The International brings the view inside the realm of questionable world banking. A review in the New York Times goes as far as to call the film a “virtual documentary of the current economic crisis, which is sexier, if less accurate, than calling it a clichéd paranoid thriller in which the villains happen to be bankers” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/arts/12iht-berfest.1.20138062.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). The International, like many of the films we have previously watched involves multinational monetary exchanges and transnational travel in part made possible by increased globalization.
To date, the film is arguably the most mainstream and polished cinematic effort we have watched. This may be because of the required return-on-investment for a film that chose to reconstruct The Guggenheim, and to obtain 13 minutes of screen time after 6 weeks of shooting (http://www.ifc.com/fix/2009/02/interview-tom-twyker-on-the-in). It should be noted director Tom Twyker’s film received nearly 8 million dollars from Germany’s Federal Film Fund (DFFF). This amount includes a contested 2.4 million dollar increase made possible “because ‘two thirds’ of the film's production will take place in Germany and ‘The International’ crew includes a wealth of German talent” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/international-gets-more-german-subsidies-149500). An interesting item seeing as how in class we discussed the reversing relationship between economics and politics, but are they other factors as play such as the power of the DFFF.
Another New York Times explains that “sophisticated filmmakers who once relied on American studios for backing are turning to a globe-straddling independent finance system for their most expensive projects” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/business/media/around-world-in-one-movie-film-financings-global-future.html?pagewanted=all) Randall Halle reiterates that “no film… is now produced outside of global system,” and makes note of The International's predominant location, Germany, and their successful transformation away from films “free of anxious concerns about profit and audience entertainment to a mode dominated by private interest and big capital” (Halle, 2008, pp. 4, 7).
Halle, R. (2008). German film after Germany toward a transnational aesthetic. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Interestingly, the film barely recouped its investment, grossing some $60 million world wide, though of course this number doesn't include profit from secondary markets (DVD sales, rentals): http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=international.htm
I do agree with Dr. Abel in saying that The International is a film that is aimed at entertaining the viewer and keeping them in suspense while throughout the whole showing. The action doesn’t only come from the gun shooting or crime solving, but it also comes from the extra diegetic music that is heard throughout all of the film. It’s as if the actors in the film work off of this music and add more suspense and drama to the scene when the viewer hears the music.
Globalization is seen in this film through the constant change of location of the actors, from Germany to France, to Italy, to Turkey, and to the United States. It was easier for the viewer to determine where the scene took place because of the use of the subtitles of where exactly the location was. It even went narrow enough to tell the viewer the name of the building at times. This made it easier to follower and no guessing was done on where exactly the scene was taking place.
Globalization is also seen through the international dealing that the bank does to get more money and stay on top, including above international politics. This aspect makes it similar to the previous film that we watched Syriana, in which the businesses controlled the politics. The bank does everything to stay on top, even committing many murders. They don’t only murder small, insignificant people, but also the Skarssen who was the chairman of the international bank. The ultimate goal is to keep the bank on top.
One quote that Skarssen says in the film that caught my attention was the quote he said to his son while he was at his house with him at night. He was playing a board game with his son and told him that “this is a game that rewards patience and balance.” At the time I thought he was only referring to the game itself. However, after thinking more about this quote I realized that he was actually referring to the game of the bank. If you want to survive, you must have both patience and balance in your decisions. And ultimately if the bank doesn’t benefit from you or your actions, it will get rid of you by killing.
I also read the info about the reconstruction of the Guggenheim that Sarah mentioned, which makes sense because I was thinking throughout the scene how true the set looked. And yet, despite the clear attempts to fit itself within the action thriller genre, The International makes some serious claims beyond what a typical action blockbuster might. Whether it was Tykwer's motive or not, the film seems to correlate with Deuleuze's understanding of a “control society,” which might be worth investigating for its relationship with other films screened throughout the course as well.
The IBBC is depicted as an omniscient and omnipresent entity that exists as a corporation within the current capitalistic mode. Specifically in relation to The Consultant (the Brían F. O'Byrne character), we witness his constant anxiety concerning the power of the IBBC to the extent that, even with his dying breath, he reiterates that “they'll never let you take me in alive.” Additionally, before the shooting scene in the Guggenheim, agents of the IBBC reveal themselves from within the crowd before killing McGee. Similar to the agents in the Matrix, IBBC gunmen suddenly shed their civilian identities and appear at the scene of conflict to reveal that they've been sent by the IBBC. This displays the length of the bank's reach, and is the physical representation of what is later mentioned by Wilhelm: that “everyone is involved.” In this sense, the film moves away from a kind of economic biopower—whereby the life and body of the Consultant, for example, would be entirely under the control of the economic whims of the IBBC—to a decentered, continuously adapting corporation that aligns more with Deleuze.
In his “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” Deleuze outlines the characteristics of how society (as a result of capitalism) has shifted from Foucault's discipline society to a new society of control (as an extension of Foucault's argument). By highlighting some quotes from the text, we can begin to observe their correlates in The International:
“in the society of control, the corporation has replaced the factory, and the corporation is a spirit, a gas” (4)
“The family, the school, the army, the factory, are no longer the distinct analogical spaces that converge towards an owner—state or private power—but coded figures—deformable and transformable—of a single corporation that now has only stockholders” (6)
“Man is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt” (6)
The shootout in the Guggenheim displays this decentered corporation that is no longer an “enclosure” that would have existed in the disciplinary society. Though the IBBC is led by Skarssen, the chairmen, he also pessimistically tells Salinger that even in the event of his death, there are hundreds ready to take his place. Regardless of his actual death—and the newspaper during the closing credits cements this—a new chairmen will continue the actions of the corporation like nothing happened. The film also highlights the importance of debt to the IBBC: they don't care about money or power within a space of national boarders, but instead about controlling the debt of foreign countries that is created through war.
Of course, it's also worth commenting on the temporal difference here, as The International is a some 25 years after Deleuze's publication on control societies. In Deleuze's piece, there seems to be more of a call to action than presented in The International, where the message seems to be a bleak one in terms of the continuity of the IBBC despite the death of Skarssen. Nonetheless, it is difficult to ignore the similarities behind the logic of both texts, at least when specifically focusing on the actions of the IBBC in relation to their place within the global stage (which is extremely, if not entirely, encompassing). I am also most likely misreading Deleuze, so hopefully Dr. Abel can highlight my shortcomings.
