The Truth Behind 'Lions for Lambs'

Has anyone seen this yet? Opinions?

The Truth Behind 'Lions for Lambs'
Lisa Pease

Consortium News

Robert Parry’s Note: The Washington Post and some other publications are predictably panning Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" because it poses tough moral questions about the neoconservative agenda. In this guest review, historian Lisa Pease finds the movie compelling for those same reasons:

“Lions for Lambs,” directed by Robert Redford and starring Redford, Tom Cruise, and Meryl Streep, opens this weekend. It is one of the few “must see” films of the year..

Through crackling dialog, splendid performances, and emotional sequences, the film seeks to elevate the national discussion not only on the war in Iraq, but on the Americans at home who have chosen neither to participate nor to protest. The film’s Web site asks a question one must answer before one can enter: what do you stand for? The film itself asks a bigger question: What are you willing to do for what you believe?

The title of the film comes from a comment a German general offered in a letter during World War I. Impressed by the bravery of the British soldiers, if not their officers, who were often given their commission because of social ranking, not military prowess, he wrote, “Never have I seen such Lions led by such Lambs.”

And that’s the essential thrust of the film. Lions have put their lives on the line for a war that was sold by Lambs. Now, what are we going to do about it?

The film interweaves three stories. One features a rising young neocon star, Senator Jasper Irving (Cruise), who invites savvy journalist Janine Roth (Streep) to his office to bestow upon her a scoop regarding a new military mission in Afghanistan.

He offers her the story first because she wrote the article that put him on the political map when she called him “the future of his party.”

Janine suggests that was not necessarily a compliment, and they begin a battle of wits and rhetoric the likes of which we’ve never heard, and have longed to hear, about the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and possibly in Iran next.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/110907a.html

but I'm sorry to hear he didn't like it. But I can't imagine not liking a film with Streep and Redford in it, and even Cruise is watchable.

always agree with the reviewers, no matter who they are.

The movie presents the dilemma and asks questions. It doesn't provide answers. It's supposed to be thought provoking.

That means the pro-war crowd will be angered at the "unamerican" tone, and the anti-war folks will be upset that those who made the movie were cowards.

It's supposed to stimulate discussion, so I'm taking my teens to see it.

very good movie. It has nothing to do with the content.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lions_for_lambs/

Who are the Lambs she is referring to here?

Cheney & Rumsfeld? Lambs?

and it probably lost a little in translation from the original German.

Thanks.

I just might have to take that back. :blush:

in movies that his real life boring antics.

:eyes: Can't think of a better way too get me to watch it. :evilgrin: And not because I am UnAmerican either. I am not.

there's at least 50+ actors in the business who are better than he.... gee whiz, was Billy Crudup busy or something?

That just happens to have Cruise in it.

-Hoot

Yeah, I know -- but one can dream, can't one?

Some Reviews of New Tom Cruise Movie Link Meryl Streep's Character to Judith Miller

By E&P Staff

Published: November 09, 2007 4:20 PM ET

NEW YORK The reviews of the new Robert Redford ripped-from-the-headlines film, "Lions for Lambs," which opened today, are decidedly mixed. A few critics have noted that the TV reporter played by Meryl Streep bears an uncanny resemblance (though certainly not in hair color) to one Judith Miller, the former New York Times scribe.

The Streep reporter, who had erred in covering an earlier war (Iraq?), looks like a patsy for a leak from the bad guy senator, played by Cruise, but this time she is made of sterner stuff in regard to targeting Iran. Here's how some reviewers commented.

-- The Washington Post: "When Streep's character faces a fateful journalistic choice in Washington (let's call it the Judith Miller Conundrum), it's impossible not to see the ghost of Redford's Bob Woodward in 'All the President's Men' and understand how far Redford believes journalism has fallen from its sacred skeptical perch."

more...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003670874

Parry always nails it

for me...Robert Redford alone would do it..but with Meryl Streep it's a go.

:D

"Liberal_in_LA (614 posts)

Lions for Lambs getting horrible reviews."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2251337

The original quote was "lions led by donkeys" which makes more sense. You'd think Redford would have spotted that mistake.

which would have given the wrong impression. redford might have spotted the mistake and let it slide.

hell, he might have deliberately made the change himself for this reason.

But Tom Cruise is in it. He gives an astounding amount of money, suppport, and free advertising to the "Church" of Scientology. Scientologists (and Tom Cruise) spread lies and misinformation about psychiatry, psychiatric disorders, and the treatment of such.

Scientology is a dangerous cult that is now infiltrating the public schools, particularly in post-Katrina New Orleans.

To contribute to Tom Cruise's income (by going to see this film) is to contribute to a cult. I cannot do that.

http://www.xenu.net

I have seldom been to a film directed by someone other than David Mamet that is essentially a "talking heads" film. Although the film cuts between three separate scenes throughout (reporter interviewing Senator, college prof challenging bright student to be ... (something), and two soldiers pinned down on an Afghani mountainside), it is essentially a movie that allows the viewer to eaves-drop on important conversations about the purpose of war, the meaning of personal fulfillment, the responsibilities of citizens and our elected leaders and the role of the media. Those are all worthwhile topics and the different perspectives that overlap in this country today and impact our current situation are well represented.

I would recommend the movie and hope to see the end of it soon. But I had to leave early to go roar at the "lamb" who is now chairing our state Democratic party, along with a number of other very frustrated leonine Democritters who wonder just when the word "opposition" (as in "loyal opposition") morphed into "appeasers". It was a pretty testy gathering last night. Frankly, I am not convinced my state's party leaders are up to the task that lies ahead.

If you are going to spend money to see worthy anti-Bush movies in the near future, I would recommend these four (in this order):

1) In the Valley of Elah (the best movie on any subject I've seen in five years)
2) UNCOUNTED: The New Math of American Elections (available at www.uncountedthemovie.com)
3) No End in Sight -- a movie which chronicles the steaming heaps of hubris that define our Iraq policy. It is the scariest movie I've seen in a while (and cinematic evidence for stopping Blackwater in Iraq/Afghanistan before we have to stop them at home)
4) Lions for Lambs (again, based at this point on only a partial review)

I'll save a seat for you in the balcony (and a place for you in the fox-hole).

Peace (one day I hope) out.

but the writing and ultimate message of the film could have been a little clearer