is directed and co-written (with Dallas native and former Texas Monthly writer Lawrence Wright and Menno Meyjes) by Edward Zwick, whose first great success was with another terrorist story--the terrific 1983 TV movie Special Bulletin. (So impressed was critic Leonard Maltin that he added a new rating, "Way Above Average," to his TV-movie scale in his popular film guide, a rating he has never employed again.) Zwick (and partner Marshall Herskovitz) went on to create TV's extraordinarily irritating thirtysomething, and he has experienced mixed success with big-screen features: About Last Night... (1986), Leaving Normal (1992), Legends of the Fall (1994), and Courage Under Fire (1996). Judging from his best effort, Glory (1989), he should be just the filmmaker to pull off a deft blend of political content and crowd-pleasing drama.
Yet while The Siege is, most of the time, a taut nail-biter, its attempts to be serious and evenhanded in its presentation of ideas are occasionally at odds with the filmmakers' efforts to satisfy action fans. Moreover, there are moments when plot and character development are determined more by a thematic agenda than by logic.
Denzel Washington stars as Anthony "Hub" Hubbard, FBI Special Agent in charge of the Joint FBI/NYPD Terrorism Task Force. Aided by his faithful Arab-American partner-translator Frank Haddad (The Big Night's Tony Shalhoub), Hubbard tries to combat a series of attacks by a terrorist organization (apparently Palestinian) operating out of Brooklyn's Arab community. As the group's actions escalate from a paint bomb to blowing up a bus, a Broadway theater, and a federal building, New York City is increasingly paralyzed by fear.
Confusing matters is the terrorists' enigmatic demand: "Release him." Hubbard wants to know: Release whom? Elise Kraft (Annette Bening), a mysterious federal agent who brazenly plows her way into Hubbard's investigation, appears to know the answer.
Up to this point the story is your basic thriller. But as Hubbard proves unable to stem the terror, portions of the citizenry, the media, and the government begin to call for more extreme measures--a declaration of martial law, with the Army taking over the investigation. (The right-wing media is represented by columnist and cable-news talking head Arianna Huffington, convincingly playing herself.) Oddly, the Army man on tap to run such an operation, Oliver North clone Gen. William Devereaux (Bruce Willis), opposes the plan. "The Army is a blunt instrument," he tells a federal panel. "It's no good for surgery."
"You don't use ASPCA rules to catch a junkyard dog," drawls a Southern politician. "You set loose a meaner, bigger dog."
Devereaux's reluctance is one of the weakest elements in the film: It's totally inconsistent with his subsequent actions, with all the earmarks of a last-minute rewrite to please either the Army or Willis' handlers. In fact, once Devereaux is put in charge, he goes about his task like a man possessed--not merely a good soldier, but a rabid ideologue. Rather than surround a site in which the FBI is searching for a suspect, Devereaux bombs it, law-enforcement agents be damned. A bit heavy-handed, even for the military, no?
For most of the movie, Zwick's strategy is both sound and daring: By making the terror so visceral, he seduces the audience into accepting that maybe, just this once, revoking the Bill of Rights isn't such a bad idea. Hundreds of innocent people are being killed, and more are threatened. Do we really have to sit back and play by the rules? Sure, it's terrible to round up citizens purely on the basis of ethnicity. But if you know that you're looking for Arabs of a certain age, and it's possible to examine everyone who fits that description, isn't it worth temporarily trampling the rights of a few thousand innocents in order to save the lives of a possibly greater number of the equally innocent?
Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!