Stephen Gaghan, the screenwriter of 2000's hit film "Traffic", makes his directing debut in "Syriana", for which he also wrote the script. The film has been highly acclaimed by many, criticized by others, and you may find yourself baffled by it.

It is almost impossible to give a coherent description of the plot, or rather plots (the film has at least three going on at once), which all unfold in fragments. Those who want to see it may wish to visit the film's official website, as I did, to get a real idea of what goes on in it. By posting such a detailed synopsis of the film (with no spoilers, so don't worry), its creators practically acknowledge the fact that "Syriana", on a first viewing, seems practically incoherent at times. It is much harder to follow than "Traffic".

The main thrust of the plot revolves around a U.S. oil merger that is being investigated by the Justice Department, and all the maneuvers pulled so that everything works out in the best (read "greediest") interests of the United States and anyone else who can benefit from the merger. The U.S. rather than backing and supporting Prince Nassir (Alexander Siddig), the progressive, reform-minded son of an Arabian sheik, chooses to support his lazy, playboy brother, knowing that the brother will be much more amenable to doing anything that benefits the U.S. (It doesn't seem to matter that this move may eventually backfire on them.) The goverment's cynical and amoral solution - to send in Robert Barnes (George Clooney, in an unusually good performance), a specialist in arranged assassinations who bungled his last job, to eliminate the idealistic Nassir, who is not willing to do business with the U.S, so that his brother may assume power instead. But things do not go exactly as planned. That is as coherent as the plot gets, and as much as I can reveal without spoiling the outcome. And that is just one of the story threads.


The cynicism that runs through the movie is astounding, and all the more disturbing because it never gets so farfetched that it becomes unbelievable. The philosophy of corruption, expressed, not by the Syrians, but by all those interested that the oil merger go through, is expressed so casually that the viewer may come out of the film saying "No wonder our current administration behaves the way it does".

The cast is loaded with star actors - Matt Damon as an energy analyst who is involved in a family tragedy, yet willing, against his wife's (Amanda Peet) wishes, to befriend the Prince and do business with him, Christopher Plummer as a business tycoon, Jeffrey Wright as the lawyer hired to "investigate" the ethics of the merger, Tim Blake Nelson as a sleazy politician, and so on. Almost none of them are admirable characters. Only Clooney and Damon (and perhaps Peet, up to a certain point) play characters who are reasonably sympathetic.

The acting and photography in the film are excellent, but the film's many plot lines are ultimately its undoing. Those who view it will have to pay extremely close attention, more so than in other films, and casual viewers may detest it. Stephen Gaghan has stated that this was done deliberately, that he wanted the moviegoer to experience the film, as he puts it, "viscerally", the way one of its participants might experience it - in pieces, without fully understanding the big picture. This is an interesting idea, but Gaghan forgets that a moviegoer does not go to a film to be deliberately confused without expecting to find some way out of the confusion.