Syriana, anyone?

[question everything]

I think that the movie pointed our correctly that the presence of oil in the Middle East, especially in undemocratic countries is really the base of all evil, both internationally and nationally.

Certainly the fact that Bush I, Bush II and Cheney are oil men and ended up running this country is no mistake.

Would like to ask some questions, whiteout spoiling for the ones who did not see it yet, but want to. So if you have seen the movie, please post your thoughts.

If you don't want spoilers - a fair warning.

And... it is not surprising that the rabid right see George Clooney is the "liberal de jour from Hollywood to hate."

[dusmcj]

1. bitchen flick, not too "Upbeat" or "Positive" though

but then those are the opiates the cornservatives push on us. Seemed pretty much on the mark.

[noahmijo]

7. I tell people it's not entertaining at all

It's a movie that makes you the fly on the wall of crooked execs meeting and also a very private glimpse into how the middle east is affected by American oilmen who want what they sit on-both from the middle easterners who willfully comply and those who do not like the idea of their government complying.

So not entertaining in the sense where you go to a movie to find a plot, ect it's just more of a you're thrust into the middle of all these real life situations to see the outcome.

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. I liked it; want to read the book now for further info on the characters.

The ending defined the term "blow-back".

[Quixote1818]

3. How much of the movie was true? Did the CIA really assassinate

that Arab who was going to sell Oil to China? Was that added to make the movie more interesting?

Very good movie!

[question everything]

23. I would think that nothing in the movie is really true

I am not aware of any prince wanting to sell oil to China and China only recently started showing interest in oil.

But clearly these are composites of real events. We know that the CIA has been involved in many internal politics across the globe and its first involvement, I think, was in Iran in 1965, I think, with Mosadegh (I know that I am misspelling this). I think that he wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil - the way Egypt's Nasser did 10 years later. Perhaps others can elaborate.

But it was the Brits that started with this game... once their empire was gone, the U.S. tried to fill their shoes.

[Quixote1818]

29. I had heard that the CIA agent was a real person

so when I went into the movie I thought it was based on a true story. I must have missed something their.

[MountainLaurel]

32. You are right

The movie was based on the book See No Evil by Bob Baer.

[cascadiance]

33. You look at the threats to Chavez...

... and you understand what's at stake here too. As Jack Perkins highlighted in his book, there are many other suspicious "outings" of "non-compliant" leaders like Mossadegh and Torrijos in Panama that look very suspiciously like our hands have been in those pies.

[question everything]

34. OOps, Mosadegh was neutralized around 1956

not 1965.. And I am not sure whether he was killed or jusst "fell from grace."

[leftofthedial]

4. I thought it was an outstanding movie

it presented a complex situation as clearly as anything I've seen

it avoided hyperbole

other than Clooney, there were no real "good" guys

it gave the corporatist oil guy the longest speech in the movie to articulate his rationale for being an evil mofo (Tim Blake Nelson--the Danny Dalton character--his monologue on corruption was truly memorable IMHO)

Most Murkans just sort of glaze over when you start trying to fill them in on the geo-corporate-political issues in the Middle East. They'd prefer to just think of pretty much the whole region as a bunch of crazy savage heathen fanatics. This movie made it personal.

This is my favorite of the recent movies.

[Quixote1818]

5. The black lawyers Dad was a good guy wasn't he?

I am just remembering the part where he walked away from his son knowing what he did.

[leftofthedial]

9. except for the hardcore alcoholism

he was a good guy

he definitely had the conscience his son lacked

[BeHereNow]

10. I think he represented the "Average American"

in a metaphorical sense-
Beat down and self medicating in despair.
My 2 cents on that character anyway...
BHN

[leftofthedial]

12. I think you are right

the numbed conscience of America

[fishwax]

13. i agree on the danny dalton speech

that was great stuff. I thought the movie as a whole was outstanding. I liked the way it slow-played making connections, and I think it definitely is worth a second viewing to uncover even more of interest ...

[Gloria]

6. Everyone "turned" ....it was an amazing picture....

I read some reviews and found Roger Ebert's especially good...very good indeed, and he raised even more questions....

[BeHereNow]

8. Best. Movie. Yet.

Too bad so many people will not
begin to understand what it reveals
about US led corporate hegemony
and what it means to their future.
Anymore questions?
BHN

[Neil Lisst]

11. It's difficult to follow unless you really know the subject.

Even then, it's purposefully confusing. But you get the guts of it - that very bad men who prize access to oil make shady deals with entrenched leaders from royal families, while the ranks of the unemployed and unhopeful feed the terror ranks.

I think it's like Memento. It must be seen at home and several times to fully appreciate.

[question everything]

16. Yes, I agree that it requires multiple viewing

I read Roger Ebert's review where he claimed that one should be surrounded by the events and not try to follow them in any kind of logic.

