FILM REVIEW: Syriana

[pryor15]

NOTE: There may be minor spoilers. You've been warned.
http://static.flickr.com/20/72005335_00f72180f6.jpg

starring: George Clooney, Matt Damon, Jeffrey Wright, and Alexander Siddig
written by: Stephen Gaghan, from the book by Robert Baer
directed by: Stephen Gaghan
R, 126 min, 2005, USA

From Stephen Gaghan, the man who brought us Traffic (2000)[1], comes a similar investigation of the Middle East and it's monopoly over the petroleum industry. In a complex plot that takes us from Washington D.C. to Geneva to Iran, Gaghan reveals a multi-faceted look at a rare business that starts wars and controls the fates of nations.

The United States, it will suprise no one to learn, consumes the vast majority of the fossil fuels in the world, yet it produces only a small portion. So it is up to the government and business sectors to invent creative, if not entirely ethical, means by which to procure the amount needed. And within the framework of the law. Or, at least it needs to appear that way. So it is up to lawyers like Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) to cover the trails of men who use corruption as a means of doing business. He is charged with the task of outmaneuvering a government investigation that is holding up a potential merger, while giving the impression that he is performing "due dilligence" of the law. It is a high-wire act of sorts for Holiday, who must uncover the crimes of his clients before the government uncovers them first, meanwhile maintaining their trust and his own innocence.

In Geneva, Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) must negotiate deals with the Prince of Iran (Alexander Siddig) while mourning the death of his son. Such is a common theme of the film--most of the characters are shown dealing with life in two arenas. There is the obvious one of their work lives. They must negotiate and investigate and plot and scheme, but at the same time there is a personal conflict that motivates their dealings (or at very least influences them). Woodman is the prime example. He takes his family to a party at the palace of an oil-rich royalty where his son is accidentally electrocuted in the pool. In the midst of the mourning, he must negotiate with this same royalty. When he is awarded a contract, he tersly replies, "How much for my other son?" It is a compelling exchange, as Woodman attempts to maintain a bit of professionalism. In the end, though, he takes the deal and it has negative consequences on his marriage. Because in a film like Syriana everything that happens affects everything else, either in directly or through some sort of ripple effect. However, Gaghan is smart enough to not employ a "butterfly effect" worldview[2], but lets it happen organically. So Woodman's dealings with the Prince are set in motion by the corporate merger Holiday is trying to help get pushed through and directly influenced by Robert Barnes (George Clooney), a CIA operative sent to have the Prince assasinated. Naturally, none of them see all these strings that tie them together.

The one thing Gaghan does so well, perhaps better than anyone currently working in the film industry, is to seamlessly insert his stories and characters into a world we see on the news everyday. A knowledgeable film buff will recognize many of the main characters (i.e. Clooney, Damon, Chris Cooper, etc.), but he fills a large number of the speaking roles with unknowns who may or may not be actors[3] and have a look of authenticity that lends a great deal of credibility to the film at large. He combines this with a carefully researched, nuanced script that certainly feels as if he's mixed movie stars into real locales with real Iranian princes and businessmen and CIA operatives. Much of this has to do with the actors (real or not) who manage to pull off the difficult task of naturalism. That is, none of them seem to be acting. Rather we get the feel of a documentary that just happens to have George Clooney and Matt Damon in it.

Syriana is the type of film that is too complex to fully digest initially; it's the type of film that your mind comes back to for hours after you've seen it. It has a labrynth quality that borders on confusion, but when viewed with a bit of distance feels like a jigsaw puzzle of a cubist painting. Perhaps not all of the parts seem to fit, but when viewed as a collective whole, it really takes shape. I imagine it gets better with repeated viewings. This is a film that has the potential to outlast its subject matter, or at least our dependence on it.

**************
[1] He did not direct Traffic--Steven Soderberg did--but he wrote the screenplay that earned him an Academy Award.

[2] The theory being that a butterfly flapping its wings can change the weather half-way around the globe. You see this quite often in French films, and more recently a very bad Ashton Kutcher movie.

[3] I have no idea if they are and no desire to find out, lest it tarnish the experience.

