• Omer M. Mozaffar
I've seen scenes in this movie multiple times in multiple movies, yet I've never seen this movie before. Andrew Niccol's "Lord of War," is the story of the rise and decline of an arms trafficker (Nicholas Cage) and takes many predictable narrative steps. It is a list of cinematic clichés, from the personalities (even the names) of the characters, to the moments of suspense and surprise, to the preposterous ethnic stereotypes. It contains everything short of a protagonist dangling from a cliff or a racing bus driving through a fruit stand. Further, there is very little character development, very little revelation, and most of the characters are caricatures. Nevertheless, the final product is a thoroughly original, provocative satire that explores a violent decade of global peace and haunts you with an almost silent sinister laugh.
The central question of the film is the moral question: can you sleep at night, knowing the way your choices harm other people? Niccol answers this question through a number of characters: two arms dealers, two military officers, a religious man, a fashion model, a dictator, a cop, and a wild eyed younger brother. We know that everyone has a value system of some sort. We expect politicians to lie and we get ourselves in trouble when we start believing them. We expect preachers to sacrifice, and get furious when they exploit. The consistent answer for most of characters in this film is: yes I can sleep at night, by living in denial, until those choices catch up to me. In some cases in this film, the choices do catch up to the culprits. But only in some cases.
One arms dealer (Cage) seeks to be the best at selling guns, while another dealer (Ian Holm) consciously seeks to change governments. We see that the result is death, not only of soldiers but civilians, including a whole mess of children. Cage does not take any blame for the murders; in his elaborately calculated outlook, he is only selling product, but refuses to let his own son own a toy gun. Holm seeks the greater good, which translates as victory for his side, knowing that bullets travel faster than ballots. The military officers need to pay their own bills, and in some cases must support their nations, but they illustrate that their service and perhaps their loyalty can be purchased. A religious man - Cage's father - is Catholic, yet takes on a Jewish persona in every aspect of his life. Is he a fraud, if he believes in it? A fashion magazine cover girl (Bridget Moynahan) lives a bored extravagance as she invites us to appreciate her slow motion beauty, and minimizes it as "wearing clothes for a living," though we know her profession contributes to the damaged minds and bodies of countless women and girls. An African dictator survives as the fittest, and thus cares little for his citizens, for his staff, for life in general; he blames MTV for society's collapse, but raises an army of "Kalashnikov kids" whose bullets are just as effective as adults'.
On the flip side, a government cop (Ethan Hawke) cannot be bought. He follows the law to the letter, and exercises it to the maximum, but does not dare break any rules. Meaning, he is a frustrated idealist. But, morality and legality are different, and he crosses every rule of cordial conduct. And, last, Cage's little brother (Jared Leto) is the film's conscience, who hides from the world's nastiness through wine, women, and cocaine, until those appetites fail to shield him.
Released in 2005, while we were knee deep in the so-called Global War on Terror, the film's landscape is to some degree the human conscience and to some degree war. In terms of its own context, the Cold War has ended, opening the gates toward some sort of global peace. The open secret, however, is that even if the hair-trigger stalemate has finished, every corner of the globe continues to get riddled with bullets that are more plentiful than pennies.
In terms of philosophy, War is itself the greatest challenge not only to systems of morality, but also to business. No religion preaches war, yet all religions confront it, and frequently believers embrace it, even if they do not call it "war." Similarly, the most successful businesses tend to be those that provide the most service, but the war profiteers tend to seek quick benefit in a market - merchandising death - that would theoretically eliminate itself once everyone has died.
Further, with War, we have the problems of cultural assumptions: simply "we" are civilized and "they" are savages. The salesmen and customers in this film dress in very nice, polished attire, and are sometimes also the shooters. Perhaps in our culture, however, we would rather believe that a bearded man in a cave would seek personal religious profit by making us bleed, rather than accept that a former Secretary of Defense, or a CEO of a war profiteering oil service company, or a Vice President would seek personal material profit at the cost of our blood. Whether or not War is ever justified, it is always a bitter reality that we often tend to hide from. But, even those of us who protested publicly or privately that the current war is a scheme for energy resources, we are the beneficiaries, so how many of us honestly changed our energy consumption significantly? Maybe a few of us. Maybe not.
