Though the war in Iraq has officially concluded with the last troops having returned home last month, what happened during the war and its present aftermath remains controversial, to say the least. The movie "Lions for Lambs" produced in 2007 highlights the many pitfalls throughout the war's duration and the harsh criticism it brought upon the American government, leaving many to question what in fact "democracy" truly means. The movie follows three different but interconnected storylines, and it is evident that each character has formed their own opinions on the righteousness of the war and the leadership in America, and as with many Americans still today, those beliefs are often passionate and personal when questioned.
The character that I related too most, and saw a reflection of many of my peers in, was the gifted student left disillusioned by the current state of affairs. Having literally grown up with this war and the threat of terrorism, those children who are now in college have seen so many failed efforts to "beat" the terrorists. But what would really have defined winning? The senator defined it as eradicating the Taliban. For me, I think that hiding behind the image of the dictatorial Taliban became a huge problem in losing popular support at home for the war. Are the Iraqis better off without such a ruler? I definitely think so. But the war failed to address the wide-scope of what a "terrorist" is and essentially never got to the root of the problem. Which is why pulling out was seen as victory enough by the troops lucky enough to leave and come home.
The most problem I had with a character was the senior reporter Janine. She asked well-thought out and well-worded questions, questioned the logic of the senator, and voiced her displeasure and her professional opinion in how she wanted to write the story, which would have made her boss look undeniably unfavorable. However, her boss shoots her down without even attempting to listen to her justifications. Her response is written off as "women's intuition" and her emotions, though valid, are scoffed at, even though she is clearly an experienced reporter. It is clearly a sexist portrayal in that it gives the message that women cannot possibly know or understand a problem better than men - and if she disagrees with them, she is automatically written off as overly-emotional and unaware of "how the world works."
The movie did make me question my own sense of purpose in my life, as I do believe the professor did ask some really intriguing questions about his student's gifts and what he planned to do with them. I could not help but think of all the times in our core classes at Sacred Heart we have attempted to answer the question "What does it mean to live a life of meaning and purpose?" What role does patriotism play in that, and how responsible are we for our country's actions? Though it did raise some profound questions, it did not really stand out to me from any other criticisms of the war through the media, of which there remains an abundance.
It's effective how you raise questions and observations through two particular characters and scenes. All of the student viewers of this film should be able to relate to Todd, I would think. I believe that virtually all students have deep drives to think, speak, and act; but some are better than others at tapping into those drives. (All people are like that, me as well.) It takes courage, and there are a lot of culture forces that squelch us, which the movie portrays well. The professor says, "I used to knock meetings like this out of the park"--meaning, I think, that it's ever tougher for him to inspire students in an era where our passions are frittered away.
ReplyDelete