Syriana

[kosydar 0]

I saw this two days ago and I still can't get over how confused I am. So much shit in that movie doesn't easily fit together without putting forth a lot of thought. Here is my main thing and I hope one of you has the answer: is Matt Damon's character working for the US government? I didn't think about it at all until the very end when he was on the caravan and suggested the younger son of the emir ride with his wife. So when that car got blown up and Damon miraculously got out of harns way, it got me to thinking. The younger son of the emir wanted to create a state that was open to all markets and didn't favor the US. They also wouldn't have allowed US military bases inside their borders. The older brother on the other hand was very pro-US, judging from his deals with the Americans. Seeing the whole theme of the movie is corruption, Damon working with the Americans would work. Anyone else thinking this? Also, did anyone happen to catch what the name of the country was? I know they had mentioned Khzakastan and Iran, but when talking specifically about the Emir's country, all that my sister and I caught was that they referred to it as The Persian Gulf.

[areed89 3]

  is Matt Damon's character working for the US government?

Matt Damon worked for a private Swiss company, no affiliation with the US government. He wasn't blown up based on pure luck. The older Prince (Nasir), that Damon was working for was anti US, not the other way around.

[kosydar 0]

You're right, I got the younger/older princes confused. I still don't think its pure luck though, it would fit in with the whole theme of the movie. The US working with a businessman from a private international business to assassinate an anti-US Persian prince? Makes sense if you take the whole movie into context.

[cameltaur 0]

I don't think Damon was working for the government, there was no explicit evidence for it...a large part of his involvment with the prince was because of the death of his son, it didn't seem to me like he was coerced into doing it by someone else.

What was the deal with the last scene? Why the lawyer's father?

[mack 44]

Goddamn it's an old post but I just rented it. Good movie, though I can see why people will find it boring and turn it off.

As far as the shot of the lawyer's father goes, I think it's a symbol of America's addiction to oil. The son resents the addiction of his father yet enables it (he had bought beer for when the old man got the DTs), much like America's inherited a need for oil, resents it yet does nothing but enable the addiction.