| ON THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS : Stephen Gaghan's 'Syriana' [6/10] |
|
|
| Monday, 27 February 2006 | |
|
When asked "What is jazz?" by an inquisitive fan, Count Basie (or was it Louis Armstrong?) supposedly replied "Lady, if you have to ask, you'll never know." And the same is true about the latest globetrottingly topical political thriller from Stephen (Traffic) Gaghan - examining America's involvement in middle-eastern politics, with a particular emphasis on international oil-industry intrigues. If you don't know what 'Syriana' is going in (and the word never once appears in the dialogue) chances are you'll struggle with the film itself. Over to Wikipedia: In the study of the international relations of the Middle East, Syriana is used both to refer to Syria (as in Pax Syriana), and in other contexts as an arbitrary label for hypothetical countries with varying degrees of resemblance to Syria. Pax Syriana is Latin for "Syrian peace", modelled after Pax Romana and Pax Britannica. It usually refers to the period from 1990 to April 2005 of reduced conflict within Lebanon being under the influence of Syrian hegemony and military occupation. It may be used with emphasis on the relative calm following suppression of the Lebanese Civil War, or on suggestions of Syria's having intentions for annexing Lebanon. ... The movie's title is somewhat ambiguous. Some have suggested that it comes from Pax Syriana, as an allusion to the necessary state of peace between Syria and the U.S. as it relates to the oil business. In a December 2005 interview, Baer told NPR that the title is a metaphor for foreign intervention in the Middle East, referring to post-World War II think tank strategic studies for the creation of an artificial state (such as Iraq, created from the elements of the former Ottoman Empire) that would ensure continued western access to crude oil. From the movie's website [1]: "'Syriana' is a very real term used by Washington think-tanks to describe a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East...". Then again, even if you do know all of this beforehand, there's absolutely no guarantee that you'll be able to follow the film's nightmarishly convoluted story - at least first time around. It's a little like last year's paranoid-sci-fi cult-favourite Primer, whose writer-director Shane Carruth went on record as saying that he "was aiming for only 70% comprehensibility on first viewing."* But whereas Primer lost most of its audiences roughly midway through its brisk 77-minute running-time, the $50m-budget Syriana remains watchable - and even enjoyable - throughout its two-hours-plus. This is partly due to Gaghan's elegant direction - aided immensely by Robert Elswit's cinematography - and partly to the near-all-star ensemble cast headed by George Clooney, as a world-weary, overweight CIA veteran embarking on the most dangerous mission of his career, and who realises (too late) that his idealism isn't shared by his bosses. Backing him up: Matt Damon (an energy-industry analyst brokering complex deals involving middle-eastern potentates); Jeffrey Wright (a conscientious Washington lawyer hired to check out a particularly tricky deal); Christopher Plummer (Wright's conniving boss); Amanda Peet (Damon's wife); William Hurt (niftily cameoing as a shadowy 'Deep Throat' figure). They're joined by less-familiar - but in acting terms equally strong - performers such as Alexander Siddig (as an idealistic Arab prince) and Mazhar Munir (a disaffected teenager who drifts into radical Islam), while, as in Good Night and Good Luck, Thomas McCarthy provides quietly impressive support to Clooney: so impressive is he in these two films, in fact, that it's easy to forget he's also the 'Tom McCarthy' who wrote and directed The Station Agent. And British audiences may be surprised (and delighted) to see versatile veteran Nicky Henson (Witchfinder General; Fawlty Towers' randy Mr Johnson) popping up as one of Plummer's key employees. The casting of Henson (who essays a solid-sounding American accent) recalls the appearance of Michael Gambon in Michael Mann's The Insider - whose script (by Mann and Eric Roth) chronicled a tale not much less intricate and potentially confusing as Syriana's, but managed to do so while remaining fully accessible and 'follow-able' at all times. Of course, one could argue that the globalised conspiracies and interlocking intrigues presented in classily fictionalised form here are, in the real world, deliberately designed to be impenetrable, partly to ward off unwelcome intrusion and examination. For Syriana to function as a film for the edification, education and entertainment of the movie-going public, however, Gaghan could surely have opted for an approach with a little less narrative opacity. In the end, this feels like a sprawling 3-hour film condensed to something like conventional feature length: the over-ambitious Gaghan should perhaps have taken the gamble and 'gone long', or else stripped the picture down to the barest essentials, much as his star Clooney and Grant Heslov did on Good Night, and Good Luck. In terms of 2005's politically-charged Oscar nominees Good Night arguably requires its audience to have a few 'O' levels (or 'GCSEs'); The Constant Gardener an 'A' level or two; Munich a decent B.A.. Syriana is a leap beyond - PhD at least - and while this is a worthwhile, admirable, absorbing and well-crafted piece of work, it's likely that many viewers will be scratching their overloaded heads long after they've exited the theatre. Neil Young 27th February, 2005 SYRIANA : [6/10] : USA 2005 : Stephen GAGHAN : 128 mins (BBFC timing) seen at Odeon cinema, Newcastle-upon-Tyne (UK), 27th February 2006 - press show * "I didn't purposely make it convoluted," he says, "but I also didn't sum it up the way I think could've been done, mainly because I don't like to be talked down to when I'm watching a film." He promises that there are no insoluble puzzles in the story -- if you pay attention, Primer eventually gives up all its ghosts. But Carruth is sheepish about recommending repeat viewings. "I can't say to somebody, 'Oh, you didn't get it? You have to see it again.' I mean, how pretentious is that?"
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
