Week of November 7, 2007, Issue #629
FILM
Heart of a Lion, strength of a little Lamb
OMAR MOUALLEM / omar@vueweekly.com
Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs is an unusual war drama in that it barely has any war at all, and it borders on art house. With an Atom Egoyan-like structure, Redford splices together three seemingly disconnected scenes in a nonlinear cycle that appears aimlessly circular until the pieces match up, however loosely.In one chopped vignette, journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) exclusively interviews young Republican Senator Irving (Tom Cruise looking and smiling a lot like Senator John Edwards) about a new tactic in Afghanistan orchestrated only to win approval ratings, and simultaneously draw support of an Iranian invasion. He offers her no evidence but his word, and she fears she’s playing into another war the same way she did four years ago.
Minced between it is another interview, one between poli-sci prof Stephen Malley (Redford) and Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), a sharp slacker who hasn’t seen his desk in weeks because he’s become disenchanted by the realities of US politics. Throughout their appointment, Dr Malley tries to regain his passion by referring to Ernest and Arian. Who are they?
Enter Ernest and Arian (Michael Peña and Derek Luke), two friends from poor communities who’ve decided that the best way to understand their nation’s foreign policy is by dropping out of university and joining the armed forces. They just so happen to be on the platoon that is inaugurating Senator Irving’s new plan, as he explains it to Miss Roth.
But between the three stories, the Cruise-Streep storyline is most fulfilling. The other two are either unimportant or uninspired.
Within moments of the first scene, I immediately recognized it as lifted from Magnolia. Cruise even portrays the Senator with the same vigour he did Frank TJ Mackey, only without any redeeming qualities. Redford and Streep are excellent, and who could expect any less from them? It’s very odd, however, that these three knockout performances share the screen with some pretty UPN teen drama performances by the second-generation actors.
Actually all the actors in the Afghan War scenes are bafflingly awful, forcing me to choose between gawking at their acting, the embarrassing CGI helicopters, or the unresearched aerial combat straight out of Star Trek.
As for the style, it will either be appreciated or despised by moviegoers. As I said before, it’s borderline art house. Lions is mostly an exchange of dialogue between two people, one scene at a time. It’s like a Neil LaBute war movie, without the pants-shitting ending. Redford’s ending, actually, is about as open-ended as could possibly be. He takes our characters to a crucial moment of decision-making, and then cuts to black. (Yet another reason audiences will be polarized.)
What is most striking about Lions for Lambs is not its great or awful performances, nor it’s avant-garde style; it’s the movie’s timeliness. It is so relevant to the political atmosphere of today that it appears to have been made yesterday. If that were indeed true, it would account for the haste felt throughout the picture. It has a strong message more important now than ever, but too many missteps will prevent that message from being heard. V
Opens Fri, Nov 9
Lions for Lambs
Directed by Robert Redford
Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan
Starring Tom Cruise, Meryl Streep,
Robert Redford