Syriana
by Jason Godesky“Syriana” is a term that appears often in the briefings of certain neoconservative think tanks to describe, in director Stephen Gaghan’s words, “a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East,” though he said he used it more specifically to refer to “the fallacious dream that you can successfully remake nation-states in your own image.” The tribe’s been looking forward to this one for a while now, and if you’ve noticed a certain theme in the articles this week, it was largely a product of our anticipation. On Saturday, Mike, Giuli & I finally got to see it with our good friend, Jason Putorti. At its best, Syriana may help to wake up the willfully ignorant American public as to what its “non-negotiable … way of life” really costs. The film is being used in calls as environmental groups shift their message from cutting down on fossil fuels on envronmental concerns, to national security concerns. I remain skeptical that the film could live up to such a charge.
By far the most common complaint is that the movie was incredibly complicated. Other reviewers have called it “incomprehensible” and worse. Putorti & Giuli echoed that same refrain, though neither Mike nor I had no such problem. Perhaps they simply didn’t read my historico-philosophical primer, “Petroleum et Imperium Americanum“? Trying to understand those essentials for the first time while also puzzling out a Gaghan plot could make anyone’s head spin, but then again, I know Giuli understands the issues Syriana deals with, so perhaps it is simply because Mike and I love complex movies. Stephanie Zacharek’s review for Salon puts it well:
The seriousness of “Syriana” is its chief selling point; it’s a solemn, ruminative piece of work whose entertainment value — if that’s what you’re looking for — rests solely in the way its writer and director, Stephen Gaghan, keeps its multiple story lines clicking forward at once, sometimes swerving into one another, sometimes just chugging along on parallel tracks. This is a movie made for grown-ups. It doesn’t waste time or insult our intelligence with needless explication; it drops its crumbs of information scene by scene, always staying two or three steps ahead of us.
If Syriana’s “political thriller” cover is sufficient to put itself in front of the eyeballs that need to see it–and assuming those eyeballs are attached to brains quick enough to puzzle it out–it could have an enormously positive impact. That said, either of those conditions would be a minor miracle all on its own–asking for both seems more than a little far-fetched.
The plot of Syriana revolves around a merger of two fictional oil companies, because of the oil rights denied to a larger company by the reform-minded prince of an unnamed Persian Gulf emirate. It pulls in the Pakistani guest workers who are beaten by the cruel military and are pulled into the madrassah simply to have food to eat; it follows the CIA efforts to assassinate said prince in order to establish his more easily-manipulated brother; it features the Justice Department’s half-hearted investigation to pave the way for the merger; and it follows the energy analyst who, grieving for the death of his son, throws himself into the prince’s cause–on one level to hide away from his grief, and on another, to make some good out of such a tragedy. But there’s nothing good that comes out of Syriana; it is a movie about the true cost of our oil-based lives, and that cost is more terrible than most of us know.
A theme that I much appreciated was the movie’s materialism. A teacher at the madrassah fumes against the Westerners who say that their struggle is motivated by economic factors, or aimed against military despotism, rather than zeal for the Qu’ran. Our Pakistani guest workers nod agreeingly, but it was an empty stomach, not a burning heart, that brought them to the madrassah’s door. It was the indignity of a brutal beat-down, for warning an old man not to talk in line, that made them consider the possibility. At the same time, Matt Damon’s character, the aforementioned energy analyst, puts all the mechanations of the oil companies and the U.S. government in its proper, materialist perspective: “It’s running out. And 90 percent of what’s left is in the Middle East. This is a fight to the death.”
It’s not a world your average, red-blooded American is prepared to live in. It’s a world where a terrorist is as understandable as he is damnable, where companies are sociopathically self-interested, where the difference between a terrorist network and a nation-state is artificial at best, and where the American way of life is bought at the price of widespread suffering and oppression for much of the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, that’s the world we live in. Syriana tries to give average, red-blooded Americans a glimpse of that world, and a hint of what their way of life actually costs. I am deeply skeptical that it will succeed in that, however. The easiest secret to keep is the one that nobody wants to hear.
I’m deliberately not reading this one, but could you tell me if there are any spoilers? I’m planning to see it this weekend.
Comment by Raku — 12 December 2005 @ 11:42 AM
Kinda sorta not really (they’re all very general), but this might be the kind of movie where knowing the general shape of things going in might be helpful. All the critics are complaining that it’s too complicated. Mike & I didn’t think so, but Giuli & Putorti did.
In other news, surprise surprise, Jeff Vail liked it, too.
Our friendly neighborhood spook vouches for the realistic portrayal of the spook portions. 
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 December 2005 @ 11:45 AM
Of course, movies don’t really change anything. It seems to be common knowledge. There’s all kinds of references strewn throughout movies and popular culture about how evil the people running things are and how no one has any choice in the matter. The realities of the structure of life prevent any meaning impact of individual choice and any value judgement is basically irrelevant in deciding anything. This is from someone who was out in traffic with a sign when The Day After Tomorrow came out. I really thought it had a chance to change people’s minds.
Some of these red-blooded Americans might even believe that corruption keeps them safe and warm.
You think they would have talked about the peak specifically, but I guess they weren’t allowed.
I heard it also doesn’t relate the oil consumption to anything else, like all the lobbyists stopping conservation measures that necessitate all of this.
I also keep reading that if we increased fuel efficiency of automobiles just a little, not even as much as we could, that we wouldn’t need any of the oil in the Persian Gulf, but if 90% of the oil is in the Middle East, that doesn’t make sense.
