This is an on going look at various films and their political nature, this week I figure lets get away from movies that glare out the societal ills and go all out with the politics and get a movie that really swims in it.
There are some spoilers so if you haven't seen it yet, go watch it and then come back. Those who have lets primary ourselves past the orange vote booth.
The Ides of March was release in theaters Oct 7, 2011. It received favorable audience reviews but didn't win over most critics. It had a mostly small run netting only 41m at the box office, which is a shame because this movie really is a gem. The film stars Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Jeffery Wright and Evan Rachel Wood. It is based on a play called "Farragut North" (worth seeing in its own right from what I have heard) with a screen play written by Clooney with the help of Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon (who wrote the play based its based on). It also directed by George Clooney.
This was his fifth moment of taking the reigns and directing and he does a wonderful job. It's very easy to see some of the same style from his previous films like Good Night, and Good Luck, another movie him and Heslov paired on.
In the film, Ryan Gosling plays a junior campaign manager, Stephen Myers, for candidate Mike Morris, played by George Clooney. Mike, a democratic governor of Pennsylvania, is competing in a presidential primary against Ted Pullman, played by Michael Mantell.
The stage is set in the battleground state of Ohio as the two battle it out for the states delegates. There is however a wildcard called Democratic Senator Franklin Thompson, played by Jeffery Wright, who happens to have control of 356 convention delegates. Those 365 delegate would all but negate Ohio and clinch the nomination for either candidate.
The movie tracks the trajectory of of Stephen as a rising star in campaign politics while attached to Mike Morris and under the mentoring of Paul Zara (Hoffman). Having helped to deliver early upset style victories to Morris, we get to see Stephen witness and participate in all that is ugly in politics.
It is interesting in that the film only deals with Democrats, indeed I think the word republican is uttered but a scant few times. The few times it is used are very important however but we can get to that later. Stephen as an upcoming campaign manager has all the right words for Mike Morris. He is smart and amazingly calculating when it comes to running Mike's campaign, however he is dramatically different than Zara or Duffy the opponents campaign manager played by Giamatti. He has and even admits so to Ida Horowicz, Marisa Tomei's character as a NY Time reporter, that he drank the kool-aid for his candidate.
At the start of the film we see Stephen as an idealistic young man hopping on the Mike Morris boy charm express with visions of a man that can change things and make a difference. He sees him as flawless due to his unwillingness to play old politics. During the movie Stephen is reinforced with this idealistic vision of Mike when Morris refuses to play dirty and assure Franklin Thompson a cabinet seat should he give his delegates to him. All is not well however and we get glimpse of just what could happen with Stephen with this quote "I'll do or say anything if i believe in it. But i have to believe in the cause."
And this isn't the only thing brewing something stinky, the Morris campaign is on the verge of imploding from sexual misconduct and the disaster it creates. Stephen saying what we political junkies already know "You can lie, you can cheat, you can start a war, you can bankrupt the country, but you can't fuck the interns. They get you for that."
This is a compass moment for all characters involved and we really get to see them in their true form and nature. The white washed exterior of people is blasted away. In Stephen we watch as he transforms from a seemingly bright and intelligent and seemingly nice guy into someone with such a broken compass of morality he could eat a live bunny on TV should it help the campaign. Indeed given the quote from above, are we all that surprised at the end?
From plying sexual advances on an intern to obtain dubious information, to using campaign funds for even more scrupulous means to even stabbing his own mentor in the back we see a man who would just as much smile to your face while he ripped your guts out. The character we first think has naivete points out how naive even the most hardened realists can be. There is an amazing final shot of Gosling as the camera pans in with a stoic face, waiting for an interview that is just haunting given the events in the last 15 minutes of the movie. Gosling does a stupendous job of given you the chills, indeed he's always been very good at this in his career going all the way back to Murder by Numbers. (another film that's a good watch)
There is a very intense scene that sets the stage for the second half of the film with an exchange by Stephen and Duffy. Stephen, just having been fired from the Morris campaign for mistrust, now goes to Duffy having previously been offered a position. Stephen finds that he had been played, Duffy never had intended to hire him though he would have if Stephen had jumped ship. He knew by offering the position he would place him in scrutiny in the eyes of his mentor Zara. Stephen goes off on Duffy but Duffy rebukes him saying, in reference to the GOP, "They're tougher, more disciplined than we are. It's about time we learned from them". The exchange ends with a stunning moment where they quip to each other
Tom Duffy: Get out, now. Or otherwise...
Stephen Meyers: Otherwise, I'll end up like you?
Tom Duffy: Yeah, you end up being a jaded, cynical asshole, just like me.
Stephen a man with ideals and idealism but with no moral compass given justification for reaching those ideals and holding that idealism, just had the rug pulled from him. He morphs into a man with zero ideals an only clutching idealism as a goal to advance. Dangerous combo.
The movie doesn't really reveal anything that we are not already aware of in our 24 hour new cycle world though. A world where campaign folks write books and tour the talk circuits and cable punditry, but it does reveal a little bit about the characters of that world and what pressures they must endure. It does make you ask hard questions such as, do the ends really justify the means?
Morris at first to Stephen is a stellar candidate with a platform filled with planks of positive change, indeed change that Stephen had drank so willingly. However, after Stephen becomes aware that its nothing more than a veneer his broken compass forces him into a whirlwind of misdeeds and backstabbing to ensure that this facade that is the entire Morris camp stays up. There is a moment in the film where Morris's hand is also forced to amorality where in he does indeed sign a deal with the devil by promising the Senator that cabinate seat. Like Sherman marching to the sea, sure Stephen got his Savannah but was the destruction worth it?
It also brings up interesting ideas that really are any of these suits that different? Interestingly enough Morris's character at the end of the movie you could easily see that his propped up public image is nothing more than a cover above a very dirty and ugly man. Swap audio and this empty suit could easily be mistaken for a GOP presidential candidate. Don't take this wrong, this diarist does think that a lot of politicians are trying to really do good and are good people through and through. But really after the Edwards shit storm, let us not think that are own eyes don't get blackened from time to time.
Many of the reviewers pointed to the movies more plodding and schematic plot, complaining that they felt the movie was just to simple and ended exactly the way one would think it would. I would say however that those reviews missed the point of the film. The film is a showcase of characters and is about watching them interact through the wonderful acting by Gosling, Clooney, and all. The intensity of character is shown very early on as Giamatti and Hoffman stare each other down during a debate between their two respective candidates. If eyes could throw daggers, a blood bath would have ensued.
Even the cinematography is setup to focus on the characters, as many of the shots are done bust style where you see only the shoulders and up. The filming plays like a series of vignettes on a stage. It forces you to focus on the dialogue and emotions the characters display. The film is intended as not a ride with a start and a finish, but more of a leisurely stroll through the park while you pick out wonders that you might have missed. As each character has their deal with the devil moment, we get a small glimpse into where each person really did choose to sell their soul out. Its a very real look into darker places people go.
Loss of idealism is no stranger around these parts, nor is loss of ideals at times, no what we must be afraid of, and this is something the movie points out extraordinarily well with Gosling's character, is that in addition to loosing idealism, and ideals we must never lose our accountability once lost.