(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fsyriana%2Fsyriana_revisedbigposter.jpg&hash=afb1d10036a39ec75f37fe1cf933dff341436546)
Release Date: November 23rd, 2005 (limited)
Distributor: Warner Bros. Pictures
Production Company: Section Eight (Ocean's Twelve, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind), Participant Productions
Cast: George Clooney (Robert Baer), Matt Damon (Bryan Woodman), Amanda Peet (Julie Woodman), Max Minghella (Robby Baer), Christopher McDonald, Chris Cooper, Greta Scacchi, Michelle Monaghan, Dagmara Dominczyk, Tim Blake Nelson, Jeffrey Wright, Gina Gershon
Director: Stephen Gaghan (Abandon)
Screenwriter: Stephen Gaghan (The Alamo, Traffic)
Based Upon: Based on the book "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism" written by Robert Baer.
Premise: Robert Baer (Clooney), a 21-year veteran of the CIA, spent his entire career investigating terrorists around the globe. As the dangers of terrorism increased, Baer watched as the CIA's funding was cut, politics overtook judgment, and warning signs were ignored. But the struggle becomes personal when and oil executive (Damon) and his wife (Peet) are faced with a family tragedy.
Genre: Thriller, Based on a True Story
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fsyriana%2F_group_photos%2Fgeorge_clooney1.jpg&hash=fb57ca5db0e132cbc2eb7dc5db70a27136e8d712)
Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1383197&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
After watching that trailer, I have no idea what that movie is about (aside from oil), but it looks pretty good. On the plus side, the cast is great and the score is by Alexandre Desplat. On the down side, Abandon was unbelievably bad.
Quote from: GhostboyOn the down side, Abandon was Amanda Peet is always unbelievably bad.
fixed.
Actually, you know, I love Amanda Peet. I think it's just her movies that are unbelievably bad.
Quote from: GhostboyActually, you know, I love Amanda Peet. I think it's just her movies that are unbelievably bad.
yeah true, i should've added "except on letterman".
cos, unscripted, she appears to be very amicable, sweet, and entertaining. her movies just sap the life out of her.
Quote from: GhostboyAfter watching that trailer, I have no idea what that movie is about (aside from oil), but it looks pretty good.
Same here and I've read the book they are "adapting" this movie into. No worries, here's a proper synopsis:
Plot: From writer/director Stephen Gaghan, winner of the Best Screenplay Academy Award for Traffic, comes Syriana, a political thriller that unfolds against the intrigue of the global oil industry. >From the players brokering back-room deals in Washington to the men toiling in the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, the film's multiple storylines weave together to illuminate the human consequences of the fierce pursuit of wealth and power. As a career CIA operative (George Clooney) begins to uncover the disturbing truth about the work he has devoted his life to, an up-and-coming oil broker (Matt Damon) faces an unimaginable family tragedy and finds redemption in his partnership with an idealistic Gulf prince (Alexander Siddig). A corporate lawyer (Jeffrey Wright) faces a moral dilemma as he finesses the questionable merger of two powerful U.S. oil companies, while across the globe, a disenfranchised Pakistani teenager (Mazhar Munir) falls prey to the recruiting efforts of a charismatic cleric. Each plays their small part in the vast and complex system that powers the industry, unaware of the explosive impact their lives will have upon the world.
Warner Borthers Production Notes:
"Corruption charges...corruption? Corruption is government intrusion into market efficiencies in the form of regulation. That's Milton Friedman. He got a Nobel Prize. We have laws against it precisely so we can get away with it. Corruption is our protection. Corruption keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why you and I are prancing around in here instead of fighting over scraps of meat out in the street. Corruption...is why we win." - Tim Blake Nelson as Danny Dalton to Jeffrey Wright as Bennett Holiday
From writer/director Stephen Gaghan, winner of the Best Screenplay Academy Award for Traffic, comes Syriana, a political thriller that unfolds against the intrigues and corruption of the global oil industry. From the players brokering back-room deals in Washington to the men toiling in the oil fields of the Persian Gulf, the film's multiple storylines weave together to illuminate the human consequences of the fierce pursuit of wealth and power.
The intrigue takes place against the backdrop of an oil-producing Gulf country, where young, charismatic and reform-minded Prince Nasir (Alexander Siddig) is seeking to change long-established relationships with U.S. business interests. Nasir, the apparent heir to the throne, has just granted natural gas drilling rights – long held by Connex, a Texas energy giant – to a higher Chinese bid. This is a huge blow to Connex and American business interests in the region. Killen, a smaller Texas oil company owned by Jimmy Pope (Chris Cooper), has just won the very competitive drilling rights to coveted fields in Kazakhstan. This makes Killen very attractive to Connex, who now needs new territory to maintain its production capacity. When the two companies merge, the pending deal attracts the scrutiny of the Justice Dept., and Sloan Whiting, a powerful white-shoe Washington law firm, is brought in to perform due diligence.
Bob Barnes (George Clooney) is a veteran CIA agent nearing the end of a long and respectable career, with a son headed for college (Max Minghella) and the possibility of spending the latter days of his service in a cushy desk job. A devoted company man, Bob's always been a true believer that his work benefits his government and makes his country a safer place.
In Bob's last assignment, an assassination of two arms dealers in Tehran, a Stinger missile falls into the hands of a mysterious blue-eyed Egyptian. On his return to Washington, Bob is promised a promotion after one last undercover mission – assassinating Prince Nasir. But when one of his field contacts turns on him and the assassination attempt goes terribly awry, Bob is scapegoated by the CIA, betrayed by the organization to which he has devoted his life. As he searches to understand what has happened, he begins to realize that he has been lied to – used as a pawn and never privy to the real motivation for the assignments he has blindly carried out for years.
Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) is an ambitious Washington attorney at Sloan Whiting, in charge of the delicate task of guiding the Connex-Killen merger through the deep waters of D.C. He needs to give the Justice Department enough material to make their case against Killen for its shady dealings in Kazakhstan without jeopardizing the entire deal. It's in the company and the country's interest that the merger go through. It also serves Bennett's ambitions – ambitions fueled by a father (William C. Mitchell) he is constantly at odds with.
Energy analyst Bryan Woodman (Matt Damon) is a rising star at an Energy Trading Company, living with his wife Julie (Amanda {Peet) and their two young sons in Geneva. When he attends a party thrown by Prince Nasir's family, a tragic accident results in the death of Bryan's young son. Nasir attempts to make amends for what happened, offering Bryan a business opportunity to help the young leader realize his reformist ideas – an opportunity Bryan embraces, to the dismay of his grieving wife.
