In this time of war, it is expected to find seemingly countless films serving to comment on the conflict in several different cinematic styles.
Lions for Lambs is a star-studded, politically-charged, conversational triptych on US military engagement and the roles of Americans on all levels. Robert Redford (An Unfinished Life) directs and stars in this minimalist film, which aims to absorb audiences in current foreign affairs without overtly telling them what to believe.
There is little in the way of character development, storyline, cinematic expression or even plot. Instead, this film is a series of engaging theatrical discussions on foreign affairs, offering opposing stances from several American vantage points.
The small but distinguished cast, which includes Redford, Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: III) and Meryl Streep (Rendition), represents the many different layers of American involvement abroad.
Lamb's settings are also sparingly used and scaled down, along with the action and special effects. Only three locations are used; two are offices serving as backdrops for unfolding political conversation, and the last is Afghanistan, where two American soldiers are struggling to survive against the Taliban.
These events happen simultaneously and over the span of an hour, using short time, high impact, fast-paced storytelling to further illustrate the tough decisions facing the country.
The first office belongs to the smooth-talking, terror-fighting and young-gun Senator Jasper Irving, played by Cruise. He meets with veteran television journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to offer her a sensational, exclusive story on a new military plan in Afghanistan.
With his cockamamie smile and supreme command of the English language, Cruise's portrayal of the smart and sly senator unveils to Roth the administration's newest ploy to defeat evil and spread righteousness.
Streep succeeds as best she can with Roth, the journalist matching the bucking senator with sharp wit and apprehensive retorts, questioning the validity and effectiveness of the new stand on terror and on the war in general. Ten minutes into the meeting, Roth learns that the strategy has already gone into effect, ten minutes prior.
Meanwhile, at an unspecified West Coast university, a different meeting of minds is taking place. This one consists of idealistic, aging professor Dr. Malley (Redford) trying desperately to reach out to his privileged, intelligent, but utterly unmotivated student, Todd Hayes, played by Andrew Garfield (Boy A).
Malley urges his student to do more than talk a big game. He stresses the utmost importance of engaging in the politics that are defining the world around him. "Rome is burning," he bellows at Hayes as their meeting draws to an end. The message is clear: Do something.
The two soldiers, Arian (Derek Luke, Catch a Fire) and Ernest (Michael Pe?+/-a, Shooter) are the lions of the story. They are underprivileged, hard-working, socially-dismissed boys who are willing to give everything to a country whose reciprocal offers are debatable.
The characters in this film fit rather neatly into clich?(c) boxes: the arrogant, war-enthusing politician; the underachieving, unengaged student; the wise, idealistic professor; and the socio-economically-challenged individuals who actually fight this ugly war. And while the characters may seem tired and unnecessary - even boring - Redford does this purposefully. The characters are clearly not as important as the topics and opinions that they bring to the light.
Lions for Lambs isn't trying to sell some new Middle East story. There are no explosions, chases or romances. The film presents viewpoints from easily recognizable representations of American society.
And while there is a clear anti-Bush feeling to the movie, Redford doesn't push any of these views on the audience. The message being hammered into the public here is that engagement on some level must exist in all of us. It is better to do something and fail than to do nothing at all.
Photo: Courtesy of Laron Fomby
