Great review. Will get a heads up on my next broadcast, which is by the way tackles the nexus between Hollywood and the Myth of America, with a particular focus on one movie, Platoon.

Gracias, amigo. I look forward to it.

Hey, thanks for seeing and commenting on these films. I hope your MTV moment happens soon.

Gee, your voice has no sharp edges. It's so balanced and has a wonderful hint of baritone. It is so pleasing to listen to! Now, on to the movie. Would you share a little more about why you think "Lions for Lambs" worked as a "film" as "cinema" not just a message? It sounds super talky. Talky about important things, but talky nonetheless. I trust your taste so I would really like to hear a little more of your thoughts.

thank you carmen.

it's a good question you pose. thank you. please let me think on this. i will reply.

well, okay. as with most discussions that hinge on a single term, it helps to agree first on what definition we are using, or alternately, discuss more than one. when we say a story works as "cinema," i think the first definition that comes to mind is something like the lessons found in so many of Hitchcock's films (or many others); it's the lesson they instill in us in film school when they talk about "show me" vs "tell me." what "cinema" does so well is use images, or images juxtaposed with sound that convey an idea or state which is immediately more accessible and emotional than could be communicated by text alone.

using this definition solely, i'm not sure that Lions for Lambs "works" as "Cinema" very well. as i said in my review (i think), it could be a play. this is what critics are basing many of today's negative commentaries of the film upon. in my review i quote one critique i've seen out there which talks about "proscenium style dialectics" which is a fancy way of saying "too talky and not enough action." (the word "proscenium" references the Greek theaters where a stage was raised a bit and faced the audience squarely). so perhaps in that sense, the film does not "work" as "Cinema."

however, using this definition, neither would many other movies "work" that i happen to enjoy greatly. the first one that comes to mind is Glengarry Glenn Ross, which actually was a play before it was a film. and many other David Mamet films have a similar feel, you could argue. (he is a playwright, after all). and in terms of messaging that ignores format, we could look at propaganda such as the "Jungle," (book) by Upton Sinclair. as a novel using standard narrative form, it did not "work." some might say it was a "tragedy," but using the frame that typically defines a tragedy, neither does the book "work," as it is not a "tragedy" in the literary sense, but rather an unending series of terrible events that befall a character with no mind to pacing, to balance, nor to a redemptive event which is born out of the major tragedy of the plot. yet, the main purpose of The Jungle was to wake us up to the horror that had become part and parcel of American slaughterhouses and meatpacking. and it worked. and it is a classic book, and an important part of our history.

of course Lions for Lambs is no Jungle, but it could probably be described as having a similar intent.

another use of the word "cinema" is as a social function; a place where the public gathers to peer into the heart of modern dialogue (or to simply use the same escape routes to leave behind pressing social problems). in this function, even the escape routes engage the social dialogue by reference, allusion, and framing that employs many known icons, symbols, and a common lexicon. in this use of the idea of "Cinema," the film works very well. it is a marker, a starting point, a collection of questions that seek to further a conversation taking place in the public square, or perhaps not yet taking place in the public square.

if a person is the sort who avoids a film as soon as they hear it is "talky," then no, this is certainly not the film for them. although i would point out again that i was biased against it when i went into the theater. and it changed my mind. so you never can be sure sometimes, until you try something out. hope this answers your question.

"...it's the lesson they instill in us in film school when they talk about "show me" vs "tell me." what "cinema" does so well is use images, or images juxtaposed with sound that convey an idea or state which is immediately more accessible and emotional than could be communicated by text alone."

That is exactly what I meant. From your review it sounded to me like a wonderful play, 'The Best Man' comes to mind. "Glengarry Glenross" is one of my favorite films, too. But, I love Mamet. I love the experience of listening to the rhythms and enunciation of Mamet dialogue. The film itself?...Kinda small but that is exactly why it appeals to me.

Thank you for giving my question so much consideration and replying so thoroughly. :)

el gusto es mio. :)

it would have made a good play, i'm sure. even the clearing on top of some afghanistan mountainpeaks felt like a set. yet, i would choose a film that was this honest and earnest and "playlike" over a film that numbs me with meaninglessness. i walk out on "cinema" like that, even if it is showing me tons of stuff. (armegeddon, matrix 3, list goes on).

yes, mamet certainly has his brand of music when it comes to dialogue. at first meeting, it can feel so stilted. and then after a couple tastes you feel addicted to it. it becomes its own reality.

the dark and massive afghanistan mountainside was ominous. it keeps coming back to my mind, even tho it only played a few moments on the screen.

and what i mean to imply with my second definition of "cinema" is that even if the story in the current format would, by definition, be more fitting in a play than a film, the truth is that most people don't go to plays very often, if ever. movies are the common fare for entertainment outside of the home. for most people. especially if the choice of entertainment is narrowed to a film OR a play. so if a writer looking to make a visual representation of his work wants to send a message to a lot of citizens at once, then film is the best bet. (or YouTube!) so in that sense, this message sits perfectly in its current medium.

Your blog carries some great messages too, Nez. The comments you offered Carmen sound like they were extracted from a doctoral thesis. One forgets how much you downplay your years of academia, but I do very much appreciate your intellect.
You are quickly approaching a road where you will be personally confronting, on camera, people like Dobbs and Tancredo. Sooner or later {sooner is my bet} you will find yourself in a Green Room, munching expensive appetizers and drinking tasty drinks about to go into a room and see the red light come on the camera pointed at you. A Talking Head will be expelling verbiage. Now it's your turn.
We await the message!

gracias, my friend! i shall be sure to munch a macaroon for you, as i lounge about in distant well air-cooled green rooms.

I think this film has confused the MSM reviewers who seem to feel they need to be sceptical or cynical in the face of serious matters, like war and education. Our local reviewer (in a predominently Hispanic and Native American community) gave it an excellent review and an A for effort to cut through the apathy and cynicism.

i think you said it right there, +soccergrandmom. this "serious" cynical approach. but we know what Socrates said about deconstructing. it had a lot of heart to me, too. and i think today, that matters.

Glad I missed the whole deconstructing craze in American academia and criticism. It makes my brain bleed just thinking about it, GAAAAH.

it's still very much alive as a method. it's all over the 'Net.