Lions for Lambs (2007)

Save your $$$
A Political Science 101 lecture and a huge disappointment from such a star-studded cast. No more to say about this one I'm afraid.

Inconvenient Conversations
This is not a Tom Cruise movie, nor is it a Meryl Streep movie and it's barely a Robert Redford movie. Frankly, Lions for Lambs is barely a "movie" at all and if you wish to enjoy it you mustn't think of it as such, let alone a blockbuster movie. L4L is best savoured as a pseudo-documentary, not quite like Inconvenient Truth, though not that far away either.

In fact, the film could really be named Inconvenient Talk or Inconvenient Topics, as it's really about, well, talking about tough topics with no clear consensus view - in politics, in education, in media about the role of America and Americans in the war on terror, in the classroom, in public knowledge, in government, as minorities, as the privileged and so on.

You've got Robert Redford, a professor trying to convince possibly his brightest student that there's more to life than just earning degrees and growing rich. His take on crises like the Iraqi war, possibly echoing Redford's personal view, is that the younger generation can't sit back and blame the hopeless politicians. The people of America have got to do something, although two other students of his take the view to (what he views as) an extreme position by actualling signing up to fight.

These two students - a Puerto Rican and Negro - also form the other key segment of the show, a snow-battle in the mountains of Afghanistan resulting from a very poorly planned US military op. This fiasco was in turn the brainchild of Senator Jasper Irving, played with boyish gusto by Tom Cruise, the poster child of American Republican politics who says all the right things and ducks most of the tough questions, and does both with a huge grin. Irving invites Meryl Streep's character, a journalist, to do an exclusive on the new military strategy and in the process engages in a tense debate on the failures and futures of American foreign policy in the context of the war on terror.

L4L is all about the arguments. Back forth back forth - it's one big plurivocal textbook played out in motion picturesque.

Should Americans be indifferent, should they apologise, should they curse the politicians (those who never say anything but never stop talking, and who keep repeating that, "I am NOT running for President") and ignore them, or should they take an active role which may involve sacrificing 'the good life' (of good colleges, high salaries and big walls)?

Should the United States pull its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan and risk "a shattered Iraq, a hopeless Afghanistan and a nuclear Iran"? Or should America continue to put their boys in the firing line, up the tempo and seek to annihilate the rebel forces and the 'Tali' (ban - get it?) once and for all? Are good and brave Americans who enlist for military action being stupid and throwing their futures away, like lions led by lambs? Or would it be better to seek alternative routes of engagement, until one is drafted into the army?

Can one disagree with another's patriotic actions whilst revering the other's reasons for them? (Can, in fact, motives and actions be so neatly separated?)

So you have professors, wise monkeys, counselling young lions not to be led to the slaughter by lambs like the Senators, themselves challenged by elephant-journalists with large memories - whilst the entire jungle is in crisis. Welcome to the circus of life. There are animals everywhere and no one's really sure what's happening, but everyone's hoping there'll be a happy ending. Before we all tear each other apart, limb from bloody limb.

A unique movie on political conversations, if ever one was made. Too bad Redford didn't get Cruise to get out of his office. That may have saved it from becoming a 'Ticking Tom Bomb'? As it stands, some scenes should serve well as an intro to a course or seminar of Political Science. Because too bad, no, I don't think your average movie-goer is going to want to spend a few good weekend hours or a tired post-work evening seeing movie-stars (albeit very famous ones) sit and talk.

A powerful, and underrated film
Lions for Lambs was released to relatively disappointing results, under performing both critically and financially. In the end, it would make some money, more overseas than in America, but the fledgling United Artists had to be disappointed. It's too bad, if you ask me, that the film was so passed by. It's a relatively slowly paced, but the film has a real meaning to it. Some declared it to be preachy and generic, a liberal rant. But I strongly disagree. It's a much more fair meditation than it was portrayed, I went to theatre with extremely conservative friends, for example, and they were not offended.

The film follows three different stories, a moral conversation between a professor (Robert Redford) and his student, an 'information session' of sorts between a Senator (Tom Cruise) and a reporter (Meryl Streep), and two soldiers under fire in Afghanistan (Derek Luke and Crash's Michael Pena). The film moves in real time, creating a powerful impact, while Cruise and Meryl debate, the two men near death. The talk between Redford and the college boy feels real, and is thoughtful, a worthy reflection on our world today. The film attempted to portray and shed light on the world and decisions which our youth is facing, the dangers and trials awaiting them, and was more or less panned by our hypocritical media as a romantic and preachy endeavor. It saddens me that a piece that would once have been regarded as noble is now thought of as foolish, so far have we fallen.

That of course, is my ideological ramblings. If you're a fan of any of the actors involved, this film truly is a must see, everyone involved is at the top of their game, particularly Tom Cruise. He's on fire as a politician with a goal. Also, as I've said, even looking past the near perfect performances, this film really does have its merits, it's a thoughtful piece.