You're not misreading Deleuze :) And yes, certainly for Deleuze this text is as close to an EXPLICIT "call to action" as you can find in his writing.... I think if there's one thing GD might hesitate about it's the conspiracy character of the film, that the film ascribes to ONE big bank. On some level power and control might be represented as still too centered from GD's perspective. From his pov, control works even more through US as individuals--our actions etc: we control ourselves so much so that we don't even need an IBBS anymore that somehow controls us "behind the curtain." Still, the gaseousness of the contemporary corporation that GD talks about is captured well by the film, I think.
I don’t think it comes as a surprise to many of us that this film is the most mainstream piece of media which we will spend our time working on and discussing. I doubt anyone would argue the more simple nature of what the film has to offer compared to other films we have watched. As Professor Abel and many of us might mention, this film is more aimed toward entertainment rather than making a grand statement about a globalized economy. But, I found it somewhat interesting in terms of our discussions when I applied them specifically to this film. I figured since this film was more “Hollywood” in a sense, I thought I’d be able to apply our ideas in an easier fashion. In all actuality I was proven quite wrong. In fact, I also had trouble coming up with an article that perhaps would suffice for this film itself. Such a thing was not easy to come by in terms of value and respectability of the author or source.
What I came up with was a review by Roger Ebert. While in terms of bringing up important facts in exact relation to this course, I believe this short article reflects on some important light on the “how” rather than the “what.” And for the moment, I believe it is probably important to discuss this more mainstream nature of this film and how it works with idea globalized economic ideas. So, the first question one might ask is how does The International work as a mainstream film about this subject?
And, the explanation is as simple as the answer. Roger Ebert in his article basically summarizes that this film is meant to make the idea of identification easy. Ebert breaks down a few points in the film and makes them digestible in chunks, just as the film skims down on any unneeded material. (I use the term unneeded lightly). This is unlike other films which we have watched which generally might have had the audience in a state of limbo upon who they might identify with or what exactly is going on. In The International, the audience is spoon fed and thus highly unlikely to go off-track. In addition, he explains a few key ideas such as how the main characters seemingly go unaffected for the longest time, unlike other characters. This is explained when he states “Why the bank, so efficient, isn't better at going after Salinger and Whitman isn't hard to explain: They're needed for the whole movie.” Basically, Ebert is mentioning that if following the logic of the film (the killings) both character would truly be dead, but due to the nature of the film they are kept alive for the film itself.
But, in the long run, I feel like his closing statement of his review is what is most important. “Here he's (Tom Tykwer) concerned not merely with thriller action but with an actual subject: the dangers of a banking system that operates offshore no matter where your shoreline is. We're gradually getting it into our heads that in the long run, your nuclear capability may not be as important as your bank balance. Banks are not lending much money these days, but if you want to buy some warheads, they might take a meeting.” On the surface this statement might not seem to hold much weight, but I believe we are able to tie this into our previous conversations of exchange. Simply, this film is about exchanges, not only that of money, but of information. Specifically, this film touches on the exchange of money in terms of a global economy that is not only interconnected, but seemingly impossible to change.
Finally, on a different note, I did find this film somewhat refreshing. Of course, while any shoot-out in a movie is fun, I did enjoy the different subject rather than poverty. In terms of the films which we have already watched, in relation I believe this is successful because it doesn’t focus on the poor, instead of stating that such a problem is in-fact affecting everyone.
"this film is more aimed toward entertainment rather than making a grand statement about a globalized economy."
And yet, what's interesting (perhaps?) is that it is also most explicit with its message, no? Unlike most if not all of the other films we've watched, TI is the one that spells out most directly and explicitly--and more than once--what the "problem" is. We might want to talk about this.
Globalization is presented in this film in a few ways. First, like Emily said, it is shown by the variety of locations that we are presented with in the film. They chose not to show the landmarks of all of the cities that were shown however. We only got that “landmark” feel when the characters were set in New York, we sort of got a very long shot of the city, although it could’ve been any large city. We didn’t see the Statue of Liberty or anything very well known like that.
Another way this film showed globalization was through the bank’s desire for power. I will have to disagree with Emily here; the bank does not do the arms trading to make money. They do the arms trading in order to control the countries they are selling to. These countries, as they say in the film, are 3rd world countries, and can’t really afford to pay for these high-grade weapons. The bank wants to control the debt of these countries, in order to almost completely control the countries themselves. So they aren’t necessarily trying to make money out of these deals, only gain power.
Director Tom Tykwer talks about the subject matter of the film in an interview for American Cinematographer. “”We were thinking of making a film reminiscent of the paranoia thrillers that Alan Pakula and Sydney Pollack made in the 1970s,” says Tykwer. “But instead of the Secret Service or CIA being the system within the system, we wanted to suggest it’s the institutions of world finance that seem to be the new governments that secretly rule our lives.”” The banks aim is to gain power by holding debt over these 3rd world countries, and I think that is the main issue of globalization that we see in this film. The bank is able to obtain weapons from China from only two different dealers in the world, one from Italy, and the other from Turkey. The bank itself is located in Luxembourg, and the countries it is selling the weapons to are in completely different parts of the world. The bank is connecting all of these countries with international business, even though it is illegal business.
Hope-Jones, Mark. “Banks as Bad Guys: Financial Intrigue and a Flashy SLR Video.” American Cinematographer 90.2 (2007): 14–16, 18
A few quick responses in order o the three paragraphs: 1. I'm not sure I agree that the long shot of Manhattan does not clearly establish that it's NY. Its skyline is iconic and to most easily recognizable even if one hasn't seen it first hand (it's in SOOOO many movies....). It's also important that it's NYC as it's the most crucial financial hub in the world.
2. Yes, this is a good "correction" of the motives the film ascribes to the bank: it wants control via controlling debt, rather than make money "Directly"--controlling debt is to control lives/life.