So, as we quietly bang the drums of war toward an inevitable assault on Iran, the first question is: who will pull the trigger first. But, the second question is: how long will any of us care, for the returning soldiers and the ignored civilians in Iraq are still wounded and still ignored. But, the question the movie tells us we should ask is: who profits? If the movie is preaching a clear message, then it is, in Michael Corleone's words, that we all part of the same hypocrisy, but only some people admit it, while most of us live in denial.
The year 2005 was a huge year for some very great criticisms of war and state, including "Syriana," "Kingdom of Heaven," "Munich," and "Good Night and Good Luck." Unlike these others, however, this film is a satire. It coldly haunts us when it boasts that the leading dealers in arms are nations, starting with our own. And, it casually laughs without telling us anything we can do about it.
Artwork and page design by Marie Haws.
The movie was bitingly funny when I revisited it several years after I watched it in 2005. As a satire, it is both cynical and cheerful with its subject right from the opening sequence, and I had a dark fun with it. I think the movie becomes a little preachy toward the end when the situation becomes inevitably more serious for everyone including Cage’s character, but it gives us a pointy message with a bitter laugh. The movie does not suggest the solution to us, but who can give the answer for what is depicted in the film? There is a need, and there is a supply.
I have a cousin-in-law who works in the Peacekeeping division of the UN. He is currently assigned in Northern Sudan. His last assignment was in Afghanistan and before that Banda Aceh (Indonesia). We talk a lot during my wife's family reunions. He says if you want to know what it's like where I go, go watch LORD OF WAR. "That movie is the truth."
The theme of war profiteer is also brought up in the current Sherlock Holmes movie. And urban camouflage. Quite frankly, I thought the urban camouflage was the best part of the movie.
I would just adjust that last sentence to say "There is a great desire, and there is supply."
I have always thought everyone has the terror and horror or war backwards, war profiteers do not create war, they simple sell deadly toys to our baser instincts, and it is the later that exists in every culture and nation on Earth.
They simply sell us what we want.
We are just not honest enough to admit it.
Reply to: this film coldly haunts us when it boasts that the leading dealers in arms are nations, starting with our own.
I don't see why that should bother anyone. The United States has the Pentagon, the Army, Navy, Air Force and a Defense Department, and those are the institutions that should be dealing in arms. We provide weapons to our allies in a War Against Terror.
The United States has tried to stay out of foreign wars and pursue an isolationist policy. It's too expensive for us to fight a war in Europe or the Middle East. The attack on Pearl Harbor forced us to abandon that policy. Try to realize, Omer, that we are the good guys. I have read so many attacks on the American government in your postings, I need to explain your mistake.
Every time I read about the US selling jet fighters to Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, it frightens me. They want the weapons to protect themselves from other Muslim countries.
A Muslim country like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, should never be allowed to develop or possess nuclear weapons, because their thinking is based on the demented writings of a terrorist who died 1,400 years ago, dreaming of world conquest. Ron Paul was leading in Iowa, but fell to third caucus because he refused to admit that.
I found this on Omer's site:
Ten Lessons I Learned in the Past Year
4) Rather than trying to figure out God’s plan for me. I found it much more useful to seize control of my thinking, to focus on my heart and on myself, and let the chips fall where they may. And, life has been significantly better for it. My goodness, so much better.
Excellent, Omer. "Looking for God's plan" is a nonsensical pursuit, and the greatest threat to world peace is allowing yourself to believe that a "Holy Book" or "the writings of the Prophet" are anything more than lies told by liars in order to recruit the gullible to die for a misguided cause.
Walk Away From Islam. You've taken the first step. I don't know what inspired you to write #4, but think about what you wrote. You've just taken the first step away from Islam. Congratulations.
