LIONS FOR LAMBS

US, 2007, 94 minutes, Colour.
Robert Redford, Meryl Streep, Tom Cruise, Michael Pena, Andrew Garfield, Peter Berg, Kevin Dunn, Derek Luke.
Directed by Robert Redford.

This is didactic fiction film-making at its best.

The war in Iraq and the fighting in Afghanistan have produced feature films much more quickly than did the Vietnam War. Both conflicts have been television wars, audiences familiar with what happens, the fighting, the destruction, the deaths on both sides. It was only some years after the surrender of Saigon that films like The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now and Coming Home appeared. This year already there have been The Kingdom, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah and Rendition, cinema challenges to understanding the conflicts, to appraising political and military authorities and their arguments as well as questioning the role of the media.

The writer of The Kingdom (which began as a kind of CSI in Saudi Arabia and then erupted into gung-ho action), Matthew Carnahan also wrote this film which is stronger on thought although it does include action. This is obviously a heartfelt work, at times like a piece of theatre with its dialogues and personal interactions. It will be liked and loathed (as lobby groups in the US have already indicated) according to one’s partisan stances and beliefs.

The film has been directed by Robert Redford which gives it a kind of critical ‘liberal’ imprimatur. Redford directs with confidence: scenes in the Capitol, in a university and, in action in the Afghan mountains. The three strands have been intercut so that the film keeps moving while offering its range of points of view.

The action takes place over an hour and a half, capitalising on the different time zones so that there is mid-morning action in Washington, early morning in California and night already in Afghanistan. There is some variety as flashbacks about the university are inserted into both the Californian story and the action in the Afghan mountains.

The core of the film is the discussion in Washington. Here we have government politics, strategies and attempts at spin in the form of a senator who calls in a network reporter who had praised him and his career some years earlier. He is offering her an exclusive, which really means he wants a favourable story planted about a successful strategy which will win over public opinion. Here the screenplay has plenty to offer on different angles on the past six hears, not only on politics, failed military strategies but also the connivance of the media with the government, making it a vehicle of propaganda in the midst of an increasing glut of TV entertainment. With Tom Cruise at his best as the smooth and charming Senator and Meryl Streep at her unvarnished best as the veteran reporter, there is plenty to chew on here with the meaty dialogue.

Meanwhile, Robert Redford portrays an ageing political science professor who is challenging a typical bright student (a fine Andrew Garfield) who is becoming more lazy, cynical and uninvolved. Redford is one of those catalyst lecturers who is able to inspire and transform ordinary and extraordinary students. Once again, the dialogue has a great deal on involvement and detachment, how to work with political processes rather than bypassing or ignoring them, of integrity in doing something rather than indulging in the luxury of opting out. There are flashbacks showing the student’s capabilities.

In Afghanistan, the commander of the base (Peter Berg who also directed The Kingdom) is initiating the new plan, to put small groups on mountain tops to occupy them before the Taliban does. Two earnest young men are amongst the squad. When the plan faces disaster and they confront the Taliban, there are flashbacks to their university days and their interactions with the professor, especially when they want to put their beliefs into action and enlist and do something for America.

Audiences who do not want to be challenged by these ideas will not like the film. They might say it is too ‘talky’. Some potentially sympathetic audiences have found the film too preachy, even ‘sanctimonious’ in its presentation of its arguments. However, with its fine cast, Redford’s direction and its 94 minutes’ running time, it is cinema debate at its sharpest.

1.Didactic cinema? Liberal views? Presenting all sides of arguments? No easy answers?

2.The writer, his work on The Kingdom, interest in war, the Middle East, Afghanistan and Iraq? The structure of the film as a play, verbal, intelligent, including action, emotional response?

3.The strong cast, Redford as director?

4.The structure of the film: the time-span of ninety minutes, reflecting real time? The three time zones and the variety of action? The flashbacks, their being intercut, the cutting between talk and action?

5.The invasion of Afghanistan, six years later, the after-effect of September 11, the invasion of Iraq, government policy, motives, errors, strategies, media spin, the reporting of the media, embedded journalists, exclusives as in this case? The complicity of media with government?

6.The Washington debate: the meeting, the senator and his being a presidential hopeful, his relationship with his staff, Janine being invited, her quote of praise framed on his wall, the various photos on the wall with celebrities? The drama and the debate? Intercutting with the other strands? His phone call, leaving the room, Janine looking at the pictures? The explanation of the strategy – and the phone call with its failure? The role of the senator, his views, the Republican views, the government? Doing anything for victory as long as it takes? The past, mistakes? How much honesty, how much spin? The lack of detail of the mission? Janine’s response? Her age, sceptical attitudes, her questions, motives, her discussions, checking facts? The moods of the discussion? The point about complicity of the media? The challenge?

7.Her return to her office, the taxi, reflection, her boss, their discussions, past idealism, suspicions of the senator, Janine’s career, her age? The nature of television, as an entertainment medium, planting stories? Channels like Fox News and their style?

8.The Afghan story, the commander, the outpost, night, the men, the discussions, the plans, the briefing? The introduction to Ernest and to Arian? The black and the Hispanic? The technology, the timing of the mission, the courage required? The weather, the mountains, the details of the plan, on the plane, the joking, the fear, the gun attack, the deaths, the fall, Arian jumping? The injuries, in the snow? Their talk, the possibility for help? The surveillance, the command seeing as the audience did who was there, the Taliban’s approach, the men hearing the Taliban? Ordering the bombings of the Taliban, the orders, the planes, the time? The flashbacks of university days? The two standing together, death?

9.The past, the classes, ordinary young men, the debates in the classroom, the professor and his support? Their mutual help? Engaging with society, with government, signing up, students and their cynicism, their wanting to do something? The café and the professor urging them not to go? Their determination to go?

10.The discussion between the professor and Todd? 7.00am, summoning Todd, Todd’s age, the professor’s age, his work, lectures, political science, as a catalyst for gifted students? Recognising the gifts? Offering the challenge? Todd, age, background, busy, girlfriend, head of the fraternity, a good student, not going to lectures? The discussion about studies, about involvement? The memories of the two students who had gone to Afghanistan? The flashbacks, Todd’s intervention in the lecture, the criticisms, his engagement? His expectations, loss of confidence in government? Wanting the comfortable life? Todd countering the professor’s arguments, the psychological sparring? The professor and his Vietnam experience? The experience of Iraq? Wanting involvement, for integrity? The final questions?

11.The varying points of view? Contemporary US? The questions for the audience?