Syriana
Syriana is actually a Robert Altmanish ensemble movie with many interweaving subplots. The story jumps from U. S. to Switzerland and some unnamed Middle East country. The first 30 minutes of the movie could be confusing and frustrating for some audiences. It certainly bored me a little since we, the audience, are yet to be clear about the interconnections among all the characters and storylines. As the movie goes on, it becomes more and more interesting. As a political thriller, it succeeded in keeping me on the edge of my seat till the end.
Not every one will like what director/writer, Stephen Gaghan, has portrayed in this movie. Evil intentions lurk in every corner of the world and the future looks pretty bleak. I only wish this film could have come out before 9/11. 9/11 has opened a lot of Americans’ eyes on how cruel fanatic Muslim extremists have become, but it has not made Americans think deeper about what makes suicide bombers do what they do. In the movie, American government’s decisions in Middle East are mainly based on benefits for its own people; we are expanding our empire at the expense of other nations. As a movie with many subplots, unfortunately, sometimes it cannot delve deeper into every character. I would have loved to see more about Wasim Khan, the poor Pakistani boy, who was gradually seduced by an extremist group to become a suicide bomber. It is ironic that the most human character for me in this movie is a terrorist. It is about time for us, as Americans, to realize that our government’s meddling in foreign countries is partially responsible for terrorism. Even though we don’t produce our own suicide bombers, how can we honestly say our own political assassinations in other countries are not acts of terrorism?
I think the movie is well made by Stephen Gaghan, but since I was so grasped by all the storylines, I really didn’t pay much attention to any technical details. The movie has a solid cast. There may be a few typecast (I personally would like to see Chris Cooper play someone other than a Texan), but I don’t think there is a single bad performance. George Clooney famously gained 30 pounds and had spinal fluid leak out of his nose because of making this movie. He has done a nice job transforming himself from a decorative hunk in movies to a serious filmmaker, both in front of and behind the camera. I can feel his character’s world weariness and loneliness. His character, Bob Barnes, is a CIA field operative. He may sometimes detest what he has to do, but deep down he has a strong sense of right and wrong and loves field work. But the best performance in this movie has to go to Jeffrey Wright. I think he is one of the best, if not the best, character actors in his generation. He gave two best supporting performances of this year (Syriana and Broken Flowers). The two characters are quite opposite, but he plays them with such ease and understatement. He plays a different role every time I see him. As a black corporate lawyer in the white boys’ club, we can always feel a slight unease behind his confident persona. I am disappointed that he has not been recognized for any of his performances during this award season.
I did not understand the movie’s title when I saw it. After the movie, I did a little research. Robert Baer, the author of the book the movie is loosely based on, told NPR that the title is a metaphor for foreign intervention in the Middle East, referring to post-World War II think tank strategic studies for the creation of an artificial state that would ensure continued U.S. access to crude oil. As global economy and advance in technology have blurred borders among countries, maybe it is time for us to stop thinking regionally and start thinking globally. We as a mankind are in this universe together. Destroying one group to advance another will only lead to destruction for all.
Not every one will like what director/writer, Stephen Gaghan, has portrayed in this movie. Evil intentions lurk in every corner of the world and the future looks pretty bleak. I only wish this film could have come out before 9/11. 9/11 has opened a lot of Americans’ eyes on how cruel fanatic Muslim extremists have become, but it has not made Americans think deeper about what makes suicide bombers do what they do. In the movie, American government’s decisions in Middle East are mainly based on benefits for its own people; we are expanding our empire at the expense of other nations. As a movie with many subplots, unfortunately, sometimes it cannot delve deeper into every character. I would have loved to see more about Wasim Khan, the poor Pakistani boy, who was gradually seduced by an extremist group to become a suicide bomber. It is ironic that the most human character for me in this movie is a terrorist. It is about time for us, as Americans, to realize that our government’s meddling in foreign countries is partially responsible for terrorism. Even though we don’t produce our own suicide bombers, how can we honestly say our own political assassinations in other countries are not acts of terrorism?
I think the movie is well made by Stephen Gaghan, but since I was so grasped by all the storylines, I really didn’t pay much attention to any technical details. The movie has a solid cast. There may be a few typecast (I personally would like to see Chris Cooper play someone other than a Texan), but I don’t think there is a single bad performance. George Clooney famously gained 30 pounds and had spinal fluid leak out of his nose because of making this movie. He has done a nice job transforming himself from a decorative hunk in movies to a serious filmmaker, both in front of and behind the camera. I can feel his character’s world weariness and loneliness. His character, Bob Barnes, is a CIA field operative. He may sometimes detest what he has to do, but deep down he has a strong sense of right and wrong and loves field work. But the best performance in this movie has to go to Jeffrey Wright. I think he is one of the best, if not the best, character actors in his generation. He gave two best supporting performances of this year (Syriana and Broken Flowers). The two characters are quite opposite, but he plays them with such ease and understatement. He plays a different role every time I see him. As a black corporate lawyer in the white boys’ club, we can always feel a slight unease behind his confident persona. I am disappointed that he has not been recognized for any of his performances during this award season.
