Impressive political drama (Lions For Lambs (DVD))

Member Name: shaneo632

Product:	Lions For Lambs (DVD)
Date:	04/09/09 (4 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Good performances, clever script

Disadvantages: Dry format - not very entertaining

note: also appears on my film review website, ShaunMunro.co.uk!

Robert Redford's Lions for Lambs is a film not particularly interested in entertaining its audience - it offers little for those in search of laughs, special effects, violence or explosions. Rather, Redford's picture seeks to ask vital questions of the War on Terror, and whether or not you find the messages to be refreshing or even agreeable, there is undoubtedly a degree of deft craftsmanship aboard this venture.

Lions for Lambs encapsulates three plot strands which, as the film progresses, gravitate towards each other, resulting in a biting climax. Is it a tired premise? Probably, although the film's approach to such a technique is hardly conventional, and the manner in which these strands interweave is neither forced nor overt.

The first strand involves Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), who has invited journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) to interview him regarding a new war strategy in Afghanistan. Irving is essentially a smart, suave character, although his initial discourse (or "banter") with Irving is surprisingly charming, and seeing two highly exalted thespians such as Cruise and Streep play off of one another is always a joy to behold.

Streep is sharp, but a seemingly (at times) shrewd journalist. This may cause her to appear to be a flat and stereotypical representation of the press, although one must remember that she works for what appears to be a glorified dirtsheet, and moreover, aren't most reporters like this?

Cruise's character appears to be the "villain" of the film (at least initially), which is interesting, as he is the film's pro-government slant. Streep rebukes, detailing America's shortcomings, and so it is difficult to label their conference as one-sided, even if Irving is quite clearly supposed to be disliked. However, one could envision Irving as "stern but fair", and he certainly raises his fair share of valid points - he is a utilitarian veilled under a rock-hard, charismatic exterior, attributes, which his job no doubt requires.

Whilst Irving spouts far more verbiage than Roth, there is a constant give and take between the two, and things are fairly equal, perhaps weighed ever-so-slightly in favour of Irving, who dictates far more choice facts than Streep's character. However, the initial hard-faced political commentary of the tense meeting is alleviated by a pinch of sympathy levied in relation to Cruise's character. It does, at times, feel as though he overencumbers Streep's character, although we are never given a large enough glimpse into her psyche. Even if we were, I have to consider whether it would undermine both the purpose, and political equality of the picture.

The second narrative strand deals with Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford), who holds a curious meeting with disillusioned, apathetic student Todd (Andrew Garfield). Their quasi-intellectual discussion is thrilling - it may be minimalist, but it is nonetheless engrossing. This meeting is an interesting divergence - Malley is essentially trying to push Todd to reach his potential, and whilst it is not without its political facets, this portion of the film seems to be more existential than anything. In a Bergman-esque fashion (namely pertaining to Wild Strawberries), the discussion frequently becomes inverse, with Malley being forced to ponder his own life decisions. Redford appears to attempt to instill a life lesson, both to Todd, and to the viewer, and whilst his arguments are certainly relevant to youngsters, the tragic irony is that they are the very audience who will likely have no interest in this picture.

Their discussion, whilst thrilling (even in its stoicism), makes an attempt at a social commentary, but I found myself disagreeing with it entirely. It essentially states that those who are the most maltreated by our government are the first to stand up and defend it, curiously ignoring the fact that such people are generally those in the poorer cross-section of society, who are left with little-to-no choice but to join the army to make a decent living for their family.

At this point, one may wonder how the classroom and the war room can converge without contrivance, but alas, the key lies in the third strand, which tells the tale of former students Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña), who, whilst stationed in Afghanistan, are separated from their unit and stranded behind enemy lines. Through a series of flashbacks, we learn a causal link between the trouble that Arian and Ernest are in, and the discussion between Professor Malley and Todd. The flashbacks are arguably the highlight of the film, providing moments of marked intensity. These scenes are unequivocally lengthy, but nevertheless engaging, and pose a very intruiging moral and existential dilemma.

The convergence of the film's various conflicts is a shocking and heartfelt one - it provides interesting food for thought on not only the War on Terror, but war in general. Whilst I never felt overly connected to Arian or Ernest in any particular way, the imagery of their resolution was effective, even if Peña rolling around wounded for the majority of the picture was too reminiscent of his turn in World Trade Center.

The final scene does paint pictures too black and white for many tastes, and things end just as abruptly as they began, but given the matter-of-fact nature in which the film plays out, Redford was left with little other choice. Lions for Lambs is essentially little more than a series of debates with slight interjections of action and human drama, but as I attest, this is a film made not to entertain, but to, in some fashion, educate.

Performance-wise, the endeavour is a mixed bag - Cruise is decent but certainly not stand-out, Streep is restrained and percolates under the surface (only near the end does the script allow her to unleash), and Peter Berg, whilst a stereotypical Lieutenant, gives it his best. The acting dynamo of the picture is Redford, who brings decidedly academic dialogue to erratic life with his heartfelt portrayal of an aging professor with a rather large chip on his shoulder. Andrew Garfield also surprises with his authentic depiction of a confused, directionless student.

Lions for Lambs will bore casual cinemagoers, and frustrate those unable to simply observe political discourse. It is difficult to recommend the film on performances alone, and it is very much a title of undercurrents and inner machinations, yet Lions for Lambs is still one of the most underrated films of 2007.

Summary: More a film to think about than one to be amused by