Lord of War and New Thought of Crime - Movie Review Example

Lord of War In the film “Lord of War” arms dealer Yuri Orlov claims that the most important question is how to arm people, who do not have their own arms. The issue of international arms trade is one of the most challenging questions of the modernity. On the one hand, it is clear that this story is a fiction. Nicolas Gage is very close to real heroes. This film evokes a vivid discussion in the modern world. The most controversial issue about this film is that it depicts the international arms trade as a means for doing business in the world. No one takes into account millions of human lives killed by the arms, which is sold to different countries by such guys, as Orlov. There is no fear and emotions, there is only money. A group of people, such as Orlov, do not have moral norms and their deviant behavior is poignant and devastating for the modern society. Cruel and soulless money-gaining machines! Still, if to consider that modern governments chose military ways of doing their business, then “the Orlovs” are just dummies in their games. Therefore, the modern world is rather controversial and makes people look for different means to keep their head above the water. For the contemporaries, crime has turned into the means to survive and it is not surprising at all. Sometimes people have no other choice but to commit crime, small or big simply in order to stay alive. The globalized world is cruel and there is a need to shift the accents of survival: different means of earning money have all just resulted in a strong desire to survive. The main prototype of Orlov is the Russian man Victor Bout, who lives unhindered in Moscow, but he is sought by different agencies all over the world. It is a controversial mentality of post-Soviet countries. An enormous quantity of military hardware is “ranging from bullets and tanks to nuclear warheads” (Viktor Bout Arms Traders and Lord of War). Moreover, even the President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma was caught for illegal weapons sales. We can see that at the governmental level the arms sell is going at a full pace and maybe it is relevant to change not “the Orlovs”, but the way of business doing internationally (Lord of War, 2005). Thus, the main character, an illegal weapons trader said that the main customers were the governments. Thus, Victor Bout, a prototype of Orlov, was named as the core element of military conflicts. Actually, the main conflict was in the desire of the governments to survive in the cruel modern world, full of military conflicts and political challenges. Different wars in different times were connected with the name of this trader. The military conflict in Afghanistan's and his further help to Taliban. The main character has no soul; he sells weapon for killing innocent people as if he sells hotdogs or vacuum cleaners. It is claimed in the film that people gain profits from vast arms sales and from the taxes paid by the arms manufacturers and the millions of money they employ (Smoking Guns, 2005). The sources of arms trafficking are intimidating the world, and in spite of drugs trafficking, these sources are often neglected. There are shallow relationships between arms traders, governments and arms manufacturers. This is terra incognita. This is a fertile ground for gaining huge profits, a strong and powerful means to survive in the hostile and turbulent modern world (Smoking Guns, 2005). These guys, like Orlov, supply the governments with huge amounts of money and they are often released. These guys have no fear and there is a little bit of Orlov in every of us. This claim can be supported in the following way: it is appropriate in the modern society to survive by any means. There is no need to refer to moral norms or standardized principles of behavior (Smoking Guns, 2005). It is much easier to break up rules and remain safe, to create our own reality, to set up individuals norms and to gain money hand over fist and laugh at the victims of your game. This is the way Orlov acted. This claim can be supported by the real life fact, which is the basis of the episode when Orlov was arrested in the US, but then his passport was returned to him. This event has historical evidence, when a foreign-born arms dealer was arrested and then was released at once. So, what kind of support and from whom do these guys have? The answer is evident: their supporters are too powerful. The global weapons sales industry generates profits of more than $1 trillion a year ('War' Reveals Arms Dealing, 2005). Niccol claims that it is weird why such an awful, drastic devastating industry is so easily to circumvent: “Gun runners and arms dealers can buy anything with bribes. They pass off military helicopters as rescue helicopters all the time, to get them past border controls” ('War' Reveals Arms Dealing, 2005). It is evident that the director of the film considers that his film is rather challenging for the filmmaking industry. The film depicts a dark side of a