People obviously aren’t really concerned about real national security anyway. The people who would are for Bush and seem not to care that the 9-11 Commission said he sucks on it.
The involvement of a certain agency in establishing Saddam in Iraq is also an interesting parallel. I think Iraq’s government was going to nationalize oil profits maybe before the Baathists were propped up. For some reason, that is not as ranted about among anti-Iraq War people when I think it is the most powerful argument.
Comment by planetwarming — 12 December 2005 @ 7:58 PM
Hmmmm … if the system is vile from top to bottom, then don’t you have a choice as to whether or not you’re going to remain a part of it? If nothing else, don’t I have a choice to reduce my oil consumption? To eat organic foods? To join my local food coop? To walk or ride a bike more often?
Asking a movie to change people’s minds and attitudes is a tall order. People only change their minds on that kind of scale when their entire society is ripped out from under them. No movie can change that.
People keep complaining about that, but the whole rationale for everything in the movie came down to, “It’s running out, and you have what’s left.” Note, “It’s running out.” Nobody sits down to give a lecture on the geophysics of Hubbert’s Peak, but the basic problem is the implied basis of everything in the movie.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 December 2005 @ 8:41 PM
I didn’t say the system is so vile from top to bottom. It’s pretty vile at the top. I’d like to get out of it. I have a choice in that I hope to go feral. But as a population, there isn’t a lot of ability to change things. Forces against people doing better things work against those who would try to also do it. Organic food is more expensive. Local coops aren’t everywhere. Supermarkets are. And advertised. They are inundated with advertisements. It’s the whole isolating thing of major mainstream accepted things. Why ride your bike when everyone else is not, and what are you changing, this one person? And there’s no bike paths and it’s dangerous and takes longer. And as in organic food, your money and time are important, so you want to squeeze as much of them as you can. You are working 40 hours a week. You want to replace your lost life time with stuff-quantity and quality-and get where you want now because you don’t have that much time and use what you have earned to get as much because you deserve it for giving up all that life time. You know sweatshops are horrible, but you aren’t going to change it.
Comment by planetwarming — 12 December 2005 @ 9:50 PM
Excellent post. I saw the movie on Fri the 9th when it came out and I loved it for its serious and deliberate approach to a complex and extremely relevant topic. Excellent post and great movie.
Comment by Greg — 12 December 2005 @ 9:59 PM
Didn’t say you said it, planet, I said it. It is vile, top to bottom. But that shouldn’t breed complacency; it should light a fire up under your ass to no longer be a part of it. Yes, doing the right thing costs you more. That’s why so few people do it. If you need your luxuries that much, you should know what others endure for your comfort. If you’re barely making ends meet even with the cheapness of evil, then maybe you should consider really bailing out–and rewilding, instead.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 12 December 2005 @ 10:41 PM
That is what I intend to do, but I know no one of my mindset, and I am going to have to work hard to seek them out. Because no one is out doing it now. I guess I have to go to primitive school to meet them, but will who I meet be guaranteed to go through it since previous primitive school graduates aren’t even doing it. I can’t do it alone.
Comment by planetwarming — 12 December 2005 @ 11:46 PM
Thinking that one particular movie will change the world is rather unlikely. I think what’s much more important to look at is trends in movies, and in the media in general. The movies we create are a reflection of our beliefs and values as a society. And our beliefs and values are, in turn, shaped by the movies we watch, the books we read, etc. Syriana itself might do quite a bit to educate people about the issues involved in the oil industry, but it’s probably not going to change society as we know it. On the other hand, a hundred Syrianas just might.
And interestingly enough, there does seem to be a trend in film moving toward Syriana-like movies. Just this year we’ve had The Constant Gardener, Lord of War, Jarhead, etc. All these films take a hard look at real issues facing society in a very gritty, realistic way. So I’m pretty happy with what film has done for us in recent years.
Comment by Mike Godesky — 13 December 2005 @ 11:28 AM
Much of that trend has been driven by Participant Productions, which was behind not only Syriana, but also Good Night, and Good Luck and North Country. Founded by Jeff Skoll, eBay’s first president, Participant’s “about page” gives me hope they’ll continue to push this trend:
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 December 2005 @ 11:35 AM
I’m with Giuli & Co about the film being complicated and a little hard to follow, but I thoroughly enjoyed it, and was impressed that they kept so much of the dialogue in the native languages, to great effect. I didn’t understand the torture sequence of George Clooney’s character, though - why the guy turned on him and why he was rescued. And I definitely plan on seeing the movie again to catch all the stuff I missed the first time around.
Comment by Raku — 19 December 2005 @ 11:18 AM
You do not see this movie, you feel it
Comment by Mideast — 19 February 2006 @ 1:40 AM
Overall liked the movie one part that did not ring true were the threats mentioned by George Clooney’s character to the Chrispher Plummer character as Clooney had nothing and was hung up to dry by the CIA and would have been totally neutered emasculated what ever way you want to put it to be rendered harmless. What big government and you can talk just about every major western power wants is for people to make things black and white us good them bad and by cynically controlling the media and television manipulate voters opinions. The film at least shows that things are much more complicated and that what is needed is a questioning voter who things more than just about their pocket.
Comment by roberto depor — 13 March 2006 @ 5:40 AM
I think the point there was that he still had CIA training. CIA agents are trained to be autonomous, operating with little to no backup. His network of contacts is his own. He’s used to doing these things solo, so a lack of institutional backup doesn’t change much for him in terms of his ability to hurt an individual.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 13 March 2006 @ 9:02 AM