"Syriana" - First thoughts
Friday, December 23, 2005I went to the movies tonight with my dear friends Anne and Erika and her sister Kristen, and Erika's friend Shane. I was glad to have gotten a chance to see them, since we hadn't seen each other in months. We were going to watch "King Kong", but thankfully, my strong protest of not wanting to see it was respected. I'm getting tired of the wonders of technology and 3d animation. It seems as if every film is dominated with fake creatures, 3d monsters and so on. Why do we need more falseness? As if the world isn't full of it. I wanted some reality.
And reality I got. We decided to watch Syriana, a film that we all knew little about, despite seeing the trailer for it. I guessed it had something to do with Syria, Erika said the reason she wanted to see it was because George Clooney was in it, Anne said she was curious to see what links the film makes between the current state of oil exports and the state of human well-being in thsoe regions. Well, after seeing it, I can say it is difficult to put into words what I felt while watching the film that supposedly touches on the problem of US state involvement in corporate oil projects in countries "from Morrocco to Pakistan" as one of the characters said.
Here's a detailed synopsis by Roger Ebert, in case you're wondering why I am blabbering on and on about something I haven't summarized.
I am still moved by the nature of the film. It has a desperate ending, one that leaves no exits, not many solutions, few glimpses of hope. The climactic rocket drop on the envoy of cars where the liberal prince Meshal and "Bob", George Clooney are killed instantly gives a new face to un-Hollywood endings. It was a powerful and convincing ending, with the exception of Matt Damon's reunion with his wife and son. The reunion makes everything else that happened pointless, as if by leaving everything behind and going back to the old life, Bryan Woodman (Damon) makes some sort of a difference. His character gives the wee bit of hope that there are those who genuinely care and wish to create the bridge between divisive sides, but the ending ruins the point of it.
Yes, the film does touch on the problem of the divide that exists between the rich players who tamper with workers' livelihoods and their futures. Syriana goes on to suggest that problems like suicide bombers are indirectly caused by this divide between what Ebert calls the divide "not between Left and Right but between Have and Have Not." And yes, the film also does talk about the long fingers of the US administration that reach wherever the state desires, sometimes using scapegoats, such as George Clooney's character, "Bob" to achieve its goals.
What I do not agree with is the fact that the story was based on fiction. I think there is so much reality out there that the producer could have contended with, without having to resort to making up human stories. Unfortunately, stories like that of Syriana happen quite often in today's world. An example is that of coffee trade (although oil itself is a resource, the profits of which have caused nations to go to war). While poor farmers struggle to get their decimal profits, corporations count billions. After leaving the theatre, I kept bringing this point up to my friends. The consensus seemed to be that the filmmaker wanted to be political, but not to the extent that he would be accused of taking sides. Fair enough.
As I got up from my seat, getting ready to line-up for the exit door, I overheard the two men behind me: "Man, that was the most boring two hours I spent. I wouldn't even rent this." It made me think how much one needs to think of the role of film in today's society. Not only is it entertainment anymore, it's a catalyst for people's minds, sometimes used for the wrong purposes [especially when the public is not aware of issues a film deals with].
I am planning on viewing some new films that seem to be dealing with political and historical issues. One such film is Munich.