come anticipate SYRIANA with me

Why do they need time? They have their lives. That the camera eye doesn't focus on them cradle-to-grave doesn't take that away, nor does their failure to endlessly vocalize their motivations.

Esp. given that the story is bigger than any of them, and none of them, in the end, can claim to be innocent.

Whereas GARDENER souls too pure for this world vs. evil corps and bureaucrats FITE!

I don't know what "fully-fleshed" means, actually. What does that mean?

He seems a little depressed, maybe.

Don't hate me.

x-post

Today, it's thanks to jet lag! Namaste, bra.

OMG! Weird!

and ****SPOILER**** matt damon's supposedly brilliant pitch to the prince - c'mon, he hadn't thought of that before? puhleeze. i'm pretty sure OPEC buy or self-train some good brains.

but as far as fun things, i thought seeing Matt Damon as a hotshot derivatives trader in Switzerland with hot wife was great lifestyle porn. if, you know, that sort of life appeals to you.

Every character was a cliche (maybe Damon excepted, but that was just because that character didn't exist as such, he was just a sounding board for cliche reformer exposition), they didn't handle the convoluted plot very well and it ultimately didn't have anything to say about the oil situation (covering its bases at every step) or about its characters.

isn't the point that the prince HAD thought of that before?

EXACTLY!!!

It seemed that most everyone had thought of it & half of what he said (ie what the business world thinks of the country) was kind of the elephant in the room, but anyone expressing it in such blunt terms esp. to the prince was not so typical. There was a brief special on the making of this film on HBO last night & Gaghan said that after Damon's character loses his son he just adopts this go-for-broke attitude in his dealings with people, which he'd never have had otherwise.

I understood that you meant it that way, s1ocki. It's not like I have this checklist of things I demand from every movie, but when it failed to engage me on the level of story I turned to the characters for some kind of interest.

buh? [drools]

but anyone expressing it in such blunt terms esp. to the prince was not so typical

ooooh.

It is, I think, and the payoff to Damon's speech comes much later, when the prince explains it back to him.

I was very impressed with the way the script understood how simple it is to hurt or even kill a lot of people, and how when it happens, your understanding of what has happened falls easily and naturally between total understanding and total incomprehension. Everything is so cut-and-dry from one person to another, and everything is so frighteningly foggy once you put it into a larger context. If anything, that's the theme of the movie, and the sometimes baffling structure of the movie supports it.

I'm still not sure what purpose Jeffrey Wright's father served, but I'm still thinking about it. I'll get back to you.

My understanding is that it kinda is. Isn't it a fictionalized (to protect the innocent, assumedly) retelling of a nonfiction book?

I liked the reveal on that in the movie, actually. At the very end, when you're nearly emotionally devastated anyway, they tell you that this is based on a non-fiction book, which lets you know at the last moment that these events aren't as fantastical as you would probably like to leave the theater thinking.

I dunno about that, but I do think that how confusing it is has definitely been overstated.

I agree fully with Raymond on this. I wonder about people who would lay into Syriana too much, though. I mean, how many mainstream films treats the audience with as much respect. Not the best movie I've seen, and I do wonder how much of it was cut. But you've got to appreciate the effort, no?

(A friend left the theatre stating that she felt like she had to do some research.)

Also, this was from Ebert's syndicated column from a couple of weeks ago regarding the "corruption speech":

Corruption and greed in America

December 11, 2005

Q. I have read more than one review mentioning Tim Blake Nelson's "brilliant" speech about corruption in "Syriana." The speech has been compared to Michael Douglas' speech in "Wall Street" (1987) that defends greed. I haven't seen the movie yet but I'd love to just be able to read the speech.

Greg Nelson, Chicago

A. The speech is the work of Stephen Gaghan, the Oscar-winning writer and director of the film. Nelson plays Danny Dalton, a Texas oilman, who is speaking to Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright), a lawyer investigating a merger of two oil companies. Gaghan supplies this transcript:

Danny: Some trust fund prosecutor, got off-message at Brown, thinks he's gonna run this up the flagpole, make a name for himself, maybe get elected some two-bit, no-name congressman from nowhere, with the result that Russia or China can suddenly start having, at our expense, all the advantages we enjoy here. No, I tell you. No, sir. (mimics prosecutor) "But, Danny, these are sovereign nations." Sovereign nations! What is a sovereign nation, but a collective of greed run by one individual? "But, Danny, they're codified by the U.N. charter!" Legitimized gangsterism on a global basis that has no more validity than an agreement between the Crips and the Bloods! (Beat) ... Corruption charges. Corruption? Corruption ain't nothing more than government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman. He got a goddamn Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around here instead of fighting each other for scraps of meat out in the streets. (Beat) Corruption ... is how we win.

Or when Christopher Plummer meets Clooney in the cafe, it's the middle of the night, he's a bit disheveled but has put on cufflinks. Like that's his reassurance to himself that he's the powerful one, the one in charge, despite his house having just been broken into.

I thought Damon's character was terrific, the way his desperation following the loss of his son was channeled into devotion to the Prince. People rarely just spiral downwards I think; they grab onto something and let it carry them down.

haha yes the one with NO IRANIANS.

i thought these moments were a bit "writerly" and didn't work for me

but much of the stuff about the suicide bomber was pretty searing, if only because i've never seen it before

thought this film was very smart, visually as well as uh narratively

His immediate bosses sent him there to assassinate Nasir because they were told he's funding terrorists. They don't know this to be false. Right?

Someone above them gave them the info in hopes of disposing with the problematic Nasir. Dean Whiting (Christopher Plummer) maybe has something to do with this?

Or was he clooney there to be killed by that guy who ripped his fingernails out? William hurt said the nail ripper had flipped and now worked for iran - while clooney was under the impression that he was still a us asset. It seemed like the nail ripper was an old contact of clooney's, rather than someone the cia had set him up with specifically for the nasir job. In which case it's unlikely he was double crossed.

Also - who exactly is Dean Whiting? An oil man with deep government connections?

Please help.

So the plot wasn't really very complicated, it was just that it was flimsily communicated enough for it to seem so.

I'm sure I'd enjoy it more on a second viewing, not having to miss the forest for concentrating on the trees, but yeah, it annoyed me.

I am rubbish with faces and names though.

If anything, this is better a decade later.

ISIS, wealth stratification, all here.

found this movie Bad

i liked it much better the second time. more than traffic, anyhow.

less racist or trite than Traffic but also less pretty & purposeful. Character arcs in Traffic make sense. motivations here are just confused.

i dont need a film to tell me american imperialism will steamroll the lives of good people, id like to understand how ppl respond to that experience & apparently the answer is like, wave a white shirt & forget about how important your family is for a little while . . . . so many loose ends that dont really relate to anything else & so they just kill half the cast at the end to tie it up idk not into it

I learned one important message from this very shite movie; put an RCBO on the swimming pool lighting circuit dude.

Thought about watching this tonight, thinking I never saw it. Decided to check ilx to see what folks thought. Evidently, 4.5 years ago I did see it, and hated it! Good to know. A little worried about my brain health