Unclear and Present Danger - Ronin

Episode Date: October 27, 2026

On this week’s episode of Unclear and Present Danger, Jamelle and John watched Ronin, John Frankenheimer’s 1998 action masterpiece starring Robert De Niro, Jean Reno, Natascha McElhone, Stellan Skarsgard, Sean Bean and Jonathan Pryce, among many others. In Ronin, De Niro plays “Sam,” a CIA agent working undercover as an ex-CIA turned mercenary. He joins with a group of mercenaries to assist an IRA operation. When that operation goes sideways, Sam must work with the few people he trusts to accomplish his mission and get out alive.In the episode, we gush over the film — which is a personal favorite for us both — and talk about the film as a direct metaphor for that particular moment in geopolitical history. Episodes come out roughly every two weeks, so join us next time for Shot Through the Heart, a television movie about two childhood friends who end up on opposing sides in the civil war in Sarajevo. You can find it to watch on YouTube.And don’t forget our Patreon shows which you can find at patreon.com/unclearpod.

Do you ever kill anybody? I heard somebody's feelings once. Five professionals. Oh, I know you. I don't think so. There's a small world. Not in my experience. Hired for a mission.

This is what we're after. To recover a package. We need to take it intact from several men who will be intent on preventing us. Nice. My kind of job. That some are willing to die for. Relax, darling. Just a game. Could you take a picture of Vee?

and my wife get the background. Guy goes for the case, other guy's protecting the principal. Oh, they're good. And everyone is willing to kill for. I want $100,000, I want it up front, I want another $100,000 when you get the case. All good things come to those who wait. Target is all the way.

We've gotten the word. We're moving. Come on, let's go. You don't want to go in there. Get out of here. Walk away. Walk away. How did you know it was in Angush?

That's the first thing they teach you. Who told you? I don't remember. There's a second big of teaching. The girl sold this out. We're following the wrong people. From director John Frankenheimer. Robert De Niro, Jean Reno, Natasha McElhone,

Stellan Scarsguard, Sean Bean, and Jonathan Price. I won't hurt you. Ronan. You're at about seven years old skit? Yeah, I am. That was my body. Hello and welcome to Unclear and Present Danger, the podcast about the political military thrillers at the 1919.

and what they say about the politics of that decade. I'm Jamel Bowie. I'm a columnist for the New York Times opinion section. I'm John Gans. I write the substack newsletter on Popular Front. And I'm the author of When the Clock Broke, Conmen, Conspiracists, and how America cracked up in the early 1990s. Out in paperback, wherever good books are sold. On this week's episode of the podcast, we are returning to a film.

We did this for a live show a couple years ago. returning to a film, John Frankenheimer's 1998 action thriller, Ronan. John Frankenheimer being the famous director, I'd say responsible for a string of classic films, all of some of which we've covered on this podcast, but we'll go through a few of them. The Bird Band of Alcatraz in 1962, the Manchurian candidate in 1962, seven days in May in 64, the train in 64, seconds in 66, Grand Prix, also in 66. a grand prix movie that has a lot in common with ronan and that it's a car movie very much the ice man cometh in 73 is another solid frankenheimer picture he did the sequel to the

friends connection which is actually pretty decent black sunday a movie we covered on our patreon uh the fourth war our movie we covered on this podcast and the year of the gun which did we cover on the patreon or on this podcast we covered it because it's the one that takes place in Italy. Oh, yes. I think on the Patreon. Yeah, I think it may be because it was a 10 one. I don't know, because it was an 80s movie, right? 91, but I think because we missed it or something. We went back. Yeah. I don't know. We definitely covered it. Now, I remember it. Yeah. Ronin is not Frankenheimer's last movie. His last movie would be reindeer games in 2000. He dies in 2002 of a stroke following a surgery and sad passing.

But Ronan probably is his late great, his late great kind of feature, like the kind of a return to form of his best work. He did a lot of work in television. I think it's worth mentioning some of the television movies because they're all actually pretty good. There's a Rainmaker in 1982, which is a remake of a 1956 Western. There's Against the Wall from 94, which is a fictionalized account of the Attica Prison Riot in 1971. That's a great movie. It's stars Samuel Jackson and Kyle McLaughlin. I have not seen that. It's very good. Andersonville in 96, a movie he did for T&T about the Confederate prison, Andersonville. Have you seen that, Jamel? I have not seen this. I am shocked.

I'm looking for, I need to find a DVD of it. Yeah. But he did another historical picture. The following year, George Wallace, which I do own on DVD. It's a three-hour biography, biographical film, biopic, of George Wallace starring Gary Sinise. That is very good. And then his last, maybe his last feature was another HBO film, Path to War,

which is about the Lyndon Johnson administration in the Vietnam War. With Michael Gambon as LBJ, Alex Baldwin, as McNamara, Don Sutherland. Donald is Clark Clifford.

Bruce McGill is George Ball. I mean, it's good. Yeah, it's good. It's really good. Philip Baker Hall is at Eric Dirkson, which is fun. Yeah. Good movie. Highly recommend it.

So Frankenheimer has done a lot. I think he's one of the great mid-century directors. And Ronan is just sort of, it's, it's peak. It's sort of like everything he does well in one package. Ronan is an ensemble cast. It stars Robert De Niro, Jean Reno, Natasha. How do you say your last name? McKelleny.

