Lions for Lambs

Robert Redford’s “Lions for Lambs” is one of those films that leaves you thinking, “What the heck?” Not in a cool, “Donnie Darko”-esque, “I-don’t-understand-what-I-just-saw-but-I-like-it” type of way, but in a “I-can’t-believe-I-just-wasted-ninety-minutes-of-my-life-watching-this-useless-piece-of-animal-feces” type of way. Nothing, not even Meryl Streep’s acting, saves “Lions for Lambs” from its inescapable flaws and utter lack of originality.

“Lions for Lambs” received a lot of publicity before its release, marketing it as a timely film about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Audiences can’t be blamed for expecting a solid commentary on the current American condition—perhaps the “Crash” or “Babel” of 2007. The film even attempts to work with a multiple-storyline structure, which both of those Oscar-winners used well.

Sorry to break the news, Mr. Redford, but your film won’t be following in the footsteps of either one.

The first story line begins in Washington D.C. Harvard graduate and U.S. Senator Jasper Irving, played by Tom Cruise, reveals the government’s new strategy for the war in the Middle East to ambitious journalist Janine Roth, played by Meryl Streep.

The plan, implemented as the Senator discloses the information to Roth, impacts the lives of two recently-graduated soldiers: Ernest Rodriguez (Michael Peña) and Arian Finch (Derek Luke), who are under active duty in the front lines of the War on Terror. Their trials constitute the second storyline.

The third and least thrilling story line (although no terribly high standards are set by the other two) takes place in the West Coast, as Professor Stephen Malley—poorly played by Redford—attempts to encourage a directionless student to take a social stance.

Redford fails to weave together the three unrelated plots into one deeply connected film. At the end, “Lions” frustrates viewers by not working coherently.

The overly complicated film, ironically, lacks human complexity in its characters; they feel surprisingly one-dimensional and underdeveloped. Redford’s characters rely on common stereotypes: Irving is the charismatic Senator determined to run for President; Malley, the unsatisfied Professor seeking to inspire his students; and Roth, the adamant journalist deeply disappointed with the course the government is taking. How many more of these archetypes do we need?

The characters’ oversimplified personas rarely break free from their stereotypes. The film’s single exception is Roth’s confrontation with her boss over publishing Irving’s story. It serves as the most exciting and well-acted scene of the film. Disappointingly, she gives in to her bosses’ wishes and refrains from being the strong figure that the film desperately needs.

From the beginning, the movie builds towards a climax that, if successful, might have redeemed at least part of the mess preceding it. The much-awaited culmination never comes. All we’re left with is Malley’s student staring blankly at the screen, realizing (finally!) that he needs to take action and help change society. Or maybe that look on his face is a sudden feeling of regret that he acted in the film. As the film’s tagline reminds viewers, “If you don’t stand for something, you might fall for anything.” Redford challenges his viewers to take a public stance. We really didn’t need a ninety minute movie to tell us that.

“Lions” does not tackle new angles on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, surely Redford’s goal, but leaves Americans grappling for answers to the same questions they’ve been asking for years.