Dominatio Per Malum

Syriana (2005) 3/10

Halfway through Syriana, i was still wondering exactly what the plot is about. I was also wondering who half the people in the film are, what are their names and why are they in the scene. This review is so spot-on on everything that is wrong with Syriana that i’m going to quote it:

“Didactic and muddled to the point of incoherence, Stephen Gaghan’s Syriana is a two hour-plus lecture on the corruption of the American oil industry so wrapped up in its own Byzantine narrative logic that one quickly finds it near-impossible to make heads or tails of who’s who, who’s doing what and for what reason, and why any of it matters.”

Actually i do understand some of the plot, but the one about the conspiracy between Killen and Connex oil companies flew over my head. I know there is something fishy going on, but what? The remainder of the review will be spoilers, be warned.

SPOILERS

Ok, there are several distinct character arcs, which i will list out and try to anaylze just to make the film more comprehensible, in case you are as muddled as me. I’ve watched my share of confusing editing (21 Grams), multiple characters who seek to confuse you so that you can’t tell one apart from the other (Gosford Park), totally ambiguous endings (Donnie Darko) or just plain mindfucks (Mulholland Drive). Not surprisingly, i either like them intensely (21 Grams, Donnie Darko) or hated them (Gosford Park, Mulholland Drive). Syriana ranks with the best of them on the confusing meter. The setting jumps around, from Iran to Switzerland to USA. Some of the plotlines are digestible, namely the one about the young Pakistani youth who turns to extremism and the Matt Damon-Prince Nasir(Alexander Siddig), plot. Then there is the one i sorta understand, the George Clooney plot. And finally the one that flew over my head, the Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) plot that deals with the Killen-Connex Oil conspiracy.

First, we look at the young Pakistan guy who loses his job and turns to extremism plot. When we are first introduced to this character, the faint suspicion that this will eventually develop into a “suicide bomber” plotline emerged. True enough, by the halfway or so mark when we see the kid with the anti-West religious teacher and him getting a rocket launcher (or at least it looks like a rocket launcher), i could predict some melodramatic ending which ends with him on some suicide mission with the requisite slow-mo movements and emotional background music. Guess what, i was more or less right, although the manner in which the suicide occurs did surprise me. The question is, why did they have to ram the boat to the ship (or offshore platform)? Couldn’t they have um, fired the rocket launcher??? Anyway, i was not impressed by this plotline because (1) it was too predictable (2) the characters are given a superficial treatment. We see some of their problems (unemployment) but we do not really get to see the reason why they are indoctrinated into the extremist fold beyond a few shots that set up the situation.

The second plotline is more interesting and the most comprehensible: Matt Damon and Prince Nasir. Alright, the death of Damon’s son is tad too coincidental, like the whole pool is empty when the lights are on and Damon’s son is the first to get in??? Also, Damon’s character seems to be nothing more than a device for Nasir to spell out his democratic/progressive hopes. Damon is initially disdainful of Nasir but soon becomes sort of an advisor to Nasir, and this development is most contrived to say the least. Beyond a few scenes that attempt to convey Damon’s grief, he seems to be a mere plot device. Luckily, Nasir as a character has much charisma to spare. The articulate son, who competent but is not chosen as the successor because he lacks the support of the Americans. Indeed, if he had more screen time, Syriana may have been more enjoyable.

Then, there is a Clooney plotline, which is moderately understandable. Yes, Clooney looks different and he piles on the pounds and act totally unlike the suave Clooney we are used to. My second viewing (yes, i had to watch it a second time to start understanding his plotline) made things a whole lot clearer. At the beginning of the film, clooney sells two rocket launchers (i think) and one of it falls into someone else’s hands. The Law of Predictable Movies dictates that if some seemingly important things get misplaced, it will eventually turn up later and become an important plot device. This is the same Law that states that if there are some cool equipment/relic/weapon/magical stuff handed out/found/discovered (Narnia, LOTR), the abovementioned stuff will eventually be used in the course of the movie, no matter how lame it may look, often to defeat some foe or surmount some obstacle. And lest i forget, the two guys he sold to get killed in the car bomb explosion and after 2 viewings, i still don’t know why. Did Clooney kill them? (which explains why he was unperturbed when it exploded but not why he had to go through the charade of selling the goods.)

Anyway, there is some attempt in character development, some estranged relationship with his son and wife, which is only superficially dealt with. Then he is tasked to “deal” with Nasir, and attempts to hire someone to assasinate him, only to be double crossed and nearly killed. Of course, in the deus ex machina way, he is saved. Then, the CIA seems to distance itself from him and he gets royally screwed. Why? Because his assasination bid was foiled. Why was he double crossed? I’m not too sure. Why does Clooney later sneak into someone’s house (this i’m inferring) and then threaten the man in a cafe? I dunno, and the only thing there i remember is the phrase - “A Man is Innocent until investigated”, which has a nice ring to it. For yet more inexplicable reasons, he goes back to (?) Beirut [so many places and locales that i get confused], drives a car to see Prince Nasir (to warn him, i presume?) and gets killed by the biggest deus ex machina i have seen in a long time. All this while, we are wondering, why not use the telephone? Think about it- man flies to Beirut, drives around to presumably deliver a warning (i don’t really think he’s trying to assasinate Nasir) in an era when you could um, call him? Meanwhile we can all wonder why they didn’t press the button when Nasir’s car was stopped the first time they met a herd of goats, a contrivance which conveniently saves Matt Damon’s life.

Lastly we get Jeffrey Wright’s plot. Which confounded me on my first viewing. I didn’t know who was who, why they were doing or what. The first time Wright listens to the much talked about “Corruption” speech, i realise i don’t know who the character delivering the speech is and what his role is. It also took the second viewing to confirm my initial suspicion that the elderly black guy who smokes and drinks is indeed supposed to be Wright’s father (their relationship is spelt out in a slip of paper when Wright is asked to fetch him. I missed that on the first viewing). The convoluted plot, after 2 viewings i finally sorta understand.

Ultimately, Syriana is an ambitious film with several plotlines that are never sufficiently fleshed out to make an impact. The confusing plotlines, the underdeveloped characters, and the almost predictable ending coupled with some of the most egregious use of deus ex machinas i have seen in a long time makes it a bloated and largely boring film. In fact, if i have to watch it twice to understand the film, it doesn’t really reflect well on the directing.