I just saw David Mamet’s new thriller, Spartan. I enjoyed it immensely.
However, after reading a few reviews, I suspect I may have missed something; reviews consistently speak of surprise plot twists, in the sense that the film plays with the viewer’s head: “Using simplicity as another form of deception, Mamet lays out a hand of three-card monte for the audience to see, then tricks it into guessing falsely” (Onion AV Club); “We are soon in the land of twists and crosses and double-crosses and double-double-crosses and triple-half-gainer-back-flip crosses (with a twist)” (Slate), etc.
Certainly the main character executes a few deceptions – against the man at the night club, against the sex-slave ringleader, etc. – but the audience is aware of these games. In short, I didn’t find anything to surprise me in this film. As far as I could tell, it went: Girl is kidnapped, authorities stage fake death to mask circumstances of said kidnapping, man rescues girl, authorites welcome her back. Aside from the details of the bad-guy deception, is there anything I left out?
I’m puzzled by the newsreader’s speech at the end of the film; he says the administration was “forced by this terrible abduction to capitalize on the drowning deaths … of those two people sailing” (and, adds another commentator, “thank God they had that ability”). This remark makes no sense to me; in particular the use of the word “capitalize” – which to me sounds more like an indictment than an explanation – and what’s the bit about “that ability” supposed to mean?
And finally, who is that British man (“Time to go home”) next to Kilmer in London? Where is “home”? He could be talking about home in a specific sense (ie., the safehouse or whever Kilmer was staying), or general (ie., home to the US, back to work, as it were). As far as I can see, Kilmer would still be considered a rogue agent by the conspirators, a man who knows too much. Hence, I suppose, the new beard.