Long it’s been since big cinema has produced an experience like Syriana. Several reviews complain that the film as finished product is a far cry from the one promised by the trailer that ran in theaters several months ago. That trailer played much like the typical high concept, new millennial thriller, something akin to Firewall, the upcoming Harrison Ford vehicle that toes every Harrison Ford movie trope: grainy footage, jump-cut editing, an All-American protagonist up against an array of shadowy, ostensibly faceless foreign adversaries, and a plot that feigns ambiguity, but ends up tracing a popcorn-friendly path from point A to point Z. Syriana is anything but streamlined, and it’s hardly formulaic.
The film is a landmark in modern filmmaking. Similar in structure to its predecessor, Traffic, Syriana in a way marks a return to the paranoid political thriller of the 1970’s. It picks up where movies like Network, The Parallax View, and The Conversation left off, and it’s as thoughtfully reactionary to today’s crises. By the early 80’s, the paranoia produced by Watergate and the Vietnam War had largely worn off, and the major studios filled their pockets off dividends from scripts that dumbed down audiences, wowing moviegoers with special effects and the 101st way to tell a love story.
Thankfully, Syriana is unspoiled by any sense of blockbuster mentality, opting to tell a complicated story that would rather perplex the audience than serve it with reassuring twists. In fact, there are no plot hooks at all. The movie’s greatest strength is its willingness to stick to its own language. Unlike Sydney Pollack, a once-great director who now prefers to spoon feed his audience the details, Stephen Gaghan baffles us with information. You almost need a primer in international commerce and modern foreign policy to pull off even an informal understanding of the forces at play. Gaghan is more than willing to provide the details, but wholly on his own terms.
The difference between Syriana and its earlier predecessors is a refusal of its own political consciousness. Instead, there is the affirmation of a large, complex machine at work, its operators blind to the many systems it sustains. The film reveals no concrete enemy, and the variables are so tangled that even China, a market competitor whose legitimate dealings in Kazakhstan for the nourishment its own economy (and an entity whose vilification would be welcome among most conservatives in such a story), cannot be directly credited for what is to come.
What we get is a jazz opus with no rhythm section, and the main instruments are oil, radical Islam, international law, and corruption-as-business-strategy. During the film’s opening scene, Clooney’s CIA operative under other circumstances might seem out of place kicking back with young Iranian socialites in downtown Tehran. Perhaps, with so many years of Middle Eastern strife having become water cooler banter, we are hardened to such scenarios. We get the feeling that this exchange is crucial to the story, so we follow it closely. The linear flow of the initial scene, to its explosive culmination, then becomes the first irony of Syriana. At this point Gaghan could easily have settled in to a script that plays out like a two-hour episode of C.S.I. No, the plot exponentially thickens, and with each following scene becomes thornier.
Examining the plot is futile, at least upon first viewing. The film must contain, even at a conservative count, thousands of edits, especially in its initial hour when characters and situations fall onto the screen like air-dropped pamphlets detailing so many ideologies and coded political agendas. It’s this first half that is maddening and, at times, exhausting in its complexity. Some scenes register for only a matter of seconds. The camera globetrots, teleporting from Texas to Beirut, Tehran to D.C., and back again with only fleeting subtitles announcing dizzying shifts in locale. The principal characters, let alone the dozens of supporting ones, are hardly fleshed out at all. Instead, they’re part of a labyrinthine temporal mechanism that clicks away inexorably toward a conclusion that, given the larger geo-political forces at play, seems as inevitable as the tides.
Amazing and numbing in equal measure is the amount of information packed into each frame. Even the shortest scenes carry weight and leave the viewer wanting to scroll back to make certain that nothing slipped by. The effect is like being strapped to a chair (a fate that befalls one of the chief characters), having the pages of a Joyceian novel turned in front of you at intervals beyond your control and being expected to track the flood of information funneling from the prose. Blink and you’re literally liable to miss something. There are red herrings too, but even these feel as if they’re elemental to Syriana’s flow.
Liberal bias is certainly no surprise given Clooney’s involvement as star and producer, but the level of the film’s indictment of the current Western-centric status quo is still striking. So is Gaghan’s decision as to where to couch the greatest nobility of character and to do so with such a bedrock intellectual bulwark in place. Coming to terms with the tragic emir’s vision for modernizing his country’s economy, it’s hard to fathom that any rational person could argue against it without also embracing historically imperialist ideals.
