Michael and I went to see this at a late show last night – kind of crazy considering the time change and since there is no such thing as sleeping in at this house…

I was surprised it was still playing after about three weeks here (and in a regular cineplex), but for sure it won ‘t be after this weekend. When we walked in, we were the only people in the theater, joined a few minutes later by three others. Private showing.

It was pretty good, although when you read this fact-behind-the-fiction page, you see how, as is always the case, "dramatic purposes" reigned over reality in the construction of the film.

Chris Cooper was very good, as usual, and acted circles around poor Ryan Philippe, whose attempt to do greenhorn-under-pressure just sort of simmered. You just couldn’t see any wheels turning as he supposedly figured out ways to outsmart Hanssen.

The fundamental question with the Hanssen case in reality and in the film is, of course, "Why?" in this, the most extreme Double Life that could be imagined. The film (wisely,  I think) doesn’t make that issue the central one. (Instead, the focus is on the Philippe character, who is not even an Agent, and is brought in to distract/work on Hanssen, enabling the acquisition of evidence, like files from his PDA, etc. It works, as through the first act of the film, we see Philippe, first totally daunted by Hanssen, and then, gradually coming to believe that he was a stand-up (although not likeable) guy…and then having that illusion shattered.)

I say it was wise not to fixate on motivation because despite various theories (Hanssen was resentful, felt undervalued, money, had an abusive father…etc) no one has really ever been able to explain or understand "why" this externally uber-devout Catholic turned out to be the worst double-agent in FBI history (not to mention the sexual deviance, as well). To its credit, the film, while definitely highlighting the Catholic content (when’s the last time you saw a copy of The Catechism of the Catholic Church in a movie?), doesn’t do the cheap trick of suggesting that Hanssen’s duplicity and criminality was somehow "caused" by his purported religious faith. (Hanssen was a convert, by the way).  There is actually one point of the case which could have been brought in to add to the spiritual mix, but wasn’t – and this was a point, if you recall, that was the subject of much of the religious discussion of this case at the time – the fact that Hanssen’s wife had, indeed, back in 1979, had found $10,000 in their home. Hanssen had confessed to her to selling secrets for that money and she’d told him to go to Confession. From that point there were a few complications, including the confessor apparently telling Hanssen that if he gave the money to charity (and, we can assume, had firm purpose of amendment not to repeat), that his penance would be complete.  I suppose that would have added another complicating layer to what was a focused, taught, film.

There are a couple of speeches near the end that seemed designed to dramatize the mystery of the motivation question, moments in which O’Neil (Philippe) and then Hanssen himself says, "Who knows why someone does something like this?" …al that matters is that it was done. It’s a mystery, for sure.

Michael noted that he felt that one of the film’s minor themes was to establish Hanssen as almost a prophetic figure, albeit a negative one, as he makes several speeches, in this moments that, we are continually reminded, are occurring in 2001, about the intelligence agency culture, about the unnecessary bureaucracy and competition between branches.

The very last scene is quite haunting..but alas, didn’t happen. Ah well. Such is life. Or not, actually.

Update:

Cacciaguida (who knew the Hanssens) has a great post on the film.