Lions for Lambs

[aragorn]

Thanks for the tip!

Me and my wife just watched it and we both thought it really nailed the situation today. Excellent script and excellent actors. I personally was very impressed by the young actor who played the student, great timing and wit in his acting!

Make sure you watch the 'making of' in the extras, great insights there also.

Great work Bob, keep them coming!

 

[Mr. Premise]

What struck me is that all the characters were incredibly persuasive. But they all lacked sufficient knowledge, so their persuasion ended up misleading people into tragedy. The one who appeared to have the most knowledge was the Meryl Streep character, but even she had no idea how deep it went and still had many wrong assumptions. And it was the wrong assumptions that they started out with that led to tragedy.

That was the scary part, that if we don't have knowledge, our skills could actually make things much worse. In that sense it reminded me of Arlington Road.

 

[nicklebleu]

I actually quite liked the movie, mostly for the performance of Tom Cruise (and I am generally not a great admirer of him).

He had the full range of emotional armament used by psychopathic people down pat: He would first be relaxed and joking, then abruptly jumping to grandiosity and patriotism, then on to pensive and apologetic politician "forced to to the dirty work", followed by the charismatic leader who is convinced of his own point of view etc. I found his performance brilliant.

And I found the point also well handled that always "what is right" is connected to "what serves me right", meaning that his ideological view was in part (or wholly?) based on the advancement of his own political career.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I was discussing this with some people who had read Lobaczewski, and someone suggested that the Cruise character was not a psychopath but was actually a spellbinder. That seemed to really make sense.

Spellbinders of various schools attempt to provoke such para-appropriate reactions from other people in the name of their specific goals, or in the service of the reigning ideologies. That hard-to-understand pathological factor is located within the spellbinder himself. (p. 145)

The "para-appropriate reactions" occur when:

...our social, psychological, and moral concepts, as well as our natural forms of reaction, are not adequate for every situation with which life confronts us. We generally wind up hurting someone if we act according to our natural concepts and reactive archetypes in situations which seem to be appropriate to our imagingins, although they are in fact essentially different. (p. 145)

There was that point in the movie where they showed the photographs of Cruise on the wall with the real psychopaths, like Cheney. The real or essential psychopaths, as Lobaczewski calls them, need the spellbinders and other characteropaths to do a lot of the persuading for them. It is harder for psychopaths to persuade than it is for spellbinders of even schizoids.

In order to comprehend ponerogenic pathways of contagion, especially those acting in a wider social context, let us observe the roles and personalities of individuals we shall call "spellbinders", who are highly active in this area in spite of their statistically negligible number.

Spellbinders are generally the carriers of various pathological factors, some characteropathies, and some inherited anomalies...

Spellbinders are characterized by pathological egotism. Such a person is forced by some internal causes to make an early choice between two possibilities: the first is forcing other people to think and experience things in a manner similar to his own; the second is a feeling of being lonely and different, a pathological misfit in social life. Sometimes the choice is either snake-charming or suicide.

Triumphant repression of self-critical or unpleasant concepts from the field of consciousness gradually gives rise to the phenomena of conversion thinking, or paralogistics, paramoralisms, and the use of reversion blockades. They stream so profusely from the mind and mouth of the spellbinder that they flood the average person's mind. Everything becomes subordinated to the spellbinder's over-compensatory conviction that they are exceptional, sometimes even messianic.

I actually quite liked the movie, mostly for the performance of Tom Cruise (and I am generally not a great admirer of him).

He had the full range of emotional armament used by psychopathic people down pat: He would first be relaxed and joking, then abruptly jumping to grandiosity and patriotism, then on to pensive and apologetic politician "forced to to the dirty work", followed by the charismatic leader who is convinced of his own point of view etc. I found his performance brilliant.

And I found the point also well handled that always "what is right" is connected to "what serves me right", meaning that his ideological view was in part (or wholly?) based on the advancement of his own political career.

 

[Jacques]

Anybody else seen this one? We just watched it and I urge everyone to watch it. Tom Cruise delivers a fantastic performance as a right wing pathological deviant. That's not to say he is because his company made the movie, so I suspect that the movie itself might be a statement.