McElheny. Yeah. I think it's something like that. Stellan Scarsgaard, Sean Bean, and Jonathan Price, as well as a bunch of other great actors like Michael Lonsdale, who plays one of Vincent's friends and who creates miniatures. Lonsdale played the chief police officer in The Day of the Jackal. Roiden was shot by Robert Frazy for C. It appears to be a French cinematographer, but who has worked with a lot of interesting directors and done some great work, such as in seven years in Tibet, an okay movie, but a very good looking one. Hotel Rwanda in 2004, the notebook also in 2004.

A lot of good work. And music is by Elia Camero, Samuro, Samuro, who, scored Ronan was actually early work for him. He scored a lot of movies. Some of them good, some of them quite bad. A more recent good one is not on the list, unfortunately.

So scored a lot of forgettable movies, but I think the score for this movie's correct. Didn't David Mamet write this movie, kind of? Did he? Yeah. So there was, there's a slight controversy about that. He was brought in to rewrite the script. and then at one point,

Frankenheimer said he did most of it, not J.D. Zike, and then later he said, no, he deserves credit for it. So he kind of took it back. But I think that Mamet worked extensively to rewrite the script. It doesn't feel very mammoty, but

No, not really. In a couple moments, it does, but I know what you mean. Yeah. Yeah. So, we're going to do a quick plot synopsis. The thing about Ronan is, I don't think of this is a very plotty movie. And in fact, I'm not even sure the plot makes that much sense. Like, this is a movie that's all about the experience.

Yeah. It's a very kinetic film, but we're going to try to get through the plot real quick. The film begins at a Bishro in Paris where an IRA operative Deirdre meets with two Americans, Sam, that is Robert Jr.'s character. And Larry, as well as a Frenchman, Vincent, is John Renault. She takes them to, warehouse where Spence and Gregor are waiting. This is an Englishman and a German. And you learn, based on conversations that these men are mercenaries and that they've been gathered together for a mission. The mission is to attack a convoy and steal a large metallic briefcase.

We don't know what's in the briefcase. You never told what's in the briefcase. But we just know that their mission is to steal this briefcase. And so we get some scenes of them. pairing to do this. They, kind of our first big action scene is they have to get some firearms. It turns to an ambush. They survive.

They get the weapons. We meet Seamus O'Rourke, who is Deirdre's Handler. This is Jonathan Price's character. And he tells you that the Russian mafia also wants the briefcase and is trying to get it. Spence, the Englishman, is exposed as a fraud. This is the, what are the colors of the, what are the colors of the boat, the shed, and Hereford scene. And he is dismissed.

So Sean Bean leaves the movie. He's not killed. So good for Sean Bean. So the team successfully ambushes the convoy. But during the gunfight, Gregor, the Sistall and Scarscarat character steals the briefcase and replaces it with explosives and attempt to sabotage to the others. He attempts to sell it to the Russians, but his contact betrays him and Gregor kills the contact and then contacts the Russians again in order to get another meeting.

They confront two of the Russians. There is a shootout. Sam is injured in this shootout. Seamus ends up killing Larry and escapes with Deut. Deirdre and Greger. This is where we go to the villa, where we meet. Vincent's Sam go to this villa. They meet Vincent's friend Jean-Rierre.

And Jean-Pierre helps them find Greger and the Irish operatives. We return to Paris where there is another high-speed chase. There's multiple chases. This is the second one in the film. Sam and Vincent end up tracking down the Russians to a finger-skating show where there is a final confrontation. The Russian kills Gregor, who is there trying to get, trying to self a case. They kill the Russians.

Seamus is killed. And we learn that Sam was not actually a mercenary, but was, is still with the CIA. And he's actually after Seamus. The Seamus is killed in the final confrontation by Vincent. And the film ends with Sam and Vincent back in the beach show where they first met. We learn that the British government in Sinfein had achieved a peace agreement as a result of Seamus's death. Sam keeps looking to see if Deirdre will come back, but she does not. Sam and Vincent shake hands and part waves.

And that's the film. Vincent asks what's in the case. Sam says he doesn't know. He doesn't remember. And that's the movie. But like I said, I've seen this now four times this past time I watched with the director's commentary. And I really, I really think the plot does not matter in this movie whatsoever. Not so much.

It's not really that compelling. It's all performance and like kinetic action. That's what's driving this movie. That's what I think makes it so compelling. Ronan was, did fine at the box office. It was very well received. It was very well received by critics, but as far as the box-up performance, it was the second highest-grossing film in the U.S. during its opening weekend, but it did not grow all that further and ended up doing just okay. But its reputation has very much grown over the years as one of the great pieces of 90s action cinema.

the tagline for Ronan was your ally could become your enemy. Some fun facts about the movie. 80 cars will destroy during the filming in this movie. Nice. That is, that's cool as hell. So the director's commentary is really instructive. I learned that all of us, so normally when they do chases in movies, it's like simulated speed.

They film in such a way as to create the sensation that they're going very fast. Not this movie. They are genuinely driving that fast. Yeah, you feel it. Yeah, you feel it. And those scenes in the last chase where Robert Jeniro looks like he's about to have a panic attack, that is in fact because he is going like 80 miles per hour in a car through city streets. Ronan was released in the United States on September 25th, 1998.

