Review of Lions for Lambs (2007) by Merrick P — 29 Nov 2008

A movie whose stylistic elements are way too simple for how complex of a theme it tackles. The theme is politics, war in the East, terrorism, but at times it moves into deeper realms of human nature, instinct, and value.

We see this backdrop of fighting and political argument through scenes between Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise and scenes of the two soldiers shot down in enemy territory. Yet the scenes of the professor played by Robert Redford are what really fill in the cracks of the movie and raise the questions that are truly worth pondering. During the beginning of the movie, the professor is trying to convince a student who he thinks has potential to come to class. We learn that the two soldiers gunned down are former students of the professor, and voluntarily chose to join the army. He did not want them to because he saw that they both had strong academic potential. But they felt that serving their duties was a much more honorable cause. Interestingly enough, toward the beginning of the movie, we learn that the senator played by Tom Cruise graduated top of his class, etc. etc. Now, admire the picture that, together, these two scenes paint. The Senator's success got him his slick office, (which is beautifully articulated through the mise-en-scene), while the students' choice got them shot down in the cold dark snowy mise-en-scene. The movie uses its visuals to illustrate the outcomes of the two different moral paths.

The professor continues to argue with the same "lazy" kid for the rest of the movie, trying to get through to him. This continues to establish his character, so we understand why he disagrees with the two students entering the army. This also parallels the same ideas raised by the mise-en-scenes of two of the main themes of the movie. Should one go for "success" or pursue what they think is the best cause?

By the end of the movie we infer that the professor knows in his heart that the solution to the political problems we heard about throughout the movie lies in the next generation. He knows that his generation must work as hard as it can to instill morals in the next one, it is our only hope for peace and justice in the future.

Like I said, this theme raises serious questions. The problem is that the style of the movie is too simple compared to this theme. Meryl Streep is an actress of massive potential, yet for the most of movie she is stuck in this long, boring conversation with the senator, rarely even raising her voice, and laughing way too often. This role serously holds her back, at least until she gets back to her office and rants about her experience with the senator.

Conversations between the professor and his students never really got too deep. Why not have one of the students talk emotionally about his past, with one long take, and then juxtapose this with the professor's reaction to that? Why not have Tom Cruise go on a charismatic emotional rant about an opinion. He starts to at one point, but before he can finish, he is interrupted. Where's the drama and emotional impact in that?

There are two possible endings to this movie, and neither is appropriate, so the movie kind of shot itself in the foot with regard to that.