Redford mentions the war
As
political films go, Robert Reford’s take on the war on terror,
Lions for Lambs, is not only one of the more intelligent
but also one of the more perplexing examples of the genre. Perhaps
we’ve been conditioned by filmmakers like Michael Moore
to expect this sort of film to follow a particular pattern, but
the shrewd and experienced Redford is obviously having none of
that.
Essentially, Lions for Lambs weaves together
three plot lines, all taking place roughly simultaneously in three
different time zones. In Washington, a seasoned reporter, Janine
Roth (Meryl Streep) is called to a private meeting with bullish
Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) to give her an exclusive outline
of his new plan to win the war in Afghanistan. Meanwhile, that
plan gets underway in the war-torn country, with a team that includes
Arian Finch (Derek Luke) and Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) heading
into hostile territory. And in California, Finch and Rodriguez’s
old political science professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford)
confronts Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), a student with a lot of
potential who seems to have stopped caring.
The story was penned by Matthew Michael Carnahan,
the writer behind The Kingdom. In a way, I guess this
could be seen as a companion piece to The Kingdom, with
the earlier film dealing with the root causes of terrorism; and
this film, America’s response to it. It also seems Carnahan
might be starting to exert Charlie Kaufmann-like influence in
Hollywood, with Peter Berg, who directed The Kingdom,
getting an acting guernsey here.
The phrase "Lions for Lambs" refers to
a comment by a German general in World War I comparing the bravery
of British troops with the ineptitude of their superiors (lions
being led by lambs). The script adopts a similar viewpoint to
the current conflict, comparing the courage of the average US
soldier with the flawed planning from big-wigs in Washington.
Indeed, Carnahan and Redford adopt what is currently a very PC
attitude in the US of “supporting the troops” while
criticising the political leadership that has put them in harm’s
way, and the media that feeds off the propaganda.
This
of course still carries an element of jingoism about it, but it’s
certainly a lot more balanced than it might have been. What distinguishes
this film is that the balancing exercise cuts both ways. In the
hands of well-known liberal Redford, you’d expect this to
be a lot harder on his political opposites than it is. Even Senator
Irving, who is the smarmiest character in the piece by a long
shot, actually gets to make some pretty solid arguments for his
side.
The film’s weakness however is Carnahan’s
heavy use of dialogue in the script. The exchanges between Roth
and Irving, and between Malley and Hayes are basically just people
debating, more like a filmed play than a movie. Relief comes in
the Afghanistan scenes, where Finch and Rodriguez have to battle
for their lives. Whether that’s enough will depend on how
interested you are in the subject under discussion.
Big names dominate the marquee for this one, led
by director Redford who puts in a restrained but intelligent turn
as the world-weary professor. Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise are
both genuinely in their elements as the politely cynical reporter
and the gung-ho senator respectively.
Lions for Lambs has some good ideas, and
generates plenty of food for thought, but it’s a rather
laborious film in some ways. Certainly, I for one could have done
with less talk and more visual exposition on the topics it covers.
I guess you could also criticise it for not taking a really firm
position on the war on terror; but then it makes the point that
this is a messy business in which solid positions are dangerous.
In the end, this is an interesting rather than thrilling
film, but one that has enough merit to warrant seeking out on
DVD.
David Edwards
