REVIEW - Lions for Lambs (2007)

 

Originally written for the stage by Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also wrote the confused The Kingdom) and directed by Robert Redford, Lions for Lambs is an attempt at a thoughtful liberal response to the War on Terror.  Instead of sniping from the side-lines or cracking jokes, the film attempts to engage with the meat of the subject... namely the ideas and political thought behind the war.  The result of this is a film that feels a lot more like a series of lectures or overheard conversations than a coherent argument or analysis of the facts.  However, unlike other critics who have moaned about the preachiness or the talking head format of the film, my problem with the film lies at the level of the ideas.  Indeed, if this film is anything to go by then liberal America really has no idea as to what it should be thinking about the War on Terror.

The film interweaves three separate stories.  One story is that a gifted but increasingly cynical student has stopped attending his political science classes and is called in for a talk by his professor who tells him about two other gifted students who decided that the only way to improve the world is by engaging with it and therefore enlisted in the US Army.  A while later, and these same two men are now special forces soldiers who are deployed as part of the new Surge-like strategy in Afghanistan designed to enable US forces to take the high-ground in Afghanistan and thereby force the Taliban to engage directly.  Needless to say, this strategy goes wrong when it turns out that the Taliban are already on site and they shoot down the helicopter full of special forces soldiers resulting in the two former students being stuck, injured as the Taliban surround them.  Meanwhile, back in Washington D.C. a junior but ambitious US senator is leaking news of the new strategy to a veteran reporter who, as an employee of a news channel that considers the divorce of a rapper to be “Breaking News” is as much a part of the problem as the politicians themselves.

Intellectually, it is remarkably difficult to pin down what point it is that the film is trying to get across.  The film’s most powerful scenes are those featuring the ever scarily intense Cruise facing off against the mewling liberal journalist Meryl Streep.  The problem is that there’s actually surprisingly little information in amongst the bluster and the posturing of these meetings.  The Senator points out that the American media were as much to blame for the War in Iraq as the politicians and that the mistakes made in the War on Terror were largely due to fear but each time the debate becomes interesting, we veer back into the Senator spouting patriotic rhetoric while the liberal snorts derisively and asks different questions.  The West Wing’s Aaron Sorkin has a real skill in making these kind of tense discussions convey a lot of information while also making it clear that both sides of the debate are worthy of thought and consideration.  Carnahan is no Aaron Sorkin, the reason why the film ultimately fails to gel is because of his inability to convey a realistic clash of ideas.  Instead his speeches are a mess of simple-minded sentiment, half-digested arguments, facts out of context and go-nowhere logical constructions.  It is only at the very end of the film that the strings start to come together and even then the results are not pretty.

I could discern the following points :

* Right-wing politicians are a self-serving lot who want to win at all costs.

* Liberal young people have become increasingly apathetic.

* Right-wing politicians bank on the apathy of the young.

* The young need to do something... it doesn’t matter what.  Even if it’s throwing your life away for an unnamed mountain-top in Central Asia.

The film’s title comes from the comment about the British soldiers of World War One who fought valiantly to the death for Generals who really had no idea what they were doing.  What is interesting is that the film-makers chose this saying rather than the better known summing up of British WWI forces as “Lions lead by Donkeys” popularised by the historian Alan Clark in his book The Donkeys.  To suggest that US soldiers are lions led by lambs is to say that their leaders are timid, toothless creatures.  To say that they are lions led by donkeys would be to imply that their leaders are incompetent idiots.

Herein lies one of the film’s major problems; its attitude towards the military.  In British as well as American politics it is fashionable to support the troops even if one does not support the war.  Indeed, I once had lunch with someone who was to become an aide to Tory leader David Cameron who claimed that the reason why they did not try to force the sacking of Geoff Hoon for his failure to send British troops into battle properly equipped was that they supported the troops and did not want to put them through the hardship of, possibly, an even less competent minister taking over.  The West Wing and Lions for Lambs also follow this thinking and portray American soldiers as unswerving heroes who are above moral reproach because they have no say in where they are sent.

The film adopts this language because, like much of American liberal politics, it is pre-empting the first conservative response and taking a step back in order to avoid it.

What I mean by this is that the idea of supporting the troops come what may, is so prevalent in US political discourse, that the film is going out of its way to make it clear that it supports the troops.  It might not have any faith in the War on Terror, but by God it won’t dare point out that actually, the troops fighting the War on Terror are actively doing more harm than good.  The troops are lions... it’s the politicians who are the self-serving cowards.

