“Wake up, America!” That’s the fervent call to action in Lions for Lambs, a well-intentioned and often nervy critique of America’s current complacency during a time of war. Whether anyone will actually listen to the central question the film asks each of us to ponder – What do you stand for? – is open to debate, given that polarized reactions to the film will inevitably overshadow any real discourse on the subject. Those who cynically believe that America is going to hell in a handbasket unless it changes course soon will embrace the film’s message, while the Bill O’Reillys and Ann Coulters of the world will probably foam at the mouth in response to it. In other words, it will be business as usual in these partisan times. Still, Lions for Lambs is a fairly bold undertaking, one in which fingers point in more than one direction, and responsibility is shared by all. It’s also a bold film, structurally speaking, in that it’s little more than three interwoven stories in which two characters are simply engaged in a conversation. One such dialogue occurs in the office of an ambitious neoconservative congressman who has invited a skeptical television reporter to discuss the nation’s latest strategy in fighting the war on terror. The second occurs in an office between a college professor and a once-promising student who seems to have lost interest in participating in his own education. The film’s third segment, which tries to serve as a bridge between the other two, primarily takes place on a barren, snowy mountain in Afghanistan, where a faceless enemy is closing in on two injured American soldiers. For a film in which there’s little action in the visceral sense, Lions for Lambs can be captivating, especially in the vigorous give-and-take exchange in the senator’s office about the failings of our country’s leadership and the popular press with respect to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For once, Cruise’s controlled acting style – he always appears to be trying too hard – works well in the role of a powerful man doing his best to sell a tough bill of goods, while Streep (as usual) is nothing short of miraculous as the reporter who must acknowledge her own complicity for today’s political state of affairs. The other two segments are less captivating (though never boring), largely because the logic in their plotlines doesn’t always hang together very well. Despite its flaws, which become more evident as time elapses, Lions for Lambs is worth seeing for no other reason than you’ve never seen anything like it before. It’s political theatre that shouldn’t be missed.
This article appears in November 9 • 2007.
