« I Heart Huckabees | Main | Choosing Home »
December 14, 2005
Syriana
When I write about a film, I try to convey my experience in watching it without revealing too much of the plot. It smacks of elementary school book reports to waste time telling you all the characters' names, which actors play them, and how they're related. I also think it detracts from your viewing experience when a critic or trailer reveals any significant plot point past the first five minutes of the film.
So, I always suggest reading reviews after you see a film. Yet, for some reason, I'm still watching Ebert & Roepert on Sunday mornings. I guess I'm just having difficulty giving up the detritus of my past relationship.
In any event, in his written review of Syriana, Ebert tried really hard not to focus on the plot. He still gave away a plot point and introduced a bunch of characters.
I've been trying to sort out my own reaction to the film. I've decided I need to see it again. My viewing experience was simply too altered to give the movie the concentration it deserves. First, I saw it at the Davis Theater in Lincoln Square. They are slow as cold molasses in selling you a ticket and popcorn, so I missed the first few minutes of the movie. Plus, since I came in late, I took the first seat available - on the aisle by the door. Found out that the reason I could see the seat wasn't because I had opened the door but because the Emergency Exit sign would keep me and my seat illuminated throughout the film. And for some reason, my fellow movie-goers decided to walk in and out of the theater endlessly during the film. So I could often hear The Chronicles of Narnia playing next door, which completely distracted me.
I agree with Roger on this:
The more you describe it, the more you miss the point. It is not a linear progression from problem to solution. It is all problem. The audience enjoys the process, not the progress. We're like athletes who get so wrapped up in the game we forget about the score.Except since my viewing experience didn't allow me to fully engage in the process of the movie, I was left grasping for straws. In some ways, I feel like the frame of the movie (which Roger calls "hyperlink movies" and which was described by the NYT several Sundays ago) is over down. It's a cliche even though there aren't that many multiple story movies. Does it really make for a better movie to make the plot so complex it would take multiple viewings to sort it all out? It's true that politics are best left as complicated on screen as they are in real life, but does that make for an enjoyable viewing experience? I think it does when the film isn't too preachy. Preachy movies only appeal to the choir. I think Syriana is an intriguing look at the reality of the world that doesn't try to Push Down Your Throat A Message, which in some ways is what Traffic did. At the same time it is completely devoid of environmental crusaders and there are no important women in its world. Perhaps tree huggers and women don't play a crucial role in the interaction between China, the US, and the Middle East. Perhaps tree huggers and women aren't intimately involved in the world of oil. But I think they are and I wish they were better represented in this film.
Posted by cj at December 14, 2005 11:06 AM