Dean Whiting (Christopher Plummer), Bennett's boss, the head of Sloan Whiting and one of the most powerful men in Washington, is trying to undo Nasir's deal with the Chinese. He knows that Nasir's younger, more callow brother, Prince Meshal (Akbar Kurtha), will be more amenable to American business interests and he pressures the aging Emir to choose his younger son to succeed him, effectively engineering Nasir's political demise.
At the other end of the wage scale in Nasir's country are the migrant laborers toiling in its energy fields, whose lives are directly and drastically affected by the royal family's policies and the vagaries of the industry. Connex workers Saleem Ahmed Kahn (Shahid Ahmed) and his son Wasim (Mazhar Munir) have just been laid off from their jobs in the fields when the Chinese take them over, and their future becomes increasingly uncertain as they search in vain for work before their visas run out. Saleem dreams of someday returning to Pakistan; his son hopes for a better life but quickly becomes disillusioned and angry at the way he and his father are treated as immigrant workers in the Gulf. Wasim and his friend Farooq (Sonnell Dadral) find solace at the local madrassa, a place where they are treated with dignity in an otherwise bleak and unfamiliar world. At the madrassa, Wasim and Farooq are taken under the wing of a charismatic and dangerous recruiter – the blue-eyed Egyptian with the missing Stinger missile.
Sheiks and field workers, government inspectors and international spies, rich and poor, the famous and infamous – each plays their small part in the vast and complex system that powers the industry, none realizing the true extent of the explosive impact their lives will have upon the world.
I can tell you right now that this will be my favorite movie of the year. I don't even need to see it; just put my vote down for the 2006 Xixax awards for "Syriana".
Stephen Gaghan can do no wrong. I even loved "Abandon", that's how gay I am for Stephen Gaghan. When I watched the scene in "Alfie" where Jude Law sees Marisa Tomei with her new boyfriend, I literally yelped, "That's Stephen Gaghan!" The girl I was watching it with had no idea what I was talking about. But I still got lucky that night. Never underestimate the power of that movie. But I digress.
And that cast... Clooney, Damon, Nelson, Wright, Peet, Cooper, Plummer, SIDDIG?!!?!??!?
I hope it's four hours long. I want to be able to spend a whole day watching this movie.
yeah, i think this Will own. i havent seen abandon. i didnt want to. that is that cheesy movie w/ holmes right? but traffic is the shit ...and i am down w/ gaghan and political intrigue. and i havent seen Gretta sacchi since the player.. but shes cute and has a decent rack. and gershon is hot w/ a great rack
Quote from: polkablues on November 14, 2005, 06:53:13 PM
The girl Stephen Gaghan look-a-like I was watching it with had no idea what I was talking about. But I still got lucky that night.
Quote from: POZER! on November 14, 2005, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: polkablues on November 14, 2005, 06:53:13 PM
The girl Stephen Gaghan look-a-like I was watching it with had no idea what I was talking about. But I still got lucky that night.
Sigh... if only. :notworthy:
Quote from: mercury on November 14, 2005, 09:18:39 PM
and i havent seen Gretta sacchi since the player.. but shes cute and has a decent rack. and gershon is hot w/ a great rack
If that's your primary concern regarding this movie, wait'll you get a view of Michelle Monaghan and ( :inlove: ) Dagmara Dominczyk. They're no Stephen Gaghan, but they would do in an emergency.
Tell me this doesn't turn you on, Polky.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.subotica.net%2Fhit%2Fimages%2Fpeople%2FOscar_2001_Stephen_Gaghan.jpg&hash=0496a5983f88b2f67dc402ba9a8755572b1095fe)
For polka (who I'm sure would love to be the meat in a Imbruglia/Gaghan sandwich):
Uni jumps to conclusion for 'Blink'
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Universal Pictures has picked up "Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking," the nonfiction best-seller by Malcolm Gladwell, with Stephen Gaghan adapting and directing and Leonardo DiCaprio attached to star. Gaghan will also produce the film along with DiCaprio and Brad Simpson for their Appian Way banner. At the same time, the studio has entered into a first-look, two-year overall production agreement with Gaghan, who is generating Oscar heat with his upcoming film "Syriana." "Blink," published in January, is a story about rapid cognition, about the kind of thinking that happens in a blink of an eye. Gladwell posited that when you meet someone for the first time, or walk into a house you are thinking of buying, or read the first few sentences of a book, your mind takes about two seconds to jump to a series of conclusions. "Blink" is a story about those two seconds when instant conclusions reached by people are really powerful, really important and, occasionally, really good.
My instant conclusion upon seeing the poster for Syriana was that Warner Bros. is banking on Oscar to sell this film, since they covered the stars face with duct tape and a blindfold (negative space) and a Santa Clause beard. The analogous color scheme is also rare in Hollywood these days. I find I can tell a lot more about a film from the poster than from the previews (which aren't that hard to see through either) and this Syriana's gonna blow some minds open. Even though the Micheal Moores out there are right, they fail at getting every one on their side because there is a certain percent of the population that will take the other side just to spite you. If they feel they've learned of the corruption in the world on their own, then they are often more likely to side with progressive thought. Call it cognitive dissonance. The best thing about I Heart Huckabees is how seemlessly it weaves its anti-globalization rant into the fabric of the comedy. The protagonists are right about oil, but they are so flawed, they just come across as angry liberals. It's a joke most identify with, since we all feel this way sometimes. Entertaining the masses is the easiest way to get them to come around to your point of view. When are they gonna make a film about Bill Hicks, by the way?
Really interesting interview with Stephen Gaghan about Syriana from Moriarty at AICN.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21859
admin edit: warning: its full of (unmarked) spoilers. i got like 3 questions in and had to stop reading. --modage
Good point, Private.
When are they gonna make a film about Bill Hicks?
Quote from: greenowl on November 17, 2005, 04:55:27 PM
Good point, Private.
When are they gonna make a film about Bill Hicks?
Thanks. Y'know, the more I think about it, the more I think they shouldn't. Somebody should just release a bunch of his actual live standup in the theatres.
Quote from: ®edlum on November 17, 2005, 10:07:25 AM
Really interesting interview with Stephen Gaghan about Syriana from Moriarty at AICN.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21859
warning: its full of (unmarked) spoilers. i got like 3 questions in and had to stop reading.
But those first 3 questions were REALLY INTERESTING huh?
I'm really looking forward to this. ... A shallow person like myself, who likes to categorize things, would say that it sounds like a mix of 65 percent Traffic, 20 percent Three Kings and 15 percent Thomas Friedman column
Here's links to two interviews about my soon-to-be favorite movie of the year: a fun one with Matt Damon which contains POSSIBLE SPOILERS, and a really, really interesting one with Robert Baer, the real-life CIA guy upon whom Clooney's character is based.
