Talk:Syriana/Archive 1

Additions

Feel free to add what I left off. I'll be back later to add more.--B21.12.52.123 10:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone explain the connection between Whiting and the CIA, and how "Bob" has any knowledge of it?

Whiting met with Nasir's brother and discussed the succession of the emir. This may explain his involvement with the CIA assassination plot. Bob gains knowledge of this from his 'consultant' played by William Hurt during the movie theater scene.

What about the second missile???

Questions:

Why are the CIA not bothered about loosing the second missile?

How does the blue eyed Egyption terrorist know that the missile cannot be fired?

Who can help? chopsnsauce 28 Mar 2006

---

This is all speculation, but my guess is that the CIA people Bob works with don't want to hear about losing the second missile because it makes them look bad. Losing the missile is an error. They make reference to Bob's memos. The memo's are a problem for them for two potential reasons: a) Someone higher up might see them and start asking questions, b) they are a record if there is ever an investigation (e.g. by the FBI, etc). So the question is, why don't they do something about the missing missile, if it makes them look bad? Perhaps a) they can't or b) although a mistake, it's not monumental enough to motivate them to do anything about it -- collateral damage, move on.

I don't think the blue-eyed terrorist knows that the missile cannot be fired (actually it can, but the guidance is off). From what I recall of the dialogue, he never intends to use it as designed. He mentions shaping the charge to penetrate thick steel.

165.165.214.33 10:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC) drd

New entry - I have some more speculation regarding the missile. In the movie, it is described as a shaped charge that sends molten copper through "30 inches of steel." Given that supposed fact, the shape of the warhead on the dhow, and the high level of precision required for creating a new warhead, could the missile actually be a shoulder-launched guided anti-tank missile? It is important to note the purpose of an anti-aircraft missile is to create a "shotgun blast" that damages as much of the target as possible, not to shoot a piece of molten metal completely through the aircraft. -Fan from Troy, NY

Sounds right. Is 'stinger' ever mentioned in the script? The pdf online cannot be searched. Crosbiesmith 23:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh - it is. Hmm. Well, I like your theory better. - Crosbiesmith 23:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody knows it! Some godlike information he's got from the hawks, which are working for another class sender. May be this way or

it#s just a plot setting which increases tension. Something out of stone, information like liquer out of mother CIA'S breast.--Danaide (talk) 10:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Storyline

The storylines crisscross later on, and in the final stages of the movie, collide violently. Well said, but I'm not sure it's true: Do the two major subplots (Connex-Killen and Prince Nassir) have anything to do with each other, besides their juxtapositional symmetry?--Bltpdx 20:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I guess I was generalizing there, but there are some relations. Given, collide violently may not be apt for these relations. Good editing by all you guys BTW, way to go. If ANYONE has a possible explaination for the very last scene in the movie add it in there.--B21.12.52.123 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

judging from Richard Baer's books, I'm guessing the US government (who launched the attack on Nasir) and Connex-Killen were in league. this can be seen in the movie - US gov't shows support for Nasir's younger brother by taking Nasir out. the younger brother & emir agreed to give their fields to Connex-Killen, an American company, thus ensuring energy for America. somewhat related, I was guessing that the "unnamed country" may be Lebanon. Bob goes to Beirut where he meets Nasir. Matt Damon constantly talks about Beirut to his wife, etc. note the scene where Nasir gives a patriotic speech; Damon tells someone on the phone that Beirut is lovely. Nasir also talks about rebuilding his country, which would fit Lebanon, a little. --Glerf

Glerf, it's a good guess, but the "unnamed country" could not possibly be Lebanon for several reasons. One, Lebanon has no oil reserves. Two, Lebanon has a president and a parliament, not a kingdom, and therefore no emirs. Lebanon also does not have such expansive deserts as were depicted in the movie, nor do the people typically wear the type of dress prominently shown in the "unnamed country". Instead, I believe the country was Kuwait, based on the mention of 10,000 US troops being stationed there, as well as the style of headdress worn by royalty (white, rather than the red checkered kuffeyas that would lead one to believe the country was either Saudi Arabia or UAE). --Hazer 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

throughout the whole film I simply assumed the country was Saudi Arabia. I believe there was some mention of being in Mecca at one point, but I might have misunderstood. When I watch it again I'll see if I can catch the reference.

Additional info about the relation of the plots. Recall the meeting between connex/killen and the eventual surviving prince. It was clear from this scene that they were offering to assassinate his brother in exchange for oil rights. Another reason why the prince may have been assassinated is due to the possibility of building an oil pipeline. I can't quite remember the specifics of the pipeline, but it seemed to be implied that they would exclude some of the outside interests, such as connex or similar, from managing their oil transfer? TAsunder 22:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The pipeline through Iran would connect with Russian/ex-Soviet pipelines leading into Europe and avoid the necessity of dealing with American middle men like Connex/Killen. This is the point that Matt Damon's character makes to Prince Nasir when he draws in the sand. Whiting then meets with Nasir's younger brother and forms an alliance. The American government pressures the emir to change the succession and assassinates Nasir when he tries to stage a coup. The younger brother then returns to Connex the contract they had lost to the Chinese consortium. (Then the terrorists blow up the oil tanker). How Bob tracked down Whiting and found out the details we do not know. He was unable to access his computer at the CIA. But he was an experienced spy...--Jack Upland 09:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The connection between Bob and Whiting is a little obscure in the film (on the cutting room floor?), but as I recall it seems to stem from an unheard (by the audience) remark made by the former spook (played by William Hurt) to Bob in a cinema. As Hurt's character is ex-CIA (he's now a consultant), he's possibly in a position to know about Whiting. However, what's not clear to me (anyone care to help here?), is the connection between Whiting and the US Government. While it's not unlikely that someone like Whiting moves in high government circles (note that Jeffrey Wright's character also has government contacts in the Department of Justice), I don't think it's made explicit in the film. I'd be very interested to hear if I've missed anything though. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the movie in the Persian Gulf scenes were shot in the United Arab Emirates, specifically the emirate of Dubai. The ruling family's King looks like a member of the Saudi royal family (through the way his goatee is shaven and the way he wears his attire), while the two princes looked more like Emiratis - from the UAE - especially with the way Nasir wears his head-dress in a very Emirati look called the "hamdani" (looks like a bandana almost). This doesn't equate with the presence of such a large number of US troops, since that number would only exist either in Kuwait, Bahrain (possibly) or Qatar (Saudi Arabia used to contain such a number until they moved base to Qatar). - Mo, 4th of March 2006.