So let's check out the New York Times for that day. And like then, we were right before a midterm election. Poll finds Clinton in strong rebound since video airing. Congress's rating falls, but GOP use of strategy of confrontation is popular with its core voters. President Clinton's standing with Americans has rebounded broadly in the days since the release of his videotaped testimony before a grand jury. And in fact, there are stories of a backlash against Republican-controlled Congress and the House Traditionary Committee itself, as it presses. forward with the impeachment inquiry, the latest New York Times, CBS News poll. By a clear majority, Americans said they disapproved of how the Judiciary Committee had handled the matter, while committee

members said they released the video for the public's benefit. Seventy-eight percent of Americans, and 65 percent of Republicans said it should have never been released. We were talking just last week on our politics podcast about the few times where an incumbent party or a party with the presidency has a decent midterm election, and you pointed in 1998 because of the overreach of the impeachment hearings, and here it is. It's pretty remarkable. Pretty big blunder that they went too far, but I guess it was kind of for their own voters. Lawyers for Jones and Clinton are seeking to settle lawsuit. Lawyers for Paula Corbyn Jones and President Clinton said today that they engaged in serious discussions about reaching a financial settlement to end her sexual

Ms. Connock lawsuit, which set off the events that led to the possible impeachment action against Mr. Clinton that is now before Congress. What else do we have here? New Delhi pledges to sign world ban on nuclear tests. India joined Pakistan today and announced it is prepared to sign the international treaty banning nuclear testing within the next year, but said it was still discussing details with Washington. Prime Minister Atul Bahari Vajpa, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, said India has satisfied its security concerns with its nuclear test in May and is ready to cooperate and bringing the comprehensive test ban treaty to force. As far as I know that they've abided by the controversial test ban treaty and have not tested a weapon since.

Iran drops Rishi death threat and Britain renews Tehran ties. Uranian foreign minister, public deforses government today from the death threat imposed on the British author Salman Rushdie in 1989 by Ayatollah Hohala Khomeini and Britain responded by restoring full diplomatic relations. The government of the Islamic Republican Iran has no intention, nor is it ever going to take any action whatsoever to threaten the life of the author of satanic forces or anybody associated worth it work, nor will it encourage or assist anybody to do so. Be that as it may, just a couple years ago, I believe Salman Rushdie was attacked by somebody and nearly lost his life, and I think lost.

and I. For a long time, Salman Rushdie had a security detail, which was dropped because it seemed as if the threat had subsided, but then he was attacked. This is an interesting story I was just reading about because I was reading a lot about the economic history of the 1990s for a piece I was working on. Hedge fund bailout rattles investors and markets. The 3.5 billion rescue of a big risky investment fund verging on the collapse and nerve markets around the world today, raised a claimer for a

government investigation created fear that other enormous hidden losses might become evident in the weeks and months ahead. Rather than contain the problem and bring stability to Wall Street, the cash infused in late Wednesday by a consortion of banks and brokerage forms to salvage long-term capital management LP only seem to rattle investors. Banks began to tie lending requirements to other investment funds raising fears of credit shortage. United States stocks fell broadly with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing more than half. It's 257.21 point game. on Wednesday, shares of financial stocks were particularly hard hit. Long-term capital, with a portfolio worth 90 billion, which is a lot of money, and especially a lot of money in 1998, is one of the best

known hedge funds, financial investments that cater to the rich and make big and often risky investment bets on the hope of spectacular returns. The recent turmoil and financial bargains, particularly the collapse in Russia, led to staggering losses for long-term capital. This was a little, I mean, the structure was a little different, but it was a little bit of a sign of things to come in 2008. It was a massive, a massive catastrophe, almost a massive catastrophe that was contained by the Fed stepping in ultimately. And it was made, I don't, I forget exactly what the strategy was, but it was two Nobel Prize. laureates and economics built the model on which the fund worked. And it had a fatal assumption that failed and almost brought down the entire economy.

And this is when people kind of learned what hedge funds were. Yeah. I think that's about it. Anything else you want to look at? Yeah. I don't, I mean, there's interesting stuff here. Black and Hispanic poverty falls reducing overall rate for the nation. This is, you know, the 90s economic expansion was very much rising tide, lift all, lifts, all boats for the situation.

Even if some of that was unevenly distributed, there's still like a meaningful decline in poverty during the decade. Something that seemed to validate kind of the idea that you could retrench away from state investment and just focus on generating economic growth. But what happens when the economic growth goes away? Yeah. is the issue. Yeah. So, Ronan, we've both seen this movie a budge. So how about I ask, and we've talked about it for the show kind of technically,

but let me just ask to start. What actually is your overall history with this movie, John? Oh, well, I saw this movie in theaters with my dad and I loved it. I thought it was just incredibly good. Like, I love the atmosphere, the quiet parts of the movie. I, the car chases were incredible. And I've kind of, I had not seen a movie with better car chases and I, and I don't think there is one.

I haven't seen one since. I mean, Bowett has great car chases, but I think that nothing really comes close to the car chases of this movie. They're awesome. So yeah, as a, as a 12 year old, I guess, I love this film. And I still do. I mean, I think it's just one of the best action thrillers really ever made. And we had a great.

turn out when we show this film in New York City and a great discussion about it. And yeah, I pretty much enjoyed every time I watch it, even though I've seen it, I would say, close to half a dozen times, maybe even more. So yeah, I mean, it's a terrific movie. It's got it, you know, it almost, I mean, look, there were a lot of great movies in the 90s, but this one kind of even looks back to an earlier era of films. it's just sometimes Hollywood can really create a good product. I know it's boring and we say this all the time,

but they really do not make movies like this anymore and I don't expect them to. Also, I mean, Frankenheimer is a special talent. This is a genre movie, but it's made by a top rank director. So it's a little different than just, you know, your average thrillers. Frankenheimer is a real master. In terms of the messages of the movie or the politics of it, I mean, the movie is about the kind of loss of direction. I mean, it is kind of the most unclear and present danger of the movies. And I think there's a reason why we chose it for one of our live events is that it really shows a sense of kind of aimlessness and uncertainty and loss of meaning in the post-cold war world.

all the characters in the movie are implied, or we know that they are part of intelligence organizations on either side of the divide in the Cold War. Now they're unemployed. They're taking on mercenary work. The political conflicts that exist are by kind of rogue elements of terrorist groups. So it's kind of a splintered, and they're all thrown to the wind or the waves. As a Ronen, of course, as you will know, I'm sure, as a masterless samurai. I think it means wave man, someone who's sort of like a cast adrift. It's a very appealing atmosphere for a movie to be put in that kind of seedy world of post-Cold War, you know, mercenaries, intelligence mercenaries. As it turns out, you know, what the movie has a kind of surprise.

