The Good Shepherd

For my first movie review of 2007, I think I'll fulfill the request of fellow blogger (and co-worker) DCTXn: to review The Good Shepherd. (And as a caveat to DCTXn, beware of any spoilers herein!)

I think I first heard about this film when I discovered that it would feature an appearance by Joe Pesci, who hasn't graced the silver screen since Lethal Weapon 4 in 1998. I've always enjoyed Pesci as an actor, so naturally I was excited that he'd be returning to acting. And since The Good Shepherd was to be helmed by frequent collaborator Robert De Niro, my hopes began to stir. I was even more intrigued once the trailers began to circulate, because espionage thrillers—especially those that are period pieces—have always captured my attention.

I think, in the final analysis, The Good Shepherd isn't so much a Tom Clancy-esque spy movie as it is a character study about one man and his dedication to his country, and an examination of how that dedication takes its toll on other important aspects of life . . . in particular, family. I must confess, Matt Damon's character Ed Wilson had to grow on me, because he initially comes across as a very wooden person, very closed, very devoid of emotion. But as we follow his gradual ascension into the ranks of American intelligence and counter-intelligence during World War II, we come to see that he isn't a soulless, lifeless character at all; rather, he's completely detached from it all emotionally, and we come to see that this is a necessity for the kind of position he's in, since he literally deals with the fate of the world each and every day. And a man in his position has many many intelligence contacts throughout the world, often deep within enemy territory, and each with his own agenda—and thus the question becomes, who do you trust? Who can you trust? And over the course of 22 years, Wilson garners a lot of skeletons in the closet, and comes away with a lot of blood on his hands. (That said, is it any wonder he's a closed and guarded character?)

I read on IMDb that Leonardo DiCaprio was initially considered for the role of Ed Wilson, and for some reason, I can actually see him in this role! Probably because he's tackled such roles in the past (i.e., epic characters) with measurable success, such as Howard Hughes in The Aviator. All the same, though, I do believe that Matt Damon was a good casting choice for the lead, for he embodied that emotional detachment—and resultant conflict and torment—that comes with such a role.

Outside of Damon, though, something felt like it was missing from the acting. Which is to say, while many well-known actors filled the screen with many cameos and small roles, these same characters didn't embody any serious characterization. The perfect example would be the aforementioned Pesci. He really only had one scene, as a kind of American expatriate to Cuba who has since been repatriated to the U.S. after Castro's takeover. (Actually, his character and the surrounding circumstances were surprisingly reminiscent of the character Hyman Roth from The Godfather, Part II.) But his brief Q&A with Matt Damon was very short, lasting only a few minutes and serving little purpose outside of everyday business as usual for Ed Wilson. When his scene ended, I felt kind of disappointed, because I had been eagerly anticipating Joe Pesci's arrival (and to be honest, I thought he'd have played a larger role within the film, not someone who's there and gone in three minutes flat). Essentially, this could have been a "deleted scene" on the DVD, and I think Pesci deserves better than that.

On top of Joe Pesci, though, other big-name actors make appearances that are just as brief: Timothy Hutton as Ed Wilson's father in a flashback to Ed's youth; Alec Baldwin as an FBI agent who first approaches Wilson about providing information on his professor, Dr. Fredericks, to the Bureau; William Hurt as Ed Wilson's boss at the CIA, who may or may not have some shady dealings on the side; John Turturro as one of Ed Wilson's main associates, who gives a long solo performance in a very brutal and out-of-left-field interrogation scene with a Soviet defector; and of course, The Good Shepherd director Robert De Niro himself as one of the main minds behind the very conception of the Central Intelligence Agency. While all these performances were exciting and satisfying to see, they still left something to be desired, which again I attribute to a lack of in-depth characterization. I discussed this in my review of Night at the Museum, for I often get discouraged when big-name actors fill roles that only utilize that actor's name and/or starpower, because then the role itself is left hallow and empty, without any substance. Sadly, this seemed to be a running theme in The Good Shepherd—lots of big-name actors filling roles that had little depth beyond their immediate merit to the scene. In all fairness, though, the main focal point of the movie was the character of Ed Wilson and his rise from a young Ivy Leaguer to a major player at the CIA. It just would have been nice, though, if some of the other main characters would have been fleshed out more as people.

Though there was one character outside of Ed Wilson's family that did get some deeper characterization, and that was the role of Dr. Fredericks, as played by the always-excellent Michael Gambon. Dr. Fredericks was Wilson's poetry professor at school, and we learn that, just before World War II, he may have had some Nazi sympathies. You can imagine the surprise when we learn, shortly thereafter, that Dr. Fredericks himself works in British intelligence, and that he was on assignment as the poetry professor. (Oops!) And as he and Wilson begin to work together in London during the Blitz, it is Fredericks who teaches Wilson some of the hardest lessons of life faced by those in the intelligence community.

Angelina Jolie played Ed Wilson's wife, and right away something about her seemed wrong to me. I don't know if it's the way her character was drawn or the method of acting that Jolie presented, but I immediately didn't buy her in the role of Clover.

But I'm seriously digressing from a point I was trying to make at the start of this review, in that Ed Wilson's emotional detachment took a very heavy toll on his family during the 22 years that this film covered. We see the emotional distance he faces with his young son when he finally returns home from 6 years in Europe, as well as the difficulties he encounters when trying to integrate not only back into a family setting but how to balance it with his ultra-secretive job—a job which, we learn, he can't even discuss with his own family, as evidenced during a confrontation with Clover after a dinner party with friends.

After the Bay of Pigs, though, Ed Wilson is faced with a scenario in which he must make a terrible choice, i.e. between his country and his family. When Wilson is presented with this choice, subsequent events are presented in a kind of open-ended fashion, which is to say, we see the events that unfold, along with their outcomes . . . but we don't know if Wilson had any role in their coming to fruition. It's easy to infer that he did have a hand in them, but there's also enough to make the viewer wonder, did he really make this choice? Did it all happen without his influence? And in the process, did he manage to clearly separate the bounds between family and country? . . . Or did he really choose one at the expense of the other?

Clocking in at just under 3 hours, we're given quite an epic story of one man's journey up into the agency, with quite an impressive performance by Matt Damon under the equally-impressive direction of Robert De Niro. All this notwithstanding, though, something just felt missing. It may have been the lack of supporting characterization, it may have been the plethora of underutilized starpower, but something just felt missing. I'm pretty sure I'll end up seeing this again before it hits DVD, at which time I can give The Good Shepherd further examination and pick up on other nuances I may have missed the first time. But for now I'll give this a 7.5 out of 10.