Last night, Keith and I went to see Lord of War.
Go see this film.
I hadn't read any reviews before we saw the film, but Keith mentioned that it had been widely panned by professional critics. Though I vehemently disagree with the accusations that the film is racist, formless, or heavy-handed, having now seen Lord of War I understand why the critics made them. This is NOT a feel-good movie. Nicolas Cage's character is not a good guy in a bad situation. Though there are moments of dark humor and strength of spirit, there is no redemption here, no pat Hollywood ending.
The claim that Lord of War is racist is perhaps the most frustrating as it proves that the reviewers not only have limited knowledge of history, but also that they missed one of the major messages of the film. Yes West Africa is protrayed in a brutal and unflattering light, but it is a truthful light. West Africa is one of the most war-ravaged parts of the world, children are shooting each other with AK-47s, AIDS is ravaging the populace, Sierra Leone and Libera were founded by freed slaves, and former Liberian President Charles Taylor (renamed "Andre Baptiste" for this film) is a sadistic Warlord whose reputation is soaked in blood and covered in diamonds.
One of the driving points behind the film (and a sad fact of history) is this: war is a constant in human society and the weapons have to come from somewhere. The plot, therefore, is not so much formless as it is wide-reaching - it incorporates every major conflict and moment of political signifigance in the last 25 years. Cage's narration (which include some frightening statistics the truth of which I've yet to verify) explains the relevance of these events to his trade. This may seem like oppressive story-telling, but in fact it should be compelling and eye-opening if you are unfamiliar with recent international political history.
In light of our current political climate, the story of how weapons are supplied to warring nations is particularly horrifying and thought-provoking.
