THE ONE WITH NAOMI WATTS, NOT THE ONE WITH CINDY CRAWFORD
Fair Game
***1/2
Review by Joel Frost
Opinion. We like to think it’s all equal. Ask most folks, and they’ll tell you that it’s their opinion that everyone’s opinion is equal. It’s a democratic view. One might say a truly American view; that the perspective of any person is just as valid as the perspective of the next. It’s comforting. By suggesting that no one can have a better opinion than anyone else, the general public maintains a sense of fairness. You might think something, you might suppose it, you might say it, but if I say different, then the reality is called into question. I have thusly provided a check and balance to your power. I have provided a valuable counterpoint; in fact the presentation of any counterpoint is valuable, inherently. You insist upon tomato? Well, have you considered tom-ah-to?
“Fair Game” is the true story of Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame, a married couple with connections to the opiners and deciders in Washington DC. Plame (Naomi Watts) is a C.I.A. agent, and the film quickly draws the viewer into her world. She is a real-world equivalent of James Bond, which is to say her existence is not much like Bond’s at all. She performs missions that are laced with subtlety and nuance, rather than shooting and explosions. Her tools are bribe and (occasionally strong-armed) persuasion, rather than sports cars and (occasionally silenced) 9mm’s. The stakes, and therefore the tension, are much higher. Valerie Plame was a boots-on-the-ground, covert, globe-hopping force for the security of the United States in the early part of the century, at a time when such a job was especially integral to the safety of the country.
Early on in the film, Plame is asked by her superiors at the C.I.A. if her husband, a former U.S. diplomat who had worked in Africa and Iraq, (he was once called a “true American hero” by George H.W. Bush, for his actions in helping evacuate Americans and other nationals from Iraq during the first US/Iraq war) and who has worked as an advisor to the C.I.A. in the past, can be of service on a particular mission. The C.I.A. is investigating a possible sale of Yellowcake, a weapons-grade nuclear material, from Niger to Iraq. Plame is mutedly reluctant to involve her husband in her work, seemingly from an understanding of how complicated and potentially dangerous such situations can be. She is nothing if not a good soldier though, and she offers her recommendation for her husband with the awareness that in such serious matters, the incisive mind of a trusted expert is not a thing to be squandered. Joe is not to be paid for the gig (fact-finding about the sale, as he has particular connections to and experience with Niger), but it’s an opportunity for him to assist in an important way, and perhaps expand his resumé a bit… something the not-consistently employed Wilson could use.
Wilson (Sean Penn) makes his trip to Africa and discovers that there is almost certainly nothing to discover. The story of the Yellowcake sale is a terrifying one, but the likely reality is rather mundane: From a practical standpoint, as assessed by a man quite clearly qualified to assess such a thing in this particular country, the sale and transport of the material could not have been made. Wilson comes home with his recommendation and his latest stint working for the government ends.
Around this time, the film also shows a meeting at C.I.A. headquarters that Plame is involved in, wherein the matter of whether Iraq has acquired a type of aluminum tube that can be used to fashion nuclear weapons (presumably combined with the Yellowcake in question) is discussed. It’s quite clear to Plame and her team that the tubes being discussed are not in fact able to be used for such an endeavor. The team has been working on the issue for months and has exhaustively sussed this out. Plame herself had apparently seen the tubes themselves during a covert mission. There is a dissenting voice during the meeting, though; a fellow from another agency who has compiled a report that does not take into account the facts and science and insight that the clearly more thorough C.I.A. team has. What’s explained in the meeting is that while it’s valuable to imagine and suppose and investigate the potential depths of potentially harmful “intelligence”, it’s even more valuable to weed out the noise, and that can be done with the hard work of those who are qualified. Unfortunately, those who are most qualified are not always the deciders.
