![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Anybody See Syriana?
Over the holiday, I went to see Syriana with a few family members. I’d actually intended to see The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but it was sold out. Nothing else really was playing for a while except Syriana, so we went to see that.
Before I saw it, I’d only been exposed to two pieces of information on it. One was an interview with the director on Charlie Rose a couple weeks ago. He had some interesting things to say about the research that he did on the movie, and how he hoped that it was an accurate portrayal on some level of how these massive world events connect in real life.
The movie is basically about the oil industry, corruption in government, and how it all intersects with the lives of ordinary people. The only other opinion I’d taken in before seeing this movie was courtesy of Cryptogon who had a lot of critical comments to make against the audience in the theatre, and ultimately concluded “These types of films are good, but, for people like me (and you), it’s more of an excuse to get out of the house.” He also suggested that
people will just walk out of the theater thinking, “It’s just a movie. Stuff like that doesn’t really happen.”
Riding back home with my family though, the main thrust of our conversation was on sewing together pieces of the plot which had really only been implied. And it struck me that for most people, this is really what the focus will be on. Writer/director Stephen Gaghan explains on the Syriana site:
The characters do not have traditional character arcs; the stories don’t wrap up in neat little life lessons, the questions remain open. The hope is that by not wrapping everything up, the film will get under your skin in a different way and stay with you longer.
This is an approach to story-telling that I’m sympathetic with (as I’ve written about elsewhere), especially after being exposed to a lot of David Lynch in a short time. For me though, the way that Gaghan applied the technique here is somehow less interesting or perhaps less emotionally powerful than how somebody like Lynch applies it. I guess the biggest difference is that when you enter into a Lynch film, you enter into a dreamscape, and as such, you eventually accept that ordinary rules of reality don’t apply. And thus it’s okay if things don’t completely connect together or fit into an easy explanation. But in a film like Syriana which, ostensibly, takes place in the “real world,” it can be harder to pull off this sort of tactic and have the average person accept it. People do want to understand how the characters fit together and what’s happening. But it’s a fine line between pushing the envelope and just making people feel lost.
Overall, I’d say I enjoyed the movie regardless. If you’re okay with this type of story-telling, then you’ll probably appreciate it - especially if you have an interest in how power (both energy and government) works. Gaghan in the official movie site says “You want people to be standing around the water cooler the next day talking about [the social/political issues raised by] it, saying here’s what I agree with or here’s where they’re wrong. We need that discussion.” I very much agree, but I also wonder if with a movie like this people will be left pondering the issues, or simply wish that they understood how the plot fit together.
- No related posts
December 30th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
PS. Just to clarify, I didn’t think the movie was especially confusing. I’m just trying to accurately reflect the impression I got from the people I saw it with who are not as deeply involved in these types of issues.
Also, if you’re looking for a cool action movie, keep looking.
December 30th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Whether it’s Lynch surreality or Gaghan’s Costas-Gavras-esque realism, some people just can’t follow a storyline to save their life. There comes a point when it is no longer the filmmaker’s fault: some audiences are just dense. In other cases, the audience is smart but can’t grasp the technique– many will no doubt ask why it seems incomplete or unfinished. It reminds me of my own view towards Abstract Expressionism, before I actually took it upon myself to explore the technique first-hand.
A recent movie that I found to be brilliant but left many people cold was Lost In Translation. I met many people who thought it resembled nothing more than an outtake reel or a Deleted Scenes menu from a DVD. I thought that was the point of the movie, but I could be wrong.
Happy New Year.
December 30th, 2005 at 5:50 pm
I never actually did see Lost in Translation, but I meant to. I’ll have to go back and check it out.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Actually, on Monday my partner and I went out to see The Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe and I left wishing we had seen Syriana. I’ve read the book twice (and read the entire Narina series when I was a kid) and I’ve admired C.S. Lewis’ treatment of Christianity. However, I was disappointed because (1) the movie was too “real”, i.e. in this case the realism actually detracts from the story arc; and (2) it was way too explicitly Christian for my tastes. I think Tolkien’s mythology is a more skillful rendition of Christian themes (e.g. temptation to power symbolized by the ring).
I may go see Syriana tonight. Alone, since Partner is totally not interested in serious political drama.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:43 pm
Yeah, it’s worth seeing. I guess my real point was that if the actual goal of the movie is to start conversations about these types of topics (which I think are important), then I feel like for “ordinary” people, there’s a danger that the format will get in the way of the more important questions
December 30th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
OK, so I saw it and there was a bit of an emotional impact, sort of like, “God we are all so totally fucked”. But… I know enough about the geopolitical issues that I already get it intellectually. I’m not sure how people who haven’t thought about the geopolitics will react.
The plot was dense. I wouldn’t say that it was impossible to follow, but I did have to work at it (I don’t mind) and I’m sure I lost some subtle details. As I was leaving the movie theater I heard people discussing the plot and trying to figure out some of the story lines.
So, I’m inclined to agree with you. The message might get lost.
I wish my partner had seen it, he’s a good test case for how a reasonably intelligent “ordinary” person (read someone who doesn’t follow geopolitics) will respond. But I know he’d hate trying to sort out the plot lines, and he absolutely hates Lynch with a passion.
December 31st, 2005 at 1:24 am
Of course that’s the point. I was flipping through a Time magazine a couple of weeks ago, and apparently the man who funded this movie (former founder and CEO of eBAY, and a 30 y/o billionaire), actually created his own production company for the strict purpose of making movies to get people to think about serious issues. The company put out 3 other movies (including the other Clooney, “Good Night, and Good Luck”) this year, all trying to force people to think about the issues. This guy, admirably enough, is trying to use film as a vehicle for philanthropy.