3. If you've never seen the films TT is referring to--Klute, All the President's Men, Parallax View, etc.--you SHOULD watch them. They are fantastic, among the best the genre of the conspiracy film/thriller has to offer. And Fredric Jameson's long essay on them, "Totality as Conspiracy," from his classic book, THE GEOPOLITICAL AESTHETIC, is still a great, albeit densely theoretical and thus not easy, starting point: http://www.amazon.com/The-Geopolitical-Aesthetic-Cinema-Perspectives/dp/0253209668
Incidentally, Istanbul is identified by the film not just through the words but also its most famous building--one of the most famous in the world: the Hagia Sophia: http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=19
Although Wikipedia is not the most thorough secondary source, it does provide some interesting information for this film. Apparently, the IBBC is based off the real-life Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The BCCI Wikipedia page has some very interesting excerpts, such as: “Investigators in the US and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection." “BCCI handled money for Sadam Hussein” - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html “The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency held numerous accounts at BCCI, according to William von Raab, former U.S. Commissioner of Customs. Oliver North also used and held multiple accounts at BCCI. These bank accounts were used for a variety of illegal covert operations, including transfers of money and weapons related to the Iran-Contra scandal, according to Time Magazine.[11] The CIA also worked with BCCI in arming and financing the Afghan mujahideen during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union, using BCCI to launder proceeds from trafficking heroin grown in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands, boosting the flow of narcotics to European and U.S. markets.” - http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
Just from this brief skim of summarized information about the extremely complex and secretive actions of the BCCI, we see that they were involved with a staggering collection of clients. They funded both American and Soviet interests, were involved with arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, military coups, and the list goes on. They had their fingers in everyone’s business. After watching The International, I thought that maybe the filmmakers had been exaggerating the power of the IBBC. But reading about the fictional bank’s real life counter-part, I see that it is not as exaggerated as I had believed. Although I doubt the BCCI would have really murdered people in the Guggenheim in spectacular shoot outs, I don’t doubt that they have really assassinated lots of people in hotel rooms, outside of Bahnhofs, or in “freak car accidents.”
Yesterday in class, we talked about the relationship between politics and economics. Before, banks and corporations were subservient to nations. But now, Syriana, The International and Marco Abel argue that it is the other way around, that it is economics who are now in “the driver’s seat” on the historical road. Unlike nations, who have specific borders, specific languages, capital cities, myriads of resources, banks are in the ether, their language is variable, and their only resource is money. But money is what every nation, corporation, charity, cartel, or individual wants and The Bank is there to lend and secure it for them. In the film, when The Bank is bribing the soon-to-be-usurper of the African country, the usurper asks the Banker what it is he wants. And the Banker simply says that he just owes them a favor. The debt is ambiguous but the message of what the Bank wants is clear: it wants more. Its hard for me to believe that the BCCI was the only bank to do such things as it has done. In the film, the Bank is the only corporation to be focused on. But there are, I’m guessing, hundreds of other businesses who have, or quest after, the same degree of influence as the BCCI. If politics could be so controlled by one corporation, as in the film, what degree of influence does economics have on politics when there are multiple corporations seeking control?
One thing that struck me the most in the film, The International, was when Politian Calvini said that whoever controls the debt that conflict produces is in the driver seat. It reminded me of what Dr. Abel was saying in discussion about how powerful and rich some corporations are. It’s a scary thought that many of these large businesses are so powerful that it seems impossible to stop them. I believe that these are side effects of globalization. People are constantly looking for a way to get goods cheaply. It is the big corporations that are able to provide these cheap services to people and they continue to invest in them. It’s a never ending cycle. A.O Scott of the New York Times review of the film wrote, “The film’s script, heavy with platitudes, contains an aphorism that may well sum up the political economy of the moment: “whoever controls the debt, controls everything.” And there is a provocative whiff of radicalism in the title, which after all evokes the anthem of the worldwide socialist movement.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/13inte.html?_r=0) Does the title imply a demand for a type of social justice? Or does it want to say how globalized the need for power and money is? The film was based on an actual banking scandal in the 90s with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
The film touched on several countries such as the U.S, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Turkey and so on. Its globalization aspect of the film is evident with how many countries have ties connecting them to the I.B.B.C. A web of corporations and interested parties are needed for such big banks to function. It seems that banks can’t rely on common people. It was hard to focus beyond this because it did seem like the purpose of the film was to entertain like so many of my classmates pointed out. I read on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963178/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv) that the film pushed back its scheduled debut because it received poor reviews from the preview screenings. It was redone to add more action. Did they ‘dumb’ it down for the people? I guess they did meet their goal in that aspect of making it entertaining but I believe it lost some focus in the plot along the way.
The cinematography was beautiful. The establishing shots allowed the viewer to easily recognize what part of the world they are viewing. It is very different from the others films that we watched like La Promesse for example. Tywker used a variety of shots in this film. I’m assuming that a bigger budget allowed them for more creativity. I also found interesting the choice of names for Clive Owen and Naomi Watts’ characters. I don’t believe that choosing Salinger and Whitman was purely coincidental. I couldn’t find anything on why these names were chosen but it is something I will continue to look into.
While this film is, as one of my colleagues stated, more polished than the other films we have watched, I found it to be less powerful than the sometimes primitive filming of some of the other movies. The focus on entertaining the viewer was, to me, distracting and I had a hard time following the movie, largely in part to the drawn-out action sequences that take the focus away from the plot. This is typical of the Hollywood action film, and I realize that this is definitely a matter of taste, but this type of film is not my favorite. I am more plot-focused while action thrillers view the plot as a secondary aspect.
Granted, the more sophisticated cinematography lended itself to some beautiful, artful moments. One scene that stood out to me was when the hanging "mirrors" shattered. The way the shattering glass was shot, the sounds, all were beautiful.
I would agree that this film takes the stance that economics are now driving banks and corporations. This film is less focused on the exchange of money, which differs from the other films we have watched in this class. I really liked the analysis provided by Kyle. His last paragraph really hits the nail on the head, so to speak. The nations are specific, but banks are variable and speak the language of money, and this leads to The Bank being the all-controlling resource in the film.
It was refreshing to see a film that digressed from the usual topics of globalization, i.e., immigration and poverty. This film showed that the effects of globalization are far-reaching, further than immigration and across class lines.
