Syriana

[Figure 8]

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.

[Weak2ndAct]

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.       

[©brad]

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).

[noyes]

fuck i still have to watch this film.
gonna watch it very soon.

[matt35mm]

(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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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"

[©brad]

A few points: The writing is better yet also worst than Traffic.

i can't get beyond this sentence.

[Pubrick]

A few points: The writing is better yet also worst than Traffic.

i can't get beyond this sentence.

hahah, i stopped there too.

(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 ."

[JG]

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.     

[SiliasRuby]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[polkablues]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[polkablues]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.