Lions for Lambs

It's easy to imagine the 2007 drama Lions for Lambs performed on the stage, since the story is so dialogue-driven and only three simple sets-or merely four chairs, if a modern take was adopted-would be necessary. Three stories are all related, each including a dialogue between two characters, in a time-sensitive story during the current (depending on when you rent this movie) war in the Middle East. In one, a powerful Republican senator, Tom Cruise, tries to persuade a liberal journalist, Meryl Streep, to write a favorable piece on his efforts for the war. In another, a California university professor, Robert Redford, tries to get an apathetic student, Andrew Garfield, to care about current events. In the third, two soldiers and friends, Michael Pena and Derek Luke, find themselves isolated and fighting for their lives during a mission gone wrong.

If you're hooked already, like I was, you're going to want to rent this one. Plus, it's Robert Redford's baby (meaning, he directed it) so you know it's going to be well-made and full of top-notch acting. If this ever does get turned into a stage play, I think it'll be a great success. Many theatergoers will enjoy the witty dialogue and agree with the message. A word of warning, though: if you find yourself agreeing with Tom Cruise as the movie starts, you might not enjoy the rest of it. I wouldn't exactly classify this film as a "message movie," but it definitely has a theme. If you're a Republican, there's a chance you might not like it.

I came to this film with it already square in my mind what I was getting into. The media and the reviews here had already informed me that this is the liberal media having yet another dig at the Bush administration and the policies in Iraq etc. Knowing that, and sharing those views roughly, I decided to watch it but did hope that it would not be too clumsy as a fictional attack on a subject that is already covered everywhere you look. What I got though was not that but something much more interesting and something much more unexpected. What I got was a film that more or less pushed the political points to one side and challenged those on the bench of politics to get involved rather than just sitting there moaning. It took me by surprising but essentially this is the reason for the entire film – not to bash Bush, not to condemn Iraq, not to push Democrat policies but just to challenge the viewer.

In this regard it works really well and it is hard to argue with the points about taking part in society rather than just focusing on one's self and I particularly liked the way that it did not condemn those who do that with a weapon, with politics, with reporting to help others be involved etc. I can understand why it has gotten this "liberal" tag because of who made it and because it is "intelligent" but it doesn't deserve this because it generally does keep the neutrality reasonably well. Of course though there is a slant to the left on what it is saying but not to the extent where ti does feel like you are being preached at – this is not a Michael Moore film here.

Nor is it a perfect film though. Those looking to be told a story and nothing more will find themselves disappointed because, although there is a narrative flow to it, this is not really what it is about. Instead it relies heavily on engaging the viewer's brain and making the audience think – that way, how the film ends is not all that important because you carrying on mulling over things for yourself as you leave the cinema. For me this happened but for others I can understand why the film would have come across boring, pointless and open-ended; I don't agree with you – but I can see how it happened.

The cast are all very good though because everyone understands the need to sell their characters. Cruise plays very well as the politician and the film treats him with respect as a character. He plays well with Streep, who is equally good and uses her performance to let the media have a kick that it does deserve. Redford and Garfield provide the meat of the piece and their simple discussion comes over natural and effective in presenting the challenge to the viewer. Peña and Luke have simpler characters but are engaging as students and soldiers. It is very much an ensemble piece and everyone does work well in their various twosomes, the support cast may have Berg, Dunn and other familiar faces but really it is about the three pairs, all of whom work well.

Lions for Lambs has been lumped in with anti-Bush and anti-Iraq films and will have been dismissed by many as just about piece of left-wing propaganda – and this is a shame because this is far from the truth. It is not a perfect film in some regards but it is not preaching but rather challenging all viewers, no matter what you think, to get involved, to take part, to question things, to think for one's self. It is thought-provoking and challenging and for that it is well worth seeing for yourself.

"Lions for Lambs" follows three interconnected storylines that all revolve around politics. More narrowly they revolve around the politics of war, and more specifically still: the war in Afghanistan. At the time of the release of this movie the U. S. had been in Afghanistan for about five years and only now, roughly twenty years after storming Afghanistan to punish the Taliban for their role in 9/11, has the U. S. decided to bring their last troops home.

The three storylines "Lambs" followed were 1.) Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and one of his students (Andrew Garfield) at a university somewhere in California. 2.) Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Pena) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke) who were also students of Prof. Malley's before deciding to enlist in the army. 3.) Republican Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) who were ardently discussing the U. S.'s new strategy for ending the war for good which just so happen to involve Rodriguez and Finch.

There you have it. You have American politics, with fighting being a part of it, being discussed in broader more philosophical terms in the professor's office. You have an actual politician discussing how to bring an end to the war in Afghanistan. And you have actual soldiers fighting the war in Afghanistan. It all made for some interesting and even somewhat passionate arguments, but that's where it stopped. "Lambs" seems to have been made to make its viewers think and come to their own conclusion about who or what was right and wrong. I can appreciate that even if I wasn't the biggest fan of the topic.

Not true! Robert Redford didn't take to the pulpit to give us a pet talk. He's far too subtle, honest and compassionate to pull a stunt like that. The film is about questions not about answers and we're all grateful for that. I left the theater with a weight on my chest because I believe in the validity of the questions and the individual responsibility of finding the fair way to the answers. Important to remember, at least it was for me, that this is a film delivered to us by three icons. Robert Redford, a symbol of consistency and independence, Meryl Streep, an actress who defined the last two decades of film acting with characters that went straight to the center of something and Tom Cruise, the box office champion who's become a controversial figure despite of his undeniable humanity. I will take a stand here and advise you to go and see this film. You will come up with new questions and a potential road map for the answers.

Thumbs are of no use in talking about Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs." Sticking them up or down makes little sense. It's not that kind of movie. What kind is it? Pretty much without a category.

The time is the present, Bush II is president, there is an unending war in the Middle East, the setting is present-day D.C., everything looks documentary-realistic. It could be a Sunday-morning panel discussion, but the cast consists of a bevy of stars, performing magnificently, with a script that seems to be formed by headlines from today's newspapers.

At the center of the film is a lengthy, unlikely, but brilliant duet of a an interview between a veteran, nobody's-fool political reporter (Meryl Streep) and a young hotshot NeoCon senator (Tom Cruise), both utterly believable, notwithstanding the challenge of some lame lines by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan for Cruise. Still, overall, the business between the two is the "people's business," about the lethal foreign-policy bungling of a war of choice, now running longer than World War II. (These are not editorial comments, but rather a report on what the film says.)

While dissecting the Iraqi disaster, and hearing some surprising and obviously manipulating admissions of errors from Cruise's hawkish senator, the issue at hand is the senator - a key military adviser to the President - trying to steer Streep's skeptical journalist into "selling" a new plan of attack in Afghanistan, something she instantly recognizes as a throwback to failed strategy in Vietnam.

Alternating with the interview segments are battle scenes in Afghanistan where two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) are risking their lives in implementing that new plan. Then, by a stretch and rather awkwardly, there sits Redford's professor in his West Coast college office, pulling the story together between the two lion-like Rangers, who were his students, and a bright, troubled student (Andrew Garfield) who lost his way, baa, baa, baa.

Significant and entertaining, thought-provoking and reality-based sad, mostly well-written, and exceptionally well-acted, "Lions for Lambs" is likely to leave the audience with the feeling of having participated in an important happening, but perhaps not quite knowing what it was.

Gushing about Streep is almost embarrassing, but... Once again, she transcends text, expectations, whatever you may anticipate, and gives a performance to remember and treasure. Her expressions, body language, silences create a character with a life of her own, a "real person" we, the audience, feel as if we have known always, intimately.