This is a similar tactic to American gay rights campaigners arguing that it’s unfair to mistreat them because they can’t help the way that they’re born.  This line of argument is far older than any real scientific study of homosexuality and it bears precious little relationship to current scientific thought on homosexuality anyway.  But it’s conceding the first step... it’s pre-empting that the conservative will argue that the GLBT community bring it on themselves by choosing to sleep with people of their own sex and it’s trying to work around that argument.  The problem is that the question isn’t whether or not it’s fair to discriminate against people on the basis of what they’re born to be, the question is whether or not it’s any of the government’s business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.  I’m straight but I think that if I were to decide tomorrow to start sleeping with men then I’d be entitled to protection from discrimination.  Even if I wasn’t born that way.  That is where you fight the battle.

Lions for Lambs therefore starts from a position of rhetorical weakness.  It accepts that the military are above reproach and it accepts that the War on Terror needs to be fought.  All of a sudden we aren’t debating whether or not it’s worth spending trillions and wasting hundreds of thousands of lives fighting a war against a noun and we’re into operational matters such as how we should fight the war.  This is why a film that is about people discussing ideas has a section featuring people fighting in Afghanistan.

From this position of weakness what can the film do?  well... it can sneer, it can repeat that American politicians are “pieces of shit” and admit that the War on Terror is just political theatre designed to keep the right in power while America pumps billions into its arms manufacturing economy and hey... there are less unemployed people those really poor districts because the military has hoovered up all the kids who had an ounce of promise and fed them into the mincing machine that is US Foreign policy.  But it can’t say anything to counter it.  It can’t, for example,  point out that it’s America’s money that has kept the peace since the Second World War, not its military (just look at Germany... turned from Rogue state in the first half of the 20th Century to pillar of the EU by opening up the rest of Europe to its economic power) and that America propping up sinister Middle East governments has served only to exclude those populations from the benefits of globalised trade and the free flow of information and understanding that goes with it.  When the mic turns to Hollywood’s Liberals, all they can come up with is “for fuck’s sake... someone do SOMETHING!”.

This film contains neither hind nor hare of a proper considered liberal view of the War on Terror.  It is just a vision of a non-right wing America completely trapped in the headlight because the Right wingers were quick enough to take those mountains passes from which they can shell liberals with terms such as "appeasement", "unpatriotic", "betraying our troops" and so on.

Lions for Lambs is ultimately a flawed film.  Its flaws are those of American politics exacerbated by a writer whose limited expository skills and lack of familiarity with real politics reduce the film to little more than a mess.  However, it is undeniably a thought-provoking mess that does at least acknowledge that these are complex issues.  There are no answers here but it at least tries to contribute something to the debate.

Comments

[Patrick H]

"Hind nor hare" has a certain poetry, but I think the expression is "hide nor hair".

That aside, what else did you expect from this miserable trousseau of wet-blankets? Redford is possibly the most vacuous person on earth.

Patrick H

[Jonathan McCalmont]

Bah... I kind of knew that that was what it was but I enjoyed the poetry of the phrase and so decided not to look it up and spoil the imagery :-)

I don't know what I expected... but I expected something more than a 90 minute film that amounts to "guys... someone say something... anything!"

[Liam Hemmings]

I read an interview with Redford recently; he said he was no longer angry about Iraq but grieving. The film is essentially a exposition of that egocentric position.

Unfortunately, Redford needs to realise he is not and never was nor will be Bob Woodward. He's a pretty average director, and the script is stodgy and utterly predictable.

I loved the poster for the movie, three airbrushed B&W head shots looking all serious and imploring. I missed an episode of "The Wire" for this dross.

[Jonathan McCalmont]

I went to see it because I got banned from a forum for insulting American soldiers and I wanted to think about the war a bit and it seemed like a good place to start, just in case there was a new perspective. Of course there wasn't.

No wonder the Republicans have beaten the Democrats twice, liberal America is like a deer in the headlights. It has no answer to the "keep invading people till Jesus turns up and tells us to stop" master plan that the Republicans are working to.

[liam Hemmings]

..."It has no answer to the "keep invading people till Jesus turns up and tells us to stop" master plan that the Republicans are working to."...

Great opinion. Not that I agree (I think it's way off actually). But thank christ some people say what they think.

[liam Hemmings]

......."But it can’t say anything to counter it. It can’t, for example, point out that it’s America’s money that has kept the peace since the Second World War, not its military (just look at Germany... turned from Rogue state in the first half of the 20th Century to pillar of the EU by opening up the rest of Europe to its economic power)".......

Ok in reply to that two things:

1. Dean Acheson;

2. the Marhsall Plan.

Need I say more?