•
Rating: Always driven by a deeply democratic sentiment, Robert Redford has repeatedly expressed his "leftist" ideas within the American environment, often receiving criticism. To confirm and reiterate his ideals, in 2007 he returns behind the camera seven years after "The Legend of Bagger Vance".
Lions for Lambs presents itself as a film sparse in terms of plot but full of countless reflections regarding its meaning. I don't want to get into what I think about the topics covered, so I will try to present them in Redford's perspective.
The film unfolds on three levels: the first concerns Senator Irving (Tom Cruise) and journalist Janine (Meryl Streep). The senator supports his arguments on why it's right to continue the war in Afghanistan. The main reason is to demonstrate the military power of the country to its citizens, but also to convince them that the "peace mission" undertaken in that country is just and motivated by the attack suffered on September 11 at the Twin Towers. He also presents Janine with his new tactic: aiming to control the highlands to be able to monitor, or rather operate, more efficiently, being able to control the Taliban from above. For her part, the journalist, after previously supporting the ideas of the Republican senator, suddenly understands the futility of his theories, his rhetorical speech. He is not interested in ending the terrorist regime in Afghanistan, but rather thinks about the oil reserves and showing America's "image" strength.
At the same time, Professor Malley (Robert Redford) summons the promising young Todd (Andrew Garfield) to his office to warn him of the consequences he is facing due to his continuous absences from university. The discussion then takes a political turn in which Malley wants his student to continue an educational path started by two of his former students who decided to enlist precisely for Afghanistan.
The third level on which Lions for Lambs unwinds is precisely that of the Afghan front, less present, however, than the other two. Here we find two young men, Ernest and Arian, implementing what Senator Irving has thought to win the war, and will meet their end.
These three narrative levels go hand in hand within the film, with continuous jumps from one side to the other. The main discourse that Redford wants to emphasize is linked to the usefulness of the war in Afghanistan, why one enlists for a conflict. It is noticeable from the beginning the director's intention: to highlight the hope he places in the younger generations, in education, rather than in some media, ready to "turn" when it is already too late.
The war scenes have minimal importance compared to the others, except for the final one, which sounds like an accusation against Bush's military policy (film of 2007). Probably Redford is a bit out of place in today's American politics. He believes in the words of men, in their feelings. He still thinks that with common sense and words themselves, the world can change...
Loading comments slowly