It's not a twist or surprise, but as it turns out, Robert De Niro's character is still employed by the CIA. He was undercover. So the movie, I think we argued during our talk about it, that the movie had a ambivalent message or had a reassuring message about the post-Cold War world, which was basically, look, someone is still out there taking care of it. It's not totally a free for all. Responsible people, Robert De Niro, competent people are still out there, you know, keeping the world safe. It's also interesting, my dad pointed this out to me that Jean Rineau's character obviously kind of like has this admiration for Robert De Niro's character. He has this kind of like, oh, this guy's really cool. This guy's the grizzled veteran.

but he pointed out that Renault is the one who's actually a Ronan, who's actually an unemployed, who actually lives by his wits. And De Niro is supported by all, you know, still has the backing of the United States government. So, yeah, it is a, it's a fascinating movie in terms of the feeling gets. And, you know, the movie also kind of makes clear that although it's post-Cold War, most of the people who are on the other side of Cold War are still the bad guys. So it's the guy who was a former like Stasi guy is a bad guy. Everybody who was a Russian is a bad guy in the movie.

Like the East-Western divide kind of continues through the movie. And that's a, but there are also impostors. So yeah, it's an interesting and ambiguous, uncertain world that the movie is the picks. And then kind of implies that there's still. still a structure, although, you know, not all the, at the end, the character's lives are uncertain. Jean Renaud's life is uncertain. You know, the romantic relationship between Robert Deirdre does not continue. She doesn't come and join them.

It kind of has a melancholy ending, which was supposed to be even more disturbing. The original ending is- She got kidnapped or by the RRA. Right, yeah. She's kidnapped by the RRA and the strong implications that she's killed. apparently they tested this with audiences and audiences for like, like, don't like it. Yeah, I mean, that does. I mean, the thing about, you know what's other about this?

And I, if it, there is a grimness about this movie, which I think makes it satisfying good. But it is rough. I mean, like, they just fucking machine gun, like, how many innocent bystanders get whacked in this movie? Like, people get hit by cars. They just get blown away by machine guns. They're just like shooting willy-nilly into crowds.

it's really, really like very violent and very nihilistic about where the violence ends up. The violence is quite matter of fact. This is what was really useful about the director's commentary. Frankenheimer was saying that he does not like just aesthetically violence that lingers. It makes it uncomfortable. He doesn't prefer it. But also that in real life, violence isn't doesn't linger. It's not, there isn't slow mo, right?

there isn't there isn't like a sense of you know you know you're in some dramatic thing it just happens um and it happens quickly right right right right and so i think he's he says that throughout the film he's trying to show that that when the gun fights happen the car everything it happens quickly it's not even necessarily telegraphed and then it concludes um and i think yeah i think you i think that that that feels nihilistic like it in a lot of ways it empties the violence of any of moral content. It's just sort of like, it's just almost like a random thing that happens. Obviously, in the context of a film, we know who's shooting.

We know what the characters are. And actually, the gunfights are just, I mean, the car chases are why this movie stands out. But the gunfights are exceptionally well done. But I think what Frankenheimer is going for is just the sort of the suddenness of this kind of extreme violence. So that, you know, when the Stellan Scars Guard character gets killed, it's not there's not like it's very brief it's just sort of the he looks at the russian

mobster the mobster looks to him and then he gets shot and it happens instantly um i think it's very effective i wanted to say a couple things first as you know it's interesting right that the the to the sense that there's like organized institutions in this movie it is the IRA and russian mobsters and so here we have on the one hand a representation of like post-cold war nationalism, the rise of the national movements, usually in Eastern Europe, but still national movements around the world trying to

establish for themselves authority and power. And then on the other end, we have the other the one path the former Soviet Union took, which the emergence of this oligarch class, this criminal gangster class that had a lot of control and still does power over the Russian state. And

just those being the two institutions, antagonists of sort, I think really does mark this as a movie of its particular age and era. The fact that it takes place mostly in France, I think, has significance too. So a European nation, one that obviously part of the NATO alliance, but one that also, you know, the French see themselves as like leaders of Europe as sort of a continental. power. And it's taking place in this France that feels a bit faded from that in the wake of the Cold War. Frankenheimer mentions that the chemical process they use for doing the film enhanced the blacks, which had the effect of lowering the vibrancy of the entire film. So there isn't as much, there's not really pops of color in this movie. It's actually quite drab throughout. It looks great. I mean, I watched the 4K release from last

year or two years ago. It's a phenomenal looking film, but it also isn't bright and colorful. And that also adds to the overall vibe. Your friend Max Reed coined that term Nokia Wave. Yeah. And this movie is basically like a Nokia Wave. Yeah. It's like an encapsulation of what Nokia Wave is. It doesn't have so much of the electronic element of it. It's got a few gadgets. There's a few gadgets. But yeah. It's more kind of the drabness. Yeah. The East kind of an almost eastern European drabness, despite the right for that takes place in France, that I think really marks it in this sort of microgenre. Yeah.