[pryor15]

so i didn't include this in the review, but it's a hell of a weird thing anyway:

so 10 minutes into the film, a strobe light starts flashing from the bottom corners of the screen for about a minute. they stop the film and tell us a someone set off the fire alarm in the restaurant in another part of the mall. so they start it up again and 25 minutes later it goes off again, which sucks obviously.

then the fat guy in front of us falls asleep and starts snoring off and on while i kicked his seat.

then one of the reels was discolored. eventually we got a refund, which was nice

we go to a diner and we're talking about the language they use in the film and it turns out the guy in the booth next to us is this lonely guy from Iran who spent a half hour talking about the war and the world cup draw.

bloody hell.

if i ever win the main event, i'm building a screening room.

[Alobar]

I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure. i'd probably give it a 4.5

it's very good. one of the best of the year.

[Alobar]

awesome, thanks

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give it a 2.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give it a 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you liberal or conservative? i'd imagine that one's view of this movie would be somewhat related to their personal politics ...

[ZeeJustin]

I didn't like this movie at all. There was no central character or storyline, which resulted in complete and utter disinterest. I didn't care what happened. I was hoping all the stories would come together at the end, but that barely happened. The dialogue in this movie didn't feel real, and that's a terrible thing for a movie that's 95% dialogue.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give it a 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you liberal or conservative? i'd imagine that one's view of this movie would be somewhat related to their personal politics ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It had absolutely nothing to do with the politics, see the post I just made.

[ononimo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give it a 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you liberal or conservative? i'd imagine that one's view of this movie would be somewhat related to their personal politics ...

[/ QUOTE ]

It had absolutely nothing to do with the politics, see the post I just made.

[/ QUOTE ]

fair enough - none of that info was included in your original post.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't like this movie at all. There was no central character or storyline, which resulted in complete and utter disinterest. I didn't care what happened. I was hoping all the stories would come together at the end, but that barely happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, if you were looking for that, you were in the wrong film.

that's one of the themes of the movie. did you like Traffic? b/c they're pretty much the same structure

edit: full disclosure--i'm liberal, which obviously would have some effect on my views of the film. but, honestly, not a lot.

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't like this movie at all. There was no central character or storyline, which resulted in complete and utter disinterest. I didn't care what happened. I was hoping all the stories would come together at the end, but that barely happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked traffic, but didn't think it was amazing or anything. When I left the theatre after traffic, I felt like a lot of stuff had happened. After Syriana, not so much.

FWIW, I'm liberal to very liberal.

yeah, if you were looking for that, you were in the wrong film.

that's one of the themes of the movie. did you like Traffic? b/c they're pretty much the same structure

edit: full disclosure--i'm liberal, which obviously would have some effect on my views of the film. but, honestly, not a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]

I liked traffic, but didn't think it was amazing or anything. When I left the theatre after traffic, I felt like a lot of stuff had happened. After Syriana, not so much.

FWIW, I'm liberal to very liberal.


[/ QUOTE ]

go figure.

personally, i'm the type where i don't need anything to happen. i just need the film to be well-made and engaging.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I didn't like this movie at all. There was no central character or storyline, which resulted in complete and utter disinterest. I didn't care what happened. I was hoping all the stories would come together at the end, but that barely happened.

[/ QUOTE ]

I liked traffic, but didn't think it was amazing or anything. When I left the theatre after traffic, I felt like a lot of stuff had happened. After Syriana, not so much.

FWIW, I'm liberal to very liberal.

yeah, if you were looking for that, you were in the wrong film.

that's one of the themes of the movie. did you like Traffic? b/c they're pretty much the same structure

edit: full disclosure--i'm liberal, which obviously would have some effect on my views of the film. but, honestly, not a lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this movie requires a pre-existing knowledge of US/Middle East relations, and a cynicism about the US judicial system. otherwise, you might get the impression nothing happened. I loved it, and am intrigued by US politics. my girlfriend probably couldnt spell politics, and hated it.

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
In Geneva, Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) must negotiate deals with the Prince of Iran (Alexander Siddig) while mourning the death of his son.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif There is no Prince of Iran? I'm pretty sure the actual country was unnamed in the movie.