Matt Damon (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=5171)
Robert Baer (http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=5140)
For those unsure, the Baer interview is harmless. Mainly just about his time in the CIA. One question leads to a spoiler, but it wasn't even bad. I recommend everyone read his book. Syriana looks to be the most dramatic film of the year but yet See No Evil borders on goofiness half of the read. Very serious sometimes, but hilarious as well. I can't see how the film can take much from that book.
I just saw it, and if See No Evil is sometimes hilarious, Gaghan certainly eschwed all of that. This film is deadly serious. It's also really good. It's also really confusing - I feel like I need to go do some research before I even attempt to write more about the specifics of the narrative. That said, it's clear that Gaghan knows what's going on, and that he's angry - and his anger is contagious. The last twenty minutes of the film are thick with suspense, and really leave you feeling upset.
I sorta felt like I should have left my car in the parking lot and walked home.
i also just saw it and it was good but not great. the similarities between this film and Traffic are too hard to ignore especially knowing they came from the same writer. but Traffic had Soderbergh who is a much better filmmaker. the film feels long and yet i feel like i didn't get enough time with any of the characters. everybody was good but the film only hinted at them. in order to get all the characters the script spreads itself a little thin. characters are only here to show us this aspect of the oil business and then it's off to the next thing. you really don't get involved in the characters enough to truly care about them. you care more for their situation which is where i think gaghan lost focus. whereas i feel like in Traffic the characters are servicing the story/politics, here it's the reverse. and that's where the film starts to drift into Crash territory when the characters are just archetypes serving the message. and for all the weight gain and spine injury clooney endured is unfortunate because i feel like his character got the least screentime. (amanda peet was good in her few minutes also, so if it was ruined she didnt do it!) this would've been better served as an HBO mini-series spread over a couple parts only i'm not sure where the act breaks would've been. for what is mostly a thriller, it never really builds much tension.
C+. for the most part i agree with this dude... http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=21923
Quote from: modage on November 29, 2005, 10:30:28 PM
i also just saw it and it was good but not great. the similarities between this film and Traffic are too hard to ignore especially knowing they came from the same writer.
I was surprised at how little it reminded me of
Traffic. The movie that kept popping into my head while I was watching it was
The Insider. This isn't as good as that one, but it's very similar (and not just because of Christopher Plummer.
Quoteand that's where the film starts to drift into Crash territory when the characters are just archetypes serving the message.
But no one ever started spouting platitudes, which was all the dialogue in
Crash consisted of. If this was like
Crash, it would have ended with Matt Damon standing in the middle of the desert, shaking his fists at the sky. In the rain.
haha
thought this was outstanding.
during the q&a afterwards gaghan spoke about 70s conspiracy films and how this film reflects the more current trend of big evil things happening out in the open, not underwraps as they once were, and he wanted to capture that (he did). after the q&a he let people come up and speak with him individually which was awesome, at a certain point the fat short woman moderating said "let's go stephen, plane to catch" or something like that and good ole gaghan said "i'm in no hurry" which rocked, because i got to talk to him. i asked him about things being out in the open now, yet even though they are, the public seems mostly ignorant or just apathetic towards these events, and if gaghan ever considered yet another narrative strain tracking non-involved, everyday folks driving around hummers and what not, being completely oblivious to their level of involvement, and gaghan said that that thought was spot on, that he'd considered something like that to make the story of big wigs more relatable to this large audience he's going for. anyhow, just an awesome night and an awesome film, gaghan is very articulate and impressive.
Confoundit! I hate loving a film before I've seen it. It will always disapoint. I will dream about it and the story won't seem right when I see the film because my subconcience has already filled in the gaps between the moments we see in the trailers. This happend with Jurrasic Park when I was 11. It happened with Eternal Sunshine when I was 23. There's a little kid inside my head that loves films more than I do and wants to see them in a very childish, non-critical kind of way. My concious, rational thought awake state persona always has an open, critical mind, but deep down inside, my superego will live inside of these movies. Freud has been shit on in recent decades. His critics are wrong.
Quote from: private witt on December 02, 2005, 05:59:44 AM
Confoundit! I hate loving a film before I've seen it. It will always disapoint. I will dream about it and the story won't seem right when I see the film because my subconcience has already filled in the gaps between the moments we see in the trailers. This happend with Jurrasic Park when I was 11. It happened with Eternal Sunshine when I was 23. There's a little kid inside my head that loves films more than I do and wants to see them in a very childish, non-critical kind of way. My concious, rational thought awake state persona always has an open, critical mind, but deep down inside, my superego will live inside of these movies. Freud has been shit on in recent decades. His critics are wrong.
uh.. so what'd u think of syriana?
Yeah, I feel dumb after reading his... review?
I'm Ron Burgundy?
Quote from: Pubrick on December 02, 2005, 07:07:53 AM
Quote from: private witt on December 02, 2005, 05:59:44 AM
Confoundit! I hate loving a film before I've seen it. It will always disapoint. I will dream about it and the story won't seem right when I see the film because my subconcience has already filled in the gaps between the moments we see in the trailers. This happend with Jurrasic Park when I was 11. It happened with Eternal Sunshine when I was 23. There's a little kid inside my head that loves films more than I do and wants to see them in a very childish, non-critical kind of way. My concious, rational thought awake state persona always has an open, critical mind, but deep down inside, my superego will live inside of these movies. Freud has been shit on in recent decades. His critics are wrong.
uh.. so what'd u think of syriana?
I don't think he's seen it yet. But he seems to be anticipating it, though he is wary that his level of anticipation is merely setting himself up for an experience that fails to meet his heightened expectations. And he holds young children hostage and disregards the past fifty years of psychoanalytical research.
I think.
Quote from: Ghostboy on November 29, 2005, 06:11:37 PM
This film is deadly serious. It's also really good. It's also really confusing - I feel like I need to go do some research before I even attempt to write more about the specifics of the narrative.
I just saw it, and the plot was
so confusing that it defintiley took away from the movie. I've never felt so stupid after a movie. It was certainly well done, although some stuff felt a little off. I agree mostly with what Modage said. Characters weren't developed enough (they came off more as symbols than real characters) and subplots were thrown in that seemed a little contrived. I feel like this would have been better off as a mini-series. It had too much to say and not enough time to say it. The character suffered because of the political message. I barely read anything about the movie before seeing it, so I was lost a lot of the time. I recomend for anyone seeing it to have some knowledge about the characters and plot before going into it.