Yeah. And it's a great microgenre. I mean, I don't know if it's pure nostalgia that attracts me to it, but I love the aesthetic. Yeah, I mean, the violence is very matter of fact and perfunctory. And yeah, well, yeah, okay. So we have the two options. Either the kind of nationalist terrorist groups or, yeah, the rise of Russian criminal gangs. But ultimately, like, the issue gets solved.

I think the movie implies that there's like, this is right before like Good Friday Agreement type stuff happened. So the movie ends, I think, with a news broadcast saying that like peace talks, there was a peace talks between Sinn Féin and the British government. And like, I think that the movie strongly implies that this is kind of some IRA break. IRA breakaway faction that's attempting to get some kind of bomb in order to disrupt the peace talks. And basically, this movie allows the intervention of the CIA allows the peace talks to continue. Again, situating it in a much different world than we live in where like it seemed, I mean, there was an optimistic moment in the 90s when post-Cold War, it kind of seemed like maybe every conflict can be solved. There was looked like there was, it didn't really work out, but it looked like there was, you know, going to be some progress on Israeli-Palestinian issues.

And obviously the Good Friday Agreement happens, which was a huge breakthrough. And it, it was a time where like peacemaking seemed like an actual possibility. And like, you know, the United States, or at least the liberal conception of the United States, which I'm sure, you know, Frankenheimer is a kind of, I would say has a very liberal. not in a pejorative way outlook in his films going back to a Manchurian candidate. He's a national security liberal. He's like, you know, like we have to

America, like, it's the jingoistic hawks who are actually betraying the United States. It's us smart liberals who are the real patriots. That's kind of the Frankenheimer vibe, I would say. Yeah, I think that's right. I mean, let me add, to that. Yeah. It's,

like, Frankenheimer does not shy away. he doesn't shy away from the idea that violence is necessary. Right? Like to maintain a kind of proper global order, an orderly world, hospitable to the values that he supports, violence is necessary. But I mean,

the thing about the violence is, even though De Niro's character is super cool, Jabrano's character is super cool. It's like the violence is still ugly. still not, it's not glamorous. You know, doing this doesn't make you a hero. It makes you, you're doing a necessary job. In Black Sunday, which we watched, we did like last year, really, I think captures this

exact element of Frankenheimer's worldview. That, you know, this is, all of this is necessary, but that does not make it glamorous. It does not make it necessarily heroic. It just means it's a job that must be done. Yes. with a certain grim determination. I mean, yeah, the mature, I think he found, like, from what I've read, his, his, his defining moment is, you know, is McCarthyism.

And obviously that's in the background of the maturing candidate. So the maturing candidate is an anti-McCarthy movie, which makes the bold suggestion that perhaps the McCarthyites are the ones who are secretly working for the communists. and that's, you know, it's not exactly present in the same way in Ronan, but there's a, I think there's kind of a hope in this film that the United States can continue to serve as a order preserving force in the world. And things are not just going to be gang, criminal gangs or nationalisms, the two, the two kind of things that have filled the gap in the post-historical, post-historical,

ideological moment. But as it turns, I think, but I think that that's what makes the movie, I mean, like, in terms of just, oh, just the movie and a filmmaking quality is really just very fine. But I do think that some of the nostalgic pleasure that I get from it, I have to admit, does come from that kind of cozy feeling that, okay, the world appears to be kind of going to shit, but, you know, there will be a rescue, you know, there are like forces working for towards peace and order and, you know, the American way, essentially. And that is kind of reassuring, although, you know, that's not really how things turned out. So, yeah, I would say that this is like, we've watched films that are very bleak about what's

going to happen in the post-Cold War moment. We've watched films that are very optimistic about what's going to happen. And this film is sort of like grimly, like, it, we'll carry on. Like we'll, yeah, we'll get the job done and we'll do what needs to be done. Yeah. And I mean, you see, I'll say you see in the film, like the De Niro's character as the American, who we know has, is actually still working for the CIA.

Right. Like, he's, he's the character who's trying as much as possible to keep, to keep the group from, like, falling into just sort of like petty criminality. Right. He's like, we have a job to do. We have to do it. Do it professionally. Right.

Also, he's not for nothing. You know, De Niro's. middle aged in this movie. Like this movie is not about, this movie is very much about older men and the means of their lives. Not, it's, it's for middle aged men.

I mean, it shows that you can still kick ass when you're middle age. But yeah, I think De Niro was around 50 when he, when he made this movie. And yeah, because it was like 30 years ago. He's,

yeah. So, you know, it is a movie not about youth. It's a movie about the continued, meaning of life for people whose career, who maybe the height of their careers are behind them. I'm sure that was something that was on Frankenhire's mind as he was ending his career. Interesting, it was written by a very young man, but it was revised by Mamet,

who was also in middle age at that time. So I think this movie sort of has the concerns of a late director or, you know, in it, where it's kind of wondering what one's life means as the world changes around you. And basically he pulls it off in art. Like Frankenheimer's like, yep, can still do that. Maybe better than ever. Like, I mean, I honestly think this is one of his best films. Like, like, matured can't obviously like you don't want to take away.

People are by. I mean, like there is a bias, of course, to a great director's early films. And, you know, I can't take anything away from Manchuring Canada. You can't really take away for anything in the train. Got a lot of great films. But maybe I've never actually seen the Burmander Alcatraz, but I know it's, is considered to be a classic. But for sheer enjoyment,

would I rather watch this or the Maturian candidate? Yeah. Kind of this, you know? I mean, this, this movie is Frankenheimer successfully adapting. Yeah. Like movies have changed. Like the blockbuster has changed. Yeah.

