Ben Mishkin
INTL1800N: Global Media
Film Review: Enemy of the State

According to a September 2007 report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we are on the verge of entering an era of complete surveillance: “It’s six minutes before midnight as a surveillance society draws near in the United States…we confront the possibility of a dark future where our every move, our every transaction, our every communication is recorded, compiled, and stored away, ready for access by the authorities whenever they want.” Those with access to the tools of surveillance have accumulated unprecedented power as the watchful gaze of the camera follows us everywhere in public life. The 1998 film Enemy of the State explores the creeping totality of the surveillance society. It goes beyond the conclusion of the ACLU report and finds that we have already crossed the midnight mark. The idea of a surveillance society is not a piece of science fiction or some future possibility, but rather the reality of the present. In presenting this harrowing portrait, the film also critiques the surveillance society by challenging the primary justification for increased surveillance, underscoring the potential abuse of the tools of surveillance, and disputing the basic assumption that images represent absolute truth. However, despite these criticisms, the film ultimately suggests that the surveillance society is inescapable.

At the most basic level, Enemy of the State effectively captures the all-surrounding nature of the modern surveillance society. Watching the film, the viewer is bombarded with cameras, surveillance technology, and satellite images at every turn. This barrage of images reinforces the central message over and over again: the camera is always watching. This cinematic technique is strikingly similar to the photographic tactic that Frank Thiel employs in his 1997-99 work, City TV (Berlin). In this series, Thiel presented 101 photographs of surveillance cameras to emphasize the predominance of video control in the public sphere. As Sabine Himmelsbach explains: “The focus on the cameras themselves imparts a notion of totality. The repetition of the pictorial motif intensifies the statement. The cameras are found everywhere…The large number of silent observers conveys a sense of total surveillance.” Along the same line, we witness the watchful gaze of the camera at every step in Enemy of the State. From the two-minute montage of satellite images, car chase footage, and video cameras that opens the film (see above) to the hidden cameras in Robert Dean’s home at the end, the viewer is presented with a world that is under constant surveillance.

The viewer also finds a strong critique of the primary justification for expanding the reach of surveillance technology. As James Der Derian argues in his September 1990 article, “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed,” the tools of surveillance instill international actors with considerable power: “The modern panopticism takes many forms, but it is the communications intelligence…electronic intelligence…radar intelligence...telemetry intelligence…and photointelligence…all operating under the 22,300 mile-high roof of technical intelligence…that constitute a new regime of power in international relations.” States recognize the strategic importance of surveillance in the international arena and often invoke the notion of national security to justify the expansion of surveillance powers. Most recently, we have seen this argument put forward in the wake of the September 11th attacks, with the USA Patriot Act and calls for increased wiretapping authority. From this perspective, a bit more surveillance and a little less privacy are the keys to individual safety.

The film contests this line of reasoning both directly and indirectly. On one level, the plot of the film highlights the pitfalls of too much surveillance and stresses the national security vs. civil liberties debate. Government surveillance may bolster national security to some extent, but it also opens the door for potential misuse and the erosion of personal privacy. On another level, the film subtly challenges the national security justification by having the “bad guys” espouse this argument. For instance, at the beginning of the film, Brian Reynolds (Special Advisor to the NSA Deputy Director of Operations) claims that, “we’re at war 24 hours of every day” in order to convince Congressman Hammersley to support the surveillance-friendly Telecommunications, Security, and Privacy Act. When Congressman Hammerseley responds with the assertion that, “national security’s not the only thing going on in this country” and refuses to support the bill, Reynolds has him killed. Similarly, it is the adulterous Congressman Albert who goes on television to argue that the “tens of millions of foreign nationals living within our borders…[who] consider the United States their enemy” are reason enough to expand surveillance measures. In the end, Enemy of the State cautions the viewer to be wary of the national security argument and raises doubts about the government’s capacity to limit its use of surveillance technology.

Along the same line, the question of whether we can really trust those with access to the tools of surveillance to not abuse their power is also central to the film. Once again, the plot of the film makes clear that the answer to this question is a resounding “no.” Enemy of the State is a story of the utter misuse of this technology and a cautionary tale about the risks of widespread government surveillance. In the film, loving wife and ACLU lawyer Carla Dean acts as the primary voice for these concerns. She challenges the idea that the government will only snoop on suspected wrongdoers (“Oh, I know. We’ll just tap the criminals. We won’t suspend the civil rights of the good people. [But] who decides which is which?”) and questions the capacity for objective oversight (“Who’s going to monitor the monitors of the monitors?”). If, as Astrit Schmidt-Burkhardt suggests, cameras, computers, and satellites have indeed taken on the role of the “divine eye” and “the almighty function of control,” we must ask ourselves whom, if anyone, we want playing God.

The film also disputes the fundamental assumption that the picture does not lie. According to James Der Derian, there is an “aura of representational truth that surrounds the image.” Surveillance is an effective information-gathering tool precisely because the image is viewed to be the ultimate representation of reality. Enemy of the State, however, emphasizes that images can often be misleading. For example, the FBI photographs of Robert at Pintero’s place insinuate that Robert has mafia connections that do not exist. Similarly, when Carla sees the photographs of Robert and Rachel Banks together in the park, she assumes that Robert is lying and having another affair when that is not the case at all. Finally, donning a police officer uniform towards the end of the film, Brill makes the FBI agents think that Reynolds and his cronies have kidnapped and bloodied a cop. The film takes yet another jab at the idea of a surveillance society by undermining the very foundation upon which this reality is built.

In the end, though, Enemy of the State suggests that there is no escape from the surveillance society. Time and time again the film reinforces the message that we are trapped in this state. While some may argue that Brill is able to escape, he only does so as a social outcast who follows strict rules to avoid the watchful gaze of the camera. His description of his workplace as “unplugged from the world” perfectly sums up his position. In order to escape the surveillance society, he must abandon all notions of normality and constantly live on the periphery. This lifestyle is hardly an appealing alternative for most people. Even those who control the tools of surveillance fall victim to its power. After following Robert’s every move throughout the film, these men ultimately have the camera’s gaze turned back onto them. In addition, the film (through Brill’s words) proposes an intriguing explanation for the inability to escape the surveillance society: “the more technology you use, the easier it is for them to keep tabs on you.” As long as we fawn over the newest technology, we continue to enhance the power of the surveillance society. Overall, the film makes clear that, despite its many flaws, the surveillance society is a reality that is not going away any time soon.

Works Cited:

Stanley, Jay and Barry Steinhardt. “Even Bigger, Even Weaker: The Emerging Surveillance Society: Where Are We Now?” American Civil Liberties Union. September 2007. http://www.aclu.org/privacy/spying/31846pub20070917.html. 4.

Himmelsbach, Sabine. “Frank Thiel.” In CTRL [SPACE]: Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother. Edited by: Ursula Frohne, Thomas Y. Leviin, and Peter Weibel. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002. 136.

Der Derian, James. “The (S)pace of International Relations: Simulation, Surveillance, and Speed.” International Studies Quarterly. Vol. 34, No. 3304 (September 1990). 304-305.

Enemy of the State. Dir. Tony Scott. Perfs. Gene Hackman, Will Smith. Touchstone Pictures, 1998. DVD. Touchstone Home Video, 1999.

Schmidt-Burkhardt, Astrit. In CTRL [SPACE]: Rhetorics of Surveillance from Bentham to Big Brother. Edited by: Ursula Frohne, Thomas Y. Leviin, and Peter Weibel. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2002. 31.