I think it's time to edit your banner graphic to include a still from this film, given the amount of time you've spent on it so far. Or at least add it as a category so we can read all syriana-related matter together.

I like talking about it. I wish more movies stimulated a high degree of discussion.

And Marco, in general I do agree with what you say about it, though I still don't think it's flawless in its critique- or I guess it would be more appropriate to say it attempts to portray moreso than critique, and does so with an uncommonly high-degree of success. But I like critique.

Are their any movies or TV shows made nowadays where you are not supposed to sympathize with a suicide bomber? And jon may made me laugh.

I think your analysis of Syriana's potency is correct, Marco. Although I think some viewers will see the movie twice. Ebert's review of the movie suggests that it is a "hyperlink" movie-- where the stories of individuals slowly bridge together to illuminate the many facets of a complex issue (a la the Drug Trade in Traffic).

I think it is more accurate to call the film an "exposure" movie with hyperlink style. What prevents an exposure movie from not being direct propaganda cloaked as exposure(think Farenheit 9/11) is how it humanizes
the characters. The movie gives people
the fuel and tools to think what they
want about a serious issue-- ultimately making the movie constructivist in learning orientation rather than didactic. In other words, I could have been an oil baron and walked out of the movie feeling satisfied and saying, "damn straight" when the idealists get blown up at the end.

In my opinion, calling it a hyperlink
movie demeans the film's educational,
intellectual value. A hyperlink is
merely a door to another place. Whether
you choose to click on it and walk through
is up to you. Maybe I've just contradicted
myself though. :)

> Are their any movies or TV shows made nowadays where you are not supposed to sympathize with a suicide bomber?

The O'Reilly Factor?

It seems to me that Oliver Stone could once make the type of movie you claim Syriana to be without trying to cover it up. Okay, he was pegged as a conspiracy theorist radical, but I believe his movies did well enough, despite the label. Is Gaghan trying to become another stone? Will his next work be more overt in this regard?

Except I think Slater is right in that Syriana is more constructivist than didactic -- unlike most Oliver Stone films.

I'm trying to understand the difference between the "didactic" Stone and the "constructivist" Gaghan and failing. When Stone says a big conspiracy was behind the jfk killing, is he being didactic? Only in that he is instructing you not to trust the government. Or in NBK, some muddled criticism on violence in the media and the hypocrisy of all parties is didactic in that it's instructing you to not take yourself so seriously? It's not like he's saying "vote democrat" the way Michael Moore clearly is. Stone is in my mind didactic only inasmuch as he wants the viewer to perhaps shake off the assumptions he assumes the viewer has made about his film subjects prior to viewing the film. Isn't that what Gaghan is doing too? Aren't they both didactic in the same way?

There could be more in stone that truly is Moore-style didactic that I'm just forgetting, since it's been a while. If so, please point it out.

I think that both Gaghan and Stone can be didactic, but not necessarily in the same way. First, let me just make clear that we're talking about Syriana Gaghan, and not Traffic Gaghan. Traffic's main fault was being overly didactic at times.

So the difference is that Stone isn't subtle. He is constantly hitting you over the head during his conspiracy films, and his judgment is never unknown. Syriana, on the hand, mostly forces the viewer to make his own conclusions. As Slater said:

"I could have been an oil baron and walked out of the movie feeling satisfied and saying, “damn straight” when the idealists get blown up at the end."

Does that mean that you believe the conclusions you list in your main post are yours and not Gaghan's? At first I thought the thrust of that part of your post was "Gaghan's really trying to make these points but he's keeping it hidden." But now it seems like you're agreeing with Slater and saying "I came away (the second time) with these conclusions but someone else might see it differently." I have a problem with the second one, because your conclusions seem pretty much like the facts as they were presented. A case could be made for some viewers taking the realpolitik approach to these facts ("yup, we're corrupt, but like the man says, that's the way it works") vs some taking the incendiary approach ("these oil men are ruining the world! we must stop them!"). The difference with Stone then is that while he would join in having the sympathizers still feel angry, he would want an oil baron upon viewing his version of Syriana to feel ashamed in no uncertain terms.

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

And the phrase "facts as they were presented" is meaningless to many people who saw the film, including myself the first time.

I think Gaghan knows that if he took the incendiary approach, his film would have been shrugged off as yet another moveon.org inspired hate-fest -- i.e., not worth the time of the thinking American or average Fox News viewer. But the film really is incendiary -- he just decided to bury it under the guise of a political intrigue film, something any Tom Clancy fan could enjoy.

I think the key though is that
the movie is probably not a feel
good movie for anyone. It did
not seem like a vindication to
my values or anyone elses. As
Ebert says in the beginning of
his review "The movie seems to
take sides, but take a step back
and look again. It finds all of the
players in the oil game corrupt and compromised."

On a different subject, I wonder
if there were ever plans to talk
in the film about the role of oil as a
pollutant and in comparison to other
energy sources. I guess that it would have been hard to have an environmentalist character connected to the plot in a
non-tangental way. Plus, that might have
taken emphasis away from the financial
aspect of oil's power.

But how is Clooney's character corrupt? He thinks he's fighting terrorism when he's assigned the Nasir job, but when he finds out the true motivation behind the assassination, i.e., for control of oil fields, he goes above and beyond his moral duty and attempts to warn the prince. Clooney's character was the most confusing for me to follow because the revelations in the film closely match his own, but in the end he comes out as the morally upstanding character. He's the crux of Gaghan's own beliefs, methinks.

Well, I think it depends how we
define corruption. Clooney's character
says something like "until now, I did
not need to ask questions about who I
am killing." In other words, he killed
because it was his job, not because
he was an avid believer in killing
terrorists. Although... he does seem
concerned about the rocket that he
sells in the beginning of the movie
that goes to the religious group. He
also has a shitty relationship with
his son (and probably wife). His son
says that he's full of shit. So has
he not been corrupted by the CIA?

I looked about George Clooney on the
IMDB, and he has made some interesting
film choices. He'd probably be a pretty
cool guy to have dinner with. Kudos
to George. Michael J. Fox would be
high on my list too after his performance
in Doc Hollywood. Or even James Belushi
for being so dynamite in Mr. Destiny.

yeah, he's not perfect. but are the traits you described corrupt? maybe he didn't ask questions because he believed the end results of his undercover operations were well-intended. that's naive, but not necessarily corrupt.

clooney: lee and i were saying the same thing the other day. he's one of the few stars that I would genuinely feel star-struck if I met him. and he's becoming more involved w/ vegas, opening up luxury condos. maybe we'll run into each other someday.

i think slater's got it. he IS concerned with morality throughout, but has until present allowed the US govt's judgment to substitute for individual moral choices in a mucky world. the whole disinterest in the rocket (going to terrorists) and the realization that his kills are being ordered for the good of corporations (rather than the free world) both hit him and he realizes his assumptions of state dept morality have been naive/incorrect - and he sets off to attempt to communicate this to Nasir in his final redemption.

That his son thinks he is a liar, again, I think is proof that he allows the good of the U.S. to take prominence even over his personal happiness (William Hurt: "Mussawi's a soldier on the ground, like you")- until he realizes the amorality of it all. I get the feeling that by the end, he would probably have a better relationship with his son, had he lived...

I'm glad we didn't have to see any
scenes of Bob reconciling with his
son. :) Maybe John Hughes could have
been used as a consultant. Sorry,
I apologize. I'm probably entertaining
myself more than anyone else.

When my mom was visiting me in LA, I was working at Universal and I brought her to the set of O Brother... Clooney was there and my Mom yelled out to him. He looked over and winked at her. As Borat would say: Nice!