--

In the overview section of the current article: "Barnes travels to Lebanon and seeks safe passage from a Hezbollah imam, who is apparently unaware of his CIA role."

Is it true that the imam is unaware that Barnes is CIA? Speculation? In a previous scene, Barnes asks his ex-CIA friend whether it is safe for him to back. Perhaps the visit to the imam was a kind of professional courtesy, to assure him the visit did not concern Hezbollah. 165.165.214.33 11:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC) drd

Woodman

"Woodman eventually comes to believe in Nasir's dreams for reform and comes close to losing everything before returning to America to his wife" I don't know if this is entirely true. Woodman was just giving Nasir good finacial advice to make a pipeline to connect directly with Europe and forgoing a middleman, therefore making more profit. I think he said something to this effect in the movie. Woodman's morality is made really ambigious IMO.--B21.12.52.123 06:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

--

On several occasions Woodman is seen talking on his cell phone about Nasir's plans, and compares him to historical reformers such as Mossadeq and Attaturk, who are viewed as national heroes by certain elements of Iranian and Turkish society. He also talks to his wife in person about Nasir's plans, and is offended when she does not share his enthusiasm. So, maybe this shows his morality was swayed.

Barnes

can someone please explain to me why George Clooney's character does what he does at the end of the film?

I think he was trying to save them. But in following the style of the film, it was to no avail.

He is being used by the CIA to help arm an insurrection to "liberate" Iran from theocracy, allowing more American influence there. He makes a critical mistake however and loses one of the missiles he meant to give to the insurrection forces. I'm not sure if that is true. Why would he bomb their car if he is helping them out?

Are people picking up what I'm putting down about Barnes? A few questions that I have. 1: what is the name of the agent of the Iranians who removes Barnes' finger nails? The name begins with a 'W'. 2: Is Barnes bribed with the desk job? I think they put him there full well knowing that he would hate it and move back into killing people. 3: He is bribed with a posistion anywhere he wants if he kills Nasir, right? --Niro5 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The torturer's name in Beirut was 'Mussawi'

At that point in the movie, Barnes is simply a liability to the CIA. They are basically trying to marginalize him before he makes any more mistakes like the missle debacle. They then realize that bribing him with a desk job isnt going to work with him, he has been out in the wild for too long, plus he goes to Stan Goff and gets permission to back out in the field. The CIA bosses then acquiesce and send him to assisinate Nasir. The question is; did the CIA know that Mossain (I think that is the name of the toturer/weapons dealer) was working for the enemy and purposefully tried to "dispose" of Barnes?--B21.12.52.123 05:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

In the film, they make it clear that they don't care about the lost missile. In fact, Barnes is the only person who cares about his mistake. The CIA didn't even want to hear about it. --Viriditas 00:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This could possibly imply that the CIA knew that Barnes' contact was working for the enemy, and was a plot to dispose of Barnes.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's defintely one likely explanation. I'm planning on reading the book in the next month or so. --Viriditas 06:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Why would Barnes want to warn Nasir at the end of the movie? Barnes was hiring an assassin to kill him a couple of weeks earlier. -Justforasecond 08:37, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think its because he's realized from his diner talk with Whiting that he's been played all along - a soldier that does what he's ordered without even knowing why. And as his handlers mentioned, Barnes is essentially a good guy - he only wanted to kill Nasir initially when told by his female handler that Nasir was "a bad man" - Barnes acting like a soldier. His morality is based on America's security - he had no qualms blowing up the missile purchasers seeing as they were perceived threats to this. His consultant ex-CIA friend in the cinema probably laid out the full story with him and he wanted to prevent what he saw as penance for his earlier unfounded assasination mission on Nasir.

Missing Missle

I think its pretty safe to say that in movie speak the smile face on the war head of the missle means "CLUE CLUE CLUE!!!! THIS IS THE SAME MISSLE!!!" Plus, Clooney says that he funked up the tracking chip on it so it would always veer 10 m from the target, the missle's owner said basically the same thing (which, in addition to 72 virgins) is why they ramed the LNG ship, plus it was a blue eyed arab (i.e. a son of a goat who doesn't understand a word of farsi) who took the missle in the first place, and who also was the teacher. Is this enough background information that maybe I should put it up on the main page? I thought it was too much detail on that one minor point. Niro5 22:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In fact i think the non-farsi speaker from the opening scene, the guy who pulls his gun on barnes, is the same person as the islamic fundamentalist.12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I can confirm that it is the same person, it's in the script on the Syriana website. chopsnsauce 28 Mar 2006

Recent Change

I would like to verify the recent change: Nasir's older brother, happy with his playboy lifestyle and playing the role of a puppet, is backed by the CIA, while the progressive Prince Nasir becomes a marked man. It was changed from younger. Which is correct?--Adam 18:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My memory says it has to be younger, but anything's possible. If nothing else, as the film opens Nasir is the foreign minister while his brother is portrayed as feeling left out.

Prince Nasir is the heir to the throne, but Dean Whiting has convinced the Emir to choose his younger son instead. [1] --Viriditas 00:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, younger brother was stated.

-- It is stated clearly in the movie that Nasir is *second*-born.

