Ridley Scott Has Difficulty Staying the Course in “Body of Lies”
By Ethan Gates, Contributing Writer
Hollywood has suffered in recent years from a glut of films revolving around America’s role in the Middle East. After the moderate success of 2005’s “Syriana,” redundant, heavy-handed political commentary has quickly become a requisite of such films. This trend, while it reflects the good intentions of many filmmakers to educate the American public of the situation’s complexities, has too often come at the expense of the audience’s actual enjoyment of the movie (see: 2007 flop “Lions for Lambs”). It is perhaps best to view Ridley Scott’s new feature “Body of Lies” from this perspective.

“Body of Lies,” based on the novel of the same name by David Ignatius, follows CIA agent Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he works undercover in Jordan to find the terrorist leader responsible for several civilian bombings. He is constantly in conflict with his boss back home in the States (an unexpectedly pudgy Russell Crowe), who, as Ferris sees it, will never be able to understand the danger Ferris constantly faces. The distrust increases as the pair becomes a trio; to get the manpower necessary for his operation, Ferris seeks the help of the Chief of Intelligence in Jordan, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong), forming an uneasy alliance. Following the formula for any modern spy thriller, there are plenty of twists, turns, explosions, graphic torture scenes, betrayals and, of course, lies.

Yet Scott is not satisfied with merely making an action-adventure thriller, which is where the importance of the setting comes into play. As previously mentioned, it is impossible nowadays to see an American film about the Middle East and not be subjected to some kind of sermon. Whether it is denouncing America’s contradictory policy towards torture, criticizing our addiction to oil, or declaring the war in Iraq un-winnable, every director has something to say, whether we like it or not. “Body of Lies” manages not to sound preachy because it does not go into much depth on any individual issue. The story meanders along, throwing criticism at American prejudice towards Arabs, Guantanamo Bay, America’s presence in Iraq, etc., but it is too focused on moving to the next explosion or shoot-out to make any of its comments stick.

We get several hints at what Scott wanted the main themes to be. He starts the film with a line from a W.H. Auden poem: “Those to whom evil is done do evil in return.” A nice quote, but in the end there have been so many double-crossings and lies on all sides that you’ll be left wondering exactly whom Scott intended it to be applied to. Russell Crowe then delivers a few staged monologues (exactly who he supposedly addresses is apparently an inconsequential detail) presenting America as a society that must adapt to a constantly changing enemy if it is to survive. This is hardly a fresh idea, though viewers are lucky that these bouts of unoriginal political pontification are generally brief. Perhaps if Scott had spent more time on a single issue, a more coherent message would have come through; however, if the commentary he does squeeze in is any indication, the possibility that the audience would have been bored to tears is just as likely.

The story itself is entertaining enough, as most spy thrillers are. A romantic side-plot involving Ferris and an Iranian nurse feels out of place, though. Ferris is too much of a professional to be so easily distracted while on such an important mission. The twists in the story can’t truly be called surprising, but they serve as transitions to the more interesting bits, namely any of the scenes involving Salaam. Much of the plot hinges on whether Ferris can trust Salaam, and the audience can sympathize with Ferris because Salaam is wonderfully impossible to read. He is simultaneously affectionate (calling Ferris “my dear”) and distant, cooperative and manipulative. DiCaprio puts in a strong performance that is nearly ruined by the distracting and unnecessary North Carolina accent he is forced to affect. Russell Crowe’s character Ed Hoffman is given the least depth in the script; he is simply a stereotype: the obnoxious, uncaring Washington executive who feels that the ends justify the means, but refuses to his own hands dirty. Still, Crowe makes the best of it and is delightfully sly as he orchestrates the war on terror from the sidelines at his daughter’s soccer game. The interplay between these three characters is undoubtedly the best part of the film, and the fact that there is only one scene featuring all three at the same time is disappointing.

“Body of Lies” is nothing new, and those who liked “Syriana” could be disappointed by this pale imitation. Still, it avoids some of the pitfalls of similar films, if nothing else managing to create an intriguing character study. It may not be nearly as significant as some of Ridley Scott’s previous work, but there are far duller.

Issue 08, Submitted 2008-10-29 03:43:42