human nature. It is not appropriate, in accordance with the film’s director, to apply for different nominations. There is no need to get nominations for such kind of corroding films, like this one. Popular culture implies propagation of good characters, which may teach common people how to leave and how to behave. Maybe, in the modern world the behavioral templates and social norms have changed and now it is easier to survive, when you are strong, indifferent and goal-oriented person. This suggestion is definitely proven by the director of the film. The main character is strong, he is brave, and he has his own truth and has no prejudices. In the vicious circle of the dirtiest small secret of all governments-selling arms for wars- Orlov lives his own life and thinks that he acts right. A great amount of blood, thousands of deaths occur in the result of such clandestine trade. Cynicism and selfishness are two basic features of Orlov’s nature (Arms Trade Documentary Could Have Been a Killer, 2005). Nevertheless, the main character depicts this problem at the micro level. The macro level of the problem is much deeper. The main claim of the director is that it is impossible to stop the arms trade. This is an integral part of the modern world and this is the same job for Orlov, like for a seller of hotdogs. The latter does not think if the product he sold is rather tasty or of high-quality. He is glad receiving some money for the sale and a customer’s satisfaction is not interesting for him. The same happens to Orlov: he has no interest that the arms he sold are the means of killing people, he just enjoys his money. The only difference between these two men, who want to survive, is the level of damage caused by their actions. Orlov follows his line. He is sure that it is impossible to fight a war. On the other hand, it should be noted that it is possible to change the way governments are doing their business around the world. There is an interesting attitude towards business relations in the world, expressed by Orlov. When Valentine points out that Orlov sells the AK-47 to Africa and thus he sells “weapons of mass destruction”, because a half a million people are killed a year, while nuclear weapons of Russia and America “sit in their siloes” and kill no one, Orlov responds that he sells only a tiny part of the arms a year in comparison of huge sells mediated by the Security Council (Truth to Power, 2005). Orlov is positioned as a dummy in the world of the arms trade. Nothing depends on him and he should not be blamed for just doing his job. He is a little bit a middle man, but he is a businessman and his actions do not penetrate into his consciousness and emotions. The real characters, the prototypes of Orrlov, such as Bout and Leonid Fainberg, were not accused and imprisoned as well. A huge and powerful machine of the international arms trade is triggered by the almighty of the world and “the Orlovs” are just performing they work in the spin cycle. The health of their souls is another challenging question and it is more relevant to evaluate their real actions and not to penetrate into sentimentally theological depth of the issue. Moreover, Niccol showed renting the weapons and in such a way the director promoted arms dealers financing (Rent It: Up in Arms; Lord of War, 2006). On the other hand it is better to focus on the main claim of the author: what kind of world he depicts and how it is possible to survive in the world like that. The most interesting idea of the director of the film is to show the arms trade “as is”. He does not invent; he refers to prototypes. The more open and clear the scheme of the arms trade is, the more scaring for the viewers to make some conclusions. Is it really necessary to turn into “the Orlovs” in order to survive and propser in the modern world? Actually, no, it is better to be conscious and responsible individuals and not to turn into the dummies in someone else’s game. Works cited "Arms Trade Documentary Could Have Been a Killer." The News Letter (Belfast, Northern Ireland) 14 Oct. 2005: 32. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. "Lord of War." Amnesty International Fall 2005: 7. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. "RENT IT: UP IN ARMS; LORD OF WAR (15, TWO-DISC DVD Pounds 17.99)" The Mirror (London, England) 3 Mar. 2006: 10. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. "SMOKING GUNS; Nicolas Cage's Lord of War Reveals the Shocking Truth about the Trade in Illegal Arms - and Exposes the Disturbing Relationship between Governments and Gun Runners. by Sue Corrigan." The Mail on Sunday (London, England) 25 Sept. 2005: 19. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. "Truth to Power." Amnesty International Winter 2005: 6. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. "'War' Reveals Arms Dealing, If Not Nuance; Moral Questions Arise with World Sales."The Washington Times 16 Sept. 2005: D02. Questia. Web. 26 Nov. 2011. Viktor Bout Arms Traders and Lord of War. (n.d.) Web. 26 Nov. 2011. Read More