Syriana
It was hard to tell what the point of this movie was, other than a oblique insinuation that Big Oil is evil. I had great doubts about the movie based on its popularity at the Academy Awards.
One of the nexus scenes, in which out of favor CIA agent "Bob" tries to interrupt the assassination on the forign minister of a Middle Eastern country, fundamentally makes no sense due to several nagging unanswered questions, foremost: how did he know that the assassination was scheduled, how did he find the minister's entourage at exactly the right time by driving around in the desert? Presumably, if he just wanted to warn the minister of a general threat, he could have sone so much more subtley.
Aside from the plot flaws, I want to consider the implications of this movie, or more specifically, what this movie implies. My friends often chastise me for taking movies too seriously. On the contrary, I don't take them too seriously, rather I in fact have several good reasons not to take them seriously.
The Academy and magazines like Time take the movie seriously, and I think that should be challenged. To whit, per the movie box, Richard Corliss from Time describes the movie as an "engrossing, insider's tour of the world's hottest spots, grandest schemes and most dangerous men." I question Richard Corliss' ability to know what constitutes an insider's tour because I doubt that he is an insider in the world's hottest spots.
Nevertheless, if we are to assume that Syriana is an insider's tour, what do we learn about what is happening on "the inside"?
1. The CIA conducts assassinations of world leaders.
2. The CIA has no loyalty to its operatives and will disgrace them when convenient.
3. The CIA takes its marching orders from Big Oil interests.
4. The CIA has a cooperative relationship with Hezbollah.
5. The biggest impediment to oil rich countries using their riches to improve the living conditions and political freedoms of their people is the President fo the United States' pressure to perserve jobs in Texas. Islamic religious leaders who demand a theocratic state based on socially restrictive interpretations of Islam are not shown to be a limitation. Historic interracial violence is also not shown to be a factor. Just American greed.
One of the nexus scenes, in which out of favor CIA agent "Bob" tries to interrupt the assassination on the forign minister of a Middle Eastern country, fundamentally makes no sense due to several nagging unanswered questions, foremost: how did he know that the assassination was scheduled, how did he find the minister's entourage at exactly the right time by driving around in the desert? Presumably, if he just wanted to warn the minister of a general threat, he could have sone so much more subtley.
Aside from the plot flaws, I want to consider the implications of this movie, or more specifically, what this movie implies. My friends often chastise me for taking movies too seriously. On the contrary, I don't take them too seriously, rather I in fact have several good reasons not to take them seriously.
The Academy and magazines like Time take the movie seriously, and I think that should be challenged. To whit, per the movie box, Richard Corliss from Time describes the movie as an "engrossing, insider's tour of the world's hottest spots, grandest schemes and most dangerous men." I question Richard Corliss' ability to know what constitutes an insider's tour because I doubt that he is an insider in the world's hottest spots.
Nevertheless, if we are to assume that Syriana is an insider's tour, what do we learn about what is happening on "the inside"?
1. The CIA conducts assassinations of world leaders.
2. The CIA has no loyalty to its operatives and will disgrace them when convenient.
3. The CIA takes its marching orders from Big Oil interests.
4. The CIA has a cooperative relationship with Hezbollah.
5. The biggest impediment to oil rich countries using their riches to improve the living conditions and political freedoms of their people is the President fo the United States' pressure to perserve jobs in Texas. Islamic religious leaders who demand a theocratic state based on socially restrictive interpretations of Islam are not shown to be a limitation. Historic interracial violence is also not shown to be a factor. Just American greed.
posted by Fenian Fox | 3:55 PM
1 Comments:
I saw the movie and while I hardly ever take movies seriously I think you first need to read the book which inspired it. The name of the book is See No Evil by Robert Baer who is an ex-cia case officer in the Directorate of Operations. The book traces his career through the CIA and in such hotspots as Lebanon, Iraq. The book gives you a pretty good feel for what it was for him to be a CIA agent at the time, through his decision to quit the agency.
The book itself describes the many players (i.e. lobbyists) in Washington and how they affect our policies toward the Middle East, particularly in how we craft our own policies to suit specific corporate interests many times at the expense of our own security.
The scene they show in the movie over the CIA's relationship with Hezbollah is actually very close to reality. To go into Lebanon, particularly southern Lebanon, any intelligence service will need the approval of Hezbollah or else risk being killed by them. They control much of the territory and the population is close knit enough that they would know any outsiders immediately. The Clooney character hence had to request Hezbollah permission to enter its territory and Hezbollah granted protection to him. The scene where the Hezbollah agent comes in to where Clooney is being tortured and puts a stop to it by stating he is under Hezbollah's protection is also true to form. In the area, in order to operate effectively you need to keep your promises. As such, honor is extremely important, particularly for an organization such as Hezbollah, for that is how they keep their allies and gain legitimacy with the population.
The whole point (though exaggerated in the movie about the disloyalty of the CIA to its operatives is something that Baer talks about in his book. He recounts how he crossed specific corporate interests in their attempt to push a policy on the US government and how they in turn got their people at CIA to sideline him.
The biggest impediment to oil rich countries using their riches to improve the living conditions and political freedoms of their people is the President fo the United States' pressure to perserve jobs in Texas.
No. That is not what the movie is saying. Rather it is pointing to the fact that many times we choose the expedient choice, or that that benefits corporate interests in the short term (such as picking the numbskull as the heir leaving the Oxford grad in the dust in the movie). This is what keeps those governments as oppressive and backwards and in turn fuels the extremism we are fighting. Keep the incompetent, corrupt leadership in power and they will oppress opposition to their rule and encourage Muslim hate speech against Israel, the US and infidels.
Post a Comment
<< Home