Watch it. Watch it with some friends.

Watch it yesyerday night. Wow a great movie.

When the student is with the teacher and he is saying "Why should i do something because it does not matter, anything changes?"

And the teacher answers: At least you will have done something, you will have try.

It did remind me of a SOTT answer. Maybe Robert Redford is reading SOTT?

Thanks for mentionning it.

 

[Mr. Premise]

I thought actually that the professor character was presented as pathetic, really. I think to the extent that his views represent Redford's views, then Redford has realized how inadequate his views are.

That is why those who took his advice came to the worst end. The college student whose eyes we were really looking through I think punctured Redford's character by pointing out what a failure Redford's character was.

I think the two students who enlisted in the Army showed that "just doing something" is not necessarily better than not doing something, especially if you don't have enough knowledge. The problem, and the reason why the whole thing is complicated, is that we get real knowledge by applying the limited knowledge we have and learning from our mistakes. Those two students who enlisted only had a few moments to learn from their mistakes.

The movie does present things as they are in terms of public opinion and the different positions within the US. My problem is that without any context of reality and with very little contrasting with the crude facts on the ground (the few images of war are very sanitized and completely one-sided), the resulting message seems to be that those are the only reasonable options available, and therefore, the whole truth must be somewhere in there, perhaps between the journalist and the professor. (Judging by Robert Redford's Colgate smile, I think he represents the real opinion of the director ;) ) But I don't think those views are even close to how bad things really are.

 

[mamadrama]

I thought actually that the professor character was presented as pathetic, really. I think to the extent that his views represent Redford's views, then Redford has realized how inadequate his views are.

Yes, and I pretty much felt the same way about Streep's character, too. It's just too hard to believe a well seasoned journalist with 40 years covering hard news would be so naive and clueless. Surely those who have been around since the Viet Nam era know the score a little more than this. I found the scene when she was in the editor's office and struggled so to express how bogus the whole thing was, pretty hard to swallow.

 

[Mr. Premise]

Yes, but I did think the Streep character held up pretty well against the spellbinding onslaught of Cruise. You could see the internal struggle to keep her bearings.

But you could also see how the system gets people like her: she had to pay for 24-hour care for her mother! So if she made a stand, they would just replace her with someone else who would supply the text for the news story and her mother would suffer.

Another reason for the eroding of social insurance, to keep us afraid and dependent. Which is really ironic, since the right wing criticizes social insurance for making us dependent on the government....

I thought actually that the professor character was presented as pathetic, really. I think to the extent that his views represent Redford's views, then Redford has realized how inadequate his views are.

Yes, and I pretty much felt the same way about Streep's character, too. It's just too hard to believe a well seasoned journalist with 40 years covering hard news would be so naive and clueless. Surely those who have been around since the Viet Nam era know the score a little more than this. I found the scene when she was in the editor's office and struggled so to express how bogus the whole thing was, pretty hard to swallow.

 

[Adaryn]

But you could also see how the system gets people like her: she had to pay for 24-hour care for her mother! So if she made a stand, they would just replace her with someone else who would supply the text for the news story and her mother would suffer.

I also thought that the journalist was tied to the system and finally gave in because of her mother. There was no other solution for her, if she refused she was fired and then she would have no money to support her mother and pay for her care. Her boss emphasized the point that she was getting old and nobody would want to hire her.
All the actors were really brilliant. I really liked the movie.

About the indecision in the end : I kinda got the impression that seeing the news about the operation on the screen, the student kid thought of volunteering.

 

[Joe]

Some of ya'll are missing the point; the movie is about what IS. It is about how the various sides see themselves and seek to be seen, to project. It is a stunningly accurate portrayal. Of course, each individual will see what they want to see. Those who fall into confluence with the Tom Cruise character and see that character as righteous and moral - well, that speaks for them.

What the movie tells me is that the people behind it see a LOT and were able to present it exactly as it is. The arguments Cruise uses, the passion, the self-righteousness, the refusal to self-examine, etc.

Streep's character is weak and needy and sells out in the end as you see from the stringer running across the bottom of the TV screen. But at least, for a moment, she saw... but she was just too weak.

