Friday, September 08, 2006

A Pseudo-Political Rant about the War (Not-So-Cleverly Disguised as a Review of Syriana)

For the first 45 minutes or so of watching this, we couldn't get the subtitles to work. That meant countless "huh's" and "what'd he say's" that most assuredly frustrated my movie-watching companion.

When we continued the film later on a different DVD player, the feature started working and, at long last, I realized that we'd been watching one heckuva good film.

Essentially, Syriana (2006) is a movie about all of those things we don't want to believe. It's a "fictional" account of the goings-on in the Middle East: the makings of terrorists... the oil wars... and the American politics behind it all. It paints a picture of what we all "suspect" is going on... but that few of us are willing to believe.

That's the aspect of the film that scares me, and for two reasons:

•I generally take issue with any book, film or story that takes a very serious and very "real" issue, and fictionalizes it on a highly influential medium. It's scary what these things can do to sway the masses — sometimes appropriately so, but sometimes... also... blindly, or in the wrong direction
•I don't want to believe that everything I see in Syriana is true. But if this were an all-out documentary (just to clarify... it's not), it confirms my worst suspicions. And that's terrifying.

Here we have a movie that shows how an ordinary Islamic man becomes a terrorist. We see how American politics impact the Middle East. And we see the role oil companies — American and otherwise — play in it all.

And Syriana does this without painting all Americans in a negative light (on the contrary, the CIA agent George Clooney plays is an innocent pawn who tries his darnedest to rectify wrongs committed by his organization). And you don't sympathize with all Arabic men (there are two Saudi princes in this film, for example... one will essentially go to work for American oil companies; the other wants to do what is best for his people but is not necessarily anti-American).

The real beauty of this film: much like Thank You For Smoking (2006) — a movie about smoking in which no one ever lights up — Syriana brings to mind the workings of the Bush administration, and our current role in Iraq — without ever once referencing our current president.

My biggest complaint: with 4-5 story lines unfolding at once, I wasn't always able to follow along... but this may have resulted from the aforementioned "subtitle" issue.

But back to the pseudo-political rant:

Given the recent headline about Prime Minister Blair stepping down, at the bequest of his people, why on earth haven't we accomplished the same here?

I realize Parliament can actually "vote" someone out of office, and that realization likely played a role in Blair's decision. And I know that's not a feat as easily accomplished here. But, goodness, if we could impeach Clinton for his husbandly misgivings... what's missing from the equation here?

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, there are a few things missing here: 1) Bush hasn't really done anything illegal, just unethical, unconstitutional and (sometimes) just plain dumb and 2) he doesn't see anything he has done as being sufficient to walk away. Besides, if you got rid of GW, Cheney would be the president. I hate to say it, but GW is the lesser of two evils.

As for impeaching Clinton, there is a big gap between suborning perjury and running around the international scene like a bull in a china shop.

I hate to say this, but just walking away from Iraq, now that we are there, isn't the answer. It would create an ugly power vacuum and would destabilize the whole region. No, we shouldn't have gone in there the way we did in the first place, but it is too late now. The fact that we never "finished the job" in Afghanistan and it is coming back to bite us in the butt now makes me even angrier about this. We have, unfortunately, touched the tar baby and now it won't let go. The thing about riding a tiger is how do you get off without getting eaten in the process? (I know, too many metaphors.) The smart person doesn't jump on the tiger in the first place, but it is a bit late for that now. Sadly.
~BPP

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Agreed. I'm not calling for us to remove all of our troops poste haste... that'd be terribly irresponsible of us, particularly when you consider the mess we've made. But an exit strategy would've been (or would be) nice.

And how sad is it that starting a war on fabricated "evidence" isn't grounds for impeachment?

Anonymous said...

RYN: Exit Strategy? Why would we need one of THOSE? *sad chuckle* Yes, we should have thought about that. And we should have thought about "after". There was a reason George the First stopped when he did.

Yeah, it is messed up that you can't impeach someone for getting you into a war on stupid grounds. I knew it was never about terrorism. Sadly, Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.
~BPP

Workman said...

What's missing from the equation? Single party rule, that's what. That's what we've had for 6 years, but that may be coming to an end soon.

Then congress may well take up the issue of whether the president has violated the constitution. He probably has.

thirdworstpoetinthegalaxy said...

Since I consider myself to be neither Republican nor Democrat, I've never voted straight ticket. But, man, if this isn't reason to do so...