Robert Redford is likely to attract stacks of attention this autumn with Lions for Lambs. All the President's Men, a film based on the infamous Watergate scandal, epitomises a 'political thriller' but the Californian never had the same amount of Hollywood clout back in 1976 as he does now in his position as an Oscar darling and member of filmdom's almost royal elite. Back in the New Hollywood era he had to share centre stage with the excellent Dustin Hoffman for the adaptation of the real-life event, obey instructions from director Alan J. Pakula, and the landmark was pre-Sundance and consequently before the "Cinematic Legend" label was ever fully utilised. With Lions for Lambs however, it appears as if the actor/director/producer extraordinaire is braced to surpass All the President's Men in terms of political stance and justification.As if to fire himself up for battle, reports suggest that Redford has tacked columns blasting the Bush administration to a bulletin board in the rented house he turned into a postproduction complex. "A profile in cowardice," reads one headline. "This time, don't say we weren't warned," says another. And on a yellow sticky note, in his own scrawled block letters, are the words "Frustration, Responsibility and Sadness", according to the New York Times. To me, these would appear to be continual team-talks, a reminder, or shorthand for the themes of his impending film. After all, a lot is riding on Redford's directorial foray into the political sphere. The modest budget of some $35 million is the least of his worries. As his namesake Mr De Niro states in this year's Stardust, "reputations take years to build and seconds to destroy." The film, which is set to open on November 9th, is the first starring Tom Cruise since his run of bad press and his ouster from the Paramount lot last summer. It's the first from United Artists since Cruise and his partner, Paula Wagner, took over the storied label last year. Briefly, is it just me or isn't it amazing how Cruise, with his turn here and with the upcoming Valkyrie (telling the story of a Hitler assassination attempt) is leaving his sofa-jumping days behind to concentrate on über-serious matters? Anyway, Lions for Lambs is Redford's first directorial effort since the disappointing and at times plain boring Legend of Bagger Vance seven years ago. If two generational matinee idols with reputations on the line wasn't enough for the pressure vacuum, the Dalai Lama of actresses, Meryl Streep, also puts herself in the firing line. Lions for Lambs will have to live up to the incredible collective billing of its stars and hopefully demonstrate that it warrants the inevitable Oscar gossip surrounding it. A Redford directorial feature hasn't been hyped as much since his debut in the field 27 years ago with Ordinary People, the film which incidentally sabotaged Martin Scorsese's almost certain Best Director gong for Raging Bull.
To top it off the Sundance Kid is concerned that his film is being unfairly lumped in with several war movies coming to the silver screen this winter, though its combat scenes are secondary to the story. "I wanted to say to the studio, 'Don't make this about the war,'" he said in a long interview with the New York Times on a sizzling terrace. "It's not about the war. The war's catalytic, but it's not about that. It's bigger." Does this sound like a man worried about how audiences and critics will welcome his delicate oeuvre? Trying to mess people around with classic excuses/warnings such as "more intrinsic meanings are hidden in there" or "you're not supposed to read the film in that way" crop up all the time when powerful figures get cold feet.
The screenplay, by Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also wrote The Kingdom) loosely ties together three taut confrontations: A rising Republican senator (Cruise) tries to sell a new Afghan war strategy to a cynical Washington reporter (Streep); a university professor (Redford) tries to inspire a talented but political science student (Andrew Garfield); and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) try to survive a firefight on a snowy Afghan ridge.
Yet again the New York Times comes up with the juice from Redford:
"What attracted me to the film was: What are the subsurface factors that lead us to this same place, over and over again? Do you know that there are patterns of behaviour that have cost us dearly over time, and now are costing us more than at any time I remember? That are costing us every bit of respect we had on the world stage? When I look at the arc of my time, when I look at McCarthyism, when I was about 11 years old, and then Watergate, and Iran-contra, and now this - if you look at all those events, there's a thread running through them. The same sensibility: 'Winning is everything.' Power. And the consequences get greater and greater."
These days, Redford speaks and most people (in the filmgoing world) listen. We can have as many gimmicky special effects films as we want but sometimes good ol' fashioned sit down, shut-up, powerhouse acting on a relevant subject matter is just as, if not more, entertaining. Lions for Lambs is apparently harsh in its judgments of politicians, journalists, media conglomerates, young people - in short, everyone, except those who volunteer to fight for their country. In a few days time we will get to see if Redford and his A-List pals have anything of any merit to say in his feature film message/commentary on the situation in Afghanistan.
Thanks for reading, take care and be well.
Joel