As a matter of history, we know now that the Bush administration seized on the stories of Yellowcake and tubes, branded them evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and sold this all to the American people as justification of a new war with Iraq. The climate in the United States at the time, so soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, was one of fear and anger. The Bush administration brought in a fellow named “Scooter” Libby (nailed here by David Andrews) to advance this agenda, via cracking down on the C.I.A. itself… as if the C.I.A. was somehow an impediment to the real important business of Homeland Security, rather than an essential force for the preservation of it. Scooter Libby is an extension of the administration; he is concerned with the kind of decisive action that the American public seemed to desire at the time, and he’ll be damned if actual facts and the informed opinions of those who were in a position to advise him well stand counter to his mission. Libby is concerned that there is a chance that the C.I.A. is wrong, and from his standpoint (one of narrow scope and ignorance on the subjects) it makes sense that they could be. If there is any chance at all that they’re wrong, this is apparent justification for the need to use the kind of force that makes for awesome and shocking movie scenes.
Around this time, Joe Wilson writes an exposé about his Niger mission that is published in the New York Times. He’s been seeing on the news the administration’s misinterpretation and mis-use of the pertinent information, and he’s fed up. Also as a matter of public record, we now know that this led directly to the public outing of the identity of Valerie Plame, effectively ending her career in the C.I.A., but more importantly, as the film details, causing actual (still) potential harm to the security of the United States, via the abandonment of several important projects she worked on.
“Fair Game” is essentially about the volatile mix that can occur between two worlds; one with the information and one with the power. It doesn’t matter (it didn’t matter in this case, for sure) that the information ran counter to the fear and anger-based agenda of those in power. Prudence is hard to find in moments of heightened emotion, and yet it’s at those times when prudence is often most important, especially when the lives of hundreds of thousands of people are at stake.
Valerie Plame was an easy target to be discredited after being outed. There is a stereotype of the dumb blonde woman; a kind of bigotry that suggests that people who look like her haven’t had to work as hard. They haven’t earned their positions. They can’t possibly look like that and know what it’s like to struggle. It’s supposed (read: leaked into the media by the administration) that Valerie Plame got where she was (as if her job at the C.I.A. was a “position”, rather than a merit-based occupation) largely by getting a pass for her good looks, her privilege. Such people do exist, after all. One can often tell such a person by the self-centered assurance that he or she seems to have that runs completely counter to an ability to understand the difference between opinion and informed understanding. The irony here is that, from their actions, the stereotype of the privileged beauty applies not at all to Valerie Plame, but rather to Scooter Libby, and perhaps some of the men he answered to.
Sean Penn and Naomi Watts shine in their roles as the embattled married couple. These are both actors who have shown themselves willing to sacrifice some vanity for a part. Ms. Watts manages to inhabit the somewhat self-conscious prettiness of a woman who is concerned with, and has a deep connection to, duty and courage. Sean Penn carries some extra actual weight around the middle and some perceived heaviness on his shoulders, all the while projecting a defiant and principled man. The two actors make it easy to see their characters’ love and respect for each other, as they navigate the slings and arrows of these outrageous circumstances.
“Fair Game” is not a thriller in the typical sense. Adapted for the screen by the Butterworth brothers (Jez and John-Henry), from both Joe Wilson’s and Valerie Plames’s memoirs of the events (“The Politics of Truth” and “Fair Game”, respectively), it’s directed by Doug Liman (“The Bourne Identity”, “Mr. & Mrs. Smith”) with measured tension that occasionally seems to want to burble into an action movie style. Fortunately, it does not. The nuance and subtlety of the real-world intrigue involved is much more compelling, as represented in the film. There’s a time and a place for chase scenes and knife fights, but “Fair Game” depicts a slice of history that doesn’t need an assist from such bombast to shake an audience. The disconnect between the worlds of knowledge and power is a much more frightening thing.
But, you know, that’s just my opinion.
Directed by: Doug Liman
Release Date: November 5, 2010
Run Time: 108 Minutes
Country: USA
Rated: PG-13
Distributor: River Road Entertainment
