With stylistically bullet-riddled globetrotting a la James Bond (minus most of Bond's style), choreographed discovery of increased business corruption a la Jason Bourne (minus most of Bourne's mysterious intrigue), and increasingly futile attempts to actually combat that very corruption a la Michael Clayton (minus almost all of Clayton's haunting nuances), The International is pretty much your average action thriller.

Centered around the international banking industry's brokerage of small arms deals and one Interpol agent's attempts to do something about it, you pretty much know from the beginning that The International stands a slim chance of ending in triumph for its main characters. Sure, there is the possibility that Clive Owen's Louis Salinger could pull an Erin Brockovich and bring justice to the corrupt dealings woven through every international business organization, world government, and justice system in one fell swoop. If there is a one-in-a-million chance of me winning the lottery, Naomi Watt's Assistant New York City District Attorney Eleanor Whitman could find the exact piece of evidence, judge, and jury to imprison the richest, most powerful men in Europe. But really, with one agent dead before the movie's title has even rolled and multiple failed attempts to crack the case already in the past, Salinger and Whitman are pretty much in over their heads from the get go.

Sure, dealing arms to terrorist organizations is not exactly moral. Brokering business arrangements with militant groups to stage military coups is not exactly standard political procedure. But when those deals involve the most powerful banks, businessmen, and politicians in the world, the question is: What can really be done about it? As one of the movie's less than reputable characters says, "It's mutual interest that will be the bond of our relationship." As a well-aware politician explains, "It's about control." And as he adds, in a world where money is power and power is control, "You control the debt, you control everything." In other words—there are those with money, there are those without money, and in world that runs on money, those with it run the world and everyone else in it.

In many ways, the situation of economic perpetuation of conflict and enslavement by monetary dependence portrayed in The International reminds me of a real life exchange I just shared with a friend in the Peace Corps and her personal conviction that she will actually be able to make more of a difference not by going in to public health, but by going into business development. As she put it, money talks. People need money. And as good as medical programs or counseling may be, if the sick, abused, and imprisoned do not even have the money to travel to clinics or to be independent from their oppressors, not only suffering individuals, but entire societies will continue to remain slaves to the very same rulers, systems, and cycles of conflict that have existed all their lives. The problem at the center of The International, as well as with many situations that also exist within the world that surround us, is that the system very often supports its citizens' enslavement through either its own feigned ignorance, felt inability, or actual involvement. But as Salinger tells a potential ally, "All men have choices." In a world where the truth means responsibility, we can choose to face our own responsibility and bring others to face theirs. And while the system may not always provide means to bring about change, we can choose to step outside of it and seek to bring about justice and accountability.

Continue: 1 2