And so he's like he's merging his sensibility and his skill, right? Like his skill for cutting action, his skill for spatial geography, all these things with a more modern sensibility about about blockbusters. And it's like it's like explosive. It's something that is really, again, it stands out in the decade. It's funny. I mean, if you think of this as reindeer games, again, is his final film. Well, Pat, the War is.

Rainier Games is this final theatrically release film. but if you think of this as really kind of a capstone to his career, it's like, it's kind of interesting to put it in conversation with his other movies, right? Like other movies that are about the obligations of middle-aged men, which is a common thing, seven days in May, right? Kirk Douglas' character is like a middle-aged army officer. And his antagonist is another middle-aged army officer,

Bert Lancaster's character. in in the train, Bert Lancaster's character is like a middle, a middle age train conductor. Sort of what, when, when you are met with these challenges, and not,

you're not in the end of your life, but like you're at the beginning of the end of your life. How do you, how do you, how do you face them? What do you do and what kind of, um, what resources do you have in yourself to,

to address them? The fourth war, which is like a fine movie, but is about like that same thing from like almost a negative perspective. Like what happens when like you're unable to simply like let go of your ego? And it can potentially escalate to something quite dangerous. But he this is like a common concern. And I think Ronan's very much a part of that as well.

There's an interesting thing too. I don't know. The scene with Sean Bean and De Niro is funny to me because you could almost read it as a commentary on directors of the time. Yeah. Where Sean Bean represents sort of like the younger Calo director. Yeah, yeah. Who doesn't know anything. Right.

And De Niro being the steady, the middle-aged steady hand, who still has a lot of tricks up his sleeves. And I'll say I also, like, there is this phenomenon of like late career directors just like coming out of nowhere almost to do some of their best work. The thing that really comes to mind for me is George Miller. Mad Max Fury Road, which is a movie he does when he's in his 60s, late 60s, early 70s, and is, I mean, kind of creates a whole new visual language for action movies. Somewhat out of nowhere. And I find, I think that's, I think it is, I don't know, I think it's interesting when that happens. And I have no explanation for why it happens other than maybe the combination of skill.

and talent and just sort of like right place, right time kind of deal. Yeah, I mean, also this movie, which I liked even when I was young, because of it's, I think it contributed to his realism. It's pretty like, except for one missile launcher scene. It's pretty like light on the visual effects. Yeah. And it's like more about the kinetic qualities of movie than big. Like this was an era of like big red explosions in films and action movies,

which I kind of hate and like I think are really tacky. And this movie, for the most part, avoids that. And like, yeah. I mean, I, you know, I'll say they can't, they can be tacky. But we're at a, we're at a point right now where you're lucky to get a real explosion in a movie. Yeah. And so these days when I see a real explosion, I'm like, well, at least it's like a. Yeah, true.

At least they blew something up for real. But there was a pirate, there was like a wave of pyro techniques that was just like everything was like a bright red orange ball of fire instead of like what bombs actually look like. Oh, yeah. Yeah, which, which was which bug me. And this movie for the most part does not do the, I don't know, what do you want to call that is like Michael Bay aesthetics or something like that. I would call it.

I would call it Jerry Bruckheimer. Yeah, okay, fair enough. Jerry Bruckheimer aesthetics. Yeah. So this movie and I think that that's what made it so feel so. I mean, frankly, it's strange to say this action movie, but it's like, this movie has great taste. Like the styles, the costumes are amazing.

The cars are great. It's low key in the places where it needs to be low key. It's just like it's a person who's really, everyone who did this movie is just really confident in what they do and how they do it. And it just, it does not. Yeah, it's just like, okay, Hollywood had style. And it, of course, it can produce really tacky shit, but it can also produce very stylish, cool things. and does it really do that very much anymore? No, things that have a sense of style or a sense of restraint in its aesthetics.

You see those more in indie things. Like, in fact, what's going on in a lot of Hollywood movies is they have like zero aesthetic. Like, they have no recognizable style. And I find that to be kind of sad, obviously. But, you know, again, And this is a person from kind of not old Hollywood, old Hollywood, but from a previous era of Hollywood, like putting all the resources of modern Hollywood to work. But with a lot of mastery gleaned from another time. Right.

I mean, it's interesting to think of Frankenheimer because he's not a new Hollywood guy. Like he's still, the studio system still exists when he comes up. He's like in that kind of that space between the collapse of the studio system and the rise of new Hollywood. Right. Where you had, you know, I mean, this is the 60s where you had a lot of. directors who came up the old ways and were in a more elusening system, but still one that had a set of constraints. Sure.

And Frankenheimer, like a similar director, I'd say, Sydney Lumet, or William, William Friedkin's a bit new Hollywoody. Yeah. But you can see the continuity between a Frankenheimer and a Friedkin. Sure. Like, Freedkins, like, in a lot of, to me, Freedkins, like, if Frankenheimer were just like a bigger sicko, you would get William Friedkin. Yeah, true.

I think that that that yeah, Freak is more of a flamboyant character and more. I think like he wasn't, he wasn't new Hollywood, but he was kind of like happy that it came along because it freed him to do a lot of things that he wanted to do anyway. And Frank and Heimer was not, no knock against him,

but like way more conventional. Right, right. Not as, not yet. So, but yeah, I mean, it just shows you can do a lot with conventions.

