The IMDB Synopsis for the movie Lions for Lambs is: "Three stories told simultaneous in ninety minutes of real time: a Republican Senator who's a presidential hopeful gives an hour-long interview to a skeptical television reporter, detailing a strategy for victory in Afghanistan; two special forces ambushed on an Afghani ridge await rescue as Taliban forces close in; a poli-sci professor at a California college invites a promising student to re-engage. Decisions press upon the reporter, the student, and the soldiers."(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0891527/)
This movie is an odd one, as it seems to be less concerned with telling a story as it is presenting the conflict between contrasting views on the war in Afghanistan. It is slightly outdated, as it was released in 2007, however the arguments between the characters seem to be just as applicable, if not more so, today than it did a few years ago.
The one element of this film that struck me was the lack of resolution at the end. With the journalist and the student in particular, no real decision is made. The options are presented to them, and their struggle is evident, but we are left viewing them still in a state of indecision. This lack of resolution is unsettling, and does not give the viewer the satisfied feeling of completion one comes to expect from most Hollywood blockbusters; however, as the aim of the movie appears to be an unsettling, thought-inspiring experience, it certainly seems to have accomplished its goal.
While I admit my knowledge of politics and world events is limited, I find it hard to believe anyone would be able to quickly form a strong pro or con opinion about the war after watching Lions for Lambs. The story of the soldiers seems, to me, to imply that the senator's view is flawed, however it is not clearly shown in the film. It seems as though all three scenarios are designed simply to show how the two opposing viewpoints conflict, without actually showing any attempt at resolution or a preference towards one view or the other.
I find it hard to form a reaction to this movie, other than it seems to have left me, unfulfilled. While it offered me an opportunity to see many questions about the war and conflicting arguments, my overall lack of knowledge prevents me from being able to make an informed decision on whether or not I agree with the War on Terror or not. That being said, the film is well done, and has certainly made me want to research more on the war and form a more solid opinion of my own.
I think a film directed by Robert Redford would be all-too-easy to come off as an anti-Afghanistan-war statement--and he knew that--so he tried to put this war in the larger context of how politicians and media shape our opinions about war. Vietnam and even the Roman Empire are referenced: isn't this what people in power always do? While the whole movie comes off as mostly critical of the war on terror, I think the Senator is fairly compelling in portraying the pro-war position as one concerned about troops and about security, rather than blatantly partisan agendas.
ReplyDelete