• To me it#s no real status, because the so to say elder brother acts on oeconmie, at one hand traditional and the other hand on ologarchic terrorism. The family status is differing from the systems archimedic point. If you asks like that you are mixing frames,

levels and lining positions. The global inner frame "family", may be symbolic an outer one, with real persons in. For action systems are relevant, so the inner is a concret family structure of figures, the second circle the system worker role and the third one might be a symbolic fraternity.--Danaide (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC) [ a younger sister]

Bennett Holiday

First off, this page is really coming along and will prove to be an excellent source for people who do not understand portions of this movie. I think it would be helpful to have more information on Mr. Holiday's character. Does he have personal anguish over which side he is ultimately on? The minute long speech about 'why corruption works' is intriguing...does this help change his opinion on the situation? I am not sure I see as clear of a connection to his character to the major underpinnings of the movie like the other major characters have. Thanks --preceeding unsigned comment from 168.68.1.127

You're right, Bennet seems stangely isolated compared to the other characters. He may be there as a symbol mainly, but I don't know. His morality is made pretty ambiguous, since he seems to be against curruption at first but passes a moral tipping point (which may be the "curruption speech" that I wrote about in the article) where he either gives up or becomes currupt himself. At the end, he seems to change his mind on his father, so this makes things even more blurry in terms of whats in his head.

Maybe it refers to the differences between the battlegrounds of D.C. powerplays and people's family-lives. For example, the CIA officer in one scene is ordering a family (Nasir's) to be killed by a UAV, while at home he is devoted to his. --Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 07:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just saw the film last night. Nasir is the older son, but the Emir decides to pass him over in favor of the younger playboy whose aquiesence to American oil concerns is assured.

Ahh, that's what it was, I couldn't wrap my head around their age before I read that, because I kept wondering what the yacht scene with Whitting ("your brother is very intelligent and your father threw the second creepiest party in DC") was all about. So I guess this was actually the young prince cutting a deal for Whiting to help him get into power (via influence over the old emir?). As it is now, the article has no mention of this (work-in progress, of course) but a paragraph on this by a native English speaker would be helpful. Poulsen 23:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Bennet's progression seems to come from a lack of guidance in his childhood ie his alcoholic father. Throughout the film he seems focused and susceptible to a strong father figure-Whiting. Re: Garden scene where his role is laid out and his seeming ease at turning in his fellow lawyer on the deal. Although turned in lawyer was older, Bennet shows no conflict in fulfilling his own personal ambitions perhaps, but more certainly what he knows Whiting would want - to get the deal done. At his first lunch with the senior partner, Whiting did not reach out to shake Bennet's hand and this could have raised the desire of Bennet to avoid rejection by a 2nd perceived paternal figure.

Somebody needs to explain this plot line better in the main page, for the education of myself and many others. Seems to me Bennett only brings down two of the big boys, one from his own company (the oil man of the year). This is what DOJ wanted, am I right? They needed more than the one fall guy. This is how i read the plot line, but what does it mean, morally. That Bennett accepts that the oil merger will go ahead, even though it's surely riddled with corruption. ??? Because the character plays like a good guy, a quiet hero, but the story line contradicts this characterisation. Anthony Anthony-guy 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I read quotations from an interview where Jeffrey Wright mentions subtle racism met by his character, but probably it was too subtle for me. I could only notice that he is the only black man in the board meeting. Does Bennett specially suffer racism?

Yes he does. There is at least one person in the film who refuses to shake his hand when offered.

Bennett did not bring down the oil man of the year (Leland Janus) but Bennett's own superior/direct employer (Sidney?). It was mentioned that Sidney had had a number of lawyers under him who he sacrificed one by one - which might have lessened Bennett's quarrels in sacrificing him. Poulsen 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Plot"

Changing the characters to "plot" is a mistake without rewriting the entire thing. As it stands, putting it all under "plot" creates a confusing montage that isnt coherent with respect to time. I originally wrote the main body of this article and I really dont want to rewrite it but please feel free, otherwise, change it back to the "characters" format that I wrote it for.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 07:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed "plot" to "overview" to satisfy your criticism, although I don't think there's a problem with the current format. Synthesizing the chronology is certainly a workable goal, so let's move forward, not backward. --Viriditas 11:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I just wanted to thank all of you who put this article together. I just got back from the movie a bit confused (but I loved it); now everything makes sense. --Ericcjensen 05:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ditto this, very useful. I should print it out and take it with me when I watch the film again... and again... :) Really awesome. --pfctdayelise (translate?) 11:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I would also like to voice thanks to everyone's hard work. I especially enjoyed the links to all the various articles, etc. This entry really inspires one to not only see the movie but read more about it. Count Ringworm 13:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Father>Son

Would the relationship of US, and the "artificial state" be considered part of the Father>Son theme, or a theme onto it's own (like the sidestory about the boy dying in the pool, while trying to learn autonomy)? (--preceeding comment by 68.237.186.148)

Great point. I think you're right, and I remember musing along those lines during the film. I suppose we'll need to find some references. In any case, I intend to help expand this section. --Viriditas 04:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the deepest theme of the movie. Some further father-son relationships from the movie:

• Obviously, Bryan Woodman and his oldest son (name?)
• Emir Hamad Al-Subaai and Prince Nasir (These two are the most obvious parallel, especially when you consider both Woodman and the Emir have two sons and the action concerns the death of the older son.)
• Bennett Holiday Sr. and Bennett Holiday/Dean Whiting mentoring Bennett
• Saleem Ahmed Khan and Wasim Ahmed Khan/the cleric at the madrassa teaching Wasim (A study in foster fathers?)
• Bob Barnes and his son Robby

Which others? There's got to be at least one I missed.--Roland 01:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Film based on a book ...

Which book was this film based on?

It's in the Wikipedia article - See No Evil by Robert Baer.

Not exactly, as Baer left the CIA in 1997 (before 911 as mentioned in the film) and is still alive. 'Inspired' not 'based'.--Jack Upland 09:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

al Subaai, not al Sabah

The royal family of the unnamed emirate is al Subaai, not al Sabah, and not explicitly connected to the Kuwaiti royal family. Acsenray 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Baloney

The plot device of a broken light in the pool causing electrocution is pretty thin. They must not have asked their gaffer if it were possible. It's not. ;Bear 06:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That's not really possible. Good thing this is a movie about geopolitics and not physics. --dm ^(talk) 03:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it's entirely possible. It might be a long-shot, but apparently it has happened in the past (relevant thread on Ask Metafilter) -Cadastral 01:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

FAT!!