The International as many have stated is an entertainment movie but I would argue that the story is also a warning of sorts. I read an article in The Guardian that states “This movie draws on the half-forgotten occult crises of financial and political history: the BCCI money-laundering scandal of 1991, the death of alleged Mafia banker Roberto Calvi, found hanged under Blackfriars bridge in 1982, and the 1978 assassination of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, stabbed with a poisoned umbrella on Waterloo bridge.” I was unaware that any of these crimes happened but the movie allows the viewer to believe that they could happen. The IBBC (which is strikingly similar to BCCI) is giving loans and providing weapons to political movements that they want to be in power of their respective countries. At one point we see a banker talking to one of the heads of these movements and it becomes very clear that this bank is more interested in controlling the world than they are in money.
Further, as the movie goes on it becomes very clear to many people exactly what the BCCI is doing but as the credit reel shows the bank stays successful and maybe even gets stronger. I thought that the way this information was given to the viewer through the credits was very interesting. I like the idea of showing newspaper headlines after the movie ended; it just adds to how realistic something like this could be. This movie is clearly should act as a warning to those who view it. If we give certain individuals the power to globalize economics they could end up globalizing governments.
The International like a lot of the more “Hollywood” films we’ve watched recently was hard for me to follow. I feel like I’m being repetitive with my recent blog posts and also with what other people are saying but I honestly struggled to realize what was going on throughout a large part of this film. The constant chase of the “bad guy” and dramatic shoot out scene at the Guggenheim Museum in New York made the film unrealistic to me. Although the problem touched on with corrupt in not just banks but very large companies with a lot of power and control, is relevant I feel the film was overtaken by dramatic action scenes including numerous people getting shot like it’s nothing. Another relevant point brought up in the New York Times review of the film alludes to the fact that both of the main characters are also unrealistic. The article states, “Salinger (Mr. Owen) is not especially reclusive, just moody and unshaven, while Whitman (that would be Ms. Watts) does not contradict herself, except insofar as she looks weary and bedraggled, as if alienated from her radiant, golden self. There is no particular spark between them, romantic or otherwise.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/13inte.html?_r=0 The article then goes on to discuss how the film briefly showed a glimpse of Eleanor having a son and child but the explanation of them doesn’t go any farther than this 10 second scene. Louis on the other hand doesn’t seem to have much going on with him other than his “rumpled raincoat and his surly temper,” which if you think about it is completely true. We never really get any type of insight into who these people are personally, which makes them hard to relate to. Globalization was obviously present with the location of the film being in Germany and the United States. There are many scenes in both countries. We see an Interpol agent and an American attorney join together to achieve a common goal of “catching the bad guys.” This intermixture of the same ideals despite their very far home location is definitely a form of globalization.
Many of you have rightly pointed out that this film is largely concerned with a large omnipresent institution whose power has blossomed in a global economic system--the world's banks. I think it's worth acknowledging that this is the first film we've watched that identifies an institution as the primary antagonist. One could make the argument that a similar thing is done in Syriana; however, we concluded that China is that films real boogeyman, and in any case, as Daniel mentions, the International was designed to be infinitely more digestible.
Choosing an institution to play the antagonist is ambitious; as institutions result from systemic necessities, the system seems automatically implicated in the damaged caused by the institution. However, when you set up a plot that is essentially one man (and one woman, I guess, but let's be honest, this is Clive Owen's show) v. the institution, and by extension, the system.
This is a fight only he thinks he can win. At almost every turn, we watch as sometimes the bank, sometimes the local police, sometimes "they" (which we are given to assume are the big boys at the national stage) intervene and obstruct his quest for justice. Eventually, his told that he will never get the justice he seeks, precisely because the law he believes in doesn't apply to the criminals he pursues--he must go "outside" the law to get justice (one wonders how he didn't reach this conclusion years ago. This cannot possibly be the first time someone has said this to him. But it is a Clive Owen movie.)
But even when he goes outside the law, his efforts ultimately fail; he's even denied the pleasure of killing one of the hydra's main heads. The movie's postscript is the most important part of the film. Everything our villain said was true: the dragon grew another head; the deal went through; the small arms conflict was facilitated and the bank's profits soared. The film identifies finanical institutions as a problem, and fails to imagine a solution that would solve the problem. It does however tell us that one man isn't capable of tearing down a system.
Stray Observation: It's worth mentioning the way the law and intelligence interact with political and economic spheres in this film. One might argue that legal intervention is one of the only ways to check the excesses of greedy financial institutions. But when political apparatus obstructs the legal apparatus, or when the economic apparatus assassinates the political apparatus it becomes unclear what the legitimate options there actually are--which leads one to conclude uneasily that there aren't any legitimate options available.
Chandler brings up that the IBBC in The International is a omniscient and omnipresent entity in the film. This is true and brings up man different points about international business.
Clive can not bring in the assassin, because the bank would not allow it. Clive can not simply kill the head of the IBBC, there will be plenty of bankers to take his place. Nothing will bring the IBBC or any other bank down because the film shows, like Chandler said, these banks as too big to fail. It is not politics that rule the world, it is the economic powers that rule politics and thus the world. It has been that way in England at least since the hundred years war.
The film does this in a very entertaining way. Not exactly a full on globe trotter, we still get a feeling these events are happening in important places. A sleuth thriller. Most Hollywood films let you walk away from a movie such as this with a grin on your face, and the shoot out scene did do that a bit. However, The International left you and Clive at a point of exhaustion. This movie, like Syriana, has its moments to tell the audience what is up in terms of global banking and debt.
Control the debt, control the world. Plus the film reiterates from Syriana how the rules and laws are in effect so that big companies can get away with crimes such as these. This is its statement about globalization. Though the IBBC dealt with large deals from other big money interests, no one was exempt from the banks scope. Everyone has debt and someone needs to control it. Though controlling a country's dept is bigger than a single person's, everyone is controlled by the economy that system creates.
The International brings the view inside the realm of questionable world banking. A review in the New York Times goes as far as to call the film a “virtual documentary of the current economic crisis, which is sexier, if less accurate, than calling it a clichéd paranoid thriller in which the villains happen to be bankers” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/12/arts/12iht-berfest.1.20138062.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0). The International, like many of the films we have previously watched involves multinational monetary exchanges and transnational travel in part made possible by increased globalization.
