Fridae

Lions for Lambs is an admirable attempt to tackle the complex issue of America's war with Afghanistan and Iraq, especially at a time when the American public has become disillusioned by their country's involvement in both wars.

Directed by Robert Redford and written by Matthew Carnahan, the film searches for answers as to why America went into the two wars, especially when one of them (the Iraq war) was wholly unprovoked. One possible (but troubling) answer: America feels it has a global duty to uphold standards of righteousness, even when those standards aren't exactly clear.

After all, wasn't it America who encouraged and aided the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan so as to counter the Communist threat within Afghanistan in the 80s? The war in Iraq is even more questionable, considering the fact that Iraq never attacked America and had nothing to do with Sept 11. Was the war then a ploy to get hold of Iraq's oil � a ploy that is now paying huge dividends for former members of the Bush's administration?

Lions for Lambs does not openly blame the Bush administration for going to war, but it does suggest that the administration hasn't been honest about its reasons for going into war. It also suggests that American media shares part of the blame for its jingoistic stance in the early days of the conflict.

The film comprises three interweaving stories, and each one contributes significantly to the overall message of the film. The first story centres on a glib Republican senator (Tom Cruise) and a jaded journalist (Meryl Streep) interviewing him. The second involves a political science lecturer (Robert Redford) questioning his student (Andrew Garfield) about his apathy towards politics. The third stars Derek Luke and Michael Pena as two American soldiers trapped in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Juxtaposing the characters and stories, one gets a sense of the depth and complexity of the subject. But there are a few crucial links missing from their arguments � oil, the rise of religious fundamentalism (in Islam, Christianity and Judaism) and perhaps most importantly of all, America's support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinians, are never once mentioned by the characters.

Focusing much of the movie's debate in the interest of American audiences, Lions for Lambs ends up being less global in its outlook than one wishes it to be. All in all though, it is still a courageous, intelligent and well-acted film that bothers to grapple with complex issues of our time � even if it had to skim on its arguments to fit the running time of 92 minutes.