I know we're supposed to be worrying about serious stuff like Stan Goff's motives for picking his nose in Act 3, but I was just wondering if anyone else was as shocked as I was by G_Clooney's appearance? He looked absolutely horrible. I know ER and World's Sexiest Man was a long time ago, but damn! Clooney looked like he was a flabby, ugly 65 year old bureaucrat. Not all of that could have been for the role, right? OK, OK, I mean, I guess what I'm saying is, I just wasn't all that blown away by the supposed depth and complexity of the plot and themes they hyped on NPR. I just walked out of the theater, and in my opinion, some of the portrayals of bigshot lawyers and oil executives was like a "Doctor Evil" level caricature. I mean, come on. What the CIA is actually doing right now is bad enough without making them into child killing, reform politician assasinating villians. What would have been better is if the film had figured out how to dramatize the evil effects that even well intentioned American power can have in the world. That's my 2¢.

He purposefully gained weight for the film; I thought that was obvious. You are right though, some of the portreyals of big oil execs and CIA officers were exaggerated. Never-the-less, I'll take what I can get in today's hackneyed, pandering-to-the-mainstream, populist movie culture.--Hypergeometric2F1[a,b,c,x] 18:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you can complain about the depiction of the CIA . As soon as you assassinate people with drones, missiles etc - as we know the CIA does - you will kill inevitably children. And they have been involved in the removal of innumerable leaders - of course, Prince Nasir was portrayed as a terrorist, not a 'reform politician', so don't worry it never happened! As for the portrayal of executives just look at Enron, WorldCom etc. In fact, the discussion of corruption was uncannily similar to the current investigation in Australia of the AWB and its wheat trading with Iraq.--Jack Upland 09:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• The figure Clooy plays looks somehow out of order. Guess he takes cortison and that is a real bad stuff, watering himself.

The game who's is Bob works on this unattractiv surface. Nobody likes melancholic types with overweight and a looser profile. Strange! Take some zink!--Danaide (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Predator Drone?

As far as I am aware a Predator Drone was not used by the Americans to stop the coup. I think it was most likely a cruise missle. The missile comes in from over three miles away, while the control room view was directly overhead. If they were using a predator drone the view would have been from the drone itself not an overhead view. I think it was much more likely to have been a satelite controlled cruise missle fired from a ship or something similar. 65.125.163.221 23:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The verisimilitude of this scene may be more on the level of the pool light electrocution. It might be best not to read too much into the imagery shown on the control room monitors, in terms of comparison to the imagery generated by various targeting systems in actuality. When you think about it, the scene doesn't work perfectly on a technical level but remains reasonably faithful while furthering the plot. Looking more closely: the technician is using a flightstick-like controller, with a weapon release button shown dramatically in cutaways. When the command to fire is given, the technician releases the weapon and confirms doing so before starting to give the countdown. All of this is consistent with the firing of a Hellfire missile from a Predator. The imagery shown in the film, as you point out, doesn't quite fit with that scenario. However, the technician could not command a weapons release by a missile cruiser parked offshore by pressing a button on a control stick. Furthermore, the film does not imply a massive military operation aimed at Nasir. It depicts a quiet assasination carried out by men in suits, drinking coffee in the back of a control trailer. Furthering this theory, Robert Bear has discussed the CIA's use of Predator drones in an interview about the film at http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/baer.html. Finally, while there are some additional discrepancies (such as the lack of real Hellfire release sequence involving lasing of the target), the real life setup of the Predator system is fairly close to what is shown (albeit simplified both in terms of equipment and personnel--technicians in the film vs. pilots in actuality. See http://www.brooks.af.mil/web/taos_crse/present/Landsman_Remote%20Piloted%20Vehicles.swf .)

i had assumed that the overhead view was provided either by a second drone or by satellite, especially since it was a clear sunny day in that sequence of scenes.

-Fan from Troy, NY

Although not concrete proof, Scene 185 of this draft of the script features the Predator Drone. 68.33.179.8 12:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

How about a more obvious difference: the payload. A 8kg hellfire is a very different item than a 450kg Tokamak warhead. Wihtout too much experience, I would probably peg the explosion far more towards to the latter than the former. If not, the hellfire is an incredibly powerful weapon. Who would need nukes at that rate... User:Danielfong

It is a Predator Drone. Its mentioned in the script on the Syriana website several times. Cruise missiles cannot hit moving targets, they are used to hit static installations using GPS/satellite data and cannot use laser guidance. Also, given that they are designed to strike installations the warhead would do a lot more than destroy 1 car and leave a crater. chopsnsauce 29 Mar 2006

Conspiracy

I moved the following section that an anon blanked twice, I'm confused by it also, so I move here for your discussion/action. --Herikaius

A quick Google search shows that it was plagerized from this website:[2]. I have removed this plagerized material. --Ben Houston 01:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Under father/son part

As of Jan 16, 2006, under the father/son part of the Themes section of the Syriana article, someone has put extended text about conspiracy theories with clear political bias. This writing also has no connection to the movie and does not mention it in any way. I believe it is evident that this is a political statement that detracts from the article's usefulness and should be removed. Twice I deleted but was warned by an automated message not to delete parts of articles as it is vandalism. Just wanted to raise this issue. Someone also transcribed the text at the same time I was writing this.

Do you mean the part where it says the reason that the father and son were laid off? In this article it says it's because the Chinese outbid the Americans, but in [this] it says the layoff is due to the merger. I don't know which is right.--137.73.86.113 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Themes

I feel as though the blood for oil theme should be removed.