ReplyDeleteTo date, the film is arguably the most mainstream and polished cinematic effort we have watched. This may be because of the required return-on-investment for a film that chose to reconstruct The Guggenheim, and to obtain 13 minutes of screen time after 6 weeks of shooting (http://www.ifc.com/fix/2009/02/interview-tom-twyker-on-the-in). It should be noted director Tom Twyker’s film received nearly 8 million dollars from Germany’s Federal Film Fund (DFFF). This amount includes a contested 2.4 million dollar increase made possible “because ‘two thirds’ of the film's production will take place in Germany and ‘The International’ crew includes a wealth of German talent” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/international-gets-more-german-subsidies-149500). An interesting item seeing as how in class we discussed the reversing relationship between economics and politics, but are they other factors as play such as the power of the DFFF.
Another New York Times explains that “sophisticated filmmakers who once relied on American studios for backing are turning to a globe-straddling independent finance system for their most expensive projects” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/06/business/media/around-world-in-one-movie-film-financings-global-future.html?pagewanted=all)
Randall Halle reiterates that “no film… is now produced outside of global system,” and makes note of The International's predominant location, Germany, and their successful transformation away from films “free of anxious concerns about profit and audience entertainment to a mode dominated by private interest and big capital” (Halle, 2008, pp. 4, 7).
Halle, R. (2008). German film after Germany toward a transnational aesthetic. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Interestingly, the film barely recouped its investment, grossing some $60 million world wide, though of course this number doesn't include profit from secondary markets (DVD sales, rentals): http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=international.htm
DeleteI do agree with Dr. Abel in saying that The International is a film that is aimed at entertaining the viewer and keeping them in suspense while throughout the whole showing. The action doesn’t only come from the gun shooting or crime solving, but it also comes from the extra diegetic music that is heard throughout all of the film. It’s as if the actors in the film work off of this music and add more suspense and drama to the scene when the viewer hears the music.
ReplyDeleteGlobalization is seen in this film through the constant change of location of the actors, from Germany to France, to Italy, to Turkey, and to the United States. It was easier for the viewer to determine where the scene took place because of the use of the subtitles of where exactly the location was. It even went narrow enough to tell the viewer the name of the building at times. This made it easier to follower and no guessing was done on where exactly the scene was taking place.
Globalization is also seen through the international dealing that the bank does to get more money and stay on top, including above international politics. This aspect makes it similar to the previous film that we watched Syriana, in which the businesses controlled the politics. The bank does everything to stay on top, even committing many murders. They don’t only murder small, insignificant people, but also the Skarssen who was the chairman of the international bank. The ultimate goal is to keep the bank on top.
One quote that Skarssen says in the film that caught my attention was the quote he said to his son while he was at his house with him at night. He was playing a board game with his son and told him that “this is a game that rewards patience and balance.” At the time I thought he was only referring to the game itself. However, after thinking more about this quote I realized that he was actually referring to the game of the bank. If you want to survive, you must have both patience and balance in your decisions. And ultimately if the bank doesn’t benefit from you or your actions, it will get rid of you by killing.
I also read the info about the reconstruction of the Guggenheim that Sarah mentioned, which makes sense because I was thinking throughout the scene how true the set looked. And yet, despite the clear attempts to fit itself within the action thriller genre, The International makes some serious claims beyond what a typical action blockbuster might. Whether it was Tykwer's motive or not, the film seems to correlate with Deuleuze's understanding of a “control society,” which might be worth investigating for its relationship with other films screened throughout the course as well.
ReplyDeleteThe IBBC is depicted as an omniscient and omnipresent entity that exists as a corporation within the current capitalistic mode. Specifically in relation to The Consultant (the Brían F. O'Byrne character), we witness his constant anxiety concerning the power of the IBBC to the extent that, even with his dying breath, he reiterates that “they'll never let you take me in alive.” Additionally, before the shooting scene in the Guggenheim, agents of the IBBC reveal themselves from within the crowd before killing McGee. Similar to the agents in the Matrix, IBBC gunmen suddenly shed their civilian identities and appear at the scene of conflict to reveal that they've been sent by the IBBC. This displays the length of the bank's reach, and is the physical representation of what is later mentioned by Wilhelm: that “everyone is involved.” In this sense, the film moves away from a kind of economic biopower—whereby the life and body of the Consultant, for example, would be entirely under the control of the economic whims of the IBBC—to a decentered, continuously adapting corporation that aligns more with Deleuze.
In his “Postscript on the Societies of Control,” Deleuze outlines the characteristics of how society (as a result of capitalism) has shifted from Foucault's discipline society to a new society of control (as an extension of Foucault's argument). By highlighting some quotes from the text, we can begin to observe their correlates in The International:
“in the society of control, the corporation has replaced the factory, and the corporation is a spirit, a gas” (4)
“The family, the school, the army, the factory, are no longer the distinct analogical spaces that converge towards an owner—state or private power—but coded figures—deformable and transformable—of a single corporation that now has only stockholders” (6)
“Man is no longer man enclosed, but man in debt” (6)
The shootout in the Guggenheim displays this decentered corporation that is no longer an “enclosure” that would have existed in the disciplinary society. Though the IBBC is led by Skarssen, the chairmen, he also pessimistically tells Salinger that even in the event of his death, there are hundreds ready to take his place. Regardless of his actual death—and the newspaper during the closing credits cements this—a new chairmen will continue the actions of the corporation like nothing happened. The film also highlights the importance of debt to the IBBC: they don't care about money or power within a space of national boarders, but instead about controlling the debt of foreign countries that is created through war.
Of course, it's also worth commenting on the temporal difference here, as The International is a some 25 years after Deleuze's publication on control societies. In Deleuze's piece, there seems to be more of a call to action than presented in The International, where the message seems to be a bleak one in terms of the continuity of the IBBC despite the death of Skarssen. Nonetheless, it is difficult to ignore the similarities behind the logic of both texts, at least when specifically focusing on the actions of the IBBC in relation to their place within the global stage (which is extremely, if not entirely, encompassing). I am also most likely misreading Deleuze, so hopefully Dr. Abel can highlight my shortcomings.
