In class, we talked a lot about how father-son/family issues
connected the characters of Syriana. Although this is true, we didn’t talk very
much about the characters’ moral struggles that unite them.
At the beginning of the movie, all of the characters seem
like normal guys facing normal problems. They have jobs, they have families, and
they have lives. But once we get deeper into the movie, the characters become
more complex. Wasim loses his job. Barnes seems to be on the brink of losing
his. Woodman is offered a new job, but loses a son in the process. And Bennett
is facing a tough task at work.
As we continue further into the movie, the lives of these
men start to develop into focus: as
their situations change, they are all facing new challenges. Wasim struggles
with ways of coping with his job loss and his father’s impotence. At first he
reacts with frustration, which turns to desperation. Finally, as the movie
reaches its climax, he is struggling with the idea of violence. When Wasim’s
friend says that the two boys will be able to help their families out after
going through with the plans, he seems unsure. Barnes, whose first plan to
assassinate Nassir was to put him in a car and stage a car crash, seems more
compassionate toward the end of the movie. As the film draws to a close, he is
desperately trying to intercept Nassir’s convoy and warn him of his imminent
assassination. Woodman struggles throughout the movie with the problem of
working for the man his wife perceives as killing their son. However, he also
struggles with a subtler problem: is it
amoral to work for a man who is cynical of your home country? And finally,
Holiday’s moral struggle is set in the corporate world. He finds it harder and
harder throughout the film to keep his nose clean, as his bosses try to
convince him to get involved in corporate corruption.
The director of the film had said his intent for the movie
was to show how people of different backgrounds, living halfway across the
world are all connected. Keeping the characters’ moral struggles and family
problems in mind, he seems to have done this. But is the method of connecting
the characters in more concrete ways as effective, or does it cause confusion?
In other words, was it as easy to keep straight who was trying to kill whom,
who was angry with whom, who had ties to what group? In my opinion, the
comparisons made through characterization were more effective than those that
were revealed through the plot, because the plotline was complex and difficult
to follow. Any thoughts?
I absolutely agree. To be honest, I even watched this film in my native language and still did not get it. Meaning I understood the overall plot and the main ideas, however, I think the director made it much more complex than it needed to be. He could have certainly made it easier to follow but he chose the harder way. I liked the film, but was very confused at times because I was not sure who was whose enemy, and who was whose friend just because it kept moving from one character to another. It was tough to connect the dots until at the very end where everything seems to settle down and we start to get the just idea of the film. Overall, great film and it definately shows the many hardships that society faces every day! As to a solution to these? I do not think the film really gives us any room for such assumptions. However, it clearly shows that globalization, as it brings everyone closer and makes the world even smaller, certainly is not avoidable and we, wheather or not want to, are forced to be part of it. It is an ongoing process that pulls us all in and there is no way back.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the director accomplished the goal of interconnecting the different lives of the men in the movie. He may have done so in a complicated way that's difficult to understand, but theres nothing simple about politics and life and it seems he wanted to make a statement. The roles he illustrated in his movie were complex, and so were their relationships. I remember thinking in the beginning of the movie, "How is he going to tie these characters together?" That kept me on my toes and made me analyze the characters in greater detail. I don't want to diminish the effectiveness of the comparisons of characters, as you stated, but it seems if he made it too simple than it would lose some it's power to describe the situations in which these characters lived.
ReplyDeleteLike Ana I had a hard time keeping track of who was whose enemy and friend throughout the movie. The hardest story to keep tabs on for me was Holiday's. I think it was because from the beginning it wasn't spelled out exactly what he was trying to accomplish and who he was working for. As an audience we can look at the complexity in two ways: 1) The director was trying to show that people are connected half way across the world but they are connected in complex ways..hence the complexity of the story line, or 2) The only way to fit all of the story lines in was to be complex. For me it was a mixture of the two.
ReplyDeleteIn class I think we mentioned how it was difficult to get to know the characters on a personal level because there was so much going on. This is my main critique of the movie. There was no time for the characters to build credibility with the audience. It was difficult to feel for them because I felt like I didn't know them. In movies similar to this that have multiple story lines like Crash I didn't have this sentiment. Crash's theme of racism and the melting pot of America was more relatable to me so I think that is why that is why I was able to enjoy it and feel for the characters. With Syriana it was difficult to relate to any of the characters. The ending scenes when Matt Damon finally comes home and they are packing up Barnes's desk was the only point in the movie where I felt I was somewhat connected to them.
I think a lot of Mike's comment's also connect to Arundhati Roy's "Come September" speech. She opens by analyzing the relationship between power and powerlessness which I find extremely relevant to Syriana. Wasim was very powerless in losing his job and the oil company had all the power. Barnes was powerless in the sense that he was basically a pawn for the CIA, even though he had the illusion of power. Woodman was powerless after losing his son and works for the Emir in an attempt to regain power. Holiday was powerless to his father's drinking problem.
ReplyDeleteRoy says she is looking at the results of the excesses of power. In Syriana, Wasim's terrorist actions can be connected to the oil companies excesses. Holiday's job is based on excesses, looking for deals that were made in the merger of the oil companies. I think that there are many connections that can be made among the various plot-lines in addition to the father/son relationship. The ability to analyze and connect the different story-lines gives some validity to the confusing nature of the film.