Lions for Lambs (2007) November 7, 2007
Posted by gproject in : Cinema, Recently Viewed , trackbackDirected by: Robert Redford
As a new writer on the scene, Matthew Michael Carnahan has been fortunate this year with two pieces of his work hitting the big screen in close proximity, and both with high-profile names attached. One was an action drama about war, now this, a war drama about actions. And if The Kingdom was widely criticised for being too heavily dependent on its action component, there’s no worry of that happening here, as mild-mannered Robert Redford takes the helm (his previous directorial efforts include The Horse Whisperer and The Legend of Bagger Vance). Tipped as a potential Oscar contender, it serves if nothing else, as a window into one of the most pivotal arguments of our time.
The film splits its duration between three parties, linked by their relationship to a new military strategy that may turn the tide on the war in Iraq. Firstly, Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) drops the story of his new strategy in the lap of journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), while he fights to turn her attention to a bright future and away from the mistakes of the past. Doing fighting of a different kind are college-friends-turned-army-recruits Arian and Ernest, now trapped on a mountainside in hostile territory as they take part in the newly devised military operation. Finally, political science professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) tries to reinvigorate a slacking student who is supposed to represent the potential in us, the audience. It’s basically all the big-hitting themes: political agenda, the media function, war, and your responsibility.
To its great credit, this is an unrelenting drama. Of course, to call a drama ‘unrelenting’ seems almost a contradiction in terms, but it truly sprints out of the gate, getting moving without the slow character build up that you may be used to. And after such a brisk opening it barely lets up for the commendably succinct 92-minute running time. I’m sure Redford could have made a three hour picture on the issues discussed throughout Lions for Lambs, but instead has opted to rob your consciousness (get in, hit you, and get out) instead of wear you down with an abundance of slow burning plotlines.
That’s not to say that this film isn’t packed with thought. Each of the three (four including flashback) storylines are brimming with argument, manipulation and the constant back-and-forth that represents political discussions in the modern day landscape. Naturally, it’s a very talkie movie, although the trapped soldiers storyline does allow a much needed break from the conversational bludgeoning that occurs between all the other characters. On the negative side, because of the clear cut opinions the movie presents, it is mostly possible to guess where these plot threads are going to end up. This is especially true in the case of the soldiers – once you discover their origin it becomes almost a foregone conclusion. They are in the film to make a point, not provide a Hollywood ending.
The performances are tremendously on-form, although you may expect little else from A-listers such as Tom Cruise and Meryl Streep, who have the film’s heftiest sparring session. Both are entirely believable and committed though, as is director Robert Redford who takes a central role as the aging college professor as well as guiding the camera simply, but effectively, through his conversational scene settings. Meanwhile Andrew Garfield faces off against Redford as the cocky student, while Derek Luke and Michael Peña (continuing to impress after his turn in World Trade Centre [review]) add weight to a long-term friendship as the two soldiers fighting for their lives.
Lions for Lambs is a film made now, for consumption today, and you’d better believe that it is entirely a product of its time. So much so that it becomes impossible to ignore its background intentions and just enjoy the debate. It’s probably as close as you’ll come to seeing a fictional documentary (yet another contradiction), as so many other political pieces will cloud their true message in easily digestible action (like The Kingdom), or supposedly relatable human martyrs (as in the recently released Rendition [review]). This uses a different tactic, and it’s going to put many off, but if it provokes discussion of any kind then 
Redford and his team will be happy. Whether strong performances and a well-linked multi-threaded plot structure even matter come the closing credits is difficult to determine. They should – it’s a well made drama – but I can only think that its present day significance and strong political values will subvert any great filmmaking achievements.
This is, in the end, a film that will only serve to support its applauders and rile its detractors. It will not change the minds of those who have already chosen to take sides against the issues presented, leaving little behind but a strengthened resolve in left-wing subscribers. As a piece of cinema, it impressed me though. Breaking the usual dramatic conventions and delivering a dialogue-heavy political movie that is never slow or needlessly expositional. You’re going to be hit non-stop with message and opinion but if you can take it, then it’s well worth checking out. Because those big-hitting themes are relevant whichever side you choose, and with just a slight change in punctuation, become part of a much bigger question: political agenda, the media function, war – your responsibility?
Comments»
no comments yet - be the first?