Deleuze, Gilles. October, Vol. 59. (Winter, 1992), 3-7. https://files.nyu.edu/dnm232/public/deleuze_postcript.pdf
You're not misreading Deleuze :) And yes, certainly for Deleuze this text is as close to an EXPLICIT "call to action" as you can find in his writing.... I think if there's one thing GD might hesitate about it's the conspiracy character of the film, that the film ascribes to ONE big bank. On some level power and control might be represented as still too centered from GD's perspective. From his pov, control works even more through US as individuals--our actions etc: we control ourselves so much so that we don't even need an IBBS anymore that somehow controls us "behind the curtain." Still, the gaseousness of the contemporary corporation that GD talks about is captured well by the film, I think.
DeleteI don’t think it comes as a surprise to many of us that this film is the most mainstream piece of media which we will spend our time working on and discussing. I doubt anyone would argue the more simple nature of what the film has to offer compared to other films we have watched. As Professor Abel and many of us might mention, this film is more aimed toward entertainment rather than making a grand statement about a globalized economy. But, I found it somewhat interesting in terms of our discussions when I applied them specifically to this film. I figured since this film was more “Hollywood” in a sense, I thought I’d be able to apply our ideas in an easier fashion. In all actuality I was proven quite wrong. In fact, I also had trouble coming up with an article that perhaps would suffice for this film itself. Such a thing was not easy to come by in terms of value and respectability of the author or source.
ReplyDeleteWhat I came up with was a review by Roger Ebert. While in terms of bringing up important facts in exact relation to this course, I believe this short article reflects on some important light on the “how” rather than the “what.” And for the moment, I believe it is probably important to discuss this more mainstream nature of this film and how it works with idea globalized economic ideas. So, the first question one might ask is how does The International work as a mainstream film about this subject?
And, the explanation is as simple as the answer. Roger Ebert in his article basically summarizes that this film is meant to make the idea of identification easy. Ebert breaks down a few points in the film and makes them digestible in chunks, just as the film skims down on any unneeded material. (I use the term unneeded lightly). This is unlike other films which we have watched which generally might have had the audience in a state of limbo upon who they might identify with or what exactly is going on. In The International, the audience is spoon fed and thus highly unlikely to go off-track. In addition, he explains a few key ideas such as how the main characters seemingly go unaffected for the longest time, unlike other characters. This is explained when he states “Why the bank, so efficient, isn't better at going after Salinger and Whitman isn't hard to explain: They're needed for the whole movie.” Basically, Ebert is mentioning that if following the logic of the film (the killings) both character would truly be dead, but due to the nature of the film they are kept alive for the film itself.
But, in the long run, I feel like his closing statement of his review is what is most important. “Here he's (Tom Tykwer) concerned not merely with thriller action but with an actual subject: the dangers of a banking system that operates offshore no matter where your shoreline is. We're gradually getting it into our heads that in the long run, your nuclear capability may not be as important as your bank balance. Banks are not lending much money these days, but if you want to buy some warheads, they might take a meeting.” On the surface this statement might not seem to hold much weight, but I believe we are able to tie this into our previous conversations of exchange. Simply, this film is about exchanges, not only that of money, but of information. Specifically, this film touches on the exchange of money in terms of a global economy that is not only interconnected, but seemingly impossible to change.
Finally, on a different note, I did find this film somewhat refreshing. Of course, while any shoot-out in a movie is fun, I did enjoy the different subject rather than poverty. In terms of the films which we have already watched, in relation I believe this is successful because it doesn’t focus on the poor, instead of stating that such a problem is in-fact affecting everyone.
(http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-international-2009)
"this film is more aimed toward entertainment rather than making a grand statement about a globalized economy."
DeleteAnd yet, what's interesting (perhaps?) is that it is also most explicit with its message, no? Unlike most if not all of the other films we've watched, TI is the one that spells out most directly and explicitly--and more than once--what the "problem" is. We might want to talk about this.
Globalization is presented in this film in a few ways. First, like Emily said, it is shown by the variety of locations that we are presented with in the film. They chose not to show the landmarks of all of the cities that were shown however. We only got that “landmark” feel when the characters were set in New York, we sort of got a very long shot of the city, although it could’ve been any large city. We didn’t see the Statue of Liberty or anything very well known like that.
ReplyDeleteAnother way this film showed globalization was through the bank’s desire for power. I will have to disagree with Emily here; the bank does not do the arms trading to make money. They do the arms trading in order to control the countries they are selling to. These countries, as they say in the film, are 3rd world countries, and can’t really afford to pay for these high-grade weapons. The bank wants to control the debt of these countries, in order to almost completely control the countries themselves. So they aren’t necessarily trying to make money out of these deals, only gain power.
Director Tom Tykwer talks about the subject matter of the film in an interview for American Cinematographer. “”We were thinking of making a film reminiscent of the paranoia thrillers that Alan Pakula and Sydney Pollack made in the 1970s,” says Tykwer. “But instead of the Secret Service or CIA being the system within the system, we wanted to suggest it’s the institutions of world finance that seem to be the new governments that secretly rule our lives.”” The banks aim is to gain power by holding debt over these 3rd world countries, and I think that is the main issue of globalization that we see in this film. The bank is able to obtain weapons from China from only two different dealers in the world, one from Italy, and the other from Turkey. The bank itself is located in Luxembourg, and the countries it is selling the weapons to are in completely different parts of the world. The bank is connecting all of these countries with international business, even though it is illegal business.
Hope-Jones, Mark. “Banks as Bad Guys: Financial Intrigue and a Flashy SLR Video.” American Cinematographer 90.2 (2007): 14–16, 18
A few quick responses in order o the three paragraphs:
Delete1. I'm not sure I agree that the long shot of Manhattan does not clearly establish that it's NY. Its skyline is iconic and to most easily recognizable even if one hasn't seen it first hand (it's in SOOOO many movies....). It's also important that it's NYC as it's the most crucial financial hub in the world.
2. Yes, this is a good "correction" of the motives the film ascribes to the bank: it wants control via controlling debt, rather than make money "Directly"--controlling debt is to control lives/life.
