‘Lions’ challenges apathy, ignorance

With three of the weekend’s top five box office hits being either animated or fantasy, moviegoers seem to go to the movies to escape, not to be particularly engaged or questioned. However, with Robert Redford’s seventh directorial attempt, “Lions for Lambs,” the audience is treated to a lesson in the manner of Socrates himself. They are constantly bombarded by questions that transcend the on-screen space.

The powerful movie seems better fitted for a theater stage. It follows three loosely linked plotlines that take place during the same short hour. Though the film’s story is reminiscent of “Crash,” its cinematography is not nearly as impressive. The cameras follow talking heads for the most part, with no particularly impressive scenes.

The first plotline takes place between political science professor Stephen Malley (Robert Redford) and a slacking California college student (Andrew Garfield). Next, the camera switches to follow an aging journalist, Janine Roth (Meryl Streep), as she interviews ambitious, arrogant, Republican senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise). And finally, the last scenario follows two soldiers in Afghanistan (Derek Luke and Michael Pena), also former students of the professor.

While the parallel storylines seem a little overwhelming at first, the lack of action allows the audience to reel from the changing scenes and characters. The majority of the movie is spent in conversation between the characters with battles in Afghanistan forming the only real action.

Redford’s refreshing portrayal of the student-teacher relationship bridges the gap between Robin Williams’ “Dead Poets Society” fantasy teacher and the reality of student-teacher bonds in college. Garfield’s on-screen character reflects students’ general disinterest and the unknowing mistrust they have for professors who give life advice.

Their banter continues throughout the movie as Malley tries to convince the slacker to take a stand, question the political situation and make a difference. Malley clearly comments on American youths’ general apathy toward politics and obsession with success, money and a good time. Redford’s Oscar-winning talent comes across the screen and is fielded well by newcomer Garfield. But Redford overexaggerates his point at times by saying exactly what he means, disengaging the audience from exploring any deeper meanings.

Society is further paralleled with reality through the interactions between the one-track-minded senator and once respectable journalist Roth. Cruise performs on-screen with diligence and understanding, capturing a sometimes sincere persona yet causing the audience to see the hollowness behind his caricature smile.

Roth tries to reclaim the power that comes with journalism and the responsibility that lies in exploring the whole truth, not just the truth that Irving gives her. The two raise a question for the audience to consider: Who is to blame?

The film’s message seems to be that political strategists have a part in current short-comings and failings, but sensationalist, shallow journalists have also convinced the public to place their faith in a false front.

The actual action that takes place in the movie follows two of what Malley calls “his most promising” students. The two enlisted in the Army after a political science presentation for Malley’s class. The film follows the two in Afghanistan, while also showing a flashback from their enlistment and interaction with Malley. Their political idealism, courage and action are enough to inspire the audience to question their own actions, or lack thereof.

Writer Matthew Michael Carnahan appears to have fleshed out another political exploration, while his other box-office hit “The Kingdom” is still in theaters. Drawing comparison to our own War on Terror, Carnahan wants audience members to see their own responsibility and power while seeing through authoritative belligerence and insincerity. Clearly calling for political action, “Lions for Lambs” takes a brave step by approaching politics in such a straight-forward manner, so closely resembling current strategies and situations, but not blaming one person, not even Irving.

“Lions for Lambs” is not a movie to see to escape into some bizarre, exciting life of a character unlike anyone in the current realm of experience. It is recommended if the viewer is interested in questioning his or her accepted beliefs and apathy or wants to be stimulated to make a change and engage in current culture.