But it was hard. And with so many faces. I think that it was toward the end, when the old King told his more progressive son that he chose the second son to succeed him, that the earlier meeting with Mr. Whiting - Christopher Plummer - felt into place.

It was not clear to me why Bob - Clooney - was sent to Beirut. Was he really supposed to have killed the prince or was he sent to a trap?

And it was hard for me to keep on who is who. For example, my spouse thought that the two lawyers were employed by one of the oil company but I really had to read the reviews to understand that they were supposed to have been independent lawyers.

And when the head of Killen - Chris Cooper - told the Jeffrey Wright character that there was someone "high in his company" I did not think he had his immediate boss in mind. Perhaps he did not, but it was him nonetheless that took the fall. When they were riding the elevator to meet the head of the oil company - Leland something who later was honored - I thought that he was the one going to be indicted.

And I did not understand why the Matt Damon character called someone on the phone to say that "it is going to happen now." Since when do you advertise a coup? So I wonder whether he was a double crosser. Especially since he suggested the prince moved to a different SUV.

Yes, oil in the Middle East is the source of everything that had happened there and I could not help noticing that even if Israel never existed, that the outcome would be the same. Indeed, many of these kingdom and other rulers that came to be after WWI have been using Israel as a diversion from the misery that their people suffer.

And it showed how so many poor, wretched youth are attracted to the madrassas - the religious schools - where at least they could be fed and clothed and not subjected to harassments and deportation.

And I was thinking how the families of the rulers certainly like all the goods that money can buy. We know that families of kings and princes from the Persian Gulf would take over a whole floor of a hotel with tens of thousands of dollars spent lavishly.

I also wondered how the Clooney character even knew about the proposed assassination.

Last, I don't remember the word Syriana ever mentioned.

A lot of questions.

[Scout1071]

21. Great points. I just got home from the movie and have several

of the same questions. I'll wait for DVD, but I'd like to see it again.

[Neil Lisst]

36. Christopher Plummer was James Baker.

The character Clooney played was typical of the shady former CIA types who are used as operatives, and can be used as disposable when needed.

I felt that the ending sucked hard. It had too much Hollywood convenience. First of all, the Clooney character never gets out of his SUV alive if he comes barreling across the desert. He certainly never sees the Prince face to face before the missle hits. Second, the Matt Damon character is handcuffed, taken back to the Saudi prison, and tortured until they know he had nothing to do with it.

It had many plot holes, but the ending was simply too much Hollywood. I don't doubt the missle attack, but the things I mentioned above would have made the film end realistically.

[cascadiance]

25. Yup, I made the mistake of watching the late screening...

... when i was tired, and I fell asleep for a big chunk in the middle and was dropping off near the end. Other movies you might be able to do that and get something out of it, but this movie is way too complex to miss any part of it methinks. I read some reviews that criticized it as being a bit too complex in subplots, etc. too. I'll have to see it again sometime when I'm a lot more alert and rested.

[fishwax]

14. definitely worth a second viewing

i loved the way it slowly built the independent story lines, leaving the viewer to establish possible connections, forcing thought/critical engagement, etc. ... all the acting was top notch, i thought, with chris cooper and the danny dalton guy standing out especially. I plan to buy it on DVD so I can watch it a few more times, and hope to read the book at some point ...

[Pithy Cherub]

15. An outstanding film that pulls no punches on

the ass kissing, butt covering, watching other people be asses of real life. The corporate meetings were very realistically done, the corruption motives exposed for the wealth and power and the realization that everyone can be ethically challenged to some degree. The Arab who wanted change for the common good and Clooney were the mostly good guys. Each person suffered mightily for doing good. It is not a feel good movie because you see the evils of humankind displayed and can correlate it immediately to real life.

The Siskel & Ropert (especially him) guys think it is a masterpiece of filmwork.

[question everything]

24. You do mean Ebert and Roper right?

I know, I know. Poor Gene Siskel died 10 years ago, I think, but I still refer to the program as Siskel and Ebert when it is time to turn the TV... :(

[Pithy Cherub]

30. Whoops, not a big entertainment show watcher...

:(

[Terran1212]

17. Listen to AIR AMERICA NOW!!

Exxon guy and MAIN John Perkins discussing the validity of the movie.

[stop the bleeding]

18. Can not turn on radio right now, could you summarize I did see the

movie and would like to hear what these people are saying.

[Terran1212]

19. The Host's father is an Exxon employee, and ...

The Exxon guy came on to say that Syriana's premise was fictional. John Perkins, author of confessions of an economic hitman, was also on.

He worked through the late 20th century as what he called an "economic hitman." He says he's analogous to both Matt Damon and Clooney in the movie.

Anyway they debated over oil and politics.

