2008 Woodie Awards
Redford connects with new war film
Matt Lee
Issue date: 11/15/07 Section: Intermission
- Page 1 of 1
The film "Lions for Lambs" combines two heated debates about the War in Iraq.
One debate is between Tom Cruise's character Senator Jasper Irving and Meryl Streep's character Janine Roth, concerning the use of some risky tactics that may win the war, but at the cost of many more lives.
The other is between Robert Redford's character professor Stephen Malley and his lazy, but gifted college student. This debate is more or less about the older generation's view of the politically apathetic youth.
Both of these story lines are fused together with scenes of the plan Senator Irving is proposing that is being carried out by two former students of professor Malley. Together, the three plots explain how the powerful, but cowardly lambs use the less-fortunate, but brave lions as a tool to keep them in positions of dominance.
The dialogue-driven script is amazing and is only heightened by the three main actors' great performances. Cruise, known for playing an arrogant jerk, continues the trend beautifully as the quintessential politician. He spends the entire film speaking a lot, but saying virtually nothing.
Streep's frustrated reporter is convincingly torn between doing what's morally right, and following her boss' demands. While she is sitting on one of the biggest stories of her life that could impact the entire country, she knows letting the information out will have serious consequences.
Redford reminds me of several professors I have come across over the course of college, but is irritatingly against settling on either side of the important issues of the war. He basically says he is against his students volunteering for the armed forces, but also says he couldn't be more proud if they did.
The film touches on a lot of issues that circulate in the world today. Besides the obvious connection to the War in Iraq, there are issues concerning drafting soldiers, the connection of this war to the Vietnam War and the power of the media. There is an especially prevalent message about how this power is being misused as a form of celebrity gossip, even at the most prestigious levels of broadcast news.
The general population seems more concerned about whether Britney Spears is wearing underpants than they are about whether the government is finding a way to end the war we are in.
I wonder if the political messages in this film will hold up. Will this film be forgotten after we finish this war? Will it even last through next year's presidential election? The ending of this film is rightfully inconclusive about what the future holds for the countries involved in the conflict in the Middle East.
"Lions for Lambs" gives its viewers two concise debates presented by representatives of those who are for and against the war. It isn't as intensely one-sided as a film by Michael Moore, but it will definitely be admired as at least a minor influence on the political attitudes of its viewers.
One debate is between Tom Cruise's character Senator Jasper Irving and Meryl Streep's character Janine Roth, concerning the use of some risky tactics that may win the war, but at the cost of many more lives.
The other is between Robert Redford's character professor Stephen Malley and his lazy, but gifted college student. This debate is more or less about the older generation's view of the politically apathetic youth.
Both of these story lines are fused together with scenes of the plan Senator Irving is proposing that is being carried out by two former students of professor Malley. Together, the three plots explain how the powerful, but cowardly lambs use the less-fortunate, but brave lions as a tool to keep them in positions of dominance.
The dialogue-driven script is amazing and is only heightened by the three main actors' great performances. Cruise, known for playing an arrogant jerk, continues the trend beautifully as the quintessential politician. He spends the entire film speaking a lot, but saying virtually nothing.
Streep's frustrated reporter is convincingly torn between doing what's morally right, and following her boss' demands. While she is sitting on one of the biggest stories of her life that could impact the entire country, she knows letting the information out will have serious consequences.
Redford reminds me of several professors I have come across over the course of college, but is irritatingly against settling on either side of the important issues of the war. He basically says he is against his students volunteering for the armed forces, but also says he couldn't be more proud if they did.
The film touches on a lot of issues that circulate in the world today. Besides the obvious connection to the War in Iraq, there are issues concerning drafting soldiers, the connection of this war to the Vietnam War and the power of the media. There is an especially prevalent message about how this power is being misused as a form of celebrity gossip, even at the most prestigious levels of broadcast news.
The general population seems more concerned about whether Britney Spears is wearing underpants than they are about whether the government is finding a way to end the war we are in.
I wonder if the political messages in this film will hold up. Will this film be forgotten after we finish this war? Will it even last through next year's presidential election? The ending of this film is rightfully inconclusive about what the future holds for the countries involved in the conflict in the Middle East.
"Lions for Lambs" gives its viewers two concise debates presented by representatives of those who are for and against the war. It isn't as intensely one-sided as a film by Michael Moore, but it will definitely be admired as at least a minor influence on the political attitudes of its viewers.