Reflection: Lions for Lambs

While I tend to have anti-political and anti-war leanings, I found Robert Redford's "Lions for Lambs" surprisingly entertaining. Whether or not my love of Tom Cruise and Andrew Garfield (both of whom were exceptional, as always) was responsible for this reaction is still to be seen, but I suspect it only contributed to, and did not substantiate, it. I was particularly moved by Cruise's character, an up and coming senator with eyes on the presidency, and the language he repeatedly used - victory and winning, it seemed, were the only things on his mind. Even with his own military background in Intelligence, specifically, he did not seem particularly affected by the potential loss of troops, satisfied only by a win, "no matter the cost," and with "whatever it takes," as his mantras. Meanwhile, Garfield's character, a college student, served as a sort of foil to the cunning senator as a somewhat cynical student of political science who easily saw politics as it was and still is, today, and not as it appeared and still appears, today. The balance between the Cruise and Garfield perspectives, especially, illustrated quite clearly - and quite cleverly, in my opinion - a difference in the political mind from generation to generation, with Redford's own character - Garfield's college professor - serving as another generational gap, as his character was the senior-most of the group and, to a certain extent, the wisest as well. While at least somewhat stereotypical, Redford manages to capture a broad understanding of basic political thought from a variety of sources and perspectives throughout the film, which was no small feat. I certainly enjoyed it.