Spartan (2004)

I watched Spartan in two seatings as a result of careless consumption of antihistamine drugs intended to bolster my viewing attention. On the other hand, I sufficiently read the synopsis for well-known playwright David Mamet’s recent film to form expectations & found his genre film unpredictable & absorbing. Spartan is a political thriller where the lead character’s substance or flesh does not emerge in the exposition. In fact, the first 10 minutes or so introduces a tiny sub-branch of highly-trained military automatons (US Marines) who solve secret government problems with razor-sharp physical prowess. Next, the main premise is quickly tossed on an interrogation scene & expounded via Mamet’s signature fast & tough dialogue: the president’s daughter is missing. The film’s attention is on the talking heads, some belonging to the president’s political machine, others to the super-soldiers awaiting instructions from these executives. The unconventional manner with which the film unfolds, unless one is well-versed in Mamet-tongue, defines the tension between the narrative & the audience. Therefore, those expecting earlier audience identification with a protagonist may be disappointed.

A quick glance at critical reviews (say, http://www.rottentomatoes.com/ ) reveal mixed responses. Some critics trashed its character logic, while others insist that Spartan is merely a Mamet facsimile from tried materials. However, James Berardinelli (http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/master.html) makes a good point by saying, “People in Mamet films don't talk the way they do in real life; their words, and the way they say them, are stylized”. Once you accept Mamet’s unique approach, his highly contrived plot and plain lack of realism become moot; the film is stripped down to engaging narrative conflicts and a contemporary political ideology.

Spartan is a message film in the same veins of Barry Levinson’s slant in Wag The Dog (1997). But it is not parody since the protagonist, Scott (Val Kilmer), pays a serious price before the drama concludes. The film's tone is equally grave. Mamet merely puts the eyes of a military man as a surrogate for his audiences’ in order to implicate the “uncheck-able” theatrics & cold-bloodedness of a political-survival mechanism as seen from the backstage. The film shows the backstage of the US presidency in a negative light, which I suppose can be applied to any complex political engine in the world. This comes as no surprise from a left-wing artist.