3. If you've never seen the films TT is referring to--Klute, All the President's Men, Parallax View, etc.--you SHOULD watch them. They are fantastic, among the best the genre of the conspiracy film/thriller has to offer. And Fredric Jameson's long essay on them, "Totality as Conspiracy," from his classic book, THE GEOPOLITICAL AESTHETIC, is still a great, albeit densely theoretical and thus not easy, starting point: http://www.amazon.com/The-Geopolitical-Aesthetic-Cinema-Perspectives/dp/0253209668
Incidentally, Istanbul is identified by the film not just through the words but also its most famous building--one of the most famous in the world: the Hagia Sophia: http://www.hagiasophia.com/listingview.php?listingID=19
DeleteAlthough Wikipedia is not the most thorough secondary source, it does provide some interesting information for this film. Apparently, the IBBC is based off the real-life Bank of Credit and Commerce International. The BCCI Wikipedia page has some very interesting excerpts, such as:
ReplyDelete“Investigators in the US and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection."
“BCCI handled money for Sadam Hussein” - http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html
“The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency held numerous accounts at BCCI, according to William von Raab, former U.S. Commissioner of Customs. Oliver North also used and held multiple accounts at BCCI. These bank accounts were used for a variety of illegal covert operations, including transfers of money and weapons related to the Iran-Contra scandal, according to Time Magazine.[11] The CIA also worked with BCCI in arming and financing the Afghan mujahideen during the Afghan War against the Soviet Union, using BCCI to launder proceeds from trafficking heroin grown in the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands, boosting the flow of narcotics to European and U.S. markets.” - http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO404A.html
Just from this brief skim of summarized information about the extremely complex and secretive actions of the BCCI, we see that they were involved with a staggering collection of clients. They funded both American and Soviet interests, were involved with arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, military coups, and the list goes on. They had their fingers in everyone’s business. After watching The International, I thought that maybe the filmmakers had been exaggerating the power of the IBBC. But reading about the fictional bank’s real life counter-part, I see that it is not as exaggerated as I had believed. Although I doubt the BCCI would have really murdered people in the Guggenheim in spectacular shoot outs, I don’t doubt that they have really assassinated lots of people in hotel rooms, outside of Bahnhofs, or in “freak car accidents.”
Yesterday in class, we talked about the relationship between politics and economics. Before, banks and corporations were subservient to nations. But now, Syriana, The International and Marco Abel argue that it is the other way around, that it is economics who are now in “the driver’s seat” on the historical road. Unlike nations, who have specific borders, specific languages, capital cities, myriads of resources, banks are in the ether, their language is variable, and their only resource is money. But money is what every nation, corporation, charity, cartel, or individual wants and The Bank is there to lend and secure it for them. In the film, when The Bank is bribing the soon-to-be-usurper of the African country, the usurper asks the Banker what it is he wants. And the Banker simply says that he just owes them a favor. The debt is ambiguous but the message of what the Bank wants is clear: it wants more.
Its hard for me to believe that the BCCI was the only bank to do such things as it has done. In the film, the Bank is the only corporation to be focused on. But there are, I’m guessing, hundreds of other businesses who have, or quest after, the same degree of influence as the BCCI. If politics could be so controlled by one corporation, as in the film, what degree of influence does economics have on politics when there are multiple corporations seeking control?
One thing that struck me the most in the film, The International, was when Politian Calvini said that whoever controls the debt that conflict produces is in the driver seat. It reminded me of what Dr. Abel was saying in discussion about how powerful and rich some corporations are. It’s a scary thought that many of these large businesses are so powerful that it seems impossible to stop them. I believe that these are side effects of globalization. People are constantly looking for a way to get goods cheaply. It is the big corporations that are able to provide these cheap services to people and they continue to invest in them. It’s a never ending cycle. A.O Scott of the New York Times review of the film wrote, “The film’s script, heavy with platitudes, contains an aphorism that may well sum up the political economy of the moment: “whoever controls the debt, controls everything.” And there is a provocative whiff of radicalism in the title, which after all evokes the anthem of the worldwide socialist movement.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/13inte.html?_r=0) Does the title imply a demand for a type of social justice? Or does it want to say how globalized the need for power and money is? The film was based on an actual banking scandal in the 90s with the Bank of Credit and Commerce International.
ReplyDeleteThe film touched on several countries such as the U.S, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Turkey and so on. Its globalization aspect of the film is evident with how many countries have ties connecting them to the I.B.B.C. A web of corporations and interested parties are needed for such big banks to function. It seems that banks can’t rely on common people. It was hard to focus beyond this because it did seem like the purpose of the film was to entertain like so many of my classmates pointed out. I read on IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0963178/trivia?ref_=tt_trv_trv) that the film pushed back its scheduled debut because it received poor reviews from the preview screenings. It was redone to add more action. Did they ‘dumb’ it down for the people? I guess they did meet their goal in that aspect of making it entertaining but I believe it lost some focus in the plot along the way.
The cinematography was beautiful. The establishing shots allowed the viewer to easily recognize what part of the world they are viewing. It is very different from the others films that we watched like La Promesse for example. Tywker used a variety of shots in this film. I’m assuming that a bigger budget allowed them for more creativity. I also found interesting the choice of names for Clive Owen and Naomi Watts’ characters. I don’t believe that choosing Salinger and Whitman was purely coincidental. I couldn’t find anything on why these names were chosen but it is something I will continue to look into.
I don't know about the choice of last names either. This could be a classic auteurist move: maybe Tykwer is a fan of both JDS and WW....
DeleteWhile this film is, as one of my colleagues stated, more polished than the other films we have watched, I found it to be less powerful than the sometimes primitive filming of some of the other movies. The focus on entertaining the viewer was, to me, distracting and I had a hard time following the movie, largely in part to the drawn-out action sequences that take the focus away from the plot. This is typical of the Hollywood action film, and I realize that this is definitely a matter of taste, but this type of film is not my favorite. I am more plot-focused while action thrillers view the plot as a secondary aspect.
ReplyDeleteGranted, the more sophisticated cinematography lended itself to some beautiful, artful moments. One scene that stood out to me was when the hanging "mirrors" shattered. The way the shattering glass was shot, the sounds, all were beautiful.
I would agree that this film takes the stance that economics are now driving banks and corporations. This film is less focused on the exchange of money, which differs from the other films we have watched in this class. I really liked the analysis provided by Kyle. His last paragraph really hits the nail on the head, so to speak. The nations are specific, but banks are variable and speak the language of money, and this leads to The Bank being the all-controlling resource in the film.