As such, there are no partisan resonances, as the subtexts remain free of criticism. One might expect a passing examination of Islam. While there is none, its ideals, however undefined, play a palpable role. The paranoia that arises from the story is unresolved, as is the underlying theme that a structure as vast as big oil runs on its own fuel.
The movie’s weaknesses may or may not be intentional. Who bottom-lined the sound editing, particularly for those hushed conversations in dark corners? Are we to fully understand the effects of William Hurt’s character on the film’s climax? And is there a climax at all? Perhaps, but only if you hold stock in the absence of development in the icy characters. Character development takes place off camera, as the aligning of larger fates is the true centerpiece of the film.
Two hours having moved furiously by, we are left in a haze, with confirmation that corporate oil dealings are corrupt, and that the conquest of natural resources for power is hardly an enterprise that will make you friends. With the international validity of the mega-networks of the European Union, the Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations forever under scrutiny in our world, it’s a wonder that we sleep at all. It’s that tangible doom that Gaghan wants us to feel, and further emphasize just how out of reach peace truly is.
~Alan Jones and Derek Taylor
Posted by al on December 13, 2005 4:51 AMI too was impressed with this film, though I have some reservations about how they develop Clooney's character, which is based, to some degree, on real life CIA officer, Bob Baer (SEE NO EVIL).
I didn't find what he does in the end very convincing. It seems rather unlikely that he would sacrifice himself to try to save that Arab prince. That to me, was where the film went Hollywood--making the Clooney
character out to be some sort of would-be martyr.
Baer was hung out to dry by the CIA. His response? He wrote a book. Not nearly as dramatic, I suppose.
Posted by: Adam Hill at December 13, 2005 7:37 AMI didn’t have much of a problem w/ the plausibility of Clooney’s decision & really didn’t see him as a martyr-figure either. By that point he was alienated from pretty much everyone (job, family, etc.) & Gaghan takes pains to illustrate his blossoming conscience earlier in the film. Also, his actions really have no consequence whatsoever on the ultimate outcome. How exactly is he a martyr? I saw him more as a guy who wakes up, only to be put back to sleep soon after in a very final sense.
Posted by: derek at December 13, 2005 8:52 AMWould-be martyr, is what I wrote.
But c'mon, that's clearly the way it's set up.
We realize that the 'good' prince is about to
be taken out, and who comes rushing across the desert dunes to try to save him? (and btw, how believable is it that the prince's security people would just let a car come barrelling forward at them like that?)
And who ultimately kills the 'awakened' CIA officer? His own people, those cold-blooded button-pushers in Langley.
I enjoyed the film, and even admired it. However, I don't see it as a landmark in modern filmmaking. Its novelistic narrative is ambitious, but ultimately it reminded me of how much more involving and intriguing an actual novel is, say one of John le Carre's best.
No offense, Derek & Al, just in the spirit of spirited discussion.
Posted by: Adam Hill at December 13, 2005 10:29 AMWhat’s the difference? The motive you’re ascribing to Gaghan is the same whether Clooney’s martyrdom is “would be” or not- that of setting up his character as a tragic figure. The button-pushers have no idea they’re killing Clooney & more to the point, they probably couldn’t care less; he’s pretty much a non-entity in their eyes by that point. In order for Clooney to be a martyr he’d have to be giving his life for some greater cause or ideal, right? What cause is that exactly? Saving the Prince’s life? Liberating the Middle East? I didn’t get the impression that Clooney’s character couched his actions in any such fantasies. And even if he did, reality hit like a ton of bricks when he came face-to-face with the Prince. I think the point being made is that causes, given the larger & largely invisible apparatuses at work, are kind of pointless by design.
But I’m with you on the questionable nature of Clooney’s ingress into the caravan. I guess the white t-shirt waving in the wind & his bearded Arabic-looking countenance were enough to assuage their fears :)
Whether Syriana is a cinematic landmark is certainly debatable, I’m not completely sold on that assertion either, but I do think it’s head & shoulders more interesting than pretty much any Hollywood film currently screening at the multiplex. And with an actual novel, as noted above, the reader is in control of the feed of information. That’s one of the challenges I appreciated about the film, it doesn’t cater to viewer comfort zones. It just rushes headlong ahead and expects you to keep up, or not.
Posted by: derek at December 13, 2005 11:02 AMyou guys could disguise your spoilers a little better.