I stopped reading at 'inevitable assault on Iran'. I like the film and was looking forward to reading an article about it, but if you're going to bring politics into art critique, at least know what you're talking about. The U.S administration really doesn't want to go to war with Iran. Even aside from the fact that the U.S. cannot currently afford any war of choice against a nation with significant military capacity, an attack on Iran would make make the price of oil skyrocket, wrecking any prospect of economic recovery for years. True Afghanistan was quickly and senselessly followed by Iraq, but those days are gone. Obama has withdrawn from Iraq, is drawing down in Afghanistan, and had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Britain and France into a very limited engagement in Libya. At most, Obama might acknowledge the legitimacy after the fact of an Israeli attack on Iran (which in turn is dependent on Iran looking close enough to acquiring a nuclear weapon for the Israelis to feel they have no choice).
"We provide weapons to our allies in a War Against Terror."
Assuming that the Iran/Contra thing wasn't a one-off historical aberration, I surmise that your government provides a fair amount of assistance to your enemies, too. Past, present, and future. It certainly had no qualms about selling tear gas and rubber bullets to the authorities in Egypt and Tunisia and it was all set to cosy up to the late Col. Gadaffi. No doubt there are politicians in Washington who kick themselves for not supplying him with aerial drones and night vision gear and caltrops and ammunition sooner.
It's a complicated world, with subtleties. The little people have religion, but the little people are of no consequence. For the people that matter there is money, which is awesome. The authorities in Iran and Washington are not religious, and do not base their decisions on the teachings of spirits. They belong to the same class and the essence of their god is money.
Thanks. After I submitted my comment, I realized my mistake.
Reply to: The authorities in Iran and Washington are not religious, and do not base their decisions on the teachings of spirits. - Ashley
In Iran, there's an elected government, but they are lower on the chain of command than the religious authorities. If you know how the Ruling Islamic Council makes decisions in Iran, you must have some great sources.
The Qur'an is supposed to be a record of verbal messages given to Mohammed by an angel while he slept in a cave. So, yes, absolutely, without any doubt, they do base their decisions on "the teachings of spirits."
have you ever heard of a program called "Tomorrow's Pioneers"? You can look it up. It's a children's program in Iran. The most popular co-host was a man dressed in a mouse costume... using the name Farfour.
WIKI article: Farfour states, "Yes, we, tomorrow's pioneers, will restore to this nation its glory, and we will liberate Al-Aqsa, with Allah's will, and we will liberate Iraq, with Allah's will, and we will liberate the Muslim countries, invaded by murderers."
...Saraa explains to Farfour that he must have pride in his Arabic language and that the Moslem culture is a dominant force in the world. Farfour tells Saraa of his intention to, "set the cornerstone for world leadership under Islamic leadership" with "our beloved children"
In episode 105 (aired June 22, 2007), Farfour is captured and interrogated by an Israeli. The questions are about "Tel al-Rabi", a fictional Palestinian settlement which was supposedly occupied by Israelis and renamed to Tel Aviv.
Farfour calls the Israeli a "terrorist" and is beaten to death. Farfour is replaced by a different co-host in episode 202 named Nahoul... (end)
"Tomorrow's Pioneers" is a state-run TV program for CHILDREN in Iran. The host was a close copy of Mickey Mouse, and he was beaten to death on the air. Do you really understand how decisions are made? What these children believe when they grow up? Children who will never get over seeing their beloved Mickey Mouse beaten to death?
Greetings everyone,
Thank you for your comments.
@Seongyong - Great to hear from you my friend, as always. I don't know if I liked that dream sequence very much. I didn't see the point of it. Still, that moment with the girl asking if her arm will grow back was the most haunting moment in the movie for me. What are your thoughts on it?
@Michael Mirasol - How are you, my friend? That's a frightening point.
@nmr - Thanks for the rec. I shall check it out.
@Wesley P. - Thanks for the correction.
@JW Frogen - Interesting point that I've often wondered about. I agree with your point, in principle, except that the weapons contractors themselves also are catering to their own baser instincts, no? In any case, by supplying arms the weapons contractors are increasing bloodshed.
@Bill Hays - Still, as usual, you're a fraud. But, thank you for reading my post; we've already confirmed that you can't stop following me. And, as usual, you take things to mean what you want them to. So, while you're at it, check out point #6 on that posting; you'll be looking into the mirror on that one, especially considering that I tried to give you #5.
