|
|
|
Lions
for Lambs
(2007)
If there was one topic that was most present
in cinemas in 2007 it was the war in Iraq. Lions
for Lambs doesn't stray from this trend, but takes a new
and more effective stance. Instead of openly criticizing
the war and the politicians behind it, it instead asks poignant
and important questions about citizens' obligation to be politically
engaged and leaves the specifics of the various military conflicts
which make up the War on Terror out of the picture.
The film follows three parallel yet related courses of
events, all taking place on the same morning. In Washington,
liberal reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) is granted a private
one-hour interview with Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom
Cruise) to discuss the new military strategy he is spearheading
in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, in an unnamed California University,
policial science professor Stephen Malley (director Robert
Redford) meets with a promising student (Andrew Garfield) to
discuss his potential and acedemic future. At the same
time, two former students of Malley (Michael Peña & Derek
Luke) now enlisted in the Army, implement Irving's plan
to tragic results.
Unlike similar films this year, like Redacted, In
the Valley of Elah, and Rendition, Lions
for Lambs seems to make no judgement on the war itself
and instead focus on citizens' political engagement and the
strength of their convictions. Though Roth and Irving are on
oposite ends of the polical spectrum, their conversation is
surprisingly apolitical, and they discuss the "selling out" of
the media and their own dedication to their beliefs. Similarly,
Malley and his student discuss no specific political topic,
but rather the state of politics in general and what responsibilities
each of them have to the political discourse and their place in the overall system. The segments following soldiers Ernest Rodriguez and Arian Finch are the most overtly critical of the war, but it's the ironic fact that they enlisted as a way of making a difference and to oppose the war that is perhaps the most powerful of the film.
Despite all its theorizing and placement of responsibility on the average man, the film suffers from some unfortunate hypocrisy. Most notable of these is the assertion that one shouldn't write about or just talk about how things should be or complain of what's wrong with the system, but instead actually act and get involved and make a real difference. These words come from the mouth of Redford's character, and yet here he is directing a movie that is essentially a lot of complaining and placing the responsibility on the audience to act. Perhaps Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan weren't thinking of the implications of writing and talking about the importance of action while not making a concrete difference themselves. This isn't to say that spurring political discourse isn't important and in itself a kind of action, but the hypocrisy resonated with me and I wonder whether it will prevent others from taking the message of the film to heart. If so, it's a real shame.
Regardless of one's personal political leanings, Lions for Lambs is a powerful political drama that should be seen by as many people as possible. This film raises important points about the general apathy of the average American and the lack of political discourse not only in the media, but in general. I know that the movie made me want to get involved in real, meaningful political action and my hope is that everyone who sees it has the same reaction. Do yourself a favor and see the film and then do your fellow citizen a favor and put its powerful statements into action. Even if you see the film and do nothing else, you won't be sorry.
-Mark
Moreland
|
|
|
|
All contents ©
2004-2009 Thoughtsonfilm.com |
|
|
 |
Director:
Robert
Redford
Writer: Matthew
Michael Carnahan
Starring: Meryl
Streep, Robert Redford. Tom Cruise, Michael Peña, Andrew Garfield,
Derek Luke
Distributor: MGM
Runtime: 88
min
Rating: R
Release Date: November
9, 2007
|
|
 |
|
