(I posted this first to Progressive Historians , thus the focus on history. But I thought it could make an interesting discussion here, as well, provided anyone buys my argument!)

What do the films Syriana, United 93, and A Mighty Heart have in common?

Quite a lot, actually.  Though their topics are roughly connected, it's the style of the films that really strikes me: could they be saying much more under the surface?  What do these films say about us as viewers, and can we make some inferences about our culture(*) based on the way they present information?  I think we can, in fact.

(*) "our culture" interpreted broadly, since two of the three directors are British.

It's something of a truism (and maybe an overplayed one) that within each generation's output of art are encoded the politics of that generation, and a closer reading of that art can tell us more about those politics than all the newspaper pundits in the world.  I don't totally agree with that, but there's no doubt in my mind that art carries more messages than sometimes meet the eye, and generations certainly leave "stamps".

Since film is the most powerful and accessible (for audiences) medium for contemporary Americans, it should also be no surprise that some of the most compelling "messages" are there, even in places no one expects them.  For example, those of you who aren't familiar with horror might be surprised how political and - pardon the pun - dead-on horror tends to be in terms of measuring the cultural attitudes of the times.  Both the overtly political - like George Romero with his subtle gestures towards Vietnam, women's lib, race riots, militarization, etc. - and the seemingly non-political - like the AIDS-era boost in vampire films and the recent glut of torture porn - carry a lot of "baggage" that sometimes takes a little distance to recognize.

But tonight I'm going a slightly different route and address "real life" films, because there are some common tendencies that I think are really interesting.  For the purposes of our discussion, I'll be picking apart Syriana, United 93, and A Mighty Heart, all of which deal in some way with the clash between the West and fundamentalist Islam (either as a primary or secondary topic of interest).  That's a small sample to gauge an entire generation, but films about current events aren't plentiful, and the strong similarities between these very different films strike me as significant enough for discussion.

A quick and overly simplistic recap, minus any spoilers:

- Syriana (dir. Stephen Gaghan) discusses the dirty politics of oil in the Middle East

- United 93 (dir. Paul Greengrass) involves the hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9/11

- A Mighty Heart (dir. Michael Winterbottom) deals with the abduction of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl

The trailers for each film are interspersed below.

so here's my question:

What common elements do these films have that might give us some insight into the way we view our political situation?

1. Increased stress on vérité filmmaking:

Vérité is a style of filmmaking that aims for (the illusion of) real life over the more classically framed Hollywood drama:

Cinéma vérité aims for an extreme naturalism, using non-professional actors, hand-held camera, genuine locations rather than sound stages, and naturalistic sound without substantial post-production mixing or voiceovers.

Two of these three films do have big-name actors, but their glamor is purposefully muted in order to make them seem like "ordinary" people: Oscar-winner George Clooney put on weight and grew facial hair to distract from his "Sexiest Man on Earth" reputation, and Greengrass didn't cast a single "known" actor.  In each case, the deemphasis on stars moves the drama away from people and more towards situations.

The hand-held camera mimics documentary-style, since documentarians rarely have time to set up steady-cams when big events are going on.  The effect also creates the illusion of the camera as a witness to live events rather than as part of a post-facto staging.

(Compare this to Oliver Stone's bombastic 9/11 tribute to see why each of these films is more effective in portraying their respective events.  Everything Stone does wrong was lauded by FOX news , which doesn't surprise me.)

2. Choppy editing and complex narrative

This is related to vérité, although the choice to cut into and out of situations without explanations or setups deserves its own discussion.  I remember hearing from people who saw Syriana that they lost track of the plot about halfway through; but even A Mighty Heart leapfrogs through so many locations and characters without providing the audience with clear guideposts.  On the other hand, United 93 keeps track of all the locations with helpful subtitles, but the range of people involved, the half-conversations, and the rapid editing create the illusion that what you're watching isn't so much a preconceived narrative as a documentary (that word again) splicing.

What I like about this is the de-stressing of expected narrative arcs (even when they do occur): it's admission on the part of the filmmakers that the politics they discuss cannot be crammed into an easily digestible Hollywood drama.  That's a little disingenuous (none of these, except maybe Syriana, takes many risks from a narrative point of view), but the illusion is strong. 

3. "Insider" information

Here's the one I love the most: All these films assume the viewer knows something about the situation, implying an increased respect for the audience, or at least heightened expectations.  In fact, the films even reward viewers who know more about the events and players: Greengrass slips important information into the nonchalantly casual conversation between the plane's passengers that is not vital to the film, but allows the more informed viewers to recognize who the passengers are supposed to be.  After all, does it really matter to the film's narrative whether one passenger mentions rugby while chatting with another?  Depends on what you're looking for, really.

(One film I don't discuss here, Joe Dante's awesomely perverse Homecoming , is heavy on references that only political junkies will understand.)

Likewise, Syriana doesn't care if you don't keep up with it, and the range of topics is so enormous that entire issues are glossed over with slight mentions.  There's no effort to "help" the audience with context or history; even A Mighty Heart's Karachi is left to its complex glory.  That leads us to

4. "Nexus" of issues

One of the most striking aspects of all these films is the way they discuss not one, but dozens of topics all at once.  Some of these are foregrounded, like the Oil war in Syriana or fundamentalist Islam in A Mighty Heart.  But all around the margins, other issues creep in with anything from a brief mention to a distinct subplot.  In Heart the politics of India-Pakistan relations register in only a few lines, while Syriana practically bursts apart with all the issues crowding the frame.  United 93 is much leaner in this respect, but the range of people followed in the story - passengers, hijackers, government officials, air traffic controllers, journalists - open it up from its more narrow focus to show the full-on clusterfuck that was September 11th.

Heart is especially interesting here, since the film's main character isn't Daniel or Mariane Pearl, but the city of Karachi.  Appropriately, the film allows time for city's mix of classes, ethnicities, and religions to develop against the maddening traffic and bustle of a city so large, no one can count the population. 

5. The Procedural Drama

Two of the three films we're discussing, United 93 and A Mighty Heart, find their narrative anchor in the procedural drama: they focus  on people attempting to piece together stories they don't quite understand.  Even Syriana makes some nods in this direction, but its canvas is so wide that it never coheres the way the other films' do (that's certainly not a bad thing).  As a narrative gimmick it's very effective, since it allows the audience to receive information at roughly the same rate as the "characters"; but it also creates a certain attitude toward research and information: the information is out there, and as each puzzle piece arrives, the audience needs to put the pieces together.

+++++

So what do we get out of this?  What do these films tell us about the times we live in?

I have some ideas of my own, but tell me what you think.