It was refreshing to see a film that digressed from the usual topics of globalization, i.e., immigration and poverty. This film showed that the effects of globalization are far-reaching, further than immigration and across class lines.
The International as many have stated is an entertainment movie but I would argue that the story is also a warning of sorts. I read an article in The Guardian that states “This movie draws on the half-forgotten occult crises of financial and political history: the BCCI money-laundering scandal of 1991, the death of alleged Mafia banker Roberto Calvi, found hanged under Blackfriars bridge in 1982, and the 1978 assassination of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, stabbed with a poisoned umbrella on Waterloo bridge.” I was unaware that any of these crimes happened but the movie allows the viewer to believe that they could happen. The IBBC (which is strikingly similar to BCCI) is giving loans and providing weapons to political movements that they want to be in power of their respective countries. At one point we see a banker talking to one of the heads of these movements and it becomes very clear that this bank is more interested in controlling the world than they are in money.
ReplyDeleteFurther, as the movie goes on it becomes very clear to many people exactly what the BCCI is doing but as the credit reel shows the bank stays successful and maybe even gets stronger. I thought that the way this information was given to the viewer through the credits was very interesting. I like the idea of showing newspaper headlines after the movie ended; it just adds to how realistic something like this could be. This movie is clearly should act as a warning to those who view it. If we give certain individuals the power to globalize economics they could end up globalizing governments.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/27/the-international-clive-owen-twyker
The International like a lot of the more “Hollywood” films we’ve watched recently was hard for me to follow. I feel like I’m being repetitive with my recent blog posts and also with what other people are saying but I honestly struggled to realize what was going on throughout a large part of this film.
ReplyDeleteThe constant chase of the “bad guy” and dramatic shoot out scene at the Guggenheim Museum in New York made the film unrealistic to me. Although the problem touched on with corrupt in not just banks but very large companies with a lot of power and control, is relevant I feel the film was overtaken by dramatic action scenes including numerous people getting shot like it’s nothing.
Another relevant point brought up in the New York Times review of the film alludes to the fact that both of the main characters are also unrealistic. The article states, “Salinger (Mr. Owen) is not especially reclusive, just moody and unshaven, while Whitman (that would be Ms. Watts) does not contradict herself, except insofar as she looks weary and bedraggled, as if alienated from her radiant, golden self. There is no particular spark between them, romantic or otherwise.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/13/movies/13inte.html?_r=0
The article then goes on to discuss how the film briefly showed a glimpse of Eleanor having a son and child but the explanation of them doesn’t go any farther than this 10 second scene. Louis on the other hand doesn’t seem to have much going on with him other than his “rumpled raincoat and his surly temper,” which if you think about it is completely true. We never really get any type of insight into who these people are personally, which makes them hard to relate to.
Globalization was obviously present with the location of the film being in Germany and the United States. There are many scenes in both countries. We see an Interpol agent and an American attorney join together to achieve a common goal of “catching the bad guys.” This intermixture of the same ideals despite their very far home location is definitely a form of globalization.
Many of you have rightly pointed out that this film is largely concerned with a large omnipresent institution whose power has blossomed in a global economic system--the world's banks. I think it's worth acknowledging that this is the first film we've watched that identifies an institution as the primary antagonist. One could make the argument that a similar thing is done in Syriana; however, we concluded that China is that films real boogeyman, and in any case, as Daniel mentions, the International was designed to be infinitely more digestible.
ReplyDeleteChoosing an institution to play the antagonist is ambitious; as institutions result from systemic necessities, the system seems automatically implicated in the damaged caused by the institution. However, when you set up a plot that is essentially one man (and one woman, I guess, but let's be honest, this is Clive Owen's show) v. the institution, and by extension, the system.
This is a fight only he thinks he can win. At almost every turn, we watch as sometimes the bank, sometimes the local police, sometimes "they" (which we are given to assume are the big boys at the national stage) intervene and obstruct his quest for justice. Eventually, his told that he will never get the justice he seeks, precisely because the law he believes in doesn't apply to the criminals he pursues--he must go "outside" the law to get justice (one wonders how he didn't reach this conclusion years ago. This cannot possibly be the first time someone has said this to him. But it is a Clive Owen movie.)
But even when he goes outside the law, his efforts ultimately fail; he's even denied the pleasure of killing one of the hydra's main heads. The movie's postscript is the most important part of the film. Everything our villain said was true: the dragon grew another head; the deal went through; the small arms conflict was facilitated and the bank's profits soared. The film identifies finanical institutions as a problem, and fails to imagine a solution that would solve the problem. It does however tell us that one man isn't capable of tearing down a system.
Stray Observation: It's worth mentioning the way the law and intelligence interact with political and economic spheres in this film. One might argue that legal intervention is one of the only ways to check the excesses of greedy financial institutions. But when political apparatus obstructs the legal apparatus, or when the economic apparatus assassinates the political apparatus it becomes unclear what the legitimate options there actually are--which leads one to conclude uneasily that there aren't any legitimate options available.
Chandler brings up that the IBBC in The International is a omniscient and omnipresent entity in the film. This is true and brings up man different points about international business.
ReplyDeleteClive can not bring in the assassin, because the bank would not allow it. Clive can not simply kill the head of the IBBC, there will be plenty of bankers to take his place. Nothing will bring the IBBC or any other bank down because the film shows, like Chandler said, these banks as too big to fail. It is not politics that rule the world, it is the economic powers that rule politics and thus the world. It has been that way in England at least since the hundred years war.
The film does this in a very entertaining way. Not exactly a full on globe trotter, we still get a feeling these events are happening in important places. A sleuth thriller. Most Hollywood films let you walk away from a movie such as this with a grin on your face, and the shoot out scene did do that a bit. However, The International left you and Clive at a point of exhaustion. This movie, like Syriana, has its moments to tell the audience what is up in terms of global banking and debt.
Control the debt, control the world. Plus the film reiterates from Syriana how the rules and laws are in effect so that big companies can get away with crimes such as these. This is its statement about globalization. Though the IBBC dealt with large deals from other big money interests, no one was exempt from the banks scope. Everyone has debt and someone needs to control it. Though controlling a country's dept is bigger than a single person's, everyone is controlled by the economy that system creates.