Robert Redford, Lions For Lambs

by Kathryn Durfee
11/10/2007

If you pay attention, I'm going to let you in on a little secret: Hollywood is against the war in Iraq. I know, I am as shocked as you are.

Robert Redford's new film Lions for Lambs intertwines three (or four, depending on how you separate them) story lines in order to comment on the current political scene and war in Iraq. Lambs proves that while newsreels are no longer shown before the feature, propaganda films are alive and well.

I'll be perfectly honest, when people talk about politics, all I hear is "blah blah blah WMDs blah blah blah missiles..." so I tend not to take sides. I mean, I watched all seven seasons of The West Wing and I can't tell you a damn thing about the Bartlett administration. Politics aside, I'd rather a film inspire discussion than drill its message into the ground.

The first story in Lambs is a conversation between journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) and Republican Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise), a senator with presidential ambitions. Irving is putting into motion a new military strategy, the motto being "whatever it takes," in the Middle East. As a big fan of Roth's, he wants to give her the inside scoop by setting up an exclusive interview.

Next we have Stephen Malley (Redford), a political science professor, and his frequently-absent but full-of-potential student Todd (Andrew Garfield) at an unnamed California university. In hopes of inspiring Andrew to do great things, Malley describes the previous two students that gave him hope, Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke). They are the third (and fourth) piece of the puzzle: these two up and joined the army against their professor's wishes, a point that was drilled into the audience again and again. Alas, they are now front and center for the first stage of Irving's plan.

Lions for Lambs tries to inspire but fails, amounting only to another bloated, preachy political piece. The film offers no new articulation of what has been said countless times before. Politicians are bad and they make careless decisions disregarding human cost and consequences in their big, fancy offices. The men and women actually fighting in the Middle East are heroes but are at the same time victims for being completely expendable to the aforementioned politicians. And finally, journalists should be pitied because they are more often encouraged to feed the machine rather than to get what they believe to be the real version of the story out.

Aside from my opinions about politics in the movies, Lambs suffers from some technical flaws as well. The cuts from story to story make it difficult to attach yourself to any of the characters. As a result, most of these individuals remain one-dimensional.

Redford hardly takes on a character here. His professor is clearly a thin guise for his true feelings as a filmmaker. Just in case the other story lines could not drive the point home, he plays his professor more as a preacher to the audience than a mentor to the student. Streep seems to give Roth depth, but it remains unclear how far she'll really go to maintain her integrity.

The film also approaches the treacherous territory of "star vehicle." Sure, the script is meant to encourage discussion, but viewers can't help but notice who is doing all the talking. I do appreciate the fact that Lambs does not function as merely another Tom Cruise vehicle. Instead of being placed front and center, Cruise is featured in only a third of the film. In addition, placed opposite the far more accomplished Meryl Streep, he seems immature and nubile. Unfortunately, he brings nothing to the role, playing himself as usual; Senator Irving is merely Tom Cruise in a power suit. [As a side note, one of the previews shown before Lambs is for next summer's Valkyrie, starring Tom Cruise - with an eyepatch!]

Lambs could have been a much stronger film had it taken a new stand on current events or perhaps allowed the viewer to decide what to think on his or her own. The beginning of the film offers hope of showing some original and constructive arguments on the subject of the Middle East, but it quickly turns to follow a more predictable route with contrived endings to each story. Pehaps Lambs aims to challenge the audience to do what is right, but who can say now what the "right thing" really is?