I did not understand the movie’s title when I saw it. After the movie, I did a little research. Robert Baer, the author of the book the movie is loosely based on, told NPR that the title is a metaphor for foreign intervention in the Middle East, referring to post-World War II think tank strategic studies for the creation of an artificial state that would ensure continued U.S. access to crude oil. As global economy and advance in technology have blurred borders among countries, maybe it is time for us to stop thinking regionally and start thinking globally. We as a mankind are in this universe together. Destroying one group to advance another will only lead to destruction for all.
13 Comments:
Was it better than "Three Kings", Clooney's other Middle Eastern role?
Hard to say. I love both movies, but they are very different. "Three Kings" clearly questions Americans' involvment in the first Persian Gulf War, but it is a comedy and there are a lot of light moments. Syriana is a serious drama. It tries to explore many complicated issues, from suicide bombers to Big Oil dealmaking. There is really not much comic relief.
Absolutely astounding review! Bravo! Except, there is one substantial flaw - an omission of sorts. You failed to disclose that you are a terrorist sympathizer.
Based on your capable but non-native use of the English language I am fairly confident in assuming that you are foreign born. You likely came to the US to take advantage of an inexpensive education system that welcomes and subsidizes foreign students for the greater good of the world. You acquired a quality low cost education in a university that was heated, cooled, and powered in part by imported energy. You took the bus to and from class and at night you studied by the light of Saudi oil.
Years later you completed your education and you chose to stay in the US. You began a successful career in the world’s most envied economic infrastructure. An infrastructure built by those who preceded you and fueled by prolific energy consumption. You have bolstered your comfortable lifestyle and increased your possessions while, possibly unwittingly, expending thousands of dollars on foreign energy every year.
Thanks to your copious energy use, you now have an education, money and spare time. One day you decided to go to a heated movie theater and sit in front of a 10,000 watt projected image while surrounded by high power speakers. The theater’s energy became intoxicating. You were suddenly vulnerable to wild falsehoods. You absorbed the projected images and pounding sounds with a level of trust you might otherwise ascribe to a PBS documentary.
Two hours later your mind was rewired and you consider it your duty to propagate 3 false notions. First, the country that gave you unimaginable opportunities, societal acceptance, equality, and the right to speak your mind is an evil assassin of loving progressive Arab politicians. Second, terrorists that destroy billions of dollars in investments, kill hundreds of people, and leave thousands unemployed are to be pitied because they lack opportunity in a land wrecked by their own destruction and turmoil. Third, the oil companies that compete in the world market to bring you the cost effective energy that enables everything you know are inherently evil.
There may yet be hope for you. Unfortunately the damage won’t be undone in two hours. I suggest that you stay out of the theater for a while. Try reading. Don’t limit your source material to the New York Times. Broaden your horizons. Visit the Middle East as I have. You’ll soon learn that oil is not inherently evil. UAE is building a truly diverse and sustainable economy. Many other countries are more perverted in thought and culture. Some exude intractable tribal hostility. Too many are squandering the resources beneath their soil - a resource that could be their only opportunity to educate their people and build a lasting economic infrastructure. In short, don’t blame the people who buy energy. Remember we have established that you, a middle class US consumer, are in the top 5% of the world’s energy users. Instead find fault with the fouled societies that waste oil revenues on tribal wars, welfare payments, corrupt politicians and “religious” schools that preach hatred of the western world.
The next time you sit down in front of your 400 watt computer to propagate fallacies on your oil fueled blog server take a step back and realize that you are part of the US, you have experienced its generosity, and you have contributed to its success. Weight your life’s experiences and your worldly knowledge much higher than a two-hour work of fiction manufactured by people with an obvious agenda. You owe it to your country.
I thought it was fairly entertaining. Would have been tighter without the first 20 minutes.
As I mentioned in my review, 9/11 has opened a lot of Americans’ eyes on how cruel fanatic Muslim extremists have become, but it seems wise for us to understand why so that we can prevent more people from becoming future terrorists rather than to fight them afterwards.
Average citizens do not screw up their countries as much as dictators do. In oil rich countries, U.S. government props up dictators as long as they supply us oil and no matter what they do to their own people, a la Saudi Arabia; and has no qualm turning against democratically elected presidents when they don’t listen to us, a la Venezuela.
A 2-hour movie cannot resolve all those complicated issues, but hopefully it will lead more people to think about those issues.
Now you have put the full extent of your ignorance on display!