Redford's character: sees all, but too old to do anything, looking for someone to do what he WOULD do if he weren't too old.

The young kid - gads, what a portrayal of our young people. So many of them DO see, but they are young, the battle is too hard, and they see maybe TOO much how futile it could be - that nobody else ever accomplished anything for long.

It's a brilliant movie, a brilliant script. If you are looking for anti-propaganda, this isn't it.

I think Laura is correct here. Look at it from the point of view of how dumbed down most people are. Sure it doesn't do what Sott does, but compared to most movies it is a brave attempt to sound the alarm.

Having said that, there was one thing in the movie that sort of annoyed me. It was when Redford was talking to the student in his office. He made a remark that was not really relevant to the movie but was nonetheless a clear piece of Amerocentrism.

He said something along the lines of:

"Well if you look at the government in Greece it makes our government look like a stream lined vision of the future"

Dunno where he got this idea from, but it plays into really well entrenched American propaganda about the rest of the world.

Joe

 

[mamadrama]

I think Laura is correct here. Look at it from the point of view of how dumbed down most people are. Sure it doesn't do what Sott does, but compared to most movies it is a brave attempt to sound the alarm.

Yes, I agree as well. While I found its message was too understated for me, it did a good job translating what IS to those who aren't aware of what's really going on.

Having said that, there was one thing in the movie that sort of annoyed me. It was when Redford was talking to the student in his office. He made a remark that was not really relevant to the movie but was nonetheless a clear piece of Amerocentrism.

He said something along the lines of:

"Well if you look at the government in Greece it makes our government look like a stream lined vision of the future"

Dunno where he got this idea from, but it plays into really well entrenched American propaganda about the rest of the world.

Yes, that bothered me, too. Along with that, something else that bothered me was Redford's admonition to the student that it was all up to him to do something (reading up to the young people). That the student should forget about those who got us into this mess, they're beyond help or something like that. Unless this remark referred to forget any changes coming from the PTB, it seemed like everyone else was off the hook and it was up to the young people to clean up our collective mess.

 

[henry]

I watched the film over the weekend and thought it was brilliant. I think Redford's goal was to get people to think, and the film does that. It raises questions, shows the various positions, and then let's you work it out for yourself.

Leaving everything hanging at the end the way he does is brave.

I found all the characters believable, including the scene in the editor's office where Streep is arguing with her boss. I didn't have the feeling that she caved in at the end. Those images of Arlington Cemetery with the rows of dead soldiers reinforced the point she had been making all through the film.

As for Cruise and his portrayal of the psychopath Senator, he certainly brought it to life. In watching the "Making of" feature afterwards, while all of the other actors spoke from the heart about their characters and what it was like to make the film, Cruise seemed to continue to speak in the same pat phrases he used in character. Very creepy.

No easy answers were given, and there are no easy answers.

 

[Bernhard]

As for Cruise and his portrayal of the psychopath Senator, he certainly brought it to life. In watching the "Making of" feature afterwards, while all of the other actors spoke from the heart about their characters and what it was like to make the film, Cruise seemed to continue to speak in the same pat phrases he used in character. Very creepy.

Well, when looking at some of the Scientology footage with Cruise that has "leaked" on youtube over that past year, it seems that he isn't maybe really "acting" to be a psychopath. He does creep me out for sure.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

 

[Cyre2067]

I'd agree with most of what's been said. The film itself is addressed to the US public, and I see us all as that third student. Sure, some of us have become the sell-out journalist with a conscience problem, some have become part of the war machine due to a lack of true knowledge, some are a direct part of the pathocracy, knowingly or not - but most of us are that potential to be something different, especially among the youth. I especially liked the line Redford spat that began with "Rome is burning son!" - that was my favorite scene. I also wrote up a review, it's on my blog, but I'll copy it below fwiw.

The film Lions for Lambs is an honest attempt to portray the spicy geopolitical climate in its raw, unedited and costly truth. The film takes place in three films, one between two brother's in arms, another between a student and his teacher and another between a journalist and a pathocratic senator. Each vignette offers an illuminating look at the reality of our situation, and I mean our because each one of us can somehow fit into the film itself.