• Oh, no underneath my sofa is an oil source and if got a bucket filled with water. Blood for oil is a real political theme in any dimension.--Danaide (talk) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Title

The remark by Gaghan that this title comes from a hypothetical reshaping of the Middle East by Washington thinktanks is cited from Gaghan. Is there any independent confirmation of the use of this term?--Jack Upland 09:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I followed a link above in this page, and in the interview, the ex-CIA agent who wrote the book which inspired the movie, talks about it again: http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/baer.html .

Quotes

Shouldn’t the quotes be moved to wikiquotes? =) Jumping cheese 03:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

blood for oil

i think the blood 4 oil thin is true and shud be in the article becuse when i saw the movie i was constalntly thinkin blood 4 oil blood 4 oil

If you don't want to be ignored, sign your comments and make a stronger argument than just what You were thinking. DKEdwards 07:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Awards

Why was Clooney given the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor? Isn't he the main character??--Jack Upland 22:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, interesting decision. Though the film was essentially an ensemble piece, I guess we spend more time with Clooney than most other characters. I thought he did well and was glad to see the film win something. ComaDivine 05:13, 8 March 2006

(UTC)

• May be they, who decide have got problems with grammar generally. Prapositions are: near by, in front of, under, over, above, beyond,

far away, here and now and so on. The middle, in the middle east, is difficult to find. Or they just wanted to hurt Cloony.--Danaide (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)--Danaide (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

Can someone explain to me why Tim Newman is given such prominant billing in the writeup of a film?

I have removed the text. Whoever added it should read up on WP:NPOV. Fredrik Johansson 17:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnes' Intentions

Are you guys sure that Barnes was trying to warn the prince at the end? It sure seemed to me like he was making sure they blew up the correct car. The CIA was going to blow up the car that Matt Damon was in, but then Barnes waved his nice, bright flag so the sattelite or spy plane could see and they were able to kill the prince. I got the impression that Barnes was a misguided patriot who still wanted to complete his mission and sacrifice himself in doing what he thought was the right thing. Pulsemeat 02:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Except they didn't know who Barnes was in the control room. It's doubtful he could have known about the mission just to run in and help complete it as some kind of duty or atonement. If he had known about the assasination, he might have looked more suspicious or wary. Instead, he looks like he's trying to warn the prince and explain something to him, but gets cut short. In the one moment where he tries to show autonomy and not get the crap beaten out of him like throughout the entire movie, he gets blown up. He tries to be the hero, and the bad guys win. Sucks to be him. Speaking of Barnes, does the photo at the end have any more significance?

Hrm. I like my ending better. I'll have to go ask George Clooney. Pulsemeat 01:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, Barnes tried to save Nasir because it was the right thing to do, because he had been used and lied to all his life and wanted to make the right decision now. Specifically, in this case, the CIA lied to him about Nasir being a terrorist. For the record, that's what the script says as well: he did it because it was something that had to be done, the right thing to be done, regardless of the consequences to him or his career. (There was a nice scene in the script that explained this, plus several bits of dialogue in other scenes, that I wish they had kept in the movie.) --From Andoria with Love 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of Chapter

While watching the movie I noticed that the title of one of the chapters was "Date with Ikea". Pavement reference anyone?

• I believe that's the scene where Clooney and Hurt and talking in the parking lot . . . of an Ikea, where Clooney asks Hurt if it's safe for him to return to Lebanon. BrownHornet21 04:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean Whiting did what?

Okay, I believe I understand most of what happened in this film, but I still need help in one area: what, exactly, was Dean Whiting's (Christopher Plummer) role in setting up Bob (George Clooney)? I mean, why and how did he have Bob assigned to kill Nasir (Alexander Siddig) only to have him caught, tortured, scapegoated, and put on investigation? Whiting was apparently a CIA man himself, since he was "in Beirut in '84" and lost some people, but exactly what role did Whiting play in all this and why? I know Bob's ex-CIA buddy Stan Goff (William Hurt) says Whiting was "worried" that Bob would talk about the Nassir case, but I'm having trouble understanding how that connects with everything. If he was worried about Bob talking about Nassir, why assign him to kill Nassir at all? Or am I missing something here? Yeah, as you can see, I've been thinking about this for some time and would really like some help with clarifying things... --From Andoria with Love 22:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ...or did Plummer's character not have anything to do with the actual set-up? Was he just involved in Bob being placed on investigation or something? Apparently the contact with Mussawi was a set up, I guess by the Iranian government... so was Whiting just responsible for having the CIA investigate Bob, preventing him from talking about Nasir, or am I still missing something? --From Andoria with Love 06:37, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• Nobody has anything to say? Comments, speculations, anything? Hmm... --From Andoria with Love 08:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

remember when Bob Barnes (George Clooney) went to go see a movie with Stan (William Hurt)? Stan whispered something to Bob, and while we don't know what that is, the very next sequence of scenes is Dean Whiting receiving a call about a break-in, then going to meet Bob in the diner.

-Fan from Troy, NY

I appreciate the reply, but I'm afraid that doesn't answer my question(s). To reiterate, "...why and how did he have Bob assigned to kill Nasir (Alexander Siddig) only to have him caught, tortured, scapegoated, and put on investigation? Whiting was apparently a CIA man himself, since he was "in Beirut in '84" and lost some people, but exactly what role did Whiting play in all this and why? I know Bob's ex-CIA buddy Stan Goff (William Hurt) says Whiting was "worried" that Bob would talk about the Nassir case, but I'm having trouble understanding how that connects with everything. If he was worried about Bob talking about Nassir, why assign him to kill Nassir at all?" I know that Stan told Barnes about Whiting's involvement, but I don't know how and why he was involved and why he did some of the things he did. --From Andoria with Love 06:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Whiting taken down?

This is kind of a stretch, but isn't it possible that Bennett actually took down Whiting (Plummer's character)? If I remember correctly they never actually make it clear in the hotel discussion between Bennett, OilmanOTY and the other attorney (Hewitt, I think is his name) who Bennett is suggesting they toss to the Feds. Couldn't it be Whiting?

