The Negotiator

The FBI hostage negotiator Danny Roman (played by Samuel L. Jackson) has been wrongly accused of embezzlement and murder and, instead of facing the possibility of going to jail, he takes desperate action by taking hostages (one of the hostages is the Head of Internal Affairs) in order to unmask the real culprits of the conspiracy. During the abduction, he asks to negotiate with his colleague Chris Sabian (played by Kevin Spacey), who he does not know very well, but who he wants nonetheless: because “when friends betray you, sometimes the only people you can trust are strangers.”

The comparison between the two “negotiators” represents the heart of the film, and gives a real “concentrate” of negotiation techniques (in emergency situations) that highlight the (intelligent and refined) comparison between two great actors who play two savvy and competent negotiators. This film gives many scenes that can be used in a classroom to present the dynamics of negotiations, and that also fits into the genre of so-called “Hostage-movies” (other great titles are: Dog Day Afternoon, USA, 1975, directed by Sidney Lumet, with a great Al Pacino, Inside Man, USA, 2006, directed by Spike Lee, with the marvelous interpretation of Denzel Washington and Clive Owen, and finally The Taking of Pelham 123, USA, 2009, directed by Tony Scott, with another great performance by Denzel Washington, this time in the company of John Travolta).

What differentiates The Negotiator from others is the originality of the subject, in which Agent Roman, the expert in negotiation techniques, who we see at the beginning of the film resolving a hostage crisis with great effectiveness, becomes a kidnapper, and puts himself on the other side of the fence, because he believes this is the only way to find a solution to his problem.

During the crisis, that Roman knowingly causes, there is the “desperate call” from a man who wishes to reaffirm his identity (as a man, as a cop and as a negotiator), who is put to the test by the suspicion of his colleagues; a man who also wants to play on par with Sabian, to deal with him, convinced that he can get out of that corner in which he finds himself. From the latter, however, is the desire to assert authority as a negotiator, and to try not to get carried away by the dramatic outcome that, at a certain point in the story, seems almost inevitable.

Between the two a “resonance” is created that will lead them to emerge unscathed from the situation, everything is put at risk in order to bring out the truth. We cannot speak of a form of “Stockholm Syndrome” (which is the feeling of solidarity that is created between the victims of a kidnapping and the kidnappers and that, according to FBI experts, concerns about 10% of hostage crisis) but a strong “affinity” that is created between the two protagonists of the story, who are joined to each other through reciprocal “recognition” as men and as “experts in negotiations.”

Roman and, especially, Sabian are somehow “forced” to interpret their role on both a professional level and, more importantly, on a personal one too. However, they willingly accept to do so, even though they are aware of the stakes, and try to achieve the full potential of their expertise in negotiations. The two negotiators offer a “great show” – of the technicalities related to intervention methods in situations of negotiation in hostage-taking. We could consider it as being a real “cult-movie” for those who are fans of negotiation and alternative dispute resolutions. The film can be used for reasoning, on “symbolic” level, as there are many topics and opportunities offered, and “literally” as there are many interesting scenes that can be used in the classroom.

Stefano Cera