I can't say how I really feel about the movie until I see it several times, but as of now: 2.5/4
I'm only on a one viewing basis with this film, but the film did not have to be as confusing as it was. Easy facts could have gone a long way. The relationship of Clooney to Beirut was that his character was based off the CIA agent Bob Baer who was working in Beirut in 1985 when the American Embassy was bombed. Baer, who lost many friends, went on a personal mission to find out who was responsible. He dug into so much dirt and raised so many alarming flags of United States laziness that he was taken out of Beirut and relocated. For the rest of his career, he tried to get back into Beirut, but only doing so for minor work here and there. The film really took an insider's viewpoint to that story. The clues were here and there, but mostly inside jargon the entire way. I imagined a lot of people confused while watching it.
This films feels like a film essay. Unlike Traffic, it makes little attempts to wrap every issue into a human story to make the issues discernable. The characters are really symbols for the greater point. The film is trying to be an authority on Middle Eastern politics, but the general-ness and vagueness of a 2 hour film doesn't do it. I saw so many issues of the Middle Eastern situation highlighted but never with emphasis. If this film was the work of an editor chopping up a 12 hour film, I'd say congratulations. But its just 'good attempt' for the filmmakers.
yes, in the AICN interview Gaghan said...
Quote from: Stephen Gaghan
but I was writing SYRIANA. I had written a lot. I was feeling disconnected from the material. Like it just didn't have the heart that I thought it would need. It felt too intellectual or something. So I was talking to a friend of mine... and, um... it was actually Miranda July, who I had met at the Sundance Labs. I had read her script, and I thought ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW, and I was just... I was e-mailing with her about something or another, and I remember saying, "I just feel so disconnected from what I'm doing in a way." And I had told her in this same e-mail... I had described my son having had a nightmare, and that I went down and picked him up, and he immediately said, "I want to look out the window," and then I went and I held him. And... and... it was around the time that his mother and I split up. And we were alone. She wasn't there. So I was alone in the house with the kids, and I just... held him in the window... for like two hours... and we looked out at the streetlight. And, uh... it was really powerful for me, y'know? And Miranda wrote me back and said, "That's what the movie's about. That's what you're trying to do." And I was just, "Oh, yeah."
i dont think he quite cracked that nut. but a very noble effort.
Jeffrey Wright did another fucking awesome job. I also thought the two princes were great. One essentially played a frat kid but he did it well.
JW's father - that subplot I was lost on. Was it in there to make sense of why he turned down a drink when offered one? Seems like a long walk.
Other than that everything seemed connected and worked fine. It needed perhaps one less US History credit and a couple more Humanities/Fine Arts, but fuck it, I'll take a pure political thriller any day over The Skeleton Key or Stealth etc. It made Ghostboy want to walk, you know.
C because I don't want to watch it again.
aaa i very much want to see this now. i can't think what was the last time the buzz of a movie was that the movie is complex and everyone seems geniunely what the fucked. awesome.
it also has fat george .
But to me it seems like it's a "what the fuck" because everyone's confused because it's spread so thin and tries to do so much. Not because it's a labyrinth of a story worth exploring much like certain thrillers and mysteries and the type of film generally garners so much respect here.
yeah ebert and two other critics i trust said that it's complex. that's my basis, i haven't seen the movie. have you seen it¿
Here's some what the fucked-ness from Ebert's answer man column. I had to reread this, so I can't imagine having to see it on screen. Can't wait!
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.
just caught Stephen Gaghan on Charlie Rose and shit do i wanna see this movie now.
what an amazing full hour interview that was.
also reminded me that i need the Traffic criterion.
i saw the charlie rose interview too, it was great. it makes me really happy i got to meet him. he is quite an impressive fellow. everyone should really see this movie, i don't think it's as complicated and uncomrehensible as people are making it out to be. it's matter of fact, there's just a lot happening, so keep your head up.
The plot is complex, but I didn't think it was confusing. There are a few points that I need to clear up for myself, but another viewing or a little research will do that for me. Either way, I left this movie disgusted. I'm not ignorant to the things that go on, but it still bothers me when I see it played out. There are notable scenes that stick out and hit you because of the political side to it, and other scenes that hit you through an emotional side.
It definitely needs another viewing, but it stands right now as a very good 05 release.
I'm a big fan of this.
All of the performances were top notch. I really thought that Clooney was the stand out though. While I really liked how there was a certain disconnect from all sides, it didn't bring you (or at least me) in the same way that Traffic did. It all felt very real, I think in large part due to Elswits photography. There was a lot going on, but never too much, I feel like you have to step away from it and think of it as a Mosaic. Just wrap yourself around in it.
B+
I feel stupid that people got this and I didn't. Honestly, I'm a smart guy and I just couldn't follow. For those that understood it-- did u read about the movie at all (including this thread)? I had no idea that the plot would be so difficult to follow. I had no idea what the movie was about other than oil. I think knowing a little coming in would be helpful.
I saw this a few days ago, and I also thought it was... not really confusing, but more thick. So much really does go on where if you stop paying attention, by the time you're back in the movie, you're lost. I really want to see it a second time just so I can know all that happens and go into it with a familiar view. All the performances are really good.
Easily my favorite film of the year. Holy shit, this movie rocks. So urgent, so specific-- it really lessens 'Traffic' for me, making it almost seem like the after-school-special, sanitized version of this flick. Yeah, I understand if people can't follow it-- the movie is dense and short on exposition-- but dammit you SHOULD. I really feel like we've been so dumbed down by traditional/contemporary structure and storytelling that unless we have things spelled out, drawn out on a map, then reiterated again, no one's going to get it. The highest compliment I can give Gaghan is that it seemed like I was not watching some constructed drama, but snatches of the lives involved. Just little things: watching Damon do his on-camera interviews, never seeing the other side. We're in the room. We know what he feels. The movie doesn't start with Clooney making a deal to sell missles, then telling you how the deal will go down, then cue the suspense music as something wrong happens. No, we're there in his shoes. The specific details of all of the scenes, what people are doing, what they're eating-- it all adds up to a striking, realistic portrait of the world we live in. And when the 'drama'-- and I use quotes because there could have been a bad melodramatic version of this story, one where Wright goes 'a-ha!' and Clooney spills platitudes in the 3rd act, that is happily sidestepped-- does happen in the movie, it's so natural that it hurts more than anything manufactured. Damon's conversation with Peet at the park is just stunning. Wright's discovery of his father. Clooney confronting a co-worker. The world is a scary, fucked up place all over. And 'Syriana' shows how those judgements passed out by those up on high, trickle down and affect the rest of us.