Posted by: al at December 13, 2005 2:57 PMSorry, you right. I got all caught up in the bloodlust of heated debate & forgot that my johnson was hanging out w/ all the verbiage.
That's a problem with discussions about movies versus those about music, potentially spoiling plot points always seem to be a prominent feature of the former.
Posted by: derek at December 13, 2005 3:36 PMDerek: "I got all caught up in the bloodlust of heated debate & forgot that my johnson was hanging out w/ all the verbiage."
Talk about a spoiler....
Posted by: Adam Hill at December 13, 2005 3:47 PMParadoxically, this review has convinced me not to see Syriana. I wasn't a big fan of Traffic, and I have no desire to be strapped down in a chair and forced to read Joyce.
Posted by: David Jones at December 13, 2005 7:36 PMawww.
Posted by: al at December 13, 2005 7:45 PMMajor Jones, nice to see you back on Bags terra firma, where ye been lo these many months?
Posted by: derek at December 13, 2005 7:48 PMAnd what's with the dig against my perfectly innocent & respectable johnson, damn this is a tough crowd.
Posted by: derek at December 13, 2005 8:03 PMMajor Jones, nice to see you back on Bags terra firma, where ye been lo these many months?
Hi Derek-
I haven't had time for any in-depth music conversation. Interestingly, you are asking me this question on the very night that I finished my last paper for this semester. So, at least, until the spring semester starts, I should be here a bit more often, and maybe I'll even find time to write something up for the site. Here's hoping.
Posted by: David Jones at December 13, 2005 9:57 PMI just seen the film.
I like it as it is with is intelligently written story who reflect well "the complexity of the world".
But "a landmark in modern filmmaking"?
You're joking or in need to take your nose(s) out of Hollywood and look to "cinémas" around you (I mean, in the rest of the world).
Also a question for you guys:
Do you think than Bob/Clooney, when he threatens Christopher Plummer (I kill your son, than your wife if something happens to me...), had the power to do it (and, if yes, by who?) or not?
Just curious to hear what you think.
ok, ok. To clarify the (probably overdone) "landmark" classifier, my thoughts are that the film stands out for two reasons:
1) the return to paranoid political films, and no, the remake of Manchurian Candidate is not in the same category. The world needs more of these as those early 70's films provided two purposes:
- a collective voice addressing the fear and instability in the world.
- people got sick of this brand of film sooner or later and what I'm really waiting for is for Hollywood to shoot its load so we can get DISCO back.
2) This is one of the only movies of its kind (that is actually smart in almost every way) to come from big cinema in a while. Sweeping generalization, I know, but valid from where I sit.
Posted by: al at December 27, 2005 11:54 AMSpeaking of johnsons, is there any sex in Syriana?
Posted by: dennis gonzalez at January 3, 2006 4:57 PMi finally got a chance to see this movie and i think, for americans at least, it gets heralded as something really special because 1) it is a superb film but 2), as al and others have said, this is the finest big budget studio pic ever, and we dont expect fine pictures from hollywood.
Why say som'g so outlandish? b/c the movie actually depicts the world. not one person's growing up in the world, or some other personal journey - it depicts the state of how things work and how things happen.
one dilemma: i think the "difficulty" of watching this movie has been horribly overplayed, making people feel like they wont be smart enough or that they will have to pay such close attention that it wont be enjoyable. the people i saw the movie with were explicitly concerned about this but had a fine time and didnt find it difficult. All you have to do is watch and listen (im sorry if that sounds too demanding david jones.)
i also thought the decision for clooney to run off into the desert and find the "good" prince was a bit of an unwarranted and unnecessary concession to narrative
and i also questioned clooney's threat to the big lawyer guy in the diner. that dude seemed like he could blow off clooneys threat in a second and make the call to have him destroyed in minutes. (even though it was satiusfying to root for clooney and his threat at that moment)
Posted by: unwrinkled at January 26, 2006 12:02 PM
What I like about the film is that each story was told from a separate point of view even though the over-arching event was connected and contemporary. The views were laid down next to each other. It was like a war or battle presented from each side or angle and laying out or implying as fully as possible the motives from within those sides.
I am sure that this has been down before, especially in literature. I remember the brilliant Alexandria Quartet. Others may see a parallel in Rashomon. It is even implied in the great domestic novel Pride and Prejudice.
Are there other examples that some of you may like?
Posted by: Brian Shannon at September 4, 2006 9:55 AM.................................................. © 2003 - 2006 bagatellen ..................................................