Robert Redford's new film, Lions for Lambs - much like the war that is the focal point of the movie - is more about ideologies than the people involved. It's a film that attempts to promote discussion of the human cost of the War on Terror from all different facets of life. It also does a fair amount of finger pointing on the subject of who is responsible for this mess we find ourselves in. From the opening scene, where a teenager stares blankly at a TV screen that is airing a report on the death tolls in Iraq, we know we are in for a heated discussion on the modern state of affairs. The only problem is that it is much like most discussions on politics: a whole lot of talk.
The movie focuses on an hour in the lives of six different characters, intending to present the multifaceted views of this war through their heated discussions on the Iraq War. The first, and by far the most interesting discussion, is between fictional Senator Jasper Irving (played by Tom Cruise) and reporter Jeanine Roth (Meryl Streep) who has been called in to give an update on the progress of the war. The new battle plan that Cruise presents involves Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena), two scholarship students from California who are inspired by their professor's pointed lectures to enlist in the army. The wise old professor (director Robert Redford) attempts to atone for this by prodding one of his rich white students into a more productive reaction to the political climate.
All of the characters are flat and ridiculous, and Redford's examination of them hardly goes beyond the stereotypes they embody. Arian and Ernest are student athletes who aren't afraid to start swearing during a class presentation. It's just the way they talk. Redford's student (Andrew Garfield) is a frat boy at a nameless California university who complains his parents resent his enjoyment of the life they gave him. Cruise's senator is a fast talking neo-conservative who spouts twisted government speak when selling the party line to Streep. Redford even throws in doctored pictures of Cruise with the president to prove his credibility.
It is the performances that are forced to carry this movie, and unfortunately the majority of them cannot get past the simple rhetoric given to them by screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan. The exceptions are Cruise and Streep, who, at this point in their careers, can deliver gravitas monologues to the camera with the greatest of ease. Cruise is especially impressive, delivering lines such as, "Do you want to win the war on terror? It is the quintessential yes or no question of our time." He almost makes you wish the infinitely quotable script were as deep as it sounded on screen.
This is not to say that Redford doesn't present some interesting ideas. There are a lot of moments in the movie that point out some intricacies of the situation we find ourselves in as a country. Cruise's senator contradicts the reporter's idea that the media impartially reports the news on foreign policy, saying, "I didn't sell them the war. We did it together." The scene where the two kids offer justification to their professor for enlisting is also particularly harrowing, with one saying, "This is our generation's defining moment. Just like you had Vietnam." Although obvious, it is a scary parallel to draw, and it is one that Redford is not afraid of making many times over.
You have to respect the movie in some sense. It is obviously borne out of a concern for the direction this country is taking, and its intention is to inspire discussion. The problem is that Redford cannot balance the discussion with any forward motion, and the stale battle scenes in Afghanistan do not provide nearly as much tension as one would expect. It's the ideas that propel the film but what Redford ultimately shows is that, like with the war itself, ideas are much of the problem.
