When director and star Robert Redford decided to name his political film Lions for Lambs, he was referencing a quote from a letter written by a German infantryman during the First World War, describing both the bravery of the soldiers fighting the war and the stupidity of the commanders running it. This title sets the stage for a film that boldly questions Americans’ engagement in their own war. In one of the most honest and complex looks at how Americans are fighting the “war on terror,” Redford and screenwriter Matthew Michael Carnahan weave together three tales that present the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as political grey zones where there is no longer a left or right. Though the screenplay carefully weaves these tales together without laying claim to any particular position, Redford still leaves no doubt where his politics stand.
The movie features three seemingly separate stories told in real time. Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) gives an exclusive interview to veteran TV reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep); professor Stephen Malley (Redford) lectures an underachieving student, Todd (Andrew Garfield); and two solders (Michael Pena and Derek Luke) are deployed to a remote mountain region in Afghanistan. As the film cuts between the three stories, Irving tries to convince Roth that his new military operation (launched 10 minutes prior to the interview) is going to finally win the war in Afghanistan, and Malley tries to persuade Todd not to waste his ample intellect. At the same time, the two soldiers executing Irving’s new military procedure crash-land on a remote mountain top. The overriding theme tying the narratives together is commitment, or lack thereof.
Cruise and Streep are superb here as they spar back and forth with clever and engrossing dialogue. Cruise is note-perfect as a self-assured political hotshot and Streep is magnetic as the cynical reporter. Redford’s well-paced and deliberate direction is clearly leftist, though he manages not to follow the same rhetoric-filled political speak of Lions’ close cousin, The Kingdom, also written by Carnahan.
Though some might find the lengthy dialogue and lack of action unsatisfactory, the film still manages to engage the audience and question the very fabric of American journalism, politics and military. It serves as a wake-up call for Americans to become more engaged and less apathetic in a war and world that they are increasingly tuning out.
