Syriana

[Exsubmariner]

I know this is not OOT. If Andyfox can post about "The Constant Gardener" here, then I'm going to post about this film.

I saw this movie on Saturday evening and in spite of arriving at the theatre one hour before the movie started, actually late for the earlier showing, I wound up having to give up my seat so a couple could sit next to me because the theatre was so packed. No one clapped in the end. They just stood up and left.

That pretty much summed up my feelings, too. I didn't quite know what to make of it and am still chewing on it. I'm not sure about the point that the filmmakers wished to get across. As a movie purely meant for entertainment purposes, it was a thriller with a sort of unconventional ending. As political commentary, it sucked. So the oil business is about a bunch of corrupt people being corrupt? So is politics? I'm shocked and awed. You mean leaders of countries in this world sell out their own people so they can have the strongest ally and keep their own power? Wow. I didn't know people had it in them.

I submit to the forum that if these are problems with the world, there are those in the world who should stop just pointing them out and start suggesting ways to fix them. Better yet, work on fixing them.

On a more serious note, I did get the feeling that the worlds resources are being squandered and that in 100 years I am going to be a genetically modified disease and aging immune man with a car sitting in my drive way with an empty tank. I can imagine thinking to myself "Damn, I remember when I wanted to live forever. Being out of oil sure does suck."

X

[sam h]

I also saw the movie Saturday night and had a more positive reaction. I don't see why corruption or geopolitics has to be shocking or surprising to be a worthy subject for a movie.

(Note: Spoilers Below)

The one thing I thought was interesting was that the filmmakers had a surprisingly astute perspective on several aspects of Middle Eastern politics and Middle Eastern societies, but that they blundered a couple times pretty badly in looking at the US. Regarding the former, I was impressed that they understood/portrayed (a) that a lot of these gulf states import all their manual labor and that this creates a very bizarre, almost apartheid-like dynamic and (b) that Hezbollah is much more than a terrorist organization at this point and has essentially replaced the state as the major provider of services in large parts of Lebanon. Regarding the latter, my biggest objection was the idea that the CIA would assassinate the emir in such a transparent fashion. Who else are they going to blame that one on?

Overall, I liked the movie but thought it was a little scattered. The attempts to add depth to some of the characters by briefly delving into their family lives didn't work that well. I think you need to either go further or not go there at all. I didn't think any of the scenes with the lawyer and his drunk dad added much of anything, nor did that one scene with Clooney and his son.

I also thought that they should have focused more on the Clooney character, who was by far the most interesting.

[Autocratic]

The main point, I thought, was the interconnectedness of all of the aspects of power and politics that were discussed. I really liked the movie.

[Exsubmariner]

Spoilers Below:






Do you think that the Matt Damon character was really a company man? That thought is what disturbs me the most about the whole thing.

I agree about the Hezbollah thing. I remember thinking while watching the film that Bob was there in Beirut spearheading perhaps actual military action agianst them following the assassination of the Emir there and blaming them for it. It is plain that if you are a good enough gangster in the Mid East that you will eventually become ruler. Saddam is a good example. What is perhaps more shocking is that the US is willing to turn a blind eye and work with you.

Another good point I thought they made about the lawyer is that even though he found the evidence everyone had tried so hard to cover up, he ends up using it to play ball with the oil types and blackmail his way into a move up by selling out his boss. That was really something. Not unlike the real world at all. As he said, we are ultimately our own client, but you get the feeling that perhaps we are our own nemesis as well.

This movie did pass both my entertainment and making me think tests, so I don't exactly have an adverse reaction. I just thought it fell short of it's potential. I was really expecting 45 more minutes at the end.

And I am now going to have to read the book. Hopefully to find out more about the Clooney character.

X

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
This movie did pass both my entertainment and making me think tests, so I don't exactly have an adverse reaction. I just thought it fell short of it's potential. I was really expecting 45 more minutes at the end.

And I am now going to have to read the book. Hopefully to find out more about the Clooney character.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with both of these thoughts. They should have just gone for broke and made a 3-hour epic. And I'm definitely interested in reading the book. I hear its not that well written but that it has a lot of interesting stuff about being a field operative in the Middle East and how the CIA [censored] up after the cold war by letting its numbers of field operatives dwindle.

[WillMagic]

I really liked it. Here's one of the reasons why.

"'But, Danny, these are sovereign nations.' Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? 'But, Danny, they’re codified by the U.N. charter!' Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods!"

"Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain’t nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That’s Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel prize."

Will

[andyfox]

It's an intensely political movie, so I think discussion of it belongs here. And I've managed to get myself into a position where what I say goes. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Be that as it may, there is a thread in OOT on the movie. Although my politics are in sync with the screenwriter's, I didn't like the movie very much. A lot of activity, but no storytelling. Clooney and Damon are competent actors, but not more than that; they are not interesting enough to sustain a movie for me. (I think that's why I didn't like either of the Bourne movies either, Damon is a boring actor.)

And the "plot" was impossible to follow. You have to keep reminding yourself who the characters are, if you understood who they were in the first place. An interesting movie, but not a good one.

[Ed Miller]

I liked the movie a lot. If someone had asked me to make this movie, I'd make it very differently... and I dislike many of the decisions they made, but I liked the movie anyway.

What surprises me most about the movie is that Time Warner distributed it. The most sympathetic major character (IMO) is the pakistani kid, and Hizbollah gets positive treatment also. I'm surprised Time Warner was willing to be affiliated with a movie that "promotes terrorism" like this.

[Exsubmariner]

I thought that scene where the Clooney character was threatening to kill the lawyers family was intense. Probably the best acted scene in the whole movie. There was some very good dialogue.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
I liked the movie a lot. If someone had asked me to make this movie, I'd make it very differently... and I dislike many of the decisions they made, but I liked the movie anyway.

What surprises me most about the movie is that Time Warner distributed it. The most sympathetic major character (IMO) is the pakistani kid, and Hizbollah gets positive treatment also. I'm surprised Time Warner was willing to be affiliated with a movie that "promotes terrorism" like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the point of the sympathetic character in the kid was that he was a pawn - it was a statement against terrorists, but it differentiated between higher ups, those who are true to the terrorist ideals, and those being manipulated. He was quickly sent off to die for the cause while his leaders stayed safe. I didn't entirely follow the Hezbollah role - how did they get treated sympathetically?