You appear to believe that the policies of an elected administration even that of Hugo Chávez are beyond reproach. You support the idea that as long as a government is elected no outside individuals, governments or organization have the right to oppose its policies and views?
You have touched a nerve because I was born and raised in Venezuela. With much effort on the part of my family I graduated from the Central University of Venezuela. I was part of a rising educated middle class. Venezuela was slowly being transformed into a modern economy and had begun to offer some opportunity to those who invested in themselves. Then came Chavez.
As I’m sure you know he has succeeded only by buying the votes of the uneducated. The government redistributes wealth via welfare payments (bribes) to the uneducated. These people do nothing to earn the money (except vote for Chavez). They don’t build roads or schools. They sit at home watching soaps and raising a family of 12 new Chavez supporters.
The currency has fluctuated wildly and foreign investment in my country has become extremely risky. Investors require a huge return premium to invest in Venezuelan infrastructure. The middle class is suffering and shrinking under the weight of heavy taxation and a faultering economy. Many like myself have looked to the US for opportunities that were stolen by Chavez.
The US and every one of its educated citizens should be opposed to the policies of Chavez. If you were a middle class Venezuelan instead of a middle class American you would understand.
Regarding Saudi Arabia – you must have missed Condi Rice’s recent public demands for the expansion of free elections amoung other things.
We have demanded for free elections in Saudi for years, but where is some real action? Were we too busy planning a coup in Venezuela? If anyone wants to get rid of Chavez, then try to get votes and vote him off. If he is buying votes from uneducated, then try to educate those people. It doesn’t help for middle class to just berate poor lower class instead of trying to help them improve their conditions. Social unrests always stem from class differences.
From my review, it is clear that I don’t think a democratically elected government is beyond reproach, only that it sure beats dictatorship.
I whole heartedly agree that Chavez is an idiot and his policies are wrong. But doesn't being a democracy mean the citizens have the right to vote wrong?
I don't think the American government planned the military coup in Venezuela, but I do know we recognized the new government instead of demanding that the democratically elected leader be restored.
The amazing thing is that the poor in the US vote for the leader who is bribing the rich with tax cuts. Yikes!
I don’t disagree. We as a country voted wrong and I and many others moved away. I also personally was hopeful and in a sense recognized the new governement. Somtime you have to put ideals aside when the correct answer is obvious. Venezuela and the world would have better off with a new governement. In an objective selection between the two alternative governments the new government was the obvious winner. I appluad the US for its bold support.
Regarding tax cuts:
I’ve done charitable tax work in support of the working poor who do not understand their tax forms. I know the graduated US tax policy is very accommodating of the poor. It encourages them to work. There are very few poor people that pay any federal taxes. Many get a “refund” in excess of the taxes they have paid thanks to the earned income credit. It is essentially a bonus courtesy of the IRS. It is good policy. It encourages a single mother of 3 to work part time at walmart while the kids are at school. She pays no net federal taxes and still gets a refund comenserate with her efforts to earn an income. If Chavez had policies like this in place there would be hope for Venezuela’s poor.
The tax burden on the US lower middle class is small as well. Statistiacally the upper middle class and the “rich” supply the overwhelming majority of US tax revenues followed far behind by corporate tax receipts. That obviously means that if there is to be any meaningful tax cuts they have to go to those paying taxes – the upper middle class and the rich.
I take offense to the term “rich”. I am not rich. Doctors, lawyers and other profesionals I know are not “rich”. They have high earned incomes and strive to someday be rich. You will find that people that are truly “rich” like Kerry and Buffet don’t mind increaseing the upper tax brackets. Why? Because they are already rich and their earned income is tiny in comparison to their investment income. Since they are already independently wealthy they are not at all oppsed to raising taxes on those that strive to earn higher incomes in the hope of some day joining the “rich” club.
As you can tell I’m not in favor of crushing tax penalties for economic success. This country’s success is driven by an aspiration at the individual level for economic success.
I agree Xiao. America rape kill slave people of worlds. America create 9/11 for excuse. Ameriaca evil always and no good people. Xiao is knowing this and good saying it.
I don't agree with that, Jeean.
Of this I was not aware. I thought Buffet opposed the income tax cuts, the dividend tax cuts, and the repeal of the estate tax because they unfairly favor the wealthy and that we should not be leaving enormous debt for future generations to pay off. I did not know that this was a plan to keep middle class people from getting rich. (Apparently fearful of longer lines in Laguna Beach and Vail restaurants?)
I guess the rich who selflessly lobbied for the tax cuts did it not because it saves them a bundle, but because it preserves the right of you and your middle class doctor and lawyer friends to move to the upper class.
Give me a break.
Wow!!! Bravo! What a MOVIE review from the expert. Please stay on topic. IMO, most arrogant people are ignorant and they love to comment others to be ignorant! This is not a place for you to vent and please don't abuse this wonderful site!
Post a Comment
<< Home