[NYTr] "Lions for Lambs" - Two Views

[All the News That Doesn't Fit]

[Just for balance, we're posting the review from The New York Times
after that by Lisa Pease.  Actually, aside from Streep's performance,
the film doesn't sound very good.  The Times review is not by a neo-con
apologist, and while it pans the film somewhat, it's sympathetic to its
aims. Those who've been on the net for years will recognize the name
Lisa Pease, a long-time online conspiracy researcher. Her site is
"The Real History Archives" at http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/index.htm
It's a massive compendium on almost every political conspiracy you
can think of, except those surrounding Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
-NYTr]

Consortium News - November 9, 2007
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/110907a.html


[Editor’s Note: The Washington Post and some other publications are
predictably panning Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" because it poses
tough moral questions about the neoconservative agenda.

In this guest review, historian Lisa Pease finds the movie compelling
for those same reasons.]


The Truth Behind 'Lions for Lambs'

By Lisa Pease

“Lions for Lambs,” directed by Robert Redford and starring Redford, Tom
Cruise, and Meryl Streep, opens this weekend. It is one of the few
“must see” films of the year.

Through crackling dialog, splendid performances, and emotional
sequences, the film seeks to elevate the national discussion not only
on the war in Iraq, but on the Americans at home who have chosen
neither to participate nor to protest.

The film’s Web site asks a question one must answer before one can
enter: what do you stand for? The film itself asks a bigger question:
What are you willing to do for what you believe?

The title of the film comes from a comment a German general offered in
a letter during World War I. Impressed by the bravery of the British
soldiers, if not their officers, who were often given their commission
because of social ranking, not military prowess, he wrote, “Never have
I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.”

And that’s the essential thrust of the film. Lions have put their lives
on the line for a war that was sold by Lambs. Now, what are we going to
do about it?

The film interweaves three stories. One features a rising young neocon
star, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), who invites savvy journalist
Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to bestow upon her a scoop regarding
a new military mission in Afghanistan.

He offers her the story first because she wrote the article that put
him on the political map when she called him “the future of his party.”

Janine suggests that was not necessarily a compliment, and they begin a
battle of wits and rhetoric the likes of which we’ve never heard, and
have longed to hear, about the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and
possibly in Iran next.

The second story line involves a college professor, Dr. Stephen Malley
(Redford), who calls his brightest -- if most absent -- student Todd
(Andrew Garfield) to his office for a discussion about his future. He
challenges him to engage, and not just in the class.

He tells him the story of two students who make up the third story
line, Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Peña). Arian and Ernest
were so bent on changing the world that they joined the Army in the
hopes that, as minorities, they’d have more credibility to speak about
society when they returned.

Malley talks of being torn by their decision. He was so disturbed by
their choice, even as he so applauded the spirit in which it was made.

In the third story, Arian and Ernest are participating in the very
action that Irving is describing to Roth: a covert mission in
Afghanistan. They are part of a team seeking to establish a base on a
plateau that would give them an excellent command post for the region.

But when their helicopter comes under attack, Ernest falls from the
plane. Arian, his closest friend, jumps out so Ernest will not be left
alone.

The narrative intercuts between Washington, D.C., where the fates of
such men are too easily decided by suits and a lazy media; the
California university where Dr. Malley fights to develop Todd’s
consciousness; and the snowy mountaintop in Afghanistan where Ernest
and Arian fight for their lives, thanks to the cumulative choices made
by all.

The dialog presents a masterful dissection of the rhetoric of war, from
multiple viewpoints, and challenges the public’s apathy on the subject.
As Geoff Boucher of the Los Angeles Times noted, the film is about
“conservatives who care too much about winning and liberals who don't
care enough about losing.”

The film is also about how we make choices daily, whether we realize
them as we make them or not, and how those choices can have tremendous
consequences down the line.

“Lions for Lambs” challenges each of us to live more consciously, to
make deliberate choices, rather than to sit back and let choices be
made for us through our passivity.

The compelling characters of Ernest and Arian remind us that the stakes
are so high and the consequences so enormous they demand we challenge
ourselves to reach past our comfort zones to take action on what we
believe.

Godot isn’t coming. Our fate rests in our collective hands. It’s time
to engage, in whatever way is meaningful to us. Supporting such a
message by attending this film would be a good start.

[Lisa Pease is a historian who has studied the JFK assassination and
other enduring political mysteries. ]


                             ***

The New York Times - Nov 9, 2007
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/11/09/movies/09lion.html

Hearts and Minds: 

Senator Meets Reporter, Selling a New, Improved War

By MANOHLA DARGIS

Career Politicians, the Fourth Estate and Disaffected Youth all earn a
stern knuckle rapping in “Lions for Lambs,” Robert Redford’s big-screen
lecture about civic responsibility and its absence in the Age of Iraq.
Those who remain shocked, shocked that elected officials, certain
journalists and cosseted college students sat idly by, huffing Hummer
fumes and nodding out on 24/7 infotainment (all Britney, all the time),
while the administration led the charge, first into Afghanistan and
then into Iraq, may find much to embrace here. Everyone else will
continue to nod out or resume banging their heads against the wall in
bloody frustration.

