Syriana

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I saw George on the Abrams Report a few nights ago, and he mentioned that the book actually focused quite a bit on the Clinton administration. So for people who think it's "bashing" Bush.. he had some other interesting things to say about the movie, maybe I can find a transcript -I just checked and it's not posted yet.

He looked so gorgeous too :wink:
 
GEORGE CLOONEY, PRODUCER, “SYRIANA”: I think what Hollywood can do very well and has over periods of time during sort of social and political upheaval, we reflect things. Because we're not first responders. It takes us a couple of years to write a script and get a movie. We can ask questions and raise debate. When we're bad—what we're bad at usually is sort of trying to answer the questions.

DAN ABRAMS, HOST: But this movie does more than just ask questions. I mean if you just look at the movie itself, it has answers. And that is at the end of the movie, without giving away the ending...

CLOONEY: Right.

ABRAMS: ... you certainly get the sense that oil companies are corrupt, that the government is corrupt and that Islamic fundamentalism is created as a result of corrupt oil companies.

CLOONEY: Well I don't think it says that precisely. I think in fairness, it says that all of these elements exist in each of those places. I think no one can argue. You know we've shown this to a lot of neo cons who agree. We've shown this to a lot of conservatives. There isn't really a political side to corruption.

Everyone agrees that it is a problem in each of those elements. I don't think we're saying the government is corrupt and oil companies are corrupt and we're not—certainly not saying Islamic fundamentalism especially to the extreme is good. I think we're saying let's understand that these are all areas of gray and not black and white. I do enjoy that every time we have a discussion and I get to sit here with you we can talk about those issues and it's not unpatriotic to ask questions. And that's always been a part of what I have said all along is hey man on either side. I'm good friends with a lot of conservatives and we have good, fair, open discussions.


ABRAMS: And it's fair to say that this movie is political?

CLOONEY: It is political. It's—yes, it's political. There's no question about it. Most of the book goes pretty heavily after Clinton and the Clinton administration. This isn't about the last five years. This is an issue of 50 or 60 years of I think no one will argue certain flawed policies in the Middle East.

ABRAMS: So when people hear the word oil and oil companies and they think to themselves, oh, he's talking about Bush...

CLOONEY: (INAUDIBLE)

ABRAMS: ... your answer is...

CLOONEY: Well those aren't the issues. The issues are corruption and the corruption has been going on. You know there's a tremendous amount of Democratic and Republican politicians who have retired and taken nice, fat paychecks from Saudi Arabia when they leave to go be consultants from both sides.

That's a problem. That's an issue. And it should be talked about. Because I think ultimately we have, you know, there's going to be a point when this runs out, you know in maybe 30 years, maybe 50 years and someone at that point is going to have to talk about alternate energy.
 
Finally saw it tonight and I really liked it. A lot of reviews complained that it was difficult to follow along with the many characters but I didn't find that to be the case at all.

And I very much enjoyed the juxtaposition of the ending, with the callousness of the men at the oilman of the year awards, the wounded scrambling around that massive bomb crater, and two young kids who probably never had a chance in life blowing themselves up.

Great acting.
 
If people can start thinking critically about issues after watching films then I don't think that there is anything at all wrong with that because regardless of any latent political agenda people who think can learn more and reach their own conclusions.

I think that a lot of people make the terrible assumption of their ideological or spiritual opponents that they are somehow beneath them. It doesn't make certain views favourable or even tollerable, but one should always remember there is thought processes to them and in some cases logic. That elitism is what makes many people so repulsed by the "limosuine liberal" crowd and the "religious right" - both talk down to the public from a self-assumed position of moral or spiritual high ground and a lot of people don't like that, or may like it when they agree with it but not when the scorn is directed their way.
 
there's a slew of different story lines in this movie, which can make it a bit confusing in the begining as you try to piece together how each character ties in to one another.

but by the end, it all comes together quite nicely.

there aren't any blatant anti-republican references in the movie... government is refered to only as government. if there was a democrat in office at the time of this movie's release no one would even bring it up as anti-republican. it's just another movie detailing the corruption of world politics. but alas, when people see oil guys and cia guys with a republican administration, they're gonna jump up and down. :shrug: i wonder if these same types were jumping up and down when all the white house corruption movies came out durring the clinton administration... executive power, murder at 1600, primary colors, wag the dog... movies playing off corruption in government, be it intellegent or just straight action, pop up durring every type of administration. and durring every type of administration the other side likes to point at the movies and go "ah ha! it's about you guys!" and every time this happens a large number of people believe it because, well, both sides are fucking corrupt assholes.


anyways, back to the movie, i thought it was excellent.
 
Last edited:
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsA...OC_0_US-FILM-SYRIANA.xml&pageNumber=0&summit=

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Stephen Gaghan invaded Oman.

The "Syriana" director didn't do it intentionally, of course -- unless he's really an undercover CIA agent. But while making his political thriller in the United Arab Emirates, Gaghan, his crew and an armed camel train strayed into that country's southeastern neighbor and squared off with the Omanian army. Like the characters in his movie, he discovered how easily one can get lost among the invisible borders of the Persian Gulf.

In late 2004, Gaghan's movie filmed in locales ranging from Baltimore and Washington to Geneva and Casablanca, working in five languages over 74 days. Scenes that involved the movie's unnamed oil-rich kingdom, the story line with the impressionable Pakistani teen and the movie's climax were among those shot in and around Dubai, one of the seven city-states that make up the UAE.

Few films have been shot in the UAE, let alone a Western one, and getting permission involved the politics of persuasion and negotiations with the country's royal family. And even when their request was granted, and Gaghan and his crew had arrived in the country, it was taken away.

"They heard that the script was anti-Saudi," says Gaghan, explaining that Saudi Arabia has a multibillion-dollar investor in the country, and the head of the royal family, Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, could have found himself in potential choppy political waters by allowing the film.

..........As for the incursion into Oman: For a scene that ultimately was cut from the movie, Gaghan wanted a camel train traveling along pink sand dunes against the backdrop of mountains. He kept going further and further into the desert to shoot "all these guys who looked like Berber smugglers; they had machine guns and pistols and they were on these huge camels."
 
Back
Top Bottom