[lbo-talk] Syriana: Take Bob Out

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Wed Jan 4 07:49:42 PST 2006



> I did a number on this on my site, for any interested. I think
> Yoshie has the film pinned down as film. CIA Bob's conversion
> struck me as totally unconvincing, hardly motivated at all. As
> "Andie" noted, the explicit citation of Mossadegh as a development
> model in the film is interesting and shows somebody - maybe Clooney
> - is reading. Though confusion persists, since the Matt Damon
> character who invokes Mossadegh embodies some kind of mythically
> clean free enterprise position.
> mbs

I just read your excellent blog entry on Syriana: <http://maxspeak.org/mt/archives/001856.html>.

Having read it, I'd propose two more improvements for the film.

Have Nasir espouse a Mossadegh-like left-populist vision, and have Bryan articulate a vision of capitalism for the Middle East that mid- ranking economists at the World Bank (whose policy papers are ignored by the top) might envision. Both are opposed to the rule of US- backed despots who simply use up resources without developing productive forces in the Middle East (Nasir because he wants to capture more of oil profits for the Middle East and use them for his people, Bryan because US-backed despots make contracts based in large part on bribes and Washington's wishes, rather than rationally doing business with anyone -- including Beijing -- that comes up with the most money), but they are not the same vision, so we can have a seed of future conflict between Nasir and Bryan even as they develop alliance (based on coincidence of short-term goals such as diversifying Nasir's kingdom's business partners and having it become less dependent on Washington and US corporations) and friendship (btw, this latter point is also underdeveloped in the film as it is -- there isn't much chemistry between Matt Damon and Alexander Siddig, of the sort you feel between Marlon Brando and Evaristo Marquez in Burn!).

At the same time, clarify the contradictory relation between Nasir's vision and migrant laborers' struggle. The film drops an interesting hint that it doesn't develop. Who fires the Pakistani laborers at the beginning of the film? It's the Chinese company to which Nasir granted a contract that Connex used to monopolize. Nasir's vision, too, doesn't fully coincide with migrant workers' needs. In the film, there is a sequence whose beginning shows Nasir taking petitions from commoners who have problems (the sequence that quickly segues into a beginning of alliance between Nasir and Bryan). Have migrant workers come to Nadir here, and have them confront him with unemployment that is a consequence of Nasir's new contract. Have Nasir ponder this problem, torn between his desire to do right by his fellow Muslims and his need to attract diversified foreign investment -- from China, Europe, Russia, etc. -- to develop the country's productive forces.

There, now the film makes sense!

Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list