by Santhosh Chandrashekar
Daily Lobo
Nothing is more intriguing about "Lions for Lambs" than its timing.
It seems as if Hollywood has found a theme - the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan - whose saturation in the media fatigues many. But saturation doesn't always mean the point has been driven home, and that may be what inspired Robert Redford to make this flick.
"Lions for Lambs" is the story of an indifferent U.S. abandoning politics to its scheming politicians, personified by the neocon Sen. Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and characterized by gifted student Todd Hayes, played by Andrew Garfield. Caught somewhere between Cruise and Garfield is Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), a seasoned journalist who is
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
unwilling to swallow White House propaganda with a boss who doesn't share her discretion or troubled conscience.
"Lions for Lambs" unfolds in multiple locations. Once again, Redford directs and stars in his own movie. He plays professor Stephen Malley, a character who spends his time trying to get Garfield back into the academic world while Garfield, unable to withstand the moral decay around him, chooses a bohemian life.
While Redford is busy trying to appeal to Garfield's better nature, Cruise is trying to convince the media and Streep that the U.S. military has a new strategy to attack the rebels in Afghanistan. But he never reveals the nature of the strategy. He does this to keep Streep guessing and because he wants her to get his story out. He does his best to keep her on the tenterhooks, divulging only enough to get her interest while making vain appeals to her sense of patriotism.
Meanwhile in Afghanistan, two former students of Redford who have joined the Marines are busy executing Irving's strategy. The strike they are involved in goes awry, and the two are abandoned in hostile territory where they desperately wait for a rescue mission as the Taliban closes in on them.
"Lions for Lambs" is about vile politicians taking America to war, their task made smooth by the political apathy around them. Unfortunately, the movie embraces a myopia that limits its relevance - it centers on the human and material costs incurred by the U.S. because of the war while conveniently ignoring what other people have had to endure because of U.S. military adventurism. That, in a sense, is also the movie's undoing.
Redford is convincing as professor Malley, though his greatest loss comes in the absence of radicalism. Garfield, as the promising student, merely gets by. The best work in the movie comes from Streep, who does an excellent job portraying a skeptical journalist. She refuses to believe Cruise. Though she seems to cave at a particular moment, she gathers herself quickly and sees through his game. The loudest applause in the theater was reserved for her. On the other hand, Cruise as Irving seems to rely on established stereotypes more than his acting skills.
Overall, this is a movie I would recommend if you are in dire need of political education. But if you read the newspapers and watch the news, you probably already know more than "Lions for Lambs" can show you.
"Lions for Lambs"
Grade: C
Opens Friday