[SNOWBALL138]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'd give it a 2.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



are you liberal or conservative? i'd imagine that one's view of this movie would be somewhat related to their personal politics ...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It had absolutely nothing to do with the politics, see the post I just made.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a two is pretty harsh. The narrative is diffuse, and the characters are poorly conceived, but the movie has some interesting content. My problems with the movie also have nothing to do with politics (I'm a huge lefty).

[ZeeJustin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I liked traffic, but didn't think it was amazing or anything. When I left the theatre after traffic, I felt like a lot of stuff had happened. After Syriana, not so much.

FWIW, I'm liberal to very liberal.


[/ QUOTE ]

go figure.

personally, i'm the type where i don't need anything to happen. i just need the film to be well-made and engaging.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the same way. I just didn't find this movie engaging at all.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The United States, it will suprise no one to learn, consumes the vast majority of the fossil fuels in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprises the hell out of me, as it is not true.

link (https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/09)

I think he was trying to say we consume more than any country and as a proportion to our population. 5% of the worlds pop., 25% of all fossil fuels, pretty bad.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The United States, it will suprise no one to learn, consumes the vast majority of the fossil fuels in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprises the hell out of me, as it is not true.

link (https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/09)

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously what i meant is that in proportion to other countries we have a vast majority of the use and either way i've got enough stuff to look up for these things already.

what's that concept in writing? it may not be accurate, but it's true....or something like that. i forget the details. but the point remains the same, even if the numbers don't add up to 100%

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The United States, it will suprise no one to learn, consumes the vast majority of the fossil fuels in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprises the hell out of me, as it is not true.

link (https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/09)

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously what i meant is that in proportion to other countries we have a vast majority of the use and either way i've got enough stuff to look up for these things already.

what's that concept in writing? it may not be accurate, but it's true....or something like that. i forget the details. but the point remains the same, even if the numbers don't add up to 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

english, mother[censored]! do you speak it??

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The United States, it will suprise no one to learn, consumes the vast majority of the fossil fuels in the world

[/ QUOTE ]

Surprises the hell out of me, as it is not true.

link (https://www.worldwatch.org/press/news/2005/05/09)

[/ QUOTE ]

obviously what i meant is that in proportion to other countries we have a vast majority of the use and either way i've got enough stuff to look up for these things already.

what's that concept in writing? it may not be accurate, but it's true....or something like that. i forget the details. but the point remains the same, even if the numbers don't add up to 100%

[/ QUOTE ]

english, mother[censored]! do you speak it??

[/ QUOTE ]

um....ok

[andyfox]

Just saw the movie. Didn't like it. David Denby's review in The New Yorker sums up a lot of my feelings, so I'll quote from it:

Syriana . . . is a major film without being a great film. It's a strange movie, and a stunningly pessimistic one.

. . . like the cocaine trade in Traffic," oil is the life, the obsession, the only reality. It gets people killed, tortured, blown up, thrown on the junk heap.

As you watch the movie, with its twenty or so characters, many of them duplicitous, you have to keep reminding yourself who each one is and who he works for. It's as if you were constantly prepping for a quiz.

The oddness of "Syriana" is a result of its form: the many characters take what reality they have solely from their participation in Gaghan's intricate plan, and some of them get lost. In brief, this is an epic movie without a hero or a protagonist--or, rather, the protagonist is the oil business itself, which controls everyone. So much money can be made in oil, the movie says, that no one working in it would be foolish enough to behave ethically.

That perception may be why Gaghan constructed "Syriana" as he did. But if good people are considered ineffectual to begin with, or, even worse, a nuisance or irrelevant, then it's virtually impossible to construct a story around their efforts.

What's going on? At the moment, mere activity has replaced storytelling, irony has replaced heroism, and the taste of victory has turned to wormwood and gall.

[end quotes]

An interesting movie, but not a good one.

[Ulysses]

andy,

I liked this movie a lot.

[Voltron87]

i wrote a review of this a while ago, when it was only out in nyc, i really liked it as well. i thought it should have been about 30 minutes longer though , i think they botched the ending a bit.

[fyodor]

I thought it was competently made but didn't care much for it.

