Every now and then we see a Hollywood film that harps about the current post- war American situation. It is almost always packed with stereotypes about army men, Senators, journalists and it ends with a great deed or tragedy that is supposed to move the audiences albeit fuel their jingoism. 'Lions for Lambs' discusses the same situation with much greater responsibility and a brilliantly written and structured screenplay.
The plot of the film revolves around three events that are happening simultaneously an ambitious Senator's (Cruise) interview with a leading journalist (Streep), a formerly zealous and now reckless student's meeting with a professor (Redford) of political science and a military attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The three events are deeply interconnected but the focus in every scene is on what every character believes in, and how it influences where America is and where it will be in the future.
The screenplay is deeply rooted in arguments between the leading characters and it focuses on presenting every person's perspective whether it is a Senator who believes another military attack shall ensure a win, a student who believes that the political situation is too ruined to be studied and spoken about, or the journalist who doesn't want to unquestioningly support actions of the government like she had in the Iraq and Vietnam Wars. And there is also the story of two injured soldiers who are to be ambushed by the enemy in the Afghan mountains.
With great craftsmanship, no point of view is made to be bigger than the other. Yet, every view is articulately put forward. With no melodrama at hand, Redford presents different outlooks and makes the end product look effortlessly open-ended. Most significantly, the effect the film has on the audience is not mitigated by the lack of high voltage screaming and background music. The role as well as the viewpoint of politicians, the middle-class American student, the committed soldier and journalists is offered only so that it can be scrutinized by the audience.
'Lions for Lambs' attracts vast curiosity because of its cast that does its job with panache. Tom Cruise is flawless as Senator Jasper Irving. The movie offers one of the few moments where one can forgive Cruise's off-screen antics. Robert Redford plays Professor Stephen Malley like no one else would; watching his desperation and commitment as a professor is an experience. Meryl Streep plays the subtle Janine Roth with grace. That her role wasn't that of a stereotypical prowling hungry journalist is a relief. Andrew Garfield, as the disillusioned Californian student, is a great find and he has a lot to offer in the future.
Lions for Lambs may seem a preachy drama from the outside. The reason why one should watch it is because it is a simple film that asks you to make a choice,however different it may be from the makers of this film.
The plot of the film revolves around three events that are happening simultaneously an ambitious Senator's (Cruise) interview with a leading journalist (Streep), a formerly zealous and now reckless student's meeting with a professor (Redford) of political science and a military attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The three events are deeply interconnected but the focus in every scene is on what every character believes in, and how it influences where America is and where it will be in the future.
The screenplay is deeply rooted in arguments between the leading characters and it focuses on presenting every person's perspective whether it is a Senator who believes another military attack shall ensure a win, a student who believes that the political situation is too ruined to be studied and spoken about, or the journalist who doesn't want to unquestioningly support actions of the government like she had in the Iraq and Vietnam Wars. And there is also the story of two injured soldiers who are to be ambushed by the enemy in the Afghan mountains.
With great craftsmanship, no point of view is made to be bigger than the other. Yet, every view is articulately put forward. With no melodrama at hand, Redford presents different outlooks and makes the end product look effortlessly open-ended. Most significantly, the effect the film has on the audience is not mitigated by the lack of high voltage screaming and background music. The role as well as the viewpoint of politicians, the middle-class American student, the committed soldier and journalists is offered only so that it can be scrutinized by the audience.
'Lions for Lambs' attracts vast curiosity because of its cast that does its job with panache. Tom Cruise is flawless as Senator Jasper Irving. The movie offers one of the few moments where one can forgive Cruise's off-screen antics. Robert Redford plays Professor Stephen Malley like no one else would; watching his desperation and commitment as a professor is an experience. Meryl Streep plays the subtle Janine Roth with grace. That her role wasn't that of a stereotypical prowling hungry journalist is a relief. Andrew Garfield, as the disillusioned Californian student, is a great find and he has a lot to offer in the future.
Lions for Lambs may seem a preachy drama from the outside. The reason why one should watch it is because it is a simple film that asks you to make a choice,however different it may be from the makers of this film.
Tell Your Friends