You can be a great artist within pretty narrow conventions. I mean, this movie is not breaking any. I mean, it, it is so formulaic in a certain way that it even uses a McGuffin. Like, it is almost kind of contrived in the way it builds a plot. It's that much of a genre movie that it is almost, you want to say, like, if it was a lesser director, you'd look at these plot points and you look at the way it was constructed, you look at the characters and what the characters were supposed to represent, and you say, like, that is, that is cliched. But, yeah. it's like there's a fine line.

If you actually know what you're doing, you can make things that are cliche to actually just appear really classic and timeless. And that's what this movie manages to do. Like it's, it's just uses genre conventions in a way where it's like, well, we're going to do that so we don't have to in an elegant way where it's like, okay,

that's taken care of. So now we're going to focus on making this movie kind of perfect. I was just about to say that. Like you can use genre as basically a way to, a form of almost delegation. And for the audience, you know how these kind of movies work. So we're going to, instead of trying to walk you through something you may be unfamiliar with, we're just going to supercharge everything that you are familiar with.

Right. And I think that's very much what this movie does. Let me say, this is just a freaking point. You know, I recently rewatched to live and die in L.A. What a movie. I got to watch that. I've never actually finished. Oh, it's so fucking good, man.

It's so good. Highly recommend it. It's sort of it's it's it's it's it's like the scuminess of the French connection. Right. But like in glossy Hollywood. Oh, that sounds great. Yeah. Yeah.

Like it's if you merge Miami Vice with the French connection, you get to live and die in L.A. Yeah. Sounds pretty good. Yeah. It's a lot of fun. Yeah. I'm trying to think any any any any additional thoughts on on Roe No, I think that the basic idea of Ronan is there are not like we don't actually live in a world of Ronan, but now I guess we kind of do.

The movie is meant to kind of reassure its audiences in a certain strange way, although it is highly violent. And the story, like the story, okay, at one, and it's unclear the way this kind of fits into the plot because it's not about, well here's you can you can maybe do a kind of interpretation of it so at some point when he's with what's the guy's name Michael Lonsdale Michael Lonsdale character is making these little miniatures of Samurai and they're doing the story of the 47 Ronan now the story of the 407 Ronan is story of master of samurai whose master was unjustly forced to commit suicide and then they came together and avenged his death. So they were praised because they were for being ideal samurai because they were loyal to their Lord even after his death. So the 47 Ronan kind of like were not, were an exemplary tale because they did not become mercenaries.

They did not become bandits. It's, I believe that they also then committed suicide en masse after they accomplished the revenge. The story is about loyalty beyond, you know, the grave, beyond when the system that sustained you has ended. And it is not clear exactly how that applies because as we find out, it's kind of unless the plot implies that. De Niro returns to the CIA, but he says explicitly, I was never really out. But yeah. So the idea of loyalty continuing after the dissolution of the bonds, how does that relate to the plot? How does that, why is this supposed to be a potent metaphor?

It's not exactly clear to me. It's effective because it's a cool story and it's a cool moment in the film. But who are the 47 Ronan in the film? they are not suicidally idealistic. They're just continually to be employed. But I guess it's a metaphor about the continuation of meaning after the death of meaning. Something like that. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know. How do you think about it? I suppose, I mean, to me, to me, the thing that marks sort of the story of the characters at the very least is that, is that, Deirdre and Sam and John Renaud's character do develop this real bond. And it's the bond between De Niro and John Renaud's character

particularly that saves both of their lives. Right, right, right. And that's sort of the... Yeah, there's personal loyalties. Right. Those personal loyalties remain unbroken. Yeah. Or they develop and remain unbroken. Separate and apart from whatever loyalties they may have to an old master or to a mission or

whatever. That's what brings, that's like the emotional core of the film, the personal loyalty that develops. Yeah. No. And that's important because all of the characters that are evil in the movie are really self-oriented and don't kind of make friends. Like the movie is about making friends. The movie is about the movie, in a way it is because like Jean Reno and Robert De Niro foster real respect for each other. And so, do Natasha McDonnellone and Robert De Niro. Like they become, they learn to, it sounds really tacky and corny, but they, they care about each other.

They for like, and it's important that they do that. That's a very human quality that makes them. And the villains are all people who are like, just don't give a shit and live in a totally mercenary and self-centered world. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. The Stell and Scars guard character, the Russian mobster, like, these are the people who, they

don't care about people who like innocent people dying. They don't care about, yeah, anything. I mean, you know, I. One way you could sum up this movie is the classic line from the wire character Omar. A man's got to have a code. Right, right, right, right. The movie is a big believer in codes, continuation of codes, and also just in the fact that, you know, people kind of need each other. You can't live in a completely atomized self-centered Hobbesian universe.

Right. All right. I think it's time to wrap up. That's Ronan, folks. I mean, obviously we recommend that you watch it. It really is. I mean, we're recording this on a Friday. It's a great Friday movie.

It's a good Saturday movie. You will have fun with it. The car chase, we haven't, didn't talk much about the car chases, but really, the car chases are extraordinary. They're thrilling. And at a certain point, you almost feel like you're there.

Everything's moving so quickly. They're so accidentally planned and paste. And it's all practical. I mentioned that they're driving at their speeds. But when you see cars, explode, there were like people in those cars, like stunt drivers in those cars. It's all really well done. And I would even recommend if you have access to the director's commentary, like watching it,

and then just like throwing it on and getting listened to John Frankenheimer talk about the movie. Because his director's commentary isn't so much thematic, although he does talk about theme somewhat. It's mostly just like, this is how we made the movie. This is what we did here. This is what we did there. This is how we talked to the actors. And that stuff is fascinating. Yeah.