The brother's in arms are interestingly, two previous students of the professor we're introduced to. We're shown their military adventure in Afghanistan as they attempt to fulfill a new strategy issued by the senator. Their characters are bold, courageous, and strong-willed. They have an incredible power of conscience, and a desire to do what is right. Their failing? They lack accurate psychological knowledge of the men who lead them. They are Lions for Lambs.

The pathocratic senator is played exceedingly well by Tom Cruise. I'd never thought I'd enjoy his performance as much as I did in this film. He shows a psychopathic ability to mix words, to tug on a normal man's emotions, to lie with the cunning conviction he is right, more then that - that he is righteous - because he possesses a pathological nature that prevents him from seeing, thinking or believing otherwise. The journalist who shares his entire vignette is played by Meryl Streep, and her desire to honestly do her job and do it right comes through strong. She is invited by the senator for an hour to discuss the 'new strategy' in Afghanistan, and to help relay it to the public. She does an excellent job of asking the questions anyone of conscience would ask, and we can see Cruises' character's pathology if we pay attention.

The last vignette is between Robert Redford, who plays a professor at an unnamed California University and a student of his that shows much promise. The student has potential, but feels as if he'd be happier with a 'normal life', keeping his head down, getting a good job, and making the best out of his life without trying to play a big role in world events. He makes a good argument, but is countered by experience, wisdom and an understanding which he cannot quite grasp due to his youth. For the greater part of the interaction we're not even sure if an impact is made, if his armor is dented, but there is hope reflected in the very last scene that makes the entire bit worth it.

The core of the film is a display of the reality of our situation here in America. Our politicians are self-serving, lying, pathological monsters who are irredeemable and incapable of change. The establishment that is Mainstream Media is saturated with people who are solely 'doing their job' or so they think, by reporting what they are told - propaganda or not. Some of them are damn good people, who have a strong conscience, but due to circumstance (mostly age and financial obligations) cannot change. Their potential to be something different has dried up.

Then we are shown the best and the brightest. Two out of three of which ended up believing their abilities would best be used serving this country in it's war effort. They had the conscience, the dedication and the will to do something new, bold and dramatic - but they didn't have the knowledge that would have allowed their effort to really make an impact, and the results are given to us dramatically.

The third student is a wild card, we're really not sure what he does by the end of the film, but we're given hope that he may attempt something great - to succeed or fail matters not, but that he may attempt it gives us hope. In my mind I saw all of us as that third student. Young, smart, definitely lazy and more interested in social life and girls then knowledge and wisdom which would allow him to fight to change the world. He is the future, the potential future, it exists only as a potential because it is possible, but extremely difficult to manifest. It can only happen with dedication, conscience, and knowledge - which are much more difficult to acquire then a video game, television show, sports event or event a really hot lay.

That is the core of the film, if we want to make an impact, to make positive changes to our world, to become our potential as individuals and as a society we have to want it, we have to try for it, and we have to make it a daily effort.

 

[Telperion]

I agree that the film was good but it really could have been much better if made outside of the confines of Hollywood. Sometimes I simply don't understand why so many punches have to be pulled in films that seem to want to shock people into realizing how much the government is corrupt, kids are apathetic etc...and then I come back to my senses and realize that it's Hollywood and there's only so far they can go with certain topics unlike Von Trier et al. To a certain degree I can understand why certain stock characters must be paraded before a general audience simply in order for many to get it at all...however, the snarky smart mouthed kid, well meaning but hopelessly misguided minorities with something to prove and the sleazy yet handsome/charismatic government official characters have just been done to death, imo. What really saved this film for me was Meryl Streep who I'm slightly partial to anyway lol. Her character represents an ingeniously subtle but powerful critique of our severely compromised Western news media that is so so so so incredibly important. I literally got chills as she realized her own complicity in passing along propaganda. And yet even though she wanted to regain her integrity the machine simply made it impossible for her which is probably an all too common story. This plot line felt much more true to life to me than the other cookie cutter characters/plot lines, even though they served their purposes well I suppose.