No, the person they were discussing was Sidney Hewitt himself, which is why Hewitt wanted Bennett to stop talking. In the script, the Attorney General and members of the Justice department come to hotel room and arrest Hewitt. This scene did not make it to the final film, but it is why Hewitt was not seen at the awards ceremony that night. (Whiting was seen.) --From Andoria with Love 08:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Very last scene

What's with the very last scene of film, immediately before the credits role?

if you are referencing the scene where Bennett Holiday (Jeffrey Wright) returns to his home and lets his father in, i assume that means to show that inside the Beltway, where the power games are played, life goes on, no matter what happens.

-Fan from Troy, NY

Wording

Somebody put this sentence in: "If he sidelines Bob, then they can have another crack at Nasir, and the "puppet prince" will definitely end up in power, and in bed with the Yanks." I deleted that.71.99.160.174 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Changed last sentence of plot - new Emir didn't watch Nasir's death

I changed the last sentence which used to read:

The Connex-Killen chief is awarded "oil industry man of the year" in a party attended by the new emir, right after supervising the assassination of his brother, the liberal reformist.

I don't recall Nasir's younger brother being there to supervise the assassination. Don't remember seeing the Connex-Killen chief in the control room either. --Edward Sandstig 22:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

meaning of the word "Syriana"

I removed the part that said that "Syriana" means bad or rotten in arabic. Since I'm a native Arabic speaker, and I've never encountered this meaning, I must assume this is wrong. Any idea where it came from?

Trivia and Extreme Trivia

I was stunned to read that a scene was not filmed in the location portrayed in the movie. Is this a first? "The scene in a mall parking lot that included a conversation between George Clooney and a fellow CIA employee turned consultant, which is dubbed as taking place in Rockville, Maryland, is actually filmed elsewhere. In this scene there is a large IKEA store visible in the background, however, no IKEA stores existed in Rockville, Maryland at the time of filming." Come on. There is trivia, and just pointlessness.

And did you know that none of Star Wars was filmed on Tatooine (not even when the technology had improved by Episode I)? And to think that this fact doesn't merit an entry in WP ... Yup, you're absolutely right, delete that hypertrivia. Cheers, --Plumbago 15:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnes' Death

This is currently in the article:

The martyrdom of Wasim through the attack on the tanker is linked to the death of Barnes in a scene where Barnes' CIA office is being cleaned up.

Actually, Barnes is killed when he's standing right next to where the missile strike hits the caravan. They just happen to show the cleaning out of his office after the tanker shot as a way of making the point that people were lost to ensure oil kept flowing. I think the article should be changed to reflect that.

Star Talk Interview

Ok, this is just my opinion, but I think that that linked interview with Clooney is just terrible. Terrible reporting, I mean. Insipid. Surely Clooney did a number of interviews for this. If there is a better one, I recommend linking to it instead. Read it for yourself and see.

No one's pointed out the hypocracy or incompentence of the ending?

Those guys suicide bombed a Liquid Natural Gas (LBG) tanker at the very end, NOT an oil tanker. LNG is being touted as the better alternative to oil in many cases. A lot of busses designed for use in mass transit systems use LNG because it burns much cleaner than oil and produces much less in the way of carbon emissions and greenhouse gases. And even though a lot of it is located in the Middle East it is still less concentrated in the hands of the oil monarchs than crude oil is. For example countries like Australia and Indonesia are among the top exporters of the stuff. Hence besides the environmental benefits of using LNG, it also provides a way for the US to become more free of their dependence on mid-east oil. So why did they blow up an LNG tanker at the end when the whole movie was about the corruption that oil causes? It makes the movie look really hypocritcal. They might as well blown up a solar power plant while they were at it. The only reason i can think that they did this is that the people making this movie were concerned more about the emotional impact than actually getting their facts right. This makes them look really incompetent that they cant tell the difference between an oil tanker and an LNG one. Its pretty easy, the LNG one has the big white refridgerated domes on it!!! Sojourner99 04:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparantly no one who has watched this movie cares. Anyway this talk page is for talking about edits to this page not for general talk about the movie. Gdo01 04:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Terrorists are not able to freely select their targets, maybe they only had a chance to blow up a LPG tanker. It does not take only a suecide bomber + mode of transport + explosives to attack any target you want, ever thought about that you also have to have planning, information (peferebly from a rouge insider) and a lot of luck. Mieciu K 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe the terrorists especially cared. Their turn toward fanatacism is clearly shown as an end result of economic hardships and corruption. From their point of view, foreign conglomerates taking advantage of their natural resources were largely to blame. For the record as well, the Connex-Killen plotline puts a fair deal of discussion toward the acquisition of natural gas reserves. --Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.54.154.144 (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The ending of the film was neither hypocritical or incompetent. That particular gas line was deliberately chosen to be destroyed. The kind of tanker that it was is not relevant. The tanker was blown up at the end of the film to signify two things. 1) The bombing is an end result of the Pakistani boys being taught the suicide bomber ideals by the blue-eyed terrorist and other terrorists at the Arab school and acting on those ideals. 2) The bombing is a strike at the Americans who are seen as controlling Iran through the oil trade. Americans built the gas line. 03:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.19.20.147 (talk)

"The title may also come from...Ariana."

This sentence has been removed from the "Title" section of the article.

"The title may also come from the word Syria, and an ancient name for Iran Ariana."

It is original research as no citation is supplied and it cannot be considered common knowledge about the film's title. A Google search for syriana ariana provides primarily wikipedia mirrors and citations, and a few unrelated hits.

In fact, if we are speculating, then arguments against this include the preceding paragraph in the explanation which states what "Syriana" means in Latin. Ariana derives from the name Arian, a common alternate spelling of Aryan, a people (and family of languages) from a region encompassing Persia (now Iran). If the movie title was derived from that, it simply would have been "Ariana" and not "Syriana".

If this is truly a widely-accepted explanation (outside Wikipedia-mirrors) please provide citation.

—siroχo 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

What is "spinal cap surgery"? I cannot find any reference to it except in the entertainment media.

