Syriana is really impressive. It manages to provide an explanation for the global oil market somewhat completely and without unnecessary sex or violence (a few questionable violent scenes, but not much). The story seems so much more believable than something Oliver Stone or somebody else could have sensationalized. The exposition is so logical and intriguing, it's very relaxing.
It's similar to "Traffic" in that there are three main locales- Texas, the Middle East and Washington. And of course the Soderbergh hand held camera effect. Unlike "Traffic" though, there's little melodrama attached to the characters, alll of the action is central to the plot which comes together like a puzzle. And since you-know-who is president, it's much more relevant, even if we are just fighting for democracy in Iraq (has bush ever mentioned oil?). The cast is great, all A-list actors, (Clooney, Damon, Jeffrey Wright, Chris Cooper), who conform strictly their roles in the film. Watching Syriana is a good workout. I couldn't grasp every nuance of the plot, but it did get my brain working.
andrew [email] said at 3:01 AM 12-17-2005: The movie does a good job of not putting the blame squarely on Bush by referring to him explicitly or even at all. It implies instead that US reliance on foreign oil and presence in the Middle East has lasted and will last much longer than one presidency.
milky [email] said at 11:35 AM 12-17-2005: It was a sharp movie, and I agree. Isaw this with my dad and he had taken the opposite from it...so much as that I had to ask "What movie were YOU watching?"
reggie [email] said at 12:33 PM 12-17-2005: I thought this was pretty good as well. But I wasn't as hyped coming out of it as I was going into it. I mean, you kind of getting everything you need to know from the trailer or from what most of us already know/suspect about the oil industry.
I also don't think enough attention was paid to the relationships/interactions of the characters. Also, it was very hard for me to watch this movie and not think of Traffic with every minute.
All that being said, I still think it was a very solid film but perhaps would have benefited from (believe it or not) less editing. Feels like another twenty minutes or so would have really helped the movie breathe a little bit (it's only about two hours long.)
andrew [email] said at 3:04 PM 12-17-2005: I liked the fact that the relationships were basically ignored, because the plot was much more interesting. The family drama with Matt Damon was kind of stupid, and I don't know why George Clooney's son was in there. Neither one of their lives was very interesting. It was an A- movie though, I don't know what it was lacking. Longer? i don't know. I like movies that are about an hour and a half. Considering the scope, it could have been about six hours. I'm glad they didn't try to tell the whole story.
reggie [email] said at 9:15 PM 12-17-2005: You don't think the fact that you found the oil plot more interesting than the relationship aspects might be because of the lack of emphasis put on those parts?
The thing is, one of the key elements of the oil plot was the relationship between the prince and his father, the young Muslim recruit and HIS father, Matt Damon's character was a father and HIS involvement in the story was centered around the loss of his son, George Clooney's character was a father and Jeffrey Wright's character had issues with HIS father.
[SLIGHT SPOILER ALERT]
It's Matt Damon's fatherly instinct that have him suggest the prince ride in the same jeep as his wife and kids.
[END OF VERY SLIGHT AND REALLY INSIGNIFICANT SPOILER]
So the notion of fathers and sons was clearly something that Gaghan and co. felt was essential because it recurs throughout the entire movie. Yet it's not really fleshed out, in my opinion.
I think I do want to see this again though because the overall plot was so densely layered that it probably takes multiple viewings to soak it all in.
andrew [email] said at 2:16 AM 12-18-2005: I missed some of those connections. It makes more sense now, but I'm glad it wasn't that obvious. I wanted to see a movie about the oil business, and if it been outweighed by relationship drama, I would have felt cheated. Like that cheesy romance in Gangs of New York. Why was that in there? It just made the movie more average. The oil business is way too brutal to allow for that kind of stuff, unless its very well executed. I'm glad they didn't try.
reggie [email] said at 11:32 PM 12-18-2005: The thing is, I don't think in the grand scheme of things a film about the oil business is really all that important. Fifteen years from now if, by chance, we as a society are less dependent on oil then this movie doesn't amount to a hill of beans.
I think what the movie is really about isn't the oil bidness so much as it's about corruption. What makes Wall Street work to this day is because it's about greed ("Greed is good") and not Big Business.
Syriana could have been about the banana industry for all I care. The best way, however, to show the overall effect of corruption is to show what it does to people on a personal level. I don't even know if the father/son stuff is even relevant but it's there.
Notice how in Traffic the moment he finds drugs have entered his own home, it opens Michael Douglas' character's eyes.
As for Gangs of New York (way to bring up a touchy subject with me by the way) the romance is there because Diaz and Leo's characters serve as reminders to each other of both the seductive and destructive nature of Bill the Butcher.
rick [email] said at 2:40 AM 12-18-2005: This was an alright film; I would have liked it to be longer though so as to go into more detail about some matters. It would have been better as a mini-series, I think.
I will say though that I am glad that a lot of the personal issues were cut back. I generally dislike "human interest;" it tugs at the heart but it fogs the mind.
anotherben [email] said at 8:50 PM 12-17-2005: i intend on seeing this. but i want to comment on your edging towards the notion that bush is somehow at fault for americas dependence (or continuing dependence) on oil. you are crazy. and i am drunk. but that doesnt change anything. bush may not be the best of presidents, but he is definitely no nixon. this is a boring subject. i am pitting vodka martinis against gin martinis. i should make a post about that.
andrew [email] said at 2:25 AM 12-18-2005: George Bush is a Texas oilman, President of the United States, and led a US invasion and occupation in the Middle East. Connect those dots however you want to. If he was searching for nuclear weapons and happens to find access to enormous oil reserves, is it just dumb luck? It appears that spending 227 billion dollars on such a venture will perpetuate America's dependence on oil.
jess [email] said at 9:40 PM 12-17-2005: Cam also recommended this to me, and despite the fact that I was initially leery of it with these two recommendations I think I'm going to drag someone to go see it with me next week.
