Why patriotism is considered the only avenue for doing something for the country or as such for the living foundation of human being? It is due to the dysfunctional and the corrupted politics which as its very nature has not only put the thought of not getting inside of it, but shuns most of us to taking the duties necessary to step forward. The idealistic, as the term itself brings some classification of impossibility, are set to make their start in army as courage or join the politics to succumb for the alterations in their beliefs, thoughts and desperation – better of the worst. Truly titled “Lions for Lambs” is a direct quote of a German officer during World War – I saying about the courage and bravery of the soldiers led by the inefficiency of their leaders (which they also enlighten us during the course of the movie).
As such the stretch of taking the multiple stories connected for convincing true nature throws light upon how the Americans and in fact looking the big picture of any country, we see how the information is been sold, misled or sits in distraught of non-action members of it which forms the underlining essence of director Robert Redford’s film. Lined are the stories of decisive and maximum force of action into the life of a human into this world. What is to survive, live, fear, breathe and fight for comes in the bouncing arguments of each sequences. Two of the sequences do much of the conversations and discussions, the movie beckons upon. The interview of Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) by Janine (Meryl Streep), which is more of a political execution of marketing strategies in the name of honesty and redemption. And how does this action of clinical catharsis happens and the answer Irving gives is fight fire with fire. In fact more fire with burning fire. If deploying the troops in Iraq is the mistake, then take it to the avenging deaths of the innocent people of 9/11, the real target in first place on September 12th 2001, Afghanistan. This is the preaching and slogan of terms, the Senator uses upon. In the intensive cross fires of questions and explanations comes the real thorn for Janine as a journalist. The media became an integral part of spreading the directive emotions the people needed. Hatred, vengeance and action. The three terms of culminating the hoisting of flag of freedom as it sounds and mainly to infest feel good factor into them. After six years, every one is confused about what exactly it is and given up what it requires to step back from the messed up situation. Is it the end? To shun away comfortably into our sweet luxury of disarrayed security and circled interest of immediate loves? Redford questions quite strongly and inventively through some thorough performances by himself, Meryl Streep and especially Tom Cruise.
But what exactly does Redford conclude upon? A constant question circled over the head to look for solutions but as it ends, there is a solution within us. Every time a discussion is evolved out of a movie, it means something for its making. A discussion worth having which may not change some one forever as it does in the movie for the kid, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) but something which might result in the small actions for any one. Its good to start some where.
With a nice approach and shift of momentum in every scene, I did find it odd when a class of students easily uses profanity. May be I can accept the happenings inside Professor Stephen Malley’s (Robert Redford) office, but during my Masters in University of Missouri-Rolla, I have never witnessed or heard of such easy talking. I did hear (and you know what “hear” means) about an angry student use an “f” word over a professor which (obviously) resulted in some consequences of its own. I will not forgive it for the strong agenda of the film. A director/actor good at building a short and thoughtful film should have rewired those properly.
A multilayered story line needs the immense aid of editing and acting which rightly leverages the film and unexpected slip down (and it does appear just before the end) now and then only formulates into a sensible cinema in the end. It is skin on fit role for Cruise but his charm is for deception and not to impress young voluptuous girls, his straight powerful eyes are not for seduction but for marketing him into the clean chair of power and acquisition. He had a similar scene in “Magnolia” with a reporter slowly bending him and breaking as it goes. Cruise over there showed complete destruction and unconvincing ego shredding slowly and out here he gives the same but twists the tale to frost it with eloquent swindling. Streep’s body language and expression lifts up the conversation into a room full of lies and blame.
It does seem like an endless circle of conversation. It appears more of throwing stones at each other rather than coming for a stop which reflects the act of engaging in the war. The lining of those infinite talks end again in an open gate but sparks something. And I seriously hope one not choosing violence (even it means against patriotism) to be the only way of doing something to this big giant structure of conflicting emotions of ego, belief and misinterpretations.
As such the stretch of taking the multiple stories connected for convincing true nature throws light upon how the Americans and in fact looking the big picture of any country, we see how the information is been sold, misled or sits in distraught of non-action members of it which forms the underlining essence of director Robert Redford’s film. Lined are the stories of decisive and maximum force of action into the life of a human into this world. What is to survive, live, fear, breathe and fight for comes in the bouncing arguments of each sequences. Two of the sequences do much of the conversations and discussions, the movie beckons upon. The interview of Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) by Janine (Meryl Streep), which is more of a political execution of marketing strategies in the name of honesty and redemption. And how does this action of clinical catharsis happens and the answer Irving gives is fight fire with fire. In fact more fire with burning fire. If deploying the troops in Iraq is the mistake, then take it to the avenging deaths of the innocent people of 9/11, the real target in first place on September 12th 2001, Afghanistan. This is the preaching and slogan of terms, the Senator uses upon. In the intensive cross fires of questions and explanations comes the real thorn for Janine as a journalist. The media became an integral part of spreading the directive emotions the people needed. Hatred, vengeance and action. The three terms of culminating the hoisting of flag of freedom as it sounds and mainly to infest feel good factor into them. After six years, every one is confused about what exactly it is and given up what it requires to step back from the messed up situation. Is it the end? To shun away comfortably into our sweet luxury of disarrayed security and circled interest of immediate loves? Redford questions quite strongly and inventively through some thorough performances by himself, Meryl Streep and especially Tom Cruise.
But what exactly does Redford conclude upon? A constant question circled over the head to look for solutions but as it ends, there is a solution within us. Every time a discussion is evolved out of a movie, it means something for its making. A discussion worth having which may not change some one forever as it does in the movie for the kid, Todd Hayes (Andrew Garfield) but something which might result in the small actions for any one. Its good to start some where.
With a nice approach and shift of momentum in every scene, I did find it odd when a class of students easily uses profanity. May be I can accept the happenings inside Professor Stephen Malley’s (Robert Redford) office, but during my Masters in University of Missouri-Rolla, I have never witnessed or heard of such easy talking. I did hear (and you know what “hear” means) about an angry student use an “f” word over a professor which (obviously) resulted in some consequences of its own. I will not forgive it for the strong agenda of the film. A director/actor good at building a short and thoughtful film should have rewired those properly.
A multilayered story line needs the immense aid of editing and acting which rightly leverages the film and unexpected slip down (and it does appear just before the end) now and then only formulates into a sensible cinema in the end. It is skin on fit role for Cruise but his charm is for deception and not to impress young voluptuous girls, his straight powerful eyes are not for seduction but for marketing him into the clean chair of power and acquisition. He had a similar scene in “Magnolia” with a reporter slowly bending him and breaking as it goes. Cruise over there showed complete destruction and unconvincing ego shredding slowly and out here he gives the same but twists the tale to frost it with eloquent swindling. Streep’s body language and expression lifts up the conversation into a room full of lies and blame.
It does seem like an endless circle of conversation. It appears more of throwing stones at each other rather than coming for a stop which reflects the act of engaging in the war. The lining of those infinite talks end again in an open gate but sparks something. And I seriously hope one not choosing violence (even it means against patriotism) to be the only way of doing something to this big giant structure of conflicting emotions of ego, belief and misinterpretations.
No comments:
Post a Comment