Quote from: Weak2ndAct on December 27, 2005, 10:45:47 PM
Easily my favorite film of the year. Holy shit, this movie rocks. So urgent, so specific-- it really lessens 'Traffic' for me, making it almost seem like the after-school-special, sanitized version of this flick. Yeah, I understand if people can't follow it-- the movie is dense and short on exposition-- but dammit you SHOULD. I really feel like we've been so dumbed down by traditional/contemporary structure and storytelling that unless we have things spelled out, drawn out on a map, then reiterated again, no one's going to get it. The highest compliment I can give Gaghan is that it seemed like I was not watching some constructed drama, but snatches of the lives involved. Just little things: watching Damon do his on-camera interviews, never seeing the other side. We're in the room. We know what he feels. The movie doesn't start with Clooney making a deal to sell missles, then telling you how the deal will go down, then cue the suspense music as something wrong happens. No, we're there in his shoes. The specific details of all of the scenes, what people are doing, what they're eating-- it all adds up to a striking, realistic portrait of the world we live in. And when the 'drama'-- and I use quotes because there could have been a bad melodramatic version of this story, one where Wright goes 'a-ha!' and Clooney spills platitudes in the 3rd act, that is happily sidestepped-- does happen in the movie, it's so natural that it hurts more than anything manufactured. Damon's conversation with Peet at the park is just stunning. Wright's discovery of his father. Clooney confronting a co-worker. The world is a scary, fucked up place all over. And 'Syriana' shows how those judgements passed out by those up on high, trickle down and affect the rest of us.
good review. agree totally.
this is ballsy, hell-raising filmmaking that actually respects its audience and their intelligence. i completely underestimated gaghan's talent (what was that movie he wrote/direct post-traffic? katie-psycho-holmes was in it?). well written (i'm assuming it's a faithful adaptation of a difficult book to adapt, one in which I doubt i'll get a chance to read anytime soon), solid performances across the board, and nicely shot (our man rob eslwit). you can definitely feel soderbergh's subtle influence on gaghan's style, which is not a bad thing.
this is one of the first years in which i'm seeing all the good flicks. i tell yah, 2005 is arguably the best movie years in years! (rivals 1999 in my book).
fuck i still have to watch this film.
gonna watch it very soon.
Quote from: ©brad on December 28, 2005, 09:23:24 AM
(what was that movie he wrote/direct post-traffic? katie-psycho-holmes was in it?).
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you just really didn't want to IMDB it, but it's called Abandon.
I've been thinking more about this film. The film is really good but never quite accomplishes anything amazing.
*Spoiler*
A few points: The writing is better yet also worst than Traffic. The better is that every political point is not seeped through a very heavy handed story. The director of the DEA (Douglas, in Traffic) having to come to understand how widespread drugs are because his daughter is a user is a little too heavy handed. No stories like that really highlight the characters in this film. The film only gets goofy at the end with Clooney's last desperate ride to warn the democratic Arab prince. That character being targeted for death isn't outrageous. Clooney's heroics are.
The worst is that film doesn't outline itself to a story. The characters truly are symbols for the bigger point. Gaghan was officially adapting the book See No Evil, but only certain points of that film really appear in this film. Gaghan is trying to do what Oliver Stone did for JFK. Oliver Stone, through the story of Jim Garrison, was trying to bring together all the ideas of conspiracy theorists and also his own ideas to the JFK assassination. Those who knock the film because it is not an accurate portrayal of Jim Garrison are actually correct. Stone concedes his character is really only filter for everything he believes in. He is taking dramatic license. Gaghan had CIA operative Bob Baer to base Clooney off of. At some point he decided to venture away and make his character a symbol for a greater point. Thing is, Gaghan didn't need to do that. Baer already reflects the perfect illustration to the problems in the Middle East. Yet Gaghan brought in all these other characters and gave them equal screen time and loss greater illustration when he could have kept the portrait to Baer. In See No Evil, Baer meets people who are up and coming terrorists and Arab princes on the fringes and even American Oil businesmen trying to get the last bites of what the Middle East has to offer. Stone heightened the glory of Garrison for the purpose of the larger point but kept the story close to Garrison so the film was still a character portrait in the end. Syriana almost has no character basis at all. The end result of the film is a series of essays that have a similiar topic but little cohesion to feel organically whole. If Gaghan was trying to work along that basis a book may have been better suited instead of a film because as Ingmar Bergman once said: "All that matters at the end is character"
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 28, 2005, 04:25:40 PMA few points: The writing is better yet also worst than Traffic.
i can't get beyond this sentence.
Quote from: ©brad on December 28, 2005, 06:32:22 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 28, 2005, 04:25:40 PMA few points: The writing is better yet also worst than Traffic.
i can't get beyond this sentence.
hahah, i stopped there too.
Quote from: matt35mm on December 28, 2005, 01:59:40 PM
Quote from: ©brad on December 28, 2005, 09:23:24 AM
(what was that movie he wrote/direct post-traffic? katie-psycho-holmes was in it?).
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or if you just really didn't want to IMDB it, but it's called Abandon.
cbrad is a busy man, he only has time to check one site and like our slogan says "if you only check one site a day, make it a xixax day today, hey :shock: ."
this movie really doesn't deserve the praise. sure, the plot was very very confusing. weak2ndact, u may be right in that we've been dumbed down. maybe i'm stupid because i didn't quite understand it. but beyond that, every emotional moment in this movie felt so contrived that i just don't care enough about the characters to follow them through even the most basic of plots. this movie really needed to be three hours. JFK had it's political agenda, but it's an amazing drama on top of that. syriana isn't much more than what it's political awareness.
I admire what Gaghan was trying to do, but it's really not a very good movie.
I liked it alot, although it was the most dense movie I've seen in a while. It was hard to be invested in the characters though but I admired it for what It was trying to do.
I loved it, and I don't have much to say about it that hasn't been said. It made me feel physically sick, this world of complete amorality and power lust. I can't think of any fiction film like it. Traffic? The Insider? No, I think this is the new benchmark for serious political [fiction] films.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2006, 01:10:44 AM
I loved it, and I don't have much to say about it that hasn't been said. It made me feel physically sick, this world of complete amorality and power lust. I can't think of any fiction film like it. Traffic? The Insider? No, I think this is the new benchmark for serious political [fiction] films.
Me too. I just realized I hadn't written a review for this.
Anyway... my favorite movie of the year.
There is nothing melodramatic about the ending.
The people who couldn't follow the plot need to read newspapers more.
End of review.
Quote from: polkablues on January 04, 2006, 06:26:03 PM
There is nothing melodramatic about the ending.