Energy Analyst

Very minor point: the word 'energy analyst', used to describe Matt Damon's character, is linked to a wikipedia page on energy analysis. I think this might be wrong - the character seems to be someone who tracks energy markets, rather than analyse energy from an engineering standpoint.

• To me it#s not the characters folie, but his content or the themes he represents. As a figure Matt Damon is playing a sellar.May be

this energy analyst is a directing number?!--Danaide (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

martyrs

I may be mistaken, but I think that a major theme in Syriana involves the martyrs, who become involved not out of true spirituality and dedication to the Koran but for employment and family. Martyrs are made (brainwashed?) out of struggling blue collar workers who have come to Islamic schools so that they can learn the Arabic language and concurrently improve their job prospects. At the schools they are treated well and respected. They feel important, no longer hard working pawns or drones. Therefore, they're more willing to submit to the teachings of religious zealots. They learn far more than the language, so this is an interesting commentary on the power of cults along with yet another consequence of harsh, shady oil dealings. For me, this is the most powerful message of the film. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.59.203.21 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Main theme: oil addiction and dependence?

It seems a bit of a stretch to contend that the main theme of this film is oil addiction and dependence:

Oil addiction and dependence
The central theme is the dependence of the U.S. on oil.

It's certainly an implied theme, but to suggest that it's the main one is a bit far-fetched. It's not the addiction to oil that is featured, it's the struggle for power that has arisen as a result of the value of oil. And it's not the dependence of the U.S. on oil; it's the dependence of the modern world on it. There's a reason China plays a significant part in the film. No doubt the U.S. is not portrayed very kindly (there's a strong implication that the CIA is hard at work supporting the needs of oil companies by blowing people up, that the U.S. Attorney isn't really interested in the law -- just the implication that the law is being followed, etc.) but this theme needs some filling-out, and it should be "downgraded" from the "central theme" to "one of the themes."

Varohaub 22:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Varohaub is right. The film largely portrays the ruthless interplay of government and the oil corps to control the world's most valuable asset. There were many ways in which the film could have explored U.S. dependency, and did not do so. This description seems to be at best what one person got out of the film, and is not borne out by the movie's plotlines. 220.23.58.94 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Freemount

Definite Error in Plot Summary

The summary currently reads: "Connex-Killen ranks as the world's fifth largest economy". This is incorrect. It is stated in the movie that the merged Connex-Killen will be the 5th largest oil company, and the world's 23rd largest economy. 220.23.58.94 16:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Freemount

Theme section removed

This has been unsourced and OR for two years. —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oil addiction and dependence

The central theme is the dependence of the U.S. on oil.

Father-son

Syriana revolves around a subtext of father-son relationships: Bryan Woodman and his two sons, the elder of whom is killed in the emir's swimming pool; the emir and his pair of sons competing for succession, the elder of whom is killed in an American air strike; Saleem Ahmed Khan and his son Wasim, who comes to embrace Muslim militants; the lawyer Bennett Holiday and his alcoholic father; and Robert Barnes and his high school-age son who wants a "normal" life.

Family versus politics

There are many apparent conflicts in the movie between personal family lives and politics, mainly in terms of morality.

Clooney wanted to incorporate the character's family members into the story to show how tough this life is on them, and several scenes involving his character's wife (played by Greta Scacchi) were excised from the final cut. The role garnered Clooney an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor anyway, though an attempt was made to show the effect on family in many other characters, especially to Bryan Woodman's (played by Matt Damon).

Update - I'm looking for sources to add some of this back into the article, and I've stumbled on at least one. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

excessive plot summary tag (criteria for removal?)

Someone put a "{Plot}" tag in the article, but I don't see discussion of whether it's justified or what the plan is for removing it, so I'm adding this section for discussion. Sure the article should be improved, but I'm not convinced the summary is too long (8 paragraphs), considering the how difficult it is to follow the movie in one pass. Either the tag should be removed from cluttering up the article, or more _specific_ suggestions should be made for criteria to remove the tag. Suggestions can be made here. I'd propose removing the tag by 12/1/07 unless the criteria are made more specific. DKEdwards 07:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See the criteria as explained on WP:MOSFILMS and the discussion on the talk page. The length threshold goes by words not paragraphs. Presently, the plot section is hovering just under 1100 words (1087 or so). —Viriditas | Talk 08:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Take away the "too long" tag. I deliberately came to Wikipedia's Syriana page trusting that there would be a lovely long illuminating explanation - and there was! I'm sure I'm not alone. It's a public service you're providing here, people. 213.94.133.163 23:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tag removed. —Viriditas | Talk 11:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've removed the tag, I took a look at the edit history. On 04:32, 2 July 2007 EEMeltonIV added the tag. [3] If he wants to respond here, he is welcome to defend his edit and add it back in. —Viriditas | Talk 11:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

References to real-life events

The plot used to contain several references to real-life events (such as the suicide attack being similar to the Limburg attack). They have been removed a while ago, but they are very interesting IMHO. While they might be out of place in the plot description, it might be worth collecting them and putting them into a separate section (such as "References to real-life events"). Does that sound reasonable? EboMike 03:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It's perfectly reasonable as long as you have WP:RS to go with them. —Viriditas | Talk 03:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Barnes Does no die

i watched the film again to confirm , i will upload an image shortly to prove it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eatpepsi (talk • contribs) 22:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Please upload the photo to this talk page, below this comment. I will add a montage for you as well. This is all a waste of time, however, since every major source states that Barnes dies in the attack. I'm not clear why you are persisting with this line of thought. What gave you the idea that Barnes survives the attack? —Viriditas | Talk 22:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Scenes 30-32

