Lions For Lambs is the type of film that doesn't get made anymore. That is, it seems like a modern-day work from a time when films were more about captivating with a flawless script than with images. Some may consider this a backwards step in the progression of film; after all, the moving image is what makes film as a medium so unique. But when you consider what film has become in the last few years, with a rehash of a once-clever concept or genre coming to theaters every week, you begin to wonder if we didn't need a kick in the pants from the 12 Angry Men school of film making.
The film is broken down, really, into 3 inter-cut films, all occurring simultaneously. I don't believe I can chronicle the events without greatly trivializing them, and coming off as streamlining. I'm not one for synopses, and when a good 75% of film's strength comes from its choice of words and verbal storytelling, a synopsis seems rather unnecessary. Still, I'll break down the situations themselves, and lend a thought or two of my own to each piece.
One of the vignettes, I suppose, features Meryl Streep as journalist Janine Roth, interviewing Tom Cruise's Senator Jasper Irving. Irving is an idealist, often completely ignoring Roth's pointed, accurate attempts at showing the cyclical nature or history. On several occasions, it seems that Irving doesn't believe the past to be worth noting. He acknowledges the Government's mistakes, but shows a desire to emulate them. His "New Strategies," are merely tweaks on foibles from the past, but this time, he assures Roth, the end result will be victory - not shame.
Elsewhere in our comfortable land of the free, Robert Redford's Professor Stephen Malley discusses the past and the future with his student, Todd Hayes (veritable newbie Andrew Garfield, who plays his role flawlessly). This is really the third of the film most difficult to summarize, as so many thought-provoking concepts and dialogues occur that any summation at all would be comparably powerless. It's the job of the critic to invoke interest in a work, regardless of the rating given. With that in mind, I think I'm doing the right thing in not attempting the impossible and unnecessary, because any attempt to do so would make you all far less interested in seeing the film - something I don't want.
Finally, we have the storyline featuring Ernest and Arian, two soldiers who are helping to out Senator Irving's new plan for victory. If Irving's office is comfortable and homey, then the bitter-cold wasteland where this storyline spends most of its time is a comparative desert - a frozen hell on Earth. The dialogue here isn't questioning or thought provoking in the words chosen, but rather in the situation itself. At once, the finale of this segment feels like a culmination and a beginning, much like the other two. The difference here, though, is that there is no lingering sense of perplex on the characters' faces; rather, the perplex is solely in the minds of the audience, as the question of "Why?" never seems to be in Ernest and Arian's heads. In this sense, we the viewers act as an outside entity more so than in the other segments - something rather admirable, considering the comparative drought of direct dialogue.
Lions for Lambs isn't a film grounded in visual exhilaration, but it does exhilarate. Only one third of the film has any sort of visual stimulus not displayed by the actors themselves, but you don't ever want to take your eyes off the screen. If you do, you might miss one of Cruise's trademark mid-shot octal evolutions, or Robert Redford's superb physicality while he's simply sitting in his seat. It's a movie that asks questions both directly and without words, and there's just nothing like it out there right now.
"Lions for Lambs" opens November 9, 2007 and is rated R. Drama. Directed by Robert Redford. Written by Matthew Michael Carnahan. Starring Derek Luke, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, Tom Cruise, Michael Pena.