*Spoiler*
OK, explain your side. Mine is while the ending may not be melodramatic, it is atleast corny. The Arab prince being targeted for death is very believable but Clooney's race to warn him and for him to conveniately to do so as the bomb is dropped is highly questionable. It puts Clooney's character as a martyr in the story for the greater good and makes a highly dramatized point when the rest of the story is pretty bare bone with how realistic it is to the political situation and not giving into conventions of usual story arcs.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 04, 2006, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 04, 2006, 06:26:03 PM
There is nothing melodramatic about the ending.
*Spoiler*
OK, explain your side. Mine is while the ending may not be melodramatic, it is atleast corny. The Arab prince being targeted for death is very believable but Clooney's race to warn him and for him to conveniately to do so as the bomb is dropped is highly questionable. It puts Clooney's character as a martyr in the story for the greater good and makes a highly dramatized point when the rest of the story is pretty bare bone with how realistic it is to the political situation and not giving into conventions of usual story arcs.
SpoilersWell, first off I would disagree with your characterization of the movie not giving in to conventional story arcs. Every major character in the film is changed by the experiences they go through, whether it's Damon letting his family slip away or Wright betraying his boss or the kid becoming radicalized. The only real exception to this is Clooney's character, who doesn't really change as a person so much as he comes to realize the true depth and breadth of the problems the world faces. The movie in general, and Clooney's story in particular, is about hopelessness on a grand scale. It's "the world is destroying itself and there's nothing we can do to stop it." At the end, Clooney's character has one last, desperate chance to step in and actually change something, but he fails. Because the system is too far gone to be saved.
I'm convinced that's the sole reason Gaghan chose to include the subplot about Jeffrey Wright's dad; this movie has one of the absolute bleakest worldviews of any movie I've seen in a while (only "Dancer in the Dark" is at a similar level), and most certainly for any political movie I've seen, but by slipping in that last tiny moment of optimism, he reminds us that while the big picture may be fucked, life happens in the brushstrokes.
Quote from: polkablues on January 04, 2006, 09:35:10 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 04, 2006, 08:26:33 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 04, 2006, 06:26:03 PM
There is nothing melodramatic about the ending.
*Spoiler*
OK, explain your side. Mine is while the ending may not be melodramatic, it is atleast corny. The Arab prince being targeted for death is very believable but Clooney's race to warn him and for him to conveniately to do so as the bomb is dropped is highly questionable. It puts Clooney's character as a martyr in the story for the greater good and makes a highly dramatized point when the rest of the story is pretty bare bone with how realistic it is to the political situation and not giving into conventions of usual story arcs.
Spoilers
Well, first off I would disagree with your characterization of the movie not giving in to conventional story arcs. Every major character in the film is changed by the experiences they go through, whether it's Damon letting his family slip away or Wright betraying his boss or the kid becoming radicalized. The only real exception to this is Clooney's character, who doesn't really change as a person so much as he comes to realize the true depth and breadth of the problems the world faces. The movie in general, and Clooney's story in particular, is about hopelessness on a grand scale. It's "the world is destroying itself and there's nothing we can do to stop it." At the end, Clooney's character has one last, desperate chance to step in and actually change something, but he fails. Because the system is too far gone to be saved.
I'm convinced that's the sole reason Gaghan chose to include the subplot about Jeffrey Wright's dad; this movie has one of the absolute bleakest worldviews of any movie I've seen in a while (only "Dancer in the Dark" is at a similar level), and most certainly for any political movie I've seen, but by slipping in that last tiny moment of optimism, he reminds us that while the big picture may be fucked, life happens in the brushstrokes.
*spoiler* You say the film does give into story characterizations. One of my problems with the picture is that those characterizations are not fully elaborated on. They really are arcs without the complete story. Look at Clooney's story. He enters the film as a man disgruntled but we have no clue what happened in his past or how he really got to that point. He is trying to get back into Beirut for mysterious reasons. The events afterword are followable but felt always too thinly connected to really be true detail. As I watched this film a second time, I felt the second viewing allowed the simpleness of the stories to ring truer but the portraits of all the characters are still too simple to be called true portraits. The stories all collaborate together to give a convincing enough impression of how the Middle East runs. Its just with these mild "characterizations", the film does not understand whether it wants to tell a story or be an essay. The only story that felt complete with detailing the situation, the problem and finally the solution is Matt Damon's. All the others were tricky with details.
With that, Clooney's last ride feels like an indentation of a highly dramatized moment into a film that is only trying to detail the bigger picture. His character did not need to die in such a way for us to understand his actions would be hopeless in the long run. I'm not saying he couldn't die. I believe the filmmakers were trying to tie together loose strands at the end of the film. In just that one bombing three characters came to an end or a revelation. It was very conveniant. Its just one of the few moments that didn't feel realistic.
ihtsib, GT is right.
Sorry to but in guys. Just wanted to point out how much Pubrick's new av rocks! Partly cause I just watched EWS last night. How does that film get even better with each viewing by the way? Anyways, that is all. On with the Chlorophyll or god knows what you guys were speaking of.
No love for my av? :yabbse-angry:
Oh, can't wait they release Syriana around here.
Sorry about that, Fernando. P's sticks out a bit more, little more crisp and clean and all around high-larious! For some reason that scene has always been funny to me in slow pace form. And he cleverly worked in that signature bee. Much love for yours too though, my man.
Quote from: cronopio on December 11, 2005, 10:01:18 PM
yeah ebert and two other critics i trust said that it's complex. that's my basis, i haven't seen the movie. have you seen it¿
Now I have. And the criticisms are quite correct. This film isn't bad, but it just isn't good, and it accomplished nothing. I agree with mod, who agrees with GT. It reminds me of Arlington Road (a horrible film), but not as egregious in its offenses. The whole "corruption keeps us safe and warm" speech sounds like preaching and not the genius of Douglas's character in Wall Street, when he's ACTUALLY preaching. More solid comments later when I'm less tired.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on January 07, 2006, 10:03:13 PM
It reminds me of Arlington Road (a horrible film),
hahaha........ouch!
that might be worse than the e-town/garden stae comparisons
ono, you serious?
Quote from: pyramid machine on January 07, 2006, 10:08:48 PMono, you serious?
As a heart attack. I got bored, and then at the end I got my intelligence insulted (hence, the Arlington Road comparison). It was like being punched in the gut, being made to feel guilty. Gaghan was right in talking to July, trying to infuse the film with some heart, and he was onto something. But he didn't find the balance needed for this film. There was no humanity. No entrance point to allow us to identify with anyone. We try to get involved with Clooney, but he's given too little screen time. Too many characters spread too thin. Gaghan just took on too much, and making the film longer wouldn't even help. Instead of feeling bad for Damon's character and Peet's character, we're just... "dead kid? boo-hoo." Next? It's a one-two punch, the one scene leading up to the kid's death, and there's no finesse to it at all. Ultimately, this was a drama that should've been a documentary. I will give credit to the torture scene. The one time I actually woke up and felt involved in the film.
