And we do figure it out, from the first dialogue scene, which comes shortly thereafter; the man is George Woodhouse (Michael Fassbender), an analyst with the NCSC (the UK\u2019s National Cyber Security Centre). There is a leak somewhere in the organization \u2014 \u201ca stranger in our house,\u201d as one of the higher-ups puts it \u2014 and one of the names that ticks the boxes is George\u2019s wife Kathryn St. Jean (Cate Blanchett), a field agent. George has been tasked with finding the rat, and potentially eliminating them. \u201cIf it is<\/em> Catherine, do you really think you can do that?\u201d he\u2019s asked. It\u2019s not an easy question to answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So the stakes are clear (and high) from the jump, which is the real key to Soderbergh\u2019s style these days: efficiency. It\u2019s not just a question of efficiency in labor (though he\u2019s certainly a prime example of that; for years now, he\u2019s not only directed his films, but shot and edited them under pseudonyms, and his credits are filled with longtime collaborators). He is perhaps our most noteworthy practitioner of narrative<\/em> efficiency. While major studios are releasing tentpole slop, crafted by hacks, with nearly three-hour running times, Soderbergh is operating at a gallop. The mole hunt is one of the most familiar stories in espionage fiction, so he doesn\u2019t waste screen time with the parts we already know. He\u2019s more interested in the variations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The first of them comes early, when we learn about the primary couple, their tactics, and the personalities and motivations of the supporting players via\u2026 a dinner party sequence. How divine! How refined! The gathered spooks of the intelligence agency trade quips and digs before George announces \u201cI have a game,\u201d and the Who\u2019s Afraid of Virginia Woolf <\/em>echoes are certainly not accidental (Soderbergh is such an admirer of Mike Nichols\u2019s film version that he joins the director on its audio commentary). They predict it will go poorly, and they are correct \u2014 accusations fly, dirty laundry is aired, and even a bit of blood is shed. But the most important information is a backstory about George investigating and revealing the adulterous actions of his father. \u201cI don\u2019t like liars,\u201d he explains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n You can probably guess the vagaries of where this is going \u2014 he\u2019ll catch his wife in a tiny lie and zero in until she starts looking guilty, or does she<\/em> \u2014 though credit where due to the screenwriter David Koepp (another Soderbergh regular, who also penned Kimi<\/em> and last January\u2019s Presence<\/em>) for a fair number of turns and surprises. But what makes his script special are the personalities involved, people who are all wicked smart, fiercely efficient, and emotionally brutal. Since they\u2019re all Brits, there\u2019s an abundance of dry wit in the dialogue; they spend less time shooting at each other than sneering at each other, and that\u2019s frankly more entertaining. <\/p>\n\n\n\n That so many of them are in relationships \u2014 there are two key couples besides George and Kathryn, and more will reveal themselves \u2014 becomes the subject of the movie, more than the dangerous tech that they\u2019re tracking, which is basically a MacGuffin anyway. These are, after all, people who are required to not only lie and deceive for a living; they\u2019re frequently involved in activities that involve destinations and objectives that they can\u2019t even share with their partner. \u201cHow do you tell the truth about anything?\u201d one asks, and it\u2019s a good question.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It\u2019s posed by Clarissa, who may or may not be a low-level participant; she\u2019s played by Marisa Abela, and she\u2019s the real find of the movie, sexy and funny in equally dangerous doses. (Her primary previous credit was that Amy Winehouse biopic, and let\u2019s not hold that against her.) Blanchett isn\u2019t really stretching here \u2014 she could play this kind of purring enigma blindfolded, but she can still do it well. And Fassbender has a good time deconstructing his own performance, accurately gauging the delight of watching this cool customer, this man who seems to have spent his life one step ahead, absolutely crumbling when things start going embarrassingly sideways. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Black Bag<\/em>\u2019s timing (wholly accidental, of course) is sort of hilarious, hitting theaters just as the Broccoli family and Amazon have made a deal<\/a> that will allow the streamer to take the venerable James Bond franchise and, most likely, turn it into \u201ccontent.\u201d So we\u2019ve had the usual cycle of fan-casting and conjecture, contemplating both who could play Bond next, and (a trickier question, frankly) who could take the reins and guide the series into its next iteration. And here comes Steven Soderbergh, quietly directing a better spy movie than, let\u2019s be honest, most of the Bonds \u2014 and widely winking by casting both the most recent Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) and the last Bond (Pierce Brosnan) <\/em>in key roles. Maybe he\u2019ll find himself in the conversation for the job, but I\u2019m struck by one of Fassbender\u2019s early lines: \u201cI wanted to try something more elegant first.\u201d That\u2019s not just dialogue. That\u2019s Soderbergh\u2019s entire ethos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n “Black Bag” is in theaters this weekend.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/crookedmarquee.com\/stage8\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/blackbag2-1024x512.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n\n\nA-<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n