Yeah, I haven't watched it, but sounds good. All right. That is our show. As always, thank you for watching or thank you for listening. Thank you for watching. This sometimes shows up on YouTube, but thank you for listening primarily. You can find this podcast, wherever podcasts are found. That is Apple Podcasts, that's Spotify podcast.

It's wherever podcasts are found, you can find this podcast. And if you leave a rating and review, it does help, you know, help boost us in the algorithm. Most people find the podcast. You can reach out to us via our feedback email that's unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. I'll say that again. That's unclear and present feedback at fastmail.com. For this week in feedback, I am going to, um, we have a lot, we have a lot of good saving private Ryan feedback. So I'm just looking I'm looking at a one email one email is like talking about

our year contention that say Shakespeare in love winning best picture that your saving private Ryan was a travesty. The first pro Shakespeare in love I suggest that we should give Shakespeare in love a fair shake. Nope. So I'm just I'm just a little at the various things we have here.

All right, here we go. This email is from Bren. Hi, John and Jamel. I'm a big fan of the pod and I wanted to write in to share some thoughts on your industrialization conversation during the safe and private Ryan pod. As impressive as the European campaign was, I think the Pacific campaign is often overlooked as a real showcase of fully industrialized war. The U.S. created and operated two fully independent attack forces across thousands of miles of ocean. Each force had multiple carrier groups, battleship groups, and their support forces, as well as transports, supply ships, landing craft, and infantry forces, as they conducted two completely separate campaigns of island hopping towards Japan. Parentheses, one of the reasons HBO's The Pacific Miniseries isn't as good as Banded Brothers is that it requires multiple main characters and POVs in order to cover the material because no one unit participated in the whole campaign like they did in Northwest Europe.

ENW Toll wrote an excellent three-volume series on the War in the Pacific, and the second volume, The Conquering Tide, discusses the vast amounts of material infrastructure and coordination everything took. As impressive as the battles were, the build-up necessary to move ever closer to Japan was incredible. The construction battalions, the C-Bs, built airfields, dry docks, and fueling stations on isolated islands and the Tolls, and they had to do it all over again when the fleets moved on. They also created entire island bases dedicated to rest and relaxation for the troops. The Navy built and operated multiple ships whose only job was making and bottling Coca-Cola or making gallon after gallon of ice cream for soldiers to consume on these tropical islands, full hospitals, movie theaters, baseball diamonds, and U.S.O. shows. As the war moved on, these bases were often just abandoned and left to rot and rust.

Much like the war in Europe, the war in the Pacific was essentially over the minute Japan attacked, And even if Pearl Harbor had been more successful and actually caught the carrier force, Japan simply could match the industrial capacity of the U.S., which was able to replace any loss while the Japanese military became progressively weaker as soon as the fighting began. Anyway, keep with the great good work. Thanks, Brent. Thank you for the message. And, yeah, that's, I mean, that's my understanding, especially of the U.S.

ability during that war to just pump out material. And I think we may mention it in the episode. But of course, the U.S. wasn't just supplying its own armies. It was basically supplying the Soviet Union as well. It was providing a huge amount of material to allied, to its allies. Yeah. I mean, I recently watched a YouTube video about, I mean, it was really fucking boring. It even was too much technical stuff for me about how, I mean, I could have learned it.

So the problem with a lot of these YouTube documentaries is they're like half an hour to 45 minutes long and something they could be. explain in five to ten minutes max hello um and it's just very annoying that how they drag it out for 30 minutes i'm like listen you could explain this very quickly but i did watch part of something about how impressive the naval um the naval resupply was the united states could basically resupply ships at sea unlike japan which had to go into port so yeah the logistics of the pacific war are pretty incredible and yeah uh true very interesting stuff. Yeah. I like we discussed in the last episode, I do need to see Band and Brothers. I'm kind of like, there's a lot of TV I need to make my way through, but Banded Brothers is like on my list of things to just like watch in its entirety.

All right. Thank you so much for the email, Brent. And again, the feedback email is unclear and present feedback at Fastmail.com. We love your feedback and it's great to read. episodes of this podcast come out roughly every two weeks and so for our next episode I need to check out the list I forgot to bring it up always do that for our next episode

our next film is a little television movie for HBO called Shot Through the Heart Directed by David Atle Oh yeah that's actually really good Yeah Yeah

Brief plot synopsis The horrors of war are examined From the viewpoint of lifelong friends to end up on opposing sides in the Civil War in Sarajevo. Sarajevo. Sarajevo. Yeah. One is an expert marksman who trains the snipers used to terrify the city and the other

becomes a freedom fighter who rejects his friends off to gain escape from the city. As might be expected, the two eventually have to face off against one another. This is available on YouTube. So I will just post the link in the description for this episode so you can watch it. But you can also have just Google shot through the heart, HBO. It'll be the second result. So it's there, or first result, excluding the ads. It's there for you to watch.

I might even try to see if it's available as a DVD that I can buy. And perhaps even, yep, there's a DVD. So you can also buy a DVD off of eBay, which I'm going to do right now. So that's her next movie. Looking forward to it. Love a good TV movie. Lost art. And yeah, that's it.

That's our show. That's it. We're all done. For John Gans, I'm Jamel Bowie. This is Unclear and Present Danger. And we will see you next time. Bye. Oh.

Before I forget, check out the Patreon. Unclear and Present Patreon. Or rather, patreon.com slash unclear pod. And check out what we're over there. Okay, now we're gone. Bye. Have a good one.