I just watched Three Days of the Condor yesterday, and for some reason it makes me like Syriana even more.
i saw it a couple days ago.
i found it to be unnecessarily vague but still interesting, as per the opinions expressed by several people earlier in this thread.
i felt like somebody was telling me a story by which they were deeply troubled-- saying things that, to them, would have been very emotionally powerful. the writer may have had an intricate knowledge of all of the things that the plot touched on, but it came off to me as one movie trying to fit waaaay too much into two hours. to a viewer with no background on the story, it was just a series of events that were clearly important to a larger story. the larger story itself was largely left to be assumed. i left the theater sufficiently "what the fucked" indeed. this just isn't a movie you can walk into with little or no prior knowledge, even if you thought you'd really dig it.
i'll give it a low B.
The problem is, Stephen Gaghan assumed Americans read books and newspapers.
I await the following argument: "It's his responsibility to dumb it down."
Quote from: onomabracadabra on January 07, 2006, 10:13:27 PM
Ultimately, this was a drama that should've been a documentary.
I have no idea how this would have been possible.
Really? It's quite simple. Instead of veiling opinions, Gaghan should've pulled a Michael Moore and done some real digging. I should've used the words "wanted to be a documentary." I'm not familiar with the source material, though, so I'm not sure how close to "truth" or "reality" this film is.
I was implying that a documentary on this subject would look nothing close to what this film is (or looks like). We would not likely see any of the power struggle from so intimate a point-of-view.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on January 08, 2006, 08:27:18 PM
Instead of veiling opinions, Gaghan should've pulled a Michael Moore and done some real digging.
Ha ha.
Really, how could this have been a documentary without being a talking heads show with slow zooms on still pictures? How are you going to get close to these guys? That's the point. Syriana takes you inside, where you'd have your throat cut for wearing a wire or having a hidden camera. I think Gaghan did the best he could by using his research and real-life (though unrecorded) meetings with some of these people for a fiction film.
i do read books and newspapers. i was still what the fucked.
Quote from: permanent username on January 09, 2006, 01:33:54 PM
i was still what the fucked.
As was I, but I think it's supposed to be that way. Gaghan has said he wants the audience to be overwhelmed and even confused by the relentless flow of corruption and politicking. It worked. And I think (for that reason and others) that this film is more emotional than it seems.
Jeremy:
What was the film trying to say?
Do you think the sheer expanse of the film detracts from the work at all?
Gaghan's acknowledged concept (making the audience feel overwhelmed and helpless in the midst of all the corruption and confusion) was likely accomplished, but is the film successful apart from that?
Does the structure of the film work as a narrative whole -- or should it even?
These are a few questions I'm working through myself in thinking about Syriana. I thought you might like to share your thoughts on them after you get a chance to think them over.
Quote from: life_boy on January 09, 2006, 02:43:51 PM
What was the film trying to say?
I'm not sure it wants to "say" something as much as it wants to "show" something. Cause I think what it shows speaks for itself.
Quote from: life_boy on January 09, 2006, 02:43:51 PM
Do you think the sheer expanse of the film detracts from the work at all?
No. Why should it? The film's overwhelmingness works in its favor.
Quote from: life_boy on January 09, 2006, 02:43:51 PM
Gaghan's acknowledged concept (making the audience feel overwhelmed and helpless in the midst of all the corruption and confusion) was likely accomplished, but is the film successful apart from that?
What else is there to accomplish? The insights into the oil industry and its network of power and influence still work amidst all the emotional chaos, although they might work better as
a sense we get rather than concrete real-life information (which works, because this is fiction).
Quote from: life_boy on January 09, 2006, 02:43:51 PM
Does the structure of the film work as a narrative whole -- or should it even?
It does work as a narrative in small ways. We see what happens on a human level when this world takes its toll on its participants, who in the climaxes suffer in very real personal ways. The point is just to describe (in a very microcosmic way) the very real human and personal consequences. I don't think it's the biggest point of the movie, but I think it's important, and the structure makes it happen.
do you think there is any way you could admire this film if you didn't agree with its politics?
I don't think the film is ideological, actually. I think it simply describes things, and people are disgusted by these things to one extent or another. I suppose you could find people who believe that what the film describes doesn't happen, but that would be ignorance, not ideology. I suppose you could find someone who believes there's nothing wrong with what the film describes... now that would be ideology. So would I admire... well, would I be as affected by the film were I not disturbed by what it describes? No.
It's so strange to me that people think of this film as taking a political "side". The two main political points the movie makes are: business is corrupting politics, and that's a bad thing; and the CIA often chooses the wrong side when it interferes in geopolitical events. The only people who would argue against the first point are the ones who are personally involved in and benefitting from the corruption, and the second point is pretty well agreed upon by all sides, only with disagreements over which specific interventions were wrong-headed (Liberals will point out everything the CIA did under Republican presidents, while Republicans will point out everything the CIA did under Clinton).
I agree with JB 100% on this one. "Syriana" really isn't an ideological movie. It's one that points out the way the world really works, and the atrocities that are both the causes and the results of that fact. In that sense, it follows in the tradition of movies like "Battle of Algiers", "The Killing Fields", and "City of God" (although it's not quite on par, cinematically, with any of those).
I agree, polka. The film seems to be both amoral and apolitical. The decision to show some of the power struggle on the Middle Eastern side helps to make the film feel less propagandistic than it might have otherwise. I have read of some people dismissing the film as justifying terrorism. The film didn't justify terrorism; neither did it villify it. Terrorism is an outcome of the struggle for some and that was how it was depicted.
I saw it again yesterday, and I think I was right that the film's narrative chaos and complexity is its emotional strength. Cause the second time, while (unlike the first time) I understood most everything that was happening, it had a much smaller emotional impact. It was essentially a different movie.
it was very good, not one weak story, although i have to confess that my recent addiction to 24 interfered with my moviegoing experience. am i crippled for life? :yabbse-undecided:
There may be some similarities with Traffic, but I remember Traffiic as being too obvious and sometimes even chiched. And I hated Benicio del Toro's performance because it was in spanish yet I couldn't understand a single word he was saying. If any mexican comes up to you and talks like that in mexico, you assume he's completely stoned or drunk and you kick him and run. I don't know if the arab speaking poarts on Syriana were accurate, but I'd like to.