@Michael - Thanks for your comment. Just doing some math: considering you allegedly stopped reading after that sentence, wouldn't that mean that you don't know how thorough my lack of knowledge is on the subject? In any case, your comments illustrate that you know far less than me about our administration, the nature of the oil market, the situation in Libya, and middle east relations. Thank you, anyways. Still wondering what you think of the movie.
@Ashley Pomeroy - We agree. Any thoughts on the movie?
Lord of War taught me that some people prefer Genocide and some people prefer Civil War. I say this based on the scene in Lord of War where Cages character is selling guns outside of the UN refugee camp. The refugees are being killed at will by machete wielding thugs. The only thing the restriction of arms sales did was ensure that one group of people was completely unarmed while the other group bought illegal weapons. For some, self-defense via weapon ownership is so onerous, that they simply feel better with a clear victim instead of a messy war.
@Omer M. Mozaffar
That will probably haunt him along with other images in that hallucinatory sequence, but I guess he can live with them, for he feels guilty only for a moment and moves on with his business.
Beautiful, sir. Netflixed. Michael, I've seen "Lords of War." So now I know.
Agent Grinchley here preaches the same kind of psychosis you'll find with any military lifer who's decided life is worthless except to promote self-destructive fanaticism. The bulk of his constant stream of handbook vomit for several years should be evidence enough that he's doing a job, not expressing a free opinion. I don't know why he's given the continued privilege to stalk and threaten American citizens with pro-death propaganda on an otherwise not uncivil blog. What's it pay?
You want "atheism," which is a game for teenagers; Edward Teller was an honest one. He felt every "enemy" of the U.S. should be nuked into extinction. .
Robert DuVall's "The Great Santini" gave a pretty good character sketch of the kind of sub-humanized psycho I'd occasionally meet. An old galfriend's dad, whose "job" was to bomb Viet Nam villages, boasted that it didn't bother him one bit to kill droves of little kids and their mothers and grandfathers.
People who were, and are, on the ground disagree with more than psychotic blog-stalking, as is done here too much. Two of my friends' dads went crazy and were hauled off to loony bins. Both of them saw dead soldiers crawling to them through their windows, screaming for help. One was an American at Normandy and the other was a Waffen SS tank officer in Poland.
Of course no government "wants war," until they've picked a suitably poor nation and can frighten the gullible and weak-minded into it. That's what these internet "anti-islam" nut cases are for.
I wish Roger would stop it, finally. He needs to meet, in person, the kind of stupid goobers who fall for this trash, whose votes count.
One reason this is relevant, is because a review of "Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud" will be posted soon, and I'd like to say something about 9/11. However, to be fair, I'm going to quote Omer on the subject first:
(from his blog)
9 – I am sick of hearing about 9/11. I am sick of being made to stand in the shadows or to be held to account because of 9/11 because I’m Muslim. I’m sick of the victim mentality we find in our society (whether or not related to 9/11) among (a) Muslim Americans, (b) Christian Americans, (c) Americans in general. But, the lesson here is that people quickly jump on the bandwagon of victimhood any chance they get. - Omer
That is NOT an appropriate response to 9/11.
Islam is responsible for 9/11. Bin Laden was brainwashed by Islam into believing certain rules were handed down by God, when in fact they were handed down by a terrorist in the year 600 AD.
As long as we're unwilling to say "Islam was responsible for 9/11" there is not going to be any progress. Instead, we will get movies like "Extremely Close" where we try for "healing" without realizing that the causes of 9/11 are still there, still unrecognized, and the next attack will make us go, "I thought we were past that." Only the next attack will come from Iran, it will involve nuclear weapons, and it will be an attack on Israel.
I've been researching a JFK assassination movie. One relevant fact is, Oswald used to listen to a radio station broadcasting from Cuba. After the Bay of Pigs. Cuba was afraid Kennedy would inspire non-Communists in Cuba to overthrow Castro. Omer listens to Muslim nonsense in the same way. He refuses to look at 9/11 and admit what it was, a demonstration of terror by Islam, to inspire Muslims to continue fighting for old-school Islamic governments. One party is called the Muslim Brotherhood, but they all have the same goal. To place the entire world under the benevolent rule of Islam.