Here's something weird I found about the plot:

George Clooney's character is double crossed, kidnapped and tortured. He has at least 2 fingernails pulled off with pliers (probably 3 because I am sure we later see 3 bandaged fingers) The guy torturing him wants to know who Clooney has worked for. Surely the guy already knows the answer. Clooney knows the guy knows the answer. He still refuses to talk. He is saved by the local Hezbolla agent who comes by just as Clooney's neck is about to severed and informs the torturer that Clooney has been give a get out of jail free pass while in Tehran.

So the torturer then rats to the media that Clooney is a CIA agent who is in Tehran to assasinate a prince. This happens to be true. The CIA quickly concots a story that Clooney is a rogue agent who has been uncontrollable since 9/11. He is then investigated by another gov't agency.

Having his nails pulled was no problem. Once he is 'under investigation' he snaps and basically goes on a mission to rat out the CIA to the prince.

wtf? Wouldn't any CIA agent EXPECT to be abandoned in a similar situation? Of course you are going to take the blame. I would think it's all part of the training.

btw while the finger nail torture is going on some other guys are playing cards for money in the next room and they only show mild interest even when the guy is about to cut Clooney's head off. I think I would have gotten up to see the beheading.

If I messed up any of the details of the plot here it was because it was very complicated and I saw it last week.

Also before I went in I was in the w/c throwing up (there was something about that in another thread) and some guy who just came out told my gf that it was the most boring movie he ever saw and the first time he actually snored through a movie. Anyone you know op?

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I Didnt wanna read your review cuz I plan on seeing this movie and didnt want to see any spoilers. Could you just reply to this and give it a 1-5 rating or something? I havent heard any feedback on this movie yet and im interested if its good or not. I just dont want to read your entire review to find out if you liked it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd give it a 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you liberal or conservative? i'd imagine that one's view of this movie would be somewhat related to their personal politics ...

[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't the case for me. I'm extremely pro-capitalism and in favor of completely laissez-faire system, and out of all the movies I've seen this year, the two I liked most were The Constant Gardener and the aforementioned Syriana. I don't agree with the conclusions of either film...but each was really well made and intellectually engaging.

Will

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
Also before I went in I was in the w/c throwing up (there was something about that in another thread) and some guy who just came out told my gf that it was the most boring movie he ever saw and the first time he actually snored through a movie. Anyone you know op?

[/ QUOTE ]

the guy who snored through mine was old. i think it was just too late for him.

[ilya]

I saw this movie today. I liked it. It seems to reflect reality much more closely than most movies even try to do. I was also impressed that a movie with fairly serious ambitions managed to entertain me as much as it did.

[Leaky Eye]

No mention of the swimming pools?

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
No mention of the swimming pools?

[/ QUOTE ]

that was the strobe light portion of the experience (see my post just below the review), so i didn't get to see that as well as i should have. plus, i forgot.

[Leaky Eye]

I mean the fact that so many scenes in the movie take place around swimming pools, or sometimes fountains. When my wife pointed that out to me I pretty much rethought the entire movie around that.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I mean the fact that so many scenes in the movie take place around swimming pools, or sometimes fountains. When my wife pointed that out to me I pretty much rethought the entire movie around that.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh, i hadn't thought of that. do you think that's to symbolize the importance of oil, that its as crucial as water?

[Riverman]

I thought the movie was very good. Unusually thoughful and complex for a Hollywood film, and not too preachy. For me the most interesting character was the lawyer who was investigating on behalf of Connex. I thought his character was quite realistic and well-acted.

[OtisTheMarsupial]

I thought the movie was interesting and well acted but the film had problems. On a scale of 1-5 I give it a 4.

First, the storyline was too complex. They should have cut a few more characters or at least pruned their screen time down a bit.

Second, the main themes needed to be emphasized more. There was a strong father-son relationship theme that never got developed. There was an almost obvious, "we're all soldiers" theme that needed to be pointed out a bit more. The humanity, the emotion, the character development was only hinted at.

Third, the only well-delivered message was that oil politics are corrupt, complex, and confusing. Which, doesn't exactly inspire action. This is the type of movie, like Traffic, that has a lot of potential to change public opinion and go down in history. But since the message wasn't clear and obvious, that opportunity was lost. And that's a shame.

But, like I said, it's well worth watching.