Robert Redford addresses the complex issue of fighting terror through three stories, but the film appears to lack soul.
Lions for Lambs, (dir, Robert Redford, 2007)
Redford's seventh directional effort asks a lot of questions about the "War on Terror" and they are good questions. Do the ends justify the means? Does it matter how long it takes to defeat the faceless threat to Western (and in particularly American) 'freedom'? Who should be fighting the evil out in Iraq and Afghanistan? Big questions are asked and Redford's characters give convincing, fluent, articulate answers.
Three stories are interwoven showing three instrumental areas that the war is thought about and fought from. The university classroom has Professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) debating with a gifted student called Todd (Andrew Garfield) over the ethics of fighting the war . In Washington Senator Irving (played brilliantly by Tom Cruise) is arguing with journalist Janine Roth (Meryl Streep) why the war must be fought . Finally on the front line where talking is sometimes meaningless the journeys of Arian (Derek Luke) and Ernest (Michael Pena) are portrayed. The soldiers' stories are particularly pertinent as they are men who willingly signed up to the army to fight the war on terror. Not only were they willing, but they were university students who were gifted and able academically but believed the best academic point they could make was to actually go and fight.
Film is Surprisingly Short
The three story lines create a huge amount of possibilities and therefore it quite surprising that the film is only 88 minutes long. Being a very short film for the scope of the subject, Redford sells himself short by cutting the running time. Political thrillers can be far too long and self indulgent, losing the interest of the audience and losing the focus. Lions for Lambs seems to go the other way, as if aware of this shortfall and actually misses the opportunity to make a significant commentary on the current wars in the Middle East.
Cruise is compelling as Senator Irving, whose fluid justifications on the war are convincing yet clearly too articulate and rehearsed. His speeches are so good, they are too good. He is smarmy and charismatic and Cruise perfectly balances the performance. It must not be underestimated how fine an actor Cruise actually is. Juxtaposed with Irving's smooth sentences are scenes of the army in Afghanistan and how they have to deal with real life and the unexpected horror of war. No matter how good the words are, the action will always be different and much more difficult. The contrast is obvious, but there is no reason why Redford would need to be subtle with such a point.
The Right Words but No Heart
The conversation between Redford's professor and his student complements the film with their debate most striking. Todd is a middle class student who is challenged by Redford. The professor asks why the men and women who volunteer for service are the ones who the country has treated most appallingly. Ironically it is they who step up to fight for the values of the country that seem to let them down. Those who benefit most, socially and financially from America and are given an easy life are the ones who will step back when asked to volunteer for their country. It is an insightful commentary.
Lions for Lambs though, lacks real soul. Ironically Redford's character speaks the words that aptly describe the film. He says, "You have all the right words but lack the heart."