I suppose there’s something commendable about Mr. Redford fighting the
good fight, or at least one civilized version of it. Movie critics
often flog directors for not engaging with urgent contemporary matters,
like the current wars, but when they do engage, as several have tried
to this year (“In the Valley of Elah,” “Rendition”), we complain that
they’re not saying much of anything. Consider “Lions for Lambs” exhibit
R in this open case: It names the wars, presents a handful of
fictionalized main players from politicians to soldiers, and drops
words like “the people” and “Al Qaeda” and “propaganda.” It flashes
photographs of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, if
without overtly naming names.

What else do we learn from “Lions for Lambs”? That America is no longer
only the land of the free, home of the brave, but also of the
opportunistic and the compromised. Among the most conniving, or most
true-believing of these new Americans are politicians like Jasper
Irving (Tom Cruise), a Republican senator with his eye on the White
House. Among the most compromised among us, or the most exhausted, or
timorous — or something — are journalists like Janine Roth (Meryl
Streep), whom Irving has summoned to his office so he can pitch her a
shiny new war plan. Mistakes were made, he says, but that was then,
this is now. From their framed photographs, President Bush, Mr. Cheney
and Ms. Rice silently keep watch.

Nothing if not on party message, the senator has taken aim at Iran,
which, he tells Roth, is allowing Iraqi terrorists to cross its borders
on their way to Afghanistan, where they will fight alongside Al Qaeda.
As Roth leans forward, you can almost see the thought bubble above her:
Howzthatagain? But Roth is also vain; she’s a journalist, after all,
and rubbing shoulders, and who knows what else, with movers and shakers
has blunted her senses, clouded her vision. Power is an aphrodisiac, as
well as addictive. And power begets power, as Mr. Redford reminds us
when he shows Roth looking at a Time magazine cover story she wrote
about Irving. She helped make the senator and he did much the same for
her in turn.

It’s fun to watch this acting odd couple spar even in such a visually
inert context. Mr. Cruise pours on his characteristic intensity and
lights up the board with alternating flashes of charm, sincerity,
gravity, indignation and outrage. Every mood feels phony, a total
put-on, which works well for a character delivering a self-conscious,
constructed performance. As his audience of one, Ms. Streep’s
journalist must do a lot of listening, which the actress does with one
of her vibrant, entertaining, gestural performances. Every twitch,
blink, shrug, head bob and seat shift speaks softly at first and then
with increasing volume, giving physical form to the inner voice we
actually hear only later. Mr. Redford’s camera pays her close,
appreciative heed, as do we.

Alas, there’s more — namely two other story threads, the dreariest of
which involves yet another two speakers locked in one claustrophobic
space: a history professor, Dr. Stephen Malley (Mr. Redford), who has
summoned an apathetic student, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield), into his
office for a metaphoric spanking. One of those bright young things who
puts the “i” in Generation iPod, Todd has been dodging Malley’s class,
opting to turn off and tune out even while agreeing to drop in for
morning coffee. It’s not nearly as much fun to watch these two, largely
because the screenwriter, Matthew Michael Carnahan, has stacked the
deck so much in Malley’s favor you know the end of the conversation as
soon as it gets going.

It’s a long conversation, more soporific than Socratic, and brimming
with parental chiding, generational conflict and invocations of
Vietnam. You see, back in the day, Malley fought in that war after
being drafted. He didn’t want to fight, didn’t agree with its aims, but
he did nonetheless, which leads to another story fragment and two more
of his students: a Latino, Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña), and an
African-American, Arian Finch (Derek Luke). After absorbing Malley’s
lessons about responsibility, Ernest and Arian joined the army. These
lion cubs don’t believe the current wars are righteous, but they
believe they can effect change from the inside, which is how they land
in an Afghan misadventure more unbelievable, both in thematic and
visual terms, than Senator Irving’s military strategy.

In truth Ernest and Arian are less lions than sacrificial lambs that
exist solely so the film can wave the flag (and race and poverty) along
with index fingers. Malley regrets but respects the students’ decision
to enlist, which echoes the prevailing wisdom that you should support
the troops even if you don’t support the wars. The problem isn’t
whether this assertion is true; the problem is the film reflexively
embraces it, much as it does every single other cliché, without
inquiry, challenge or a single ounce of real risk. It tells us
everything most of us know already, including the fact that politicians
lie, journalists fail and youth flounders. Mostly it tells us that Mr.
Redford feels really bad about the state of things. Welcome to the club.

“Lions for Lambs” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or
adult guardian). Some bloody combat scenes, gun violence and tough
language.

LIONS FOR LAMBS

Opens today nationwide.

Directed by Robert Redford; written by Matthew Michael Carnahan;
director of photography, Philippe Rousselot; edited by Joe Hutshing;
music by Mark Isham; production designer, Jan Roelfs; produced by Mr.
Redford, Mr. Carnahan, Andrew Hauptman and Tracy Falco; released by
United Artists/Metro Goldwyn Mayer. Running time: 90 minutes.

WITH: Robert Redford (Prof. Stephen Malley), Meryl Streep (Janine
Roth), Tom Cruise (Senator Jasper Irving), Michael Peña (Ernest
Rodriguez), Andrew Garfield (Todd Hayes), Peter Berg (Lieutenant
Colonel Falco), Kevin Dunn (ANX Editor) and Derek Luke (Arian Finch).