When Andrew Garfield stepped onto the set of his first major Hollywood film, he could hardly contain his excitement. After all, he was about to share the screen with three of the most iconic stars of the last half-century. However, what should have been a dream debut quickly turned into a harsh reality when Lions for Lambs premiered in November 2007.
The film faced a barrage of negative reviews, with critics dismissing it as little more than a collection of political diatribes instead of a cohesive narrative. No amount of star power from director Robert Redford, or co-stars Meryl Streep and Tom Cruise, could save it from the most unforgiving fate in the film industry: being deemed boring.
For Garfield, who was thrilled to be making his big-screen entry alongside such legends, this experience was a rude awakening. He discovered that he would not actually share scenes with Streep or Cruise, as their storylines ran parallel to his. However, he did get to work closely with Redford, who played a college professor trying to inspire Garfield’s disillusioned student—a role he had hoped would launch his career.
At that time, Garfield was still finding his footing in the industry and had never imagined that Lions for Lambs would be met with critical scorn. He believed wholeheartedly in the script, which examined the war in Afghanistan through multiple perspectives, and even told the Los Angeles Times that it would “define our time.” Instead, he watched in dismay as critical backlash mounted and the film flopped at the box office. “The film didn’t do well at all,” Garfield admitted. “People hated it, to be honest.”
Adding to his confusion, Boy A, a low-budget British film he starred in that same month, received the acclaim he had hoped for from Lions for Lambs. This gritty portrayal of a young man trying to reintegrate into society after a traumatic past earned Garfield a BAFTA award the following year, ultimately marking his true entry into Hollywood, rather than the much-anticipated role with Redford.
From the contrasting fates of Lions for Lambs and Boy A, Garfield learned a valuable lesson: one cannot predict what will resonate with audiences. Just because a film boasts a star-studded cast doesn’t guarantee success, especially if the material lacks depth. In fact, the high-profile involvement can lead audiences to be even more critical if the movie doesn’t deliver.
Within two years following Lions for Lambs, Garfield found himself in Never Let Me Go and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, but it wasn’t until the 2009 film The Social Network that his film experiences finally aligned with his expectations. Although the negative feedback from Lions for Lambs lingered with him, the success of David Fincher’s acclaimed film allowed him to put that bitter experience behind him.
“What happens after you make a movie shouldn’t really matter, but that’s easy to say and harder to accept,” he reflected. “The Social Network was the first film where I left the process feeling truly satisfied and fulfilled.”
What do you think?
Show comments / Leave a comment