The new release, “The Good Shepherd,” is based on the origins of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Produced and directed by Robert De Niro, the film has good intentions but quickly gets mired in the attempt at making life look like art.

The lead character, Edward Wilson, played by Matt Damon, is actually an amalgam of two individuals: James Jesus Angleton and Richard M. Bissell Jr. Angleton, a.k.a. “Kingfisher,” was a long-serving CIA chief of counter-intelligence serving both directors Allen Dulles and Richard Helms. Angleton has already been used as literary fodder. Both Hugh Montague from Norman Mailer’s “Harlot’s Ghost” and Eliot from David Morrell’s “Brotherhood of the Rose” were based on the exploits of James Angleton.

As a member of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), Richard Bissell helped to organize guerrilla fighting, sabotage and espionage during the war. In 1947, he sat on a committee that planned the economic redevelopment of Europe. Allen Dulles eventually appointed Bissell as the CIA’s director of plans in 1958.

When evaluating the dossiers of both agents’ careers, a long list of historical events are revealed. Alone or together, these two agents were involved in obtaining information from U2 spy planes and the fallout from the Manhattan Project. They participated in the CIA’s black operations supposedly carrying out executions of foreign leaders, played a major role in Bay of Pigs intelligence, and captured spies within the National Security Agency just to mention a few of their covert activities.

One would think that with that kind of source material, De Niro could create a fantastic tale of the development of the modern political landscape in the U.S. The result, while solid, is certainly not what De Niro fans were hoping for.

The most obvious shortcoming of the film is the incomplete development of the character of Edward Wilson. There appears to be very little human side to Damon’s portrayal of Wilson. Certainly there was a CIA agent with a dysfunctional family to use as inspiration. At work he performs admirably while at home he can’t seem to ever be on the same page as those for whom he supposedly cares. It feels that he is giving half a performance. This also leaves the roles of Edward’s wife and son incomplete. Angelina Jolie’s talent is largely wasted.

Some interesting pacing and the editing in general will leave some viewers with questions. The jumps in time are not always set up effectively. The plot goes from 1961 to 1939 to 1941 and back. Wilson never seems to age. He stays the same baby-faced cherub all the way through. How is that possible with a life in the CIA? They could have spent a little of the budget on make-up.

It would be interesting to know what Robert De Niro thinks of this film five to 10 years from now. It might be more telling to see when he next decides to direct a feature. His last feature as director was the also mediocre “A Bronx Tale” from 1993. De Niro had good intentions but in “The Good Shepherd” they don’t always make for a smooth road.

—

John Malgesini is a teacher at Umatilla High School.