by Frank Calvillo
This week, Tom Cruise gets to play make believe with his favorite classic television show in Mission: Impossible-Rogue Nation. The film features a new adventure, new director, and new action sequences with Cruise once again slipping into what has to be one of his favorite on-screen personas: Ethan Hunt.
I think the reason most people respond so well to this film series is because it’s free from the pressures of any kind of legacy like James Bond, and it doesn’t lose itself in the type of unnecessary seriousness like the Bourne films. Its just all out fun. Though because its so much fun, and because the role of Ethan Hunt has come to greatly define the kind of actor Cruise is, some are quick to overlook his often underrated acting abilities in projects which don’t feature so many explosions.
One such time was 2007’s intense Robert Redford-directed political drama Lions for Lambs, which saw Cruise, Redford, and Meryl Streep in a multi-strand narrative about the war on terror and its effect on the current American culture.
In Lions for Lambs, California political science professor Stephen (Robert Redford) tries to instill motivation into apathetic college student Todd (Andrew Garfield), while in Washington, seasoned journalist Janine (Meryl Streep) has been granted an interview with Senator Irving (Cruise), who is about to execute a new plan of action in Iraq which will have great effect on Lt. Col. Falco (Peter Berg) and his stationed soldiers Ernest (Michael Pena) and Arian (Derek Luke).
Multi-strand narratives are always tricky prospects because the task of juggling different stories and making them and their characters equally compelling is nothing short of challenging. Yet as director, Redford has laid out the film’s architecture in such a well-managed way that no storyline is given more time or importance over the other. The mark of any well-made film of this kind is whether or not each plotline could exist as its own short film, and the ones in Lions for Lambs certainly can with great dialogue and scenes which subtly tie up all remaining questions.
This is just as true for the characters, none of which are shortchanged in the slightest by any other. While some are played by stars and others by character actors, each individual presented on the screen rings as a true person who embodies the heart, soul, and sensibility of the type of real life counterpart they are portraying.
It should be plainly obvious that the work from the cast is superb. A role like this is a gimmie for Redford who wonderfully echoes an older generation’s frustrations towards the youth and society of today. The supporting cast likewise brings their all as Pena and Luke show incredibile chemistry while Berg manages both toughness and humanity as their commander. Garfield meanwhile shines in his first major Hollywood film, perfectly capturing the sensibility of the American young person who finds little reason to care about the world around him.
Though from an acting standpoint, there’s no greater, or more unorthodox, pair of scene partners than Streep and Cruise. The actress beautifully displays her character’s worries and doubts sans dialogue through looks and gestures. As the aging reporter, Streep nails Janine’s conflicting feelings between reporting on a story she doesn’t believe in and fears over her own future.
She is equally matched by Cruise, who balances the charismatic nuances of every successful politician with a no holds barred attitude towards “the enemy.” The actor makes Irving a man driven by the good of his country (or rather, his own view of good) and by his own career aspirations. It’s great watching Cruise switch from charm to seriousness in no time at all and serves as a reminder of what a capable actor he can be.
Despite its starry leads, Lions for Lambs must have made executives nervous because of its decidedly uncommercial subject matter. This is a film which forces its audience to seriously look at the shape of themselves and their country and pay attention. The eternal struggle of true allegiance desperately trying to combat modern-day apathy, the idea of the American dream in the 21st century, and the questioning of how to win the war on terror are all presented in a sharp and straightforward manner.
I find it brilliant and enlivening that a film like this was made and released on such a grand scale rather than be resigned to indiehood. Each issue in Lions for Lambs is an important and valid one. From the type of stories journalists deem as news to the type of political climbing that is all too real, these are issues that are easy for an increasingly large number of people to ignore. As a result, what better way to have people face them than by plastering them on the big screen and having Tom Cruise discuss them?
Apparently, as Lions for Lambs’ only so-so box office take proved, it wasn’t the best way. The film’s lack of profitable returns were compounded by a slew of negative reviews, most of which criticized the film for a stance many felt was a bit self-righteous.
Yet Lions for Lambs doesn’t feel all that preachy, nor does it chastise the audience watching it. Instead, the film plays as an act of genuine care for the country and its people. As well as, for better or worse, a document of 2007’s America and those who inhabited it. It may not be the most popcorn film of Cruise’s career, but anyone who dares to actually watch and listen to Lions for Lambs, will see nothing but concern and truth throughout.
