|
Guys:
This one is a bit of blather but bear with.
I'll preface this post by stating that my younger brother wrote and produced the film
I'm referencing below and while you might think a rigid, nepotistic bias would be all but built-in,
it's not. I'm judging the movie on its own merits and sharing what it meant to me and what
my opinions are about its broader context.
It needn't be worth two sh*ts to you...but here goes:
I'm certainly no stranger to the vicious critical drubbing but what's happening with 'Lions
For Lambs' is just f*cking shameful, so don't be fooled. This is a film out to eviscerate
the media's softball approach on geopolitics and gunboat diplomacy and hold them
accountable for their reportage post 9/11 and pre-Iraq when they were used like a
lathe to carve out and smooth over Bush's invasion plan and turn war propaganda into
popular public sentiment.
To see this film as liberal tubthumping is to miss the point by miles because it's much
smarter and more subversive than that. Some of the most impressive arguments made
in the movie come from what some might consider the film's conservative core; Senator
Jasper Irving, masterfully portrayed by Cruise. This guy's got the same god-fearing fire
in his eyes and neo-evangelical tone that had everybody (myself included) stomping the
bleachers and demanding heads post 9/11. If the critical establishment could look beyond
their own self-loathing liberal woes and their need to lambaste and leave behind like
roadkill anything that even resembles objectivity, then they might be able to recognize
such salient counterpoints. But they're so quick to brandish hot irons and just start burning
labels, that they wind up setting fire to the whole f*cking affair. And from the rubble? What?
'Liberal posturing...blah, blah, blah...' and whatever lessons the film might have afforded
remain unlearned.
I'm not saying you even have to LIKE the film, or what it has to say. But don't imply it's not an
important piece of work and don't disregard its ultimate goal, which is to get people THINKING.
Plain and simple. So that the spin that wound up being the most pervasive, unwanted element of
media coverage the past six years, nevers takes root again. We bought into a bunch of bulls*it
wholesale and helped spread it like brush fire. We allowed them to appropriate something
as sacrosanct as 'Patriotism' and use it like a f*cking truncheon on anybody who didn't fall into
formation: To keelhaul moral recititude and decency and replace it with simplistic, infantile
'Us vs. Them' proselytizing. Nobody gets a pass (myself included) and in the interest of
circumspection, let's all take the same look in the mirror and repeat the mantra 'Never again...'
What the f*ck is wrong with that? Is it finger pointing that's putting people off? Tough sh*t!
The film's pointing the exact same finger at itself! That's what's getting lost in the tide of
'liberal' backlash. Bottom line, the media became little more than a mouthpiece for the
administration and everybody knows that. Clearly, judging by some of the reviews, they don't
want to be reminded.
I think 'Lions For Lambs' message is clutter-free and quite clear. It asks that we mobilize behind the
things we believe in and not just shrug it off as 'somebody else's problem.'
Minus attention and action, there exists only apathy.
So there's that rant. Here's the second part:
Not every f*cking movie should have to include robots, tits, animated talking tea-kettles,
blade kicking or Ben Stiller to be commercially viable. And not every audience should be
pandered to as if it had the cumulative attention span of a gnat on crack. I've picked up
tremendous insights from films that were, at first blush, difficult to sit through.
But if we don't allow anything outside of 'pure entertainment' to permeate our viewing process occasionally then we're doomed to the life of some dull, doltish, dim-witted motherf*ckers.
You may hate 'Lions For Lambs' but goddamit, SO WHAT. It's still well worth your two hours.
And I think it's mandatory viewing for forward thinkers the world over. Regardless of your
feelings about the film itself, it will still spark copious conversation, debate, deep thought
and the like...
Can there be a downside to that?
I don't think so...
...strike that. I know there's not.
JC
|