Omer, when you see "Extremely Close and Incredibly Loud," I hope you realize that 9/11 was more than a personal inconvenience for you. It was a public service announcement about the true nature of Islam.
Tom said, should be evidence enough that he's doing a job, (That's what these internet "anti-islam" nut cases are for, to frighten the gullible and weak-minded into declaring a war against a suitably poor nation)... not expressing a free opinion. What's it pay? (end of Tom Dark)
Earlier, in the "Contact" thread, I posted a passage from Tom's Blog where he said proponents of Darwin's theory of human descent were "intellectually dishonest." In the April 2011 entry:
It's pretty close to a primeval sky here. I see what the ancients saw from high towers in Babylon. There is no comparison with attempts to wow oneself by dutifully
*** imagining some initial "Big Bang" -- which never happened ***
anyhow. In addition,
*** there was no "Big Bang" ***
and no "entropy." Those tales reflect a culture fascinated with "stuff blowing up real good". People who fear the independent sensations of their own minds may cling to (false statements) that meet with social approval instead. Science? Theology? Fiddle de faddle (end of Tom Dark)
How can you watch the Republican Presidential debate without wanting to ask the right questions?
Tom, why do you say there was no Big Bang? Are you making some kind of a philosophical statement, or are you speaking literally?
When you look up at the night sky, you are seeing clear evidence of a Big Bang. An explosion sends tiny particles out in all directions. We're in the middle of it.
Why do you claim that proponents of Modern Evolutionary Theory are dishonest? (There are no proponents of literal Darwinism because his book reflects the knowledge of 1859, not 2011.)
I am not trying to promote a government agenda to declare war on another country. My stand is "Walk Away From Islam." If Muslims will look honestly at the current leadership of international Islam, they will realize it's a club that don't want to belong to.
Reply to: psychotic blog-stalking
First, since the comments are moderated, I don't think anything "psychotic" gets posted. Ever.
Second, Tom Dark represents a certain viewpoint. Let me see if I can give an academic view of Mr. Dark's take on science.
Tom is aware of scientific concepts like "evolution," "Big Bang" and "entropy." However, he thinks science will eventually discover that such twenty-first century concepts were in error. Which gives him the confidence to say "the Big Bang never happened." Why? Because, in the future, science MIGHT come up with a different explanation. This is a childish notion. It is a concept that we try to teach children not to follow.
Tom Dark sits on a hill at night, looks at the stars, and has a thought. And he says, "My thoughts are more likely to be right than current scientific theories, because my mind is in tune with the universe." Which ignores the fact that the Hubble is above earth's atmosphere, has a much clearer view of the same stars, can use telescopes to see them with greater clarity, and science has banks and banks of computers to compare photos taken decades apart and tell precisely how much the stars have moved.
In short, every time Tom Dark posts his nonsense, there should be a Warning Label above it, that "academics" (the real ones, not the way Islam uses "academics" to describe their proponents) reject Tom's position and encourage children to learn about Darwin's theories, astronomy, how the DNA of humans compare to other primates and other animals, etc.
Then, there's the dishonest way he tries to cast doubt on other posters, by calling them "paid government informants." Tom has done this enough, either he needs to produce PROOF or admit he was lying.
Is Tom Dark is going to be on the stage at Ebertfest, introduced as one of your "experts"? Really? As they say on SNL, "Really?"
Oh no- you misunderstood! Please do NOT watch the new Sherlock Holmes movie, unless you have the movie tastes of a 12 year old boy. Um...
I often think it humorous that men complain about women being "too emotional" to make decisions, and yet when it comes to militarism and 'self defense' I see a lot of men getting quite "emotional".
The human impulse to destroy oneself and others probably is ingrained in our very nature and the only way to fight this is to develop an equally strong emotion to care and nurture for oneself and others, the old-fashioned definition of "humanism." This sort of humanism is also, I believe, ingrained in our human nature.
I like the idea of urban camouflage because it borrows from the rain forest: they can't eat you if they can't see you. Stick insects are cool.