[stop the bleeding]

20. Thank you and I have seen Perkins on Democracy Now before, what

an eye opening story his book is. Thanks for the update.

[cascadiance]

27. Yup, Perkins' book definitely drew me to watching this movie...

It does seem to be quite related, though as I noted in another post in this thread, I made the mistake of trying to watch this movie while too tired to stay awake through the whole thing. "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" is definitely a good read for those who liked this movie. I'm also trying to get my hands on "The World is Flat" to read soon too, which talks a lot about globalization.

[MamaBear]

22. My Question

if we had left the people of the Middle East be to chart their own destinies, control and sell their own resources, and control the proceeds, would the Madrassas exist? I don't think so, they would be unnecessary.

When the cleric argues that everything has failed these young men, everything but the one thing they haven't really totally given themselves to -- the Koran -- it becomes a difficult argument to refute.

I found the movie very gripping, and went back for a second look. Knowing the end in the beginning makes the series of events easier to follow and easier to at least begin to interpret.

I think this is an important film. The "corruption keeps us safe and warm" speech belongs with the "Greed is good" speech from Wall Street.

[The Stranger]

26. More than important, this movie is the second most important thing

that everyone should be viewing at this moment.

[question everything]

28. Good question

Yes, we - really the British and Churchill - should have left the people there alone. It was Churchill who drew the map of Iraq, forcing three ethnic groups together and tearing the oil rich province of Kuwait. This is why Saddam invaded it in the first place in 1990.

And it was the British that made conflicting promises to different groups during WWI and then, with the French, carved the Ottoman Empire into areas of influence. Thus, when the British put a king on Syria then had to move him to Iraq when Syria became a French influence, they planted the seeds of mistrust of the West in Iraq.

On the other hand, we do have globalization. U.S. movies and songs and culture have spread all over. Young people love the rock 'n roll music, love technologies while their elders frown on that. This generational clash happens all over, including in immigrant communities in this country.

So it is easy to blame "America" for the "immoral" behavior of the young generation, and it is easy, when things are bad, to fall back on religion.

I remember the revolution in Iran in 1978. Yes, the Shah was a cruel monarch, but it was a modern country. Like Saddam's Iraq, it did provide equal rights to women. So it is hard to accept the fact that so many women deliberately choose life behind the veil and that shapeless black cover. On the other hand, there are women in this country that choose to be "taken care" by their men.

The sad reality about the foreign policy of this country has been that it chose to support corrupt absolute regimes that kept their countries in line and could deliver whatever they promised... until they were deposed, together with any goodwill toward the U.S.

Wouldn't it have been nice if, together with modern music and movies and technology we exported democracy and pluralism? Yes, sounds almost like Bush, except that in Iraq we will eventually have a theocracy. Because the religious leaders were oppressed under Saddam and thus offer an only viable alternative to his rule.

[MamaBear]

35. I'm beginning to believe ...

I'm beginning to believe that the only true export of the United States has been corporate hegemony.

Oh, and the Beach Boys. :)

I remember learning the words "follow the money" sometime during the Nixon scandals. I'm learning that when Danny Dalton says that "corruption keeps us safe and warm," he's not kidding.

If the people who run the place are going to behave like that, I only wish they would be up front about it, and forget the "spreading democracy" or "fighting ____________ism" (insert the *ism* du jour) bull. Now that they've got the voting technology they always wished for, maybe they'll at least be a bit more forthcoming about why our country really starts and supports wars all over the globe.

Because they want to control the sugar, the gold, the copper, the uranium, the oil. It's just so sad.

As far as the Iranian women go, according to some friends who left around the time of the revolution, there are people in Iran just like there are people here who think it's okay to give up some freedom in exchange for a lot of security. And there are some very devout people there who are strongly influenced by their local and regional clerics.

The Shah of Iran, although he did institute some Westernization, was basically a CIA puppet. It didn't matter a whit to him whether the women were covered or not. But his secret police (SAVAK) were, with his blessing, brutal and relentless in going after political "enemies," who may have just been guilty of some sharp business practices, and pissing off the wrong people.

The irony is that the Revolutionary Guards moved right in (especially in the Evin Prison in Teheran), picked up the tools the retreating SAVAK people had left behind, and continued the tradition of torture, murder (well, "execution"), and rape.

I think for all this the United States government (and its business pals) deserves some measure of responsibility. Humans seem to be corrputible by nature, but it seems like Western business is pretty hot to take advantage.

Oh well. End of rant.

[killbotfactory]

31. watch the Charlie Rose interview with the director

He said that some of what he overheard while being in the presence of so many people in the business couldn't be put in the film because it would seem too outlandish. He talks of overthrowing countries, staying out of small planes, meeting the spiritual leader of Hezbollah... interesting stuff.

I found a video of it at www.chomskytorrents.org