I had troubles understanding and following everything, but I woul dnever consider that the weakness of a movie. So is it the movie's fault that I couldn't follow it? Fuck no. If anything, it only makes me wanna see it again. I found everything very subtle and realistic, especially Clooney's performance. You just know what he's feeling yet he never really says it or shows it in any conventional ways.
It seemed to me, like The Constant Gardener, to be a true movie for grown ups, and we need lots of those I think.
Warner has officially set Syriana for release on 6/20 (SRP $28.98). We expect separate anamorphic widescreen and full frame versions to be available, each with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. Extras will include deleted scenes, the Make a Change, Make a Difference documentary and A Conversation with George Clooney.
Angry French scribe claims 'Syriana' plagiarized
A French screenwriter living in Jordan has sued Warner Bros. Pictures, George Clooney's production company and writer-director Stephen Gaghan, alleging that their film "Syriana" plagiarized entire scenes and characters from a script she wrote several years ago.
Stephanie Vergniault's case comes up for hearing Monday at the Paris High Court, said her attorney, Jasna Hadley Stark. The filmmakers are being sued for 2 million euros ($2.4 million) and damages, Stark said.
Executives at Warner Bros. France said they were aware of the case but declined comment. A spokesman for Warners in the United States said, "While we have not seen a copy of this suit, we believe it is without merit and (we) will defend our position in court."
"I live in a part of the world where we have no access to the latest films, and I would never have seen 'Syriana' if a friend of mine based in Los Angeles hadn't alerted me," Vergniault said Tuesday.
"I saw the film entirely by accident, and I'm still in a state of shock that someone of the caliber of Stephen Gaghan could stoop so low. At least 15 to 20 scenes of the film -- the characters and how they develop, creative elements, the entire structure -- has been lifted directly from my script. I couldn't stop screaming when I first saw the film in a movie hall in L.A. First I thought I was going crazy, seeing my work on the screen, and then, when I realized what had happened, I was furious."
Vergniault, a specialist on geopolitics in the Middle East, claims that she worked on a script titled "Oversight" from 1997-2003, registering it with the French copyright body SACD in September 2004 and copyrighting it in the U.S. a month later. The script tells the story of a former CIA agent who is reassigned by the organization to reactivate an underground network in Afghanistan for the benefit of an American oil company.
"I have read the book by former CIA agent Robert Baer that is supposed to have inspired the story, and there is nothing in it that remotely resembles the scenes taken straight from my script," she said.
Clooney received an Academy Award last month for his supporting role in the film, while Gaghan was nominated for his screenplay. He originally sought eligibility in the adapted screenplay category, but the Academy switched him to the original screenplay race.
Upon learning of the switch in January, Gaghan said he did veer from Baer's memoir, "See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA's War on Terrorism," and conducted a great deal of original research that he incorporated into the script, but still considered it an adapted screenplay.
Best Original Screenplay, indeed.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsuicidegirls.com%2Fmedia%2Fauthors%2F1785%2Farticle.jpg&hash=12f93c9289641d1f36dd593b30f50c8dd6b0f679)
Stephen Gaghan won an Oscar for his screenplay for Traffic. After crafting the screenplay for that dense multiple storyline filled story implicating everyone even the US government in the world’s hard drug trade Gaghan decided to do the same for Big Oil with Syriana.
Syriana follows George Clooney as a career CIA operative as he begins to uncover the disturbing truth about the work he has devoted his life to, an up-and-coming oil broker. [Matt Damon] faces an unimaginable family tragedy and finds redemption in his partnership with an idealistic Gulf prince [Alexander Siddig]. A corporate lawyer [Jeffrey Wright] faces a moral dilemma as he finesses the questionable merger of two powerful U.S. oil companies.
Daniel Robert Epstein: What made you want to create Syriana?
Stephen Gaghan: From a genre perspective I was definitely fascinated by movies like The Parallax View and Three Days of the Condor. I watched those movies again while I was researching this film and I thought, "Wow. You get to the end and some guy pops up and goes, It's big oil! And you go, Ooh, big oil. That explains everything." Then fade out. I thought in the intervening 30-years what's happened is this idea that's Big Oil has become of a super-structure that we all kind of live in. That is like the pop-up answer to a conspiracy that didn't work anymore. So from a genre perspective, that was a great way to think about the paranoid thriller.
DRE: How difficult was it to structure this?
Gaghan: It almost killed me; it was nearly nervous breakdown time. I'll tell you a story, this one time, I had spent so much time crawling around my hands and knees on the shag carpet in my office that I had permanent indentations in my hands and knees from the shag carpet in my office. I woke up and thought I had leprosy because the indentations from the carpet hadn't come out overnight.
DRE: Such a complicated film might polarize the audience, what made you want to do that?
Gaghan: Everyone in Hollywood knows that clarity is everything, that emotions are everything. You have to have a protagonist who's a hero and he gets a victory. You have a villain who's a bad guy and he gets defeated. That's clarity, so why deviate from that? Well, here's the problem. I went out with this Ex-CIA officer, Robert Baer, who's a world expert and was Iraqi Bureau Chief in the mid-90’s. Do you think this guy has relevant experience on whether we go into Iraq and if we go into Iraq what might happen? You think he might have a point of view on that? He only spent 25 years thinking about it. He infiltrated Hezbollah in the 80’s. He has this rolodex filled with middlemen who are billionaire oilmen and arms dealers. If he calls them on their private cell phone, they pick up the phone and they invite him over. He has something they want. When I went around with him I found that it is not nearly as simple as I thought it was. There's not a simple good guy or bad guy. It really is a system with a set number of players who all know each other. It's endemic and has been going on for a long time and I wanted to examine that. What I discovered here at home seems to be this willful exploitation of ambiguity that seems to be going on at the highest levels of our culture. There is a willful choice by somebody to sow confusion about whether or not the globe is heating up in a way that could be dangerous for all of us. I think that is wrong so I want to show in a narrative how these people operate.
DRE: There are a lot of liberals who are terrified right now to say anything about anybody. But with making this you are pointing fingers at the government and Big Oil and the US government. Does it make you any more paranoid?
Gaghan: I hope that what people see when they watch Syriana is that I'm pointing the finger at myself. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone that I feel is separate from me. I feel like the world is this tiny, little place. I feel that my incredible standards of living are predicated by our success in the oil business. I have a '66 GTO convertible with a 387 6.5 liter engine; a convertible muscle car. I've been Hybrid shopping but a guy like me who comes from Kentucky and drinks bourbon and drives a muscle car doesn't easily segway into a Prius. My experience isn't dissimilar from the rest of this country. What I want people to come away with is a heightened awareness of how the system works, so they can decide if they're getting a government that is representing what they really believe it; if they really are part of something that's feels right and comfortable. If not, then you change it.