1. CIA gives the order to destroy Prince Nasir's car using a Predator (Caption:"Take the target out")
2. From what appears to be Bryan Woodman's perspective from the back of a car, Robert Barnes is shown approaching Nasir's car after stopping the Prince's motorcade
3. As seen by Woodman, Nasir's car is destroyed by a Predator-deployed missile. Barnes is engulfed in the explosion.
4. CIA confirms target destroyed (Caption:"Target destroyed") and a cloud rises from the area where Nasir and Barnes were talking just moments before (Previous frames: Nasir to Barnes in mid flashback: "You're the Canadian...")
5. Woodman survives the attack several cars behind in the motorcade
6. Woodman surveys the wreckage (and crater). Although it isn't clear, the black ash on the ground in front of the crater appears to be the remains of Barnes after being incinerated by the explosion
7. From the angle of where Nasir's car once was, Woodman is shown alongside two of Nasir's injured security officers
8. As one of the few survivors, Woodman begins leaving the scene of the attack
9. Woodman makes his way home across the desert
10. Back in Washington, a CIA agent begins packing Barne's personal belongings into boxes, including various framed photos of Barnes and his colleagues
11. The camera zooms in on one of Barnes's photos, with a superimposed title from an English translation of Wasim's last testament and video played at Wasim's madrasah after his death in a suicide attack against a Connex-Killen tanker. (Titles: "Everyone should mention that I died pure of heart...")
12. The camera closes in on Barnes, continuing to play the pre-recorded last testament from Wasim's madrasah (Titles: "...and that the next world is the true life")

—Viriditas | Talk 01:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Headlines

• Dark Horizons - Interview: George Clooney
• Damon, Peet map Syriana
• Robert Baer: "We have to change course"
• Interview: Stephen Gaghan, director and writer of Syriana
• Interview: Stephen Gaghan, Writer-Director of Syriana, Part Two.
• War on Trial
• Interview with Stephen Gaghan: Drilling for answers to Syriana
• Behind the Oil Curtain

--Here's a bunch of articles/interviews on the film to help expand this article with more info.--J.D. (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• "So, You Ever Kill Anybody?"
• A Thriller That Thinks
• Sheik, Rattle and Roll

--A few more.--J.D. (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Syriana makers hit with plagiarism suit
• Syriana plagiarism case dismissed
• Syriana
• Syriana

--More links to articles.--J.D. (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Richard Cohen

Fellow Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen calls its portrayals of terrorists, the CIA, oil companies, and the U.S. government "crude clichés".[10]

Of course they are clichés; the director admittedly based the characters on real composites, and he gives actual examples in interviews. It sounds like Mr. Cohen doesn't understand how films are made. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Pax Syriana

The movie's title is suggested to derive from the hypothesized Pax Syriana, as an allusion to the necessary state of peace between Syria and the U.S. as it relates to the oil business

I have yet to see any evidence for this assertion and would like to know who keeps making it. Viriditas (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Syriana has also been criticized for political reasons. Baer's book describes his attempts to assassinate Saddam Hussein, but in the movie the figure whom Clooney is to assassinate is a benevolent, liberal prince. (This may have been changed for authenticity, as the capture of Saddam Hussein took place two years before the movie's release.)

I don't see any criticism above except for editorial opinion, and the director has gone on record saying that the film has very little to do with the book, especially that scene. Viriditas (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'Charles Krauthammer criticized the film for "anti-American" views and moral equivalence, stating that "Osama bin Laden could not have scripted this film with more conviction."[9]

Krauthammer apparently never saw the film, as it criticizes the very madrasah education that helps create terrorists by feeding off of impoverished, uneducated foreign workers. Unless there is actually the slightest bit of substance to Krauthammer's view or those of other people who evidently never saw the film, I don't see their relevance here. Viriditas (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to wait at least a week for any objections before I remove this criticism from the article. Krauthammer's remarks are so far off the mark, that's its almost comedic to include them. Stephen Gaghan is on record talking about his dislike for Osama bin Laden and everything the Taliban represents, and the film shows how radical madrasahs create terrorists while democratic governments support the countries who fund them. This is not anti-American, but pro-American -- if America still stands for freedom. I would like to see an example of a single "anti-American" view espoused in this film. Just one, please. Without examples, Krauthammer's empty, unsupported rhetoric is meaningless. Viriditas (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at Krauthammer's column ("Oscars for Osama") on this subject again, I came away with the following observations:

1. Krauthammer is not a film critic. He's a political commentator for Fox news, Inside Washington, The Washington Post, the Weekly Standard and The New Republic.
2. Krauthammer is not a neutral source. He has a strong POV and advocates for one side.
3. Krauthammer doesn't understand the difference betweeen a shooting script and a motion picture.
4. Krauthammer didn't do any research on the film before he wrote his column, as every major point he makes about the film is either based on incorrect information (such as his opinion about "Republican-speak, placed in the mouth of a Texas oilman", words which were based on an interview between the director and real people in the industry) or political spin motivated by his personal beliefs rather than actual criticism about the film.

For these and many other reasons, I question the inclusion of this "criticism" in the article. Good criticisms based on actual, accurate, and authoritative observations are always encouraged. But Krauthammer's viewpoint doesn't meet the basic threshold and one wonders why it is even in the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Plot length again

Recent contributions by anonymous IP's have lengthened the plot beyond what MOS:FILM recommends. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

'== Conspiracy Plot =='

• The story telling at the page is o.k., there is no fabulating interpretion in,the writer just told visible stuff.

^^There is a question I want to ask, why they, the filmmakers, don't act on real Texas problems but exterritolize the battlefield in the middle east? It#s a writers strategy to make something inner clear. But in Soderberghs film the real problems are changed vice versa. Some clearness missing. If the themes are global: Father and Son have got Paranoia, and they deal with oil resources in white blanketts, there might be something nearer clearer. Bob looses his Job; another theme! ~I didn#t recognize any CIA agent, the figures are build upon other profiles. Hurt's waitress in a furniture store? So the missing connection between the three linings doesn't exist! _build upon a hitchkock paradigma the conspiracy theorie. So there are many holes in this storylining. For example: How did Woodwards first son die?! Out of a shock! Stopping breathing what for? Metalining is overwhelming real film structure'. The recipeints should be impressed and they ask, because they think they are stupid. But if it#s a dull story they are trapped.

[ Acconto all ]--Danaide (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)