Lions for Lambs
Telling, provocative and direct to the point with a sense of passion which differentiates it from a cold documentary film, add to that three lead stars with academy awards and nominations, you certainly you got yourself a hit.
Production wise, the movie is very simple. There’s no CG animation found in Beowulf, meccha like in the Transformers, or webtingley action found in Spiderman, but nonetheless it would keep you on your toes. The story focuses on three scenarios happening all at the same time. Meryll Streep plays the role of a hard line reporter named Janine Roth, who interviews Senator John Irving (Tom Cruise), who graduated at the top of class at West Point while Robert Redford plays the role of the professor who is trying a last ditch attempt to shepherd his would be adult students. The movie concludes with a presentation of the outcomes of the decision each individual made.
Meryll Streep being the method actress that she is absorbed her character so well that it is so hard to recognize her as the same person who played the total biatch from the movie The Devil Wears Prada. Robert Redford certainly lived up to his fame for he fit the role of a professor who is frank and concerned with his students behind the I couldn’t care less attitude. I first saw him on the movie The Hunt for Red October wherein he played the role as a military commander. As for Tom Cruise, well he was great playing as Tom Cruise himself, not the senator role he was supposed to play. He failed to show the maturity, dignity or "presence" of a person seating in a seat of power.
The characters in the story may be the leaders of their fields but they are limited by the circumstances they are placed in. Sen. John Irving promotes military operations, one after another, in line with the Republican stance of doing whatever it takes to win despite the costs and the consequences of doing so. The reporter is at a loss on how to deliver the news of these operations for she no longer exists to inform but to tell people what they would like to hear. Meanwhile, the academician takes it all in and shows his task of shaping young minds to fit into the system and do something progressive is problematic as the system did not try to develop itself with the changing of the times. What the young people are left with is dissatisfaction, disillusionment and apathy, and they are forced to forge ahead despite such circumstances.
I must admit that when I watched this movie, I almost did not realize it was a Saturday as the movie house was empty enough to make you think that you’ve entered a private cinema viewing session. Aside from me and my mother, there were less than 300 other near geriatric persons there. Does this mean that the bad viewer turn out contradicted with my initial impression of the movie? No. Lions for Lambs is not a movie for everyone. It is not for those people who would not even watch the news program if it weren’t placed before the airing of his/her favorite drama series at night. I’m pretty sure it would bore them to death. It is not for people who would just watch the movie because they would like to stare at the “handsome” yet short form of Tom Cruise. And lastly it is not for people who would like to avoid the problem that’s staring them at the face until the last possible minute.
If you did not fit into the categories I just said, then maybe you should head to the theater and watch it too.
