Cinerant

Syrianhuh?

If Ann Coulter had a problem with Good Night, and Good Luck, her head’s gonna explode if she ever sees Syriana.  The new film from writer/director Stephen Gaghan seeks to emulate the success of Traffic by using multiple stories to examine the American dependence upon oil and its impact upon the rest of the world.  

The film follows a displaced Pakistani oil worker in the Middle East, a Saudi prince, his economic adviser, a CIA agent, and a Washington oil lawyer.  All are interconnected, all have something to gain, and all have much to lose.  The film tries to show the pratfalls of American policy towards oil—particularly that it flies in the face of much of other international and domestic policy.  Gaghan attempts to create a contemporary treatise that will serve as a call to arms, shaking the American populace to its core, thereby creating a referendum on domestic energy policy.  

Except, he forgot to make the movie make sense.

Whereas Traffic was taught, compelling, and riveting, Syriana is confusing, obtuse, and kinetic.  Much of that has to do with the directing.  Steven Soderbergh made Traffic work because of his experience behind the camera.  He knew how to craft a scene to make it interesting, even when it was just a Georgetown cocktail party where nothing happened.  He forced the scenes to flow into one another, relating back and forth so that they built on one another through the cross-cutting of the various stories.  Gaghan has yet to master that ability, which causes his film to suffer.  

Additionally, he’s painted his canvas too broad.  He tells too many stories in too little time (or maybe too much since I thought the movie had already been going longer than the BBC version of Pride and Prejudice before the first half even completed).  Therefore, none of the stories really are allowed to have any emotional impact.  They’re simply telegraphed to us and they feel remote and insincere.  

And I don’t even want to image what the fallout is going to be over the political leanings of the film.  Like any good Hollywood message movie, this one leans left.  In fact, it’s so far to the left that it’s no wonder George Clooney injured his back during the making of this movie.  I’m surprised everybody involved didn’t.  And here’s the thing—I don’t think the filmmakers really intended that to be the way the film turned out.  A good portion of the film seems very apolitical for such a political topic.  However, ultimately, the film sums up to a politically charged end simply because everybody is corrupt.  (In fact, one character espouses how corruption is necessary for democracy to succeed.)  With no redeeming characters to root for, with no hope found any place, the film ultimately argues that democracy fails and oil tyranny wins